ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Trump Beats Obama (To The Bottom)

[ Posted Tuesday, April 4th, 2017 – 17:10 PDT ]

Last Monday, I wrote about how bad Donald Trump's poll numbers have been, pointing out that he got absolutely no honeymoon from the public. I never thought I'd be writing about Trump's poll numbers again so quickly, but then everything about the Trump presidency seems to operate at warp speed, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. Today, Donald Trump hit a milestone in job approval polling -- he is now at the lowest point Barack Obama ever had, in eight full years. Trump's average daily job approval at RealClearPolitics.com is now a dismal 39.8 percent. His disapproval rating stands at 53.3 percent. And he's not even through his first 100 days.

Donald Trump's poll numbers are now worse than Obama saw during his entire first term, in fact. Trump has set new lows in less than three months, to put this another way. Obama's lowest daily approval average during his first term came on October 9, 2011, when he hit 42.0 percent. Obama's highest disapproval rate came a few weeks earlier, on August 30, when 53.2 percent of the public disapproved of the job he was doing. That was over two and a half years into his first term. Trump has topped both numbers, on only his 75th day in office. Trump's approval rate is now 2.2 points lower than Obama saw in his first four years, and his disapproval rate is 0.1 percent above what Obama saw in his first term. That's pretty stunning.

Even comparing Obama's second term to Trump is pretty stunning, too. Obama dropped below 40 percent for only one day of his entire eight years in office, on the second of December, 2013. On that day, Obama registered the same 39.8 percent approval that Trump now has. Obama was having a bad couple of months, immediately following both the government shutdown and the disastrous rollout of the Obamacare exchange website. In other words, there were good reasons why this was the weakest point of his entire presidency. The shutdown and its outcome pleased no one, and the website disaster just looked like sheer incompetence.

Although Trump has now matched Obama's worst approval rating ever, he still has one more milestone to hit when measured against his predecessor. Obama's highest disapproval rating came on the same day as his worst approval rating, when it hit 55.9 percent. Trump's still 2.6 points below this, so he's got one more Obama milestone left to hit.

These are all negative achievements, of course. Trump is beating Obama, but only in a race to the bottom. Obama's positive marks are so far beyond Trump's reach he'll likely never match them. Obama entered into office with a 19.3 percent disapproval rating. Fewer than one in five Americans disapproved of Obama at the start. His approval rating during his first honeymoon period was sky-high -- in the middle of his first February in office, Obama hit 65.5 percent approval.

Even after a much more subdued second term, Obama left office with impressive ratings from the public. In his final days in office, Obama hit 57.4 percent approval with only 39.3 percent disapproval.

Of course, Trump's presidency is still in its earliest days. Anything could happen in the future. It's not inconceivable that Trump recovers his standing with the public, at least somewhat. But so far, the highest his job approval has ever hit is 46.0 percent. That's four points less than a majority. And that's his high point. Starting from such a low level means it'll be a lot harder for Trump to win over enough support to ever even get to half of all Americans.

Trump's problem now is that he's starting to lose the support of his base. That's dangerous territory for any politician. Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump, and the majority of independents do too. Up until this point, Trump has managed to chart high support from Republicans, however (above 80 percent support). But that may now be slipping, too. In the most recent Marist poll, for the first time Trump's GOP support has slipped into the 70s. This may be the biggest reason for his downturn in general, but it's really too soon to tell yet. That Marist poll is pretty grim all around for Trump, because it shows how incredibly unpopular pretty much all of his agenda truly is with the public at large. Read through all the breakdown numbers to fully see this:

  • Trump is changing America for the worse -- 42 percent; for better -- 36 percent.
  • Embarrassed by Trump's actions -- 60 percent; proud of his actions -- 30 percent.
  • Trump has weakened America on the world stage -- 56 percent; strengthened America -- 35 percent.
  • Oppose Trump's executive travel ban order -- 52 percent; support -- 43 percent.
  • Support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants -- 83 percent; oppose -- 15 percent.
  • Let the Affordable Care Act stand as is or expand it -- 64 percent; shrink it or repeal it entirely -- 33 percent.
  • Find Trump's Twitter use reckless and distracting -- 70 percent; find it an effective and informative tool -- 19 percent.

Those are some pretty dismal numbers for Trump and his agenda. The only issue that even has 40 percent approval is Trump's travel ban -- all the others are in the 30s or worse. And his support among Republicans seems to be slipping across the board.

Trump does probably have a bump in the polls coming with his own base, at least. It's looking like the Senate will confirm his Supreme Court nominee this week, which will score Trump somewhat of a political trifecta. First, it'll be a big win for Trump over Democrats. Up until now, Trump has largely been defeated by either judges (his travel ban's failure) or his own fellow Republicans (the Ryancare trainwreck). But this one will be a straight-up partisan fight, and Trump's going to win in the end. So that should hearten his base a bit. Secondly, conservatives will love seeing Neil Gorsuch confirmed. Trump's always been fairly weak with traditional conservatives (who have never quite trusted Trump, for good reason), so this should shore up some goodwill for Trump among the conservative base. And thirdly, it'll be a win for Trump and proof that the federal government isn't totally broken. Most voters don't really care much about filibusters and the rules of the Senate, but they will see "Trump actually getting something done in Congress," which (to date) hasn't happened at all, really. So Trump might win a few independents back solely because he'll be seen as getting something done, for better or for worse.

Trump's longer-term problem, however, is that there isn't much else on the political horizon to look forward to. There aren't any other easy wins ahead, in other words. After the Gorsuch confirmation, Congress will scarper off to one of their frequent multi-week breaks from doing their job, which will likely involve at least a few rowdy town hall meetings. When they return to D.C., they'll be under the gun to pass some sort of continuing resolution to keep the government open for the rest of the fiscal year. This fight is almost guaranteed to be ugly, and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will likely require some Democratic votes to get something passed. What this means is that at least some Republican factions are going to be very upset with the result at the end of the day. There may even be more open warfare between Trump and the Tea Partiers in Congress. This is not, to state the obvious, a recipe for public confidence in the president.

Beyond the end of this month, Trump has three big fights ahead of him. Tax reform is going to be huge (if it even happens), and today the White House is even floating the ideas of instituting a carbon tax and a value-added tax (VAT), which would essentially be a national sales tax on consumers. Neither idea is much loved among conservatives, especially those who are fervently anti-tax (against taxes of any type). Ryan is pushing a border tax, which would raise prices for consumers on all imports, but he's been struggling to get support for the idea with his fellow Republicans, from all reports. If the anti-tax faction gets their way, however, then no new taxes will pass, which will pull the rug out from the grand design of giving the wealthiest Americans another gigantic tax cut. Doing so without additional revenues is guaranteed to explode the budget and the deficit (because "trickle-down economics" just don't work the way Republicans fervently wish -- tax cuts never "pay for themselves").

Trump also has a big battle with Republicans on his infrastructure ideas. A trillion dollars of new spending isn't the sort of thing that normally excites conservatives, to put it mildly. And Trump still seems eager to take another crack at repealing and replacing Obamacare, which will be yet another Republican-on-Republican fracas.

So while Trump may see his approval ratings get slightly better at the end of this week when the Senate confirms Neil Gorsuch, there's not a whole lot for Trump to look forward to afterwards. Trump could get one other unrelated bump, when Mosul, Iraq is retaken from the Islamic State -- which should happen in the next few months, at the latest. This battle actually began last fall, and Trump hasn't really changed Obama's military strategy in Iraq much at all, but he'll still be the one in the Oval Office when the city's retaken, so he'll certainly try to claim as much credit as he can. But the American public is still pretty war-weary (especially in Iraq), so this may also be of limited benefit to Trump's approval ratings.

Donald Trump has hit the lowest point Obama ever hit in job approval in record time. That much is now a fact. He still hasn't come anywhere close to George W. Bush's worst approval rating (which fell to the mid-20s towards the end), though, which I guess is something. But sub-40 job approval is a very dangerous place for any president to find himself in. When fewer than four out of every ten Americans support you, your power contracts quickly in the halls of Congress. Republican factions already don't fear Trump at all (as evidenced by the back-and-forth over Ryancare), and if his ratings continue to fall more and more Republicans in Congress will become emboldened to chart a different direction than Trump, for their own political survival. We still probably haven't seen where Trump's floor will be, since his poll numbers have been falling so quickly and so early on. Which probably means I'll be revisiting the "How low can Trump go?" question once again a lot sooner than I would have expected. Today, Trump equaled Obama's lowest point. But his own lowest point is likely to be a lot lower than 39.8 percent, that much now seems almost certain.

 

[Program Note: Since I had these figures lying around from the "Obama Poll Watch" column series, I thought it'd be worthwhile to post Obama's full record today. So here are Obama's daily average approval and disapproval records for his first and second terms.]

Obama's First Term Statistical Records

Daily
Highest Daily Approval -- 2/15/09 -- 65.5%
Lowest Daily Approval -- 10/9/11 -- 42.0%

Highest Daily Disapproval -- 8/30/11 -- 53.2%
Lowest Daily Disapproval -- 1/29/09 -- 19.3%

 

Obama's Second Term Statistical Records

Daily
Highest Daily Approval -- 1/17/17 -- 57.4%
Lowest Daily Approval -- 12/2/13 -- 39.8%

Highest Daily Disapproval -- 12/2/13 -- 55.9%
Lowest Daily Disapproval -- 1/18/17 -- 39.3%

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

76 Comments on “Trump Beats Obama (To The Bottom)”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just want to know if there is any hope that his presidency will be an extremely truncated one or is that a mere pipe dream?

  2. [2] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    The Trump era will be extremely truncated. In fact the McConnell Rule (no nominations to the Supreme Court in the final year of a president's term) applies here so the Gorsuch nomination should be terminated at once.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  4. [4] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    Trump has topped both numbers, on only his 75th day in office.

    Do weekends in Mar-a-Lago count?

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    TRUMP ON TWITTER

    ** Obama wants to unilaterally put a no-fly zone in Syria to protect Al Qaeda Islamists http://thebea.st/143tmfM Syria is NOT our problem.
    1:58 PM - 29 May 2013

    ** We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO
    7:33 PM - 15 Jun 2013

    ** What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
    1:14 PM - 29 Aug 2013

    ** "@mguarino64: @realDonaldTrump " How would you treat the Syria situation if president ?" I'd let them all fight with each other-focus on US!
    6:09 AM - 1 Sep 2013

    ** "@BigSexyBDAvis: @realDonaldTrump mr trump would attack Syria or no?" No, lets make our country great again as they fight their war!
    8:45 PM - 3 Sep 2013

    ** The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A.
    6:13 AM - 5 Sep 2013

    ** AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
    8:20 AM - 5 Sep 2013

    ** President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!
    8:21 AM - 7 Sep 2013

    ** Obama must now start focusing on OUR COUNTRY, jobs, healthcare and all of our many problems. Forget Syria and make America great again!
    8:19 AM - 11 Sep 2013

    ** We should stop talking, stay out of Syria and other countries that hate us, rebuild our own country and make it strong and great again-USA!
    12:29 AM - 13 Sep 2013
    ______________________

    Trump's entire presidency to date has been focused on the undoing of Obama, and therein lies his main problem. He's got no real vision for the United States beyond hating Obama and tax cuts for the 1%. Didn't really have a health care plan, didn't have a "secret plan" to defeat ISIS, and Trump's plan for Syria was "stay out."

    Trump is a pathological liar and con artist, and all he's ever been equipped to do is misdirection and conning the minions... so that's his plan.

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump's entire presidency to date has been focused on the undoing of Obama, and therein lies his main problem.

    Just as Obama's entire presidency was focused on undoing Bush.

    What's your point?? :D

    Trump is a pathological liar and con artist,

    And yet he DEVASTATED NOT-45..

    So, that doesn't say much for her, eh?? :D

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    . But sub-40 job approval is a very dangerous place for any president to find himself in.

    And yet, when Obama hit that, ya'all (NEN) shrugged it off with an 'eh, no big deal'.. :D

    Amazing what a difference the '-D'/'-R' makes, eh?? :D

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    The shutdown and its outcome pleased no one, and the website disaster just looked like sheer incompetence.

    Oh puullleeeesseee

    The website disaster didn't just LOOK LIKE sheer incompetence..

    It WAS sheer incompetence, plain and simple...

    Call a spade a spade, fer christ's sake!! heh :D

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    Illegal immigration plummets after Trump inauguration
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/4/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/

    Yea.. President Trump is doing such a crappy job.. :^/

    But only the people who hate this country and want to see it turned into some third world corporate based hell hole think so..

    Illegal immigration is WAY down..

    Jobs creation and retention is WAY up...

    Let's hope President Trump (just LOVE saying that :D) continues to do such a "crappy" job.. :D

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [6]

    Just as Obama's entire presidency was focused on undoing Bush.

    That's bullshit, Michale. What did passing the ACA have to do with Bush? Nothing. Obama passed a stimulus package just like Bush did. Bush hunted bin Laden; Obama found him. Obama and Bush both tried to pass legislation that made a path for undocumented Americans.

    For a guy who claims to value FACTS, you sure do post a lot of utter fiction... usually as deflection from the subject.

    What's your point?? :D

    I made my point, and you did what you frequently do and deflected to another subject because you've got little else... very much like Trump.

    And yet he DEVASTATED NOT-45..

    So, that doesn't say much for her, eh?? :D

    I think it says more about the gullible minions who voted for Trump than it does her. I don't think winning the electoral college while losing by millions of votes qualifies as being "DEVASTATED."

    I don't think you value FACTS as much as you claim. You value bullshit and misdirection... very much like Trump. :)

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    That's bullshit, Michale. What did passing the ACA have to do with Bush?

    No, it's factual... How many times did we during the CrapCare debate how bad Bush frak'ed up healthcare??

    Plenty..

    . Obama passed a stimulus package just like Bush did. Bush hunted bin Laden; Obama found him.

    You prove my point for me.. :D The Left Whinery went all apeshit how Bush couldn't get Obama... er Osama, but Obama did..

    The funny thing is, it was Bush and his "torture" program that gave Obama the intel that allowed Obama.. er.. Osama to be taken out..

    For a guy who claims to value FACTS, you sure do post a lot of utter fiction... usually as deflection from the subject.

    Yea, that's your constant claim.. {yaaaawwwwnnnnnn}

    I made my point, and you did what you frequently do and deflected to another subject

    You mean, like you just did?? :D

    I think it says more about the gullible minions who voted for Trump than it does her.

    Of COURSE you "think" that..

    Party slave...

    I don't think you value FACTS as much as you claim.

    Of COURSE you "think" that..

    Party slave...

    You value bullshit and misdirection... very much like Trump. :)

    And yet, HE is President Trump and your Democrats are in THE WORST POSITION than they have been in a century..

    :D

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

    I am glad your vow to JL and Liz to "not do this" lasted less than 24 hours..

    I would have been bored without my favorite chew toy.. :D

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    No, it's factual... How many times did we during the CrapCare debate how bad Bush frak'ed up healthcare??

    Make that:

    No, it's factual... How many times did we HEAR during the CrapCare debate how bad Bush frak'ed up healthcare??

    My bust...

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    In two months, Mr. Sessions has reversed the department’s withdrawal from for-profit prisons; pulled out from part of a major voting rights case in Texas; nixed federal guidance allowing transgender students to use the public bathrooms of their choice; threatened to withhold Justice Department funding from “sanctuary cities” that thwart cooperation with federal immigration officials; and ordered a crackdown on violent crime, potentially including attacks against police officers.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-sessions-presses-shift-at-justice-department-1491349566

    Kickin' ass and takin' names..

    Yea, President Trump is a "crappy" President.. :D

    I hope that President Trump continues to be this "crappy"... Because he is well on his way to making America great again...

    Not some corporate owned third world hell hole like the Left Whinery wants..

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump Beats Obama (To The Bottom)

    So, what you are saying is that they BOTH are crappy Presidents...

    Trump just got there sooner..

    :D

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    In other words, Obama was able to fool the people longer... :D

  16. [16] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [11]

    No, it's factual... How many times did we during the CrapCare debate how bad Bush frak'ed up healthcare??

    Obama's entire presidency wasn't focused on undoing Bush... regardless of what was going on in your little corner of the web.

    You prove my point for me.. :D The Left Whinery went all apeshit how Bush couldn't get Obama... er Osama, but Obama did..

    Obama's entire presidency wasn't focused on undoing Bush. They had some of the same goals like getting bin Laden. Your conversations on a blog notwithstanding, they shared some of the same goals.

    The funny thing is, it was Bush and his "torture" program that gave Obama the intel that allowed Obama.. er.. Osama to be taken out..

    Because they shared some of the same goals for America, and Obama's entire presidency wasn't focused on undoing Bush. He and Bush both tried to pass comprehensive immigration reform. You can't twist your incorrect statement into a fact no matter how hard you spin it.

    You mean, like you just did?? :D

    Answering your deflection and calling it what it is doesn't exactly qualify as deflection.

    And yet, HE is President Trump and your Democrats are in THE WORST POSITION than they have been in a century..

    Half true! They're not MY Democrats, but HE is President Trump. Things are happening on Trump's watch while he does what? I'd say Trump had an argument if he hadn't sent so many tweets advocating inaction in Syria. Assad is using chemical weapons while Trump does what? The ball is in his court; HE is President Trump. How much cooperation he'll get from other countries the way he's run his presidency up until now is going to pay off for him. That Muslim ban and all those hateful words; watch how Trump's words are going to start to matter now. Ball's in Trump's court; wonder if Trump still advocates doing nothing? We know he still advocates conning the minions and misdirection. <----- on topic, go figure

    I am glad your vow to JL and Liz to "not do this" lasted less than 24 hours..

    My "vow"? So now you're conflating me ending a ridiculous conversation yesterday with never responding again? You like to spin and conflate a lot. You responded to my post, and I answered... so try not spinning it into anything more with your typical load of nonsense. I'll be responding to others also, and you'll probably dog those and hijack them as per usual.

    I would have been bored without my favorite chew toy.. :D

    Gag. Still not interested. Run along now, Fido, and dog someone else.

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Obama's entire presidency wasn't focused on undoing Bush... regardless of what was going on in your little corner of the web.

    Yea.. That is your claim..

    The facts say different..

    Obama's entire presidency wasn't focused on undoing Bush.

    You keep saying it like you are trying to convince yerself.. :D

    Because they shared some of the same goals for America, and Obama's entire presidency wasn't focused on undoing Bush.

    Third time's the charm for you to actually believe the bullshit you spew :D

    My "vow"? So now you're conflating me ending a ridiculous conversation yesterday with never responding again?

    Perish the thought!!! I *LIKE* my chew toy :D

    Gag. Still not interested. Run along now, Fido, and dog someone else.

    You wish.. Sorry, Vicki.... Try as you might, I am here to stay... :D

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Private payrolls grew 263K in March vs. 185K est.: ADP

    The year's fast start for job creation showed no signs of letting up in March as private payrolls saw another big boost, according to a report Wednesday.

    Companies added 263,000 jobs for the month, ADP and Moody's Analytics said. That was well above the 185,000 expected from economists surveyed by Reuters and also better than the 245,000 reported for February.
    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/05/private-payrolls-grew-263k-in-march-vs--185k-est-:-adp.html

    Yea.. President Trump is a REAL crappy President.. :D

    Let's hope he continues to be this "crappy".... :D

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Answering your deflection and calling it what it is doesn't exactly qualify as deflection.

    It does if it wasn't deflection in the first place... :D

  20. [20] 
    altohone wrote:

    61 from How we got to droppin nukes

    Empty assertion isn't a demonstration of expertise of any kind... except maybe of dodging, dipping, ducking, diving... and dodging.

    Which police procedure requires beating a man who is on his knees in surrender in order to arrest him?

    People who condemned Barry Bonds aren't anti-baseball... they're against cheating, un-sportsman like conduct in order to protect the integrity of the game.

    People who condemned Bush for launching a war of aggression based on lies and for implementing torture as US policy (and those who condemned Obama for failing to prosecute it) aren't anti-American... they're against criminality and immorality in order to protect the integrity of the country.

    People who condemn bad cops who unnecessarily use excessive force aren't "anti-cop".

    I'm not surprised a pro-torture, pro-criminality trumpling is defending bad cops though.

    As someone with "expertise" in police procedure, you should be able to cite it easily.
    You should know it like the back of your hand.
    You lived it.

    So, which procedure requires excessive brutality against a man on his knees in surrender in order to effect a successful arrest?

    Cite the procedure.

    A

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

    Barry Manilow is gay....

    In other breaking news, the sky is blue, water is wet and women have secrets...

    The sky is blue, water is wet, women have secrets. Who gives a fuck?
    -Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOYSCOUT

    :D

    I loved Manilow's music as a teenager and I still love it today.....

    "How DARE you burn books!!! I feel it's my responsibility to set an example by fining radical extremists like this with every ounce of power that this state has seen fit to grant me!"

    "It's called 'The Genius of Barry Manilow'."

    "One dollar!"
    -NIGHT COURT

    :D

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Which police procedure requires beating a man who is on his knees in surrender in order to arrest him?

    I have already explained it to you... Go back and review if you are still confused..

    People who condemned Barry Bonds aren't anti-baseball... they're against cheating, un-sportsman like conduct in order to protect the integrity of the game.

    And people who condemn the New England Patriots aren't anti-New England Patriots..

    Yea... Tell me another one..

    People who condemn bad cops who unnecessarily use excessive force aren't "anti-cop".

    They are if they condemn with NO RELEVANT FACTS, save one snapshot, to support the condemnation..

    If you would wait for ALL the facts, like we did with George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson, I would wager we would find out that what was depicted in the video was justified..

    That's what we found out in the Zimmerman and Wilson shootings..

    But your anti-cop attitude won't LET you wait for all the facts..

    Because time and time again, the anti-cop attitude has been proven WRONG...

    I'm not surprised a pro-torture, pro-criminality trumpling is defending bad cops though.

    I'm not defending a bad cop.. I am waiting til ALL the facts are revealed so that the GOOD/BAD can be determined.

    You are not waiting for all the facts. You have a snapshot and that is all you need..

    Just like the Anti-Cop fanatics had all they needed with the Martin shooting or the Brown shooting.

    They were WRONG..

    You will likely turn out to be wrong as well..

    As someone with "expertise" in police procedure, you should be able to cite it easily.
    You should know it like the back of your hand.
    You lived it.

    I HAVE cited it.. But you don't want to listen because you are bigoted against cops and no amount of facts or reality will sway a bigot..

    So, which procedure requires excessive brutality against a man on his knees in surrender in order to effect a successful arrest?

    Officers will use the minimum force necessary to accomplish the mission..

    The mission, in this case, was to subdue a violent offender...

    Did the officer use the minimum force necessary??

    We don't know for sure because there are no reliable witness reports to what occurred prior to the snapshot you are basing your ENTIRE argument on..

    Until such time as those facts are available, you are acting like a hysterical anti-cop bigot...

    You MAY turn out to be right..

    But, as Russ has pointed out, and you ignore, 98% of cops are good decent public servants..

    So, the odds are that you will be as wrong as everyone was about the Sanford shooting or the Ferguson shooting or the Garner arrest or the Minneapolis shooting or the Cincinnati University shooting or the New Orleans shooting..

    The list is ENDLESS of moronic and hysterical anti-cop bigots going on and on about police brutality with out ALL of the facts, often times without ANY of the facts.....

    And so it goes and so it goes...

    Yer spouting hysterically from ignorance.. You have 3 people here with training, experience, expertise and first person knowledge of the area and the officers and yet you STILL insist you are right and everyone else is wrong..

    You sound just like NOT-45....

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Alec Baldwin Filmed Sex Scenes With Underage Actress
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4381410/Producer-slams-Alec-Baldwin-claims-underage-actress.html

    Democrats :eyeroll:

  24. [24] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Obama dropped below 40 percent for only one day of his entire eight years in office, on the second of December, 2013. On that day, Obama registered the same 39.8 percent approval that Trump now has.

    Y'know what Michael had on his mind just two weeks later (earliest Dec 2013 thread available)?

    Low poll numbers and NSA revelations!

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/12/13/ftp285/#comment-44421

    What goes around comes around.

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [17]

    Third time's the charm for you to actually believe the bullshit you spew :D

    Oh, okay... that nugget does explain your monotonous few repetitive arguments, but it still doesn't turn into a fact your incorrect statement about Obama's entire presidency being focused on undoing Bush. No matter how you spin it, Bush and Obama shared some of the same goals. If you're going to deflect to another subject, you could at least make the deflection factual. My post was about Trump's presidency to date, which you've now been given ample time to discuss, while you're deflecting to Obama and Hillary.

    Perish the thought!!! I *LIKE* my chew toy :D

    I'd say Hillary is your favorite chew toy. People try to discuss the President of the United States, while you constantly deflect to a discussion about your chew toys. Anything to avoid a real political discussion!

    You wish.. Sorry, Vicki.... Try as you might, I am here to stay... :D

    "Dog someone else" meant someone else here. I'll give you an "A" for your active imagination, but you really have no idea whatsoever what I wish. :)

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, okay... that nugget does explain your monotonous few repetitive arguments,

    Deflection..

    We're talking about YOUR repetitive so-called "arguments"...

    I'd say Hillary is your favorite chew toy.

    Naw, NOT-45 is a has-been.. I'll dust the old biatch off now and again to ridicule those who still believe in the gas bag...

    But, don't worry, Viki.. Yer my favorite... :D

    "Dog someone else" meant someone else here. I'll give you an "A" for your active imagination, but you really have no idea whatsoever what I wish. :)

    Yea I do... :D Yer easy to read...

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/private-sector-reports-stronger-than-expected-boost-to-payrolls-in-march-1491397601

    Well, lookie here..

    MINING jobs are up!! :D

    That's weird cuz I coulda SWORE that ya'all said that "mining jobs are NOT coming back!!"

    Another prediction proven false by facts and reality.. :D

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar [24]

    Y'know what Michael had on his mind just two weeks later (earliest Dec 2013 thread available)?

    Low poll numbers and NSA revelations!

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/12/13/ftp285/#comment-44421

    *LOL* Thanks for the link!

    President Trump is challenging Nixon for a place on the bottom. It took Obama 5 years to get there, but look what Trump has achieved in less than 5 months. Trump probably sunk quickly to the bottom of the swamp because he "drained" it. ;)

    What goes around comes around.

    Yep... It apparently comes around a whole lot quicker when you're a trash talking con artist with a lot of big talk but no actual plans. :)

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    President Trump is challenging Nixon for a place on the bottom. It took Obama 5 years to get there,

    But the fact remains that Obama DID get there..

    So I am glad we agree that Obama was a dismally crappy POTUS... :D

    Yep... It apparently comes around a whole lot quicker when you're a trash talking con artist with a lot of big talk but no actual plans. :)

    Jobs are up... Illegal Immigration is down..

    President Trump is doing an awesome job! :D And that reflects in his ECONOMIC APPROVAL RATING..

    Only the polls that said NOT-45 had a 98% chance of being POTUS are saying President Trump is not popular..

    Big woop..

    I don't care about a popular leader... I care about a leader that gets things done..

    And, in the areas that matter to PATRIOTIC Americans, President Trump is getting things done..

    Sending Susan Rice to jail is an added bonus.. :D

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Gag. Still not interested. Run along now, Fido, and dog someone else.

    And, yet, still half the problem, I see ...

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [26]

    Naw, NOT-45 is a has-been.. I'll dust the old biatch off now and again to ridicule those who still believe in the gas bag...

    But, don't worry, Viki.. Yer my favorite... :D

    No... You don't just "dust her off now and again," you discuss her constantly. All the time. HRC is your favorite chew toy, and Obama is your other favorite chew toy. As long as you're chewing on them, you avoid any discussion about the current POTUS. It's totally obvious and not really rocket science.

    Yea I do... :D Yer easy to read...

    No, you don't know what I wish; you really have no idea. Enjoy your delusion, though! :)

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    No... You don't just "dust her off now and again," you discuss her constantly.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself.. :D

    As long as you're chewing on them, you avoid any discussion about the current POTUS.

    I discuss President Trump ALL the time.. :D

    How he has created hundreds of thousands of jobs.. How he is dealing with scumbag illegal immigrants...

    I discuss President Trump in each and every commentary..

    SO, once again, it's proven that you spew bullshit.. :D

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    Following ya'all's lead...

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_apr5

    46% Approval rating.. The same as RCP's POLL OF POLLS rating for Economic Approval..

    President Trump is awesome!!! :D

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    When you vote for the lesser of two evils all you get is less and evil.
    Those that settled for being conned by either division of the Corporate Party with their good cop/bad cop routine have made their bed and now have to lie in it.
    Citizens need to stop complaining about the situation that they created, take responsibility for their own actions and demand better in 2018.
    Arguing about how bad the other "side" is may make you feel better, but it does nothing to solve the problem which can be found in your own mirror.
    Otherwise you will find that we have not even come close to hitting the bottom.

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    Well said, Don..

    My beef with everyone here is not so much their complaints on how bad the Right is..

    My beef is their claims that the Left is any better..

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "My beef is their claims that the Left is any better."
    My beef is "Where's the beef?" from both sides?
    All they seem to be offering is cousin Eddie's Hamburger Helper from the Vacation movie and trying to pass it off as beef.
    The claims the the Left is better because it's not as bad as the Right still doesn't make it good and is the equivalent of Hamburger Helper without the meat.
    But hey, at least you get REAL HOMEMADE KETCHUP!

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    Neil

    As per our prior conversation, McMaster did get Bannon.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/20/rocky-starts-in-presidential-history/#comment-95218

    Not surprised. :)

  38. [38] 
    altohone wrote:

    22

    Geez your reading comprehension is terrible.

    Cite the police procedure.

    They put these things in writing right?
    It's not an oral tradition passed down from elders on the mountaintop, right?

    You haven't cited anything.
    Provide the TEXT and SOURCE, or a link to the RELEVENT section.
    Share you supposed expertise in order to advance this discussion rather than repeating the same nonsense again and again.

    Your opinion and the opinions of others (not facts) about other incidents is irrelevant to this discussion.

    You admitting that the cop in this incident "may be" a bad cop is a start (congratulations you anti-cop bigot)... though the assumption that the actions were justified despite not just the unnecessary brutality but also the vulgarity and threats to onlookers in the video is hardly "waiting for the facts to be exposed".

    And you haven't provided any evidence that 20 or so blows to the head qualifies as the "minimal force necessary" to arrest a man already on his knees in surrender.

    Why wasn't a directive from the cop to the suspect (who is already on his knees in surrender) to lie face down and put his hands behind his back the "minimal force necessary"?

    You know... procedure.

    You are setting aside logic repeatedly here.

    The arrest is the goal.
    The suspect is on his knees in surrender.
    That's not being violent.

    Cite the police procedure which you have repeatedly asserted exists to defend the cop's actions if you want to debate this further.

    A

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Bannon originally served on the committee as a check against Michael Flynn before Flynn was ousted as National Security Advisor, a top White House official told NBC News. However, Bannon only attended one meeting and felt he was no longer needed in that role after the selection of H.R. McMaster as national security advisor.

    McMaster, who Bannon wanted in the role, was given authority to reorganize the committee when he joined the White House, according to NBC.

    Actually, Bannon got McMaster.. the job of National Security Advisor..

    But why let facts intrude on a good hysterical ideological rant.. :D

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    You haven't cited anything.

    Actually, I have.. Several times..

    But, as I pointed out, you don't want to listen because your mind is made up..

    Your opinion and the opinions of others (not facts) about other incidents is irrelevant to this discussion.

    Au Contraire, they are the ONLY thing relevant to this discussion..

    They are infinitely more relevant than your reliance on a single snapshot of the incident..

    Because those opinions that you dismiss are based on FACTS, REALITY, EXPERTISE, TRAINING, EXPERIENCE and PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE..

    The *ONLY* thing your opinion is based on is hysterical anti-cop bigotry..

    Share you supposed expertise in order to advance this discussion rather than repeating the same nonsense again and again..

    I have.. On several occasions...

    You continue to ignore it.

    So why should I share it again???

    And you haven't provided any evidence that 20 or so blows to the head qualifies as the "minimal force necessary" to arrest a man already on his knees in surrender.

    Yes I have..

    YOU haven't provided any evidence that the arrest WASN'T justified..

    Since YOU make the claim, the burden of proof is on you..

    The arrest is the goal.
    The suspect is on his knees in surrender.
    That's not being violent.

    In that snapshot, the subject MAY be surrendering...

    He may not have been..

    What occurred BEFORE your snapshot would determine that question..

    Do you have ANY facts that address THAT??

    No, you don't..

    Ergo.. You have no case, no argument..

  41. [41] 
    Paula wrote:
  42. [42] 
    Paula wrote:

    Oops, put 2 links in one post. I'll do them separately:

    Today's random juxtaposition:

    From the right:http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/mary-colbert-god-will-curse-trumps-opponents-and-their-children-and-grandchildren/

  43. [43] 
    Paula wrote:
  44. [44] 
    Paula wrote:
  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Here's the thing and there's just NO getting around it..

    ALL of you, either by commission or omission, have compared President Trump to a historical homicidal madman who brutally butchered over 6 million innocent men, women and children..

    As such, ya'all simply do not have a SHRED of credibility to assess President Trump and his performance..

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA....

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    [42]rightwingwatch.org/post/mary-colbert-god-will-curse-trumps-opponents-and-their-children-and-grandchildren/

    WITCHES IN SAN DIEGO CURSE TRUMP
    http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/witches-in-san-diego-curse-trump

    Democrats.. :eyeroll:

  47. [47] 
    altohone wrote:

    40

    Now you're playing dumb... and lying in the process repeatedly.
    Pathetic.

    This conversation is over (hi Liz).

    A

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    Now you're playing dumb... and lying in the process repeatedly.

    Prove it...

    You can't, so.....

    This conversation is over..

    Brave Sir Robin ran away
    (No!)
    Bravely ran away away
    (I didn't!)
    When danger reared its ugly head
    He bravely turned his tail and fled
    (No!)
    Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
    (I didn't!)
    And gallantly he chickened out

    PWNED

    I trust in the future you will keep your hysterical anti-cop bigotry under control....

    "In a pig's eye!"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy

    :D

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Bannon originally served on the committee as a check against Michael Flynn before Flynn was ousted as National Security Advisor, a top White House official told NBC News. However, Bannon only attended one meeting and felt he was no longer needed in that role after the selection of H.R. McMaster as national security advisor.

    McMaster, who Bannon wanted in the role, was given authority to reorganize the committee when he joined the White House, according to NBC.

    I guess if you believe "a top White House official" and the spin from the White House today, then you're all set. *LOL*

    So let me get this straight: Trump appointed Flynn as his National Security Advisor, but Flynn needed a minder like Steve Bannon to attend the NSC meetings. That sure speaks volumes about THAT! You'd think the White House could come up with some spin that didn't make Trump's original NSA pick look like a total incompetent fool, but okay!

    The White House spin is utter nonsense, but who cares? Anything that gets Bannon off the NSC is absolutely fine and is the correct move. Steve Bannon did NOT get McMaster the NSA job. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) was the catalyst that brought McMaster to the attention of the White House. Bannon may very well have wanted him in the role, but McMaster sure as hell doesn't suffer fools like Bannon and made the absolute correct call in having Bannon removed from the NSC.

    So credit where credit is due to McMaster and Trump. You really have to give Trump a thumbs up for the move because he made the right call on this one. Thumbs up for Trump for doing the right thing. :)

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Brave Sir Robin ran away
    (No!)
    Bravely ran away away
    (I didn't!)
    When danger reared its ugly head
    He bravely turned his tail and fled
    (No!)
    Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
    (I didn't!)
    And gallantly he chickened out

    PWNED

    Sorry, JL... I know you don't approve, but it's rare that I could force Altohone to his knees begging to surrender.. :D

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    I guess if you believe "a top White House official" and the spin from the White House today, then you're all set. *LOL*

    Why not?? Ya'all believed EVERY "top White House official" from the Odumbo White House..

    :D

    Thumbs up for Trump for doing the right thing. :)

    We'll make a Trumpster out of you yet!!! :D

    heh

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula [43]

    Oh, Paula... that is hilarious. This lady speaks for God!

    The funniest part: Bakker agreed, declaring that “God has chosen” Trump.

    The guy who got 45 years in prison for fraud in his TV ministry agrees!

    And they wonder why the masses are turning away from the Church... look no further. :)

  53. [53] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Well... another day another comment thread achieves terminal logic velocity...

    And, now for something completely different.

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

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [50]

    Why not?? Ya'all believed EVERY "top White House official" from the Odumbo White House..

    Ummmmmmmm. No! White House "spinners" going to spin.

    We'll make a Trumpster out of you yet!!! :D

    I'll give credit where it's due, but don't get crazy now. :)

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    Well... another day another comment thread achieves terminal logic velocity...

    You come late to the party, you miss all the fun.. :D

  56. [56] 
    Paula wrote:

    [52] Kick: yep!

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    Ummmmmmmm. No! White House "spinners" going to spin.

    Agreed. "White House officials" were FULL of... spin during the Odumbo years.. It's likely President Trump's are continuing the tradition..

    I'll give credit where it's due, but don't get crazy now. :)

    Heh :D

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    GT [52]

    And, now for something completely different.

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

    LOL!

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    Public university to host talk on animal-based sex fetishes
    https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31993/

    Democrats :eyeroll:

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Former CIA Analyst: Susan Rice's NSA demasking denials don't add up
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/04/former-cia-analyst-susan-rices-nsa-demasking-denials-dont-add-up.html

    Susan Rice... Perp walk...

    That is all... :D

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    HA...

    President Trump is back up over 40%...

  62. [62] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet

    The evidence keeps mounting.

    cite
    /s?t/
    verb

    quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work

    -
    -

    Our resident trumpling not knowing what the word means when he uses it constantly sure seems like idiocy to me.

    A

  63. [63] 
    altohone wrote:

    goode trickle
    52

    Excellent link.
    Thank you.

    Any comment on our resident trumpling claiming you didn't post a comment of the eyewitness accounts of what happened prior to the police beating incident... which you were kind enough to do for us?

    What say you?

    (a simple confirmation would be nice... please don't repost it or tell him where to find it... there's a lesson he needs to learn)

    Thanks.

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [62]

    Our resident trumpling not knowing what the word means when he uses it constantly sure seems like idiocy to me.

    You know the cite rules apply to everyone else here but him, right? He'll insist you provide a cite because you remember something he can't. After providing a cite and "a lesson he needs to learn," the conversation devolves to the point where he equates you being able to remember a conversation as hanging on his every word and being into him while he's happily married. He assures he'll do the same with you, Neil, etc. if you're "on him." He'll say he's "not that into you" enough to remember a conversation, while on the flip side he's busy either responding to or hijacking almost every single one of your posts. Get tired of his antics and/or Elizabeth unilaterally labels you a problem, leave a conversation, and he'll post a song from Spamalot... and if you think he's a troll, well... you're just an anti-troll bigot.

    The fact is, you've got recall which he doesn't, but he's got his cut-and-paste bigotry routine that he can handle and he bloody well can't handle anyone with any kind of recall because he's too busy lumping everyone together and insisting they all hold the same views, even though it's been covered in conversation already.

    All of that which is meant to say: You're way out of his league, Punk! :)

  65. [65] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Kick
    64

    Yup.
    In the current case, he lied about citing sources of police procedure (among other things), and then demanded that I prove the negative... followed of course by his one man band victory parade routine.

    I use him as a foil on occasion, but he's too dishonest for actual debate.

    And the Holy Grail is a favorite, so I enjoy any quotes from the movie, whatever the circumstances... even in cases of projection.

    Bring out your dead!

    A

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [65]

    Bring out your dead!

    I'm not dead!
    Hang on, he says he's not dead!
    Yes, he is.

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    Our resident trumpling not knowing what the word means when he uses it constantly sure seems like idiocy to me.

    And here I thought you were telling the truth when you said the conversation was over.. :D

    Another lie...

    Any comment on our resident trumpling claiming you didn't post a comment of the eyewitness accounts of what happened prior to the police beating incident... which you were kind enough to do for us?

    WOW.. I *REALLY* have gotten under yer skin, Altohone.. :D

    In the current case, he lied about citing sources of police procedure (among other things), and then demanded that I prove the negative... followed of course by his one man band victory parade routine.

    Holy crap, Altohone.. :D

    You really DID lie when you said the conversation was over..

    Let's face reality..

    You have absolutely NOTHING but a SINGLE snapshot to back up your claims that the use of force was unjustified..

    Your claim is based SOLELY and COMPLETELY on ignorance and hysterical anti-cop bigotry..

    Now, you can make personal attacks all you want as a way to deflect these facts...

    But they ARE facts nonetheless...

    Deal with it..

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    In the current case, he lied about citing sources of police procedure (among other things),

    Actually, you are lying about me lying.. I did give you the procedure.. Several times

    The problem is, you want the exact wording and there are hundreds of thousands of police departments in this country and each one has it's own wording on it's own procedures. Factor in military police and Federal police and there are many thousands more...

    If you weren't completely and utterly ignorant of police and their procedures, you would know this..

    But the ONE commonality that they ALL share is the procedure I gave you.. The procedure drilled into every recruit in every POST Academy across the country.

    Officers will use the minimum amount of force necessary to accomplish the mission..

    So, why not quit the lies that I didn't post the procedure, because I have... 4 times now..

    You just can't admit that you were wrong, you were caught in several lies and I was right..

    When it comes to LEO issues (and military issues) I am always right and you are always wrong....

    Deal with it...

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    It would have been wiser for Democrats to hold their fire here and save the filibuster for an instance in which it might have made a difference. With a nominee whose views were less extreme or whose credentials were less sterling, the filibuster would have been a powerful weapon in Senate Democrats’ arsenal. Here, it’s likely to be a dud.

    To see why, it’s important to understand when the filibuster is a useful tool for the minority and when it is not. In a nutshell: The filibuster matters most when majority party support for a Supreme Court nominee is neither too hot nor too cold. It can be a source of strategic leverage for the minority when conditions are just right.
    http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/4/15168316/filibuster-gorsuch-senate-nuclear-mistake

    From VOX, of all places..

    Can anyone argue the logic??

    {{{chiirrrrppppp}}} {{{ccchhhiiirrrrppppp}}}

    No?? Didna think so.. :D

    In the long term, though, we think it will prove to be a strategic blunder, making it easier for President Donald Trump to fill a future Supreme Court vacancy with a conservative justice who will swing the balance on issues such as abortion, LGBTQ rights, and affirmative action.

    Oh, who cares about abortion!? Let President Trump put in a guy who will vote to outlaw abortions throughout the land! Gay rights?? Bahh!! Who needs 'em..

    We want our hysterical pound of flesh NOW and we don't care what it costs us in the future!!!

    So Left Wingery.. So Short-Term thinking....

    No matter HOW you slice it, if one invokes logic and rational thinking, the Dims pushing to filibuster Gorsuch are making a HUGE strategic mistake that WILL come back and bite the Democrats on the ass...

    And probably sooner rather than later..

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    WOW.. I *REALLY* have gotten under yer skin, Altohone.. :D

    I mean, look at you..

    HELP ME, GT!!!!! Michale is kicking my ass and I have absolutely NO FACTS to counter!!! HELP ME!!!

    Yer downright BEGGING..

    How utterly embarrassing for you....

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    Any comment on our resident trumpling claiming you didn't post a comment of the eyewitness accounts of what happened prior to the police beating incident... which you were kind enough to do for us?

    Regardless of your embarrassing begging, I have already acknowledged that GT did post witness accounts.

    But he did not post HIS witness accounts, as you claimed, because he didn't witness the incident, as you claimed..

    I am also constrained to point out that there were "witness accounts" where people said Michael Brown had his hands up in surrender..

    That has been proven to be complete and utter bullshit..

    Witness accounts are the WORST and most erroneous types of evidence their is.

    Which you would know if you weren't completely and utterly ignorant of police procedures and activities...

    So, begging to GT won't help your case whatsoever..

    It just proves how utterly impotent you are with regards to this issue..

    The simple fact is this..

    THREE PEOPLE, with experience, training, expertise and personal knowledge have told you that you are utterly and completely wrong in your claim...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/opinion/my-most-unpopular-idea-be-nice-to-trump-voters.html?ref=opinion

    Well worth the read..

    If ya'all could get past your hatred of everything Trump.... :^/

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why are you commenting on an old thread, Michale?

    Well, since I'm here, that was a good read and quite typical of his pieces.

    My motto is to be nice to everyone or, at the very least, civil. And, to stay out of the gutter, at all costs.

    Now, that's not to say that I would never call out nonsense when I see it but, even then, I try to call out the nonsense not the person who utters it.

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    My motto is to be nice to everyone or, at the very least, civil. And, to stay out of the gutter, at all costs.

    Now, that's not to say that I would never call out nonsense when I see it but, even then, I try to call out the nonsense not the person who utters it.

    If only we could all live by that standard.. :D

  75. [75] 
    altohone wrote:

    Blah blah blah laughable revisionism.

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    Blah blah blah laughable revisionism.

    Blaaa blaaa blaaa NO FACTS, NO CITE, NO CREDIBILITY

    PWNED.. :D

Comments for this article are closed.