ChrisWeigant.com

An Avenatti Run Would Help Democrats

[ Posted Tuesday, August 14th, 2018 – 16:38 PDT ]

The best commentary on the Omarosa-versus-Trump saga I've yet heard came from Republican pundit Ana Navarro. Forgive me for paraphrasing (I'm doing this from memory), but last Sunday she pointed out: "Omarosa is entirely the creation of Donald Trump. Trump deserves Omarosa." That pretty much sums it up. A reality-show president is being attacked by a former (three-time!) contestant on his reality show, with all the drama and faux outrage of a scripted encounter on that reality show. The question for most viewers isn't (as the media anguishes over): "Which one do you believe?" but rather: "Whose presentation is more entertaining?" As Navarro pointed out, Trump does indeed deserve Omarosa. Especially seeing as he was the one that hired her -- for the fourth time -- to be an aide in his White House.

Which brings me to a seemingly-unrelated story, that of Michael Avenatti considering a run for the Democratic nomination for president. Avenatti travelled to Iowa recently, and gave a speech to present his case for why he should be the one to take on Donald Trump in 2020. His rationale can be summed up as: "I can beat Trump like a drum -- far better than any other possible Democratic candidate." You've got to admit, that's a fairly convincing argument for him to be making.

Avenatti, of course, has pretty much zero of the experience that used to be considered absolutely necessary to be president. But then, neither did Trump. In case you've forgotten who Avenatti is, he has risen to fame as the lawyer representing porn star Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against Trump. As such, he has become a regular presence on television, and he does indeed show a feisty demeanor when taking on Trump. He is, in a word, entertaining (at least, for liberals). Want more? How about this fun (and mostly-unknown) Avenatti fact: he's also a professional race car driver! That's way sexier than a real estate mogul, right?

To be more serious, there are obviously all kinds of arguments to make against Avenatti running -- the first of which would currently be: "We haven't even gotten through the midterms, and you're talking about 2020 already?!?" I have to admit, that's an excellent point -- I am a big fan of not trying to see too far into the political future, and I also tend to want to focus on the election at hand, especially since the upcoming one will be so important. Even so, it struck me this weekend, after watching Avenatti do more than just tease a presidential campaign on television, that Trump would indeed deserve Avenatti as a challenger. And Avenatti might be right -- he might actually be the best one to take on Trump directly in what will doubtless be a vicious campaign.

That's not to say I'd endorse Avenatti or vote for him or anything, rest assured. In fact, I think Avenatti wouldn't get very far with Democratic voters -- who, unlike Trump voters, require a bit more actual experience for the candidates they choose. However, in a world where we must seriously discuss people such as Oprah Winfrey running for president, Avenatti seems to require the same sort of consideration. I don't think he'd win, in other words, but I do think he could influence the primary race in a positive way for all the Democratic candidates.

Think about it -- what was the big Achilles heel of every 2016 Republican primary candidate? They could not for the life of them figure out how to successfully counter the circus act that was (and is) Donald Trump. Some tried to "go high" when Trump went low. It didn't work. Some tried to beat Trump at his own playground-insult game. This, at times, was rather pathetic (see: Marco Rubio), and at times was somewhat effective (Chris Christie probably utilized it the best, in the debates). But in the end, it didn't work for any of them, because Trump is such a master at the insult-hurling game. Trump was more entertaining than the rest of them put together, and the GOP primary voters reacted favorably.

After he won the nomination, Hillary Clinton also found she had no real way to deflect Trump's constant blustering. Love him or hate him, Trump did redefine what a presidential campaign was all about in the modern age. It's debatable whether this will continue after he is gone from politics, but what is not debatable is that it is guaranteed to happen a second time in 2020, if (as now seems inevitable) Trump is the Republican nominee again. Why, after all, should he change what turned out to be a winning strategy for him last time?

Democrats need to be prepared for this, and many of the people currently spoken of as being strong contenders for the 2020 prize don't seem to be. Many of the politicians considering a run have never faced anything like Trump, and haven't shown a whole lot of inclination to learn how to effectively do so. Also, most Democrats who have shown a strong ability to take Trump on directly are not even considering running. Democratic hopefuls right now seem to be contending for who can put together the most attractive policy agenda for the base voters (which is entirely normal at this point in a presidential election cycle). But what might win a normal primary race among Democratic voters isn't what is going to be necessary to ultimately beat Trump.

Something else will be required -- the ability to go toe-to-toe with Trump and weather the blast furnace that is his Twitter feed. The ability not just to withstand Trump's many insults, but to actually turn them around and steal the news cycle from Trump is what will be necessary for the 2020 Democratic candidate. We can all wish that this wasn't so, but that's not going to change things one tiny bit.

Michael Avenatti has demonstrated the ability to not only take on Trump's rage, but also to get under Trump's skin in response. He has proven his ability to do so numerous times, in fact. In fact, Avenatti and Omarosa are perhaps the best of all the Trump antagonists in this particular regard. They know the rules Trump plays by, and are comfortable competing with Trump on his chosen playing field. Partly this is because Trump knows they've got the goods on him, of course, but it's more a question of attitude than of hard evidence and recordings.

Do I think Michael Avenatti would be a good president? I have no idea. Do I think he's capable of winning even the Democratic nomination? No, I do not. But I do think that an Avenatti campaign would be an excellent goad for the rest of the Democrats running, because his sole qualification for entering the race -- his entire candidacy, really -- would be that he can beat Trump at his own game. By being a constant reminder of this, it will force the other Democratic candidates in the race to up their own game when it comes to taking on Trump. And that would be, on the whole, a good thing indeed for the Democratic Party and for the eventual nominee.

To win the 2020 Democratic nomination, the candidate will have to best all the other Democrats running. However, this might not be enough for the general election. Picture whichever Democratic candidate you'd like to see win the nomination standing next to Michael Avenatti at a Democratic debate. Sure, your favorite will best Avenatti on the wonky details of policy -- but that's not the point. Will Avenatti's brash television-lawyer style win more of the crowd over than the details of a Medicare For All plan? Will your candidate rise (or sink, if you prefer) to the occasion and start countering Avenatti's banter in real time, or will they attempt to fall back on dry and rehearsed talking points? Now picture your same favorite candidate debating Trump. Would taking on Avenatti in the primaries improve their performance at a Trump debate?

To me, the answer to that last question is that of course such a preparation would help any Democratic nominee hone their playground-insult skills. These skills are going to be crucial in the general election, as Trump proved back in 2016. Which is why, even though I do not think he'd have a chance of actually winning the nomination, I would applaud Michael Avenatti's entry into the Democratic presidential primary race. Donald Trump may deserve Omarosa, but in a similar way Democrats really deserve seeing Avenatti run for their party's nomination. Because beating Trump isn't just going to be about presenting America with a clear policy and agenda choice at the polls. That can only go so far. Beating Trump is also going to require besting him on his own gutter level as well. Presidential candidates -- much like reality-television stars -- now have to entertain the voters, in the Trump era. And I want whoever wins the Democratic nomination to be fully willing and able to do so by the time the general election campaign begins. Which is why I think an Avenatti run would be a net positive for the Democratic Party. Because if a Democratic candidate can't beat Avenatti, he or she likely won't be able to beat Trump.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

124 Comments on “An Avenatti Run Would Help Democrats”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    An ambulance chasing hooker lawyer would help Democrats...

    And THAT right there shows the DESPERATION and GUTTER-SINKING LOWLIFES that Democrats have become.. :D

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    And THAT right there shows the DESPERATION and GUTTER-SINKING LOWLIFES that Democrats have become.. :D

    No, he is a practice clown for the main event against the real clown - your reading comprehension skills are failing again Michale.

    So, how about my earlier question: if Treasonous Trump is caught on tape saying the n-word will you admit he is a racist?

  3. [3] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I caught his appearance on some Sunday talk show. I have no idea what his political beliefs might be, but he's a 180 degree opposite to Trump, very impressive in regards to speaking ability, not the least bit niggardly with his words.

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    you don't have to insult someone to entertain your audience, just perform better.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    Regarding Avenatti, Frank Bruno put it well in his column:

    "He’s [Avenatti] flirting with a presidential bid or at least realizing that such a flirtation is a brand multiplier."

    Great phrase - "brand multiplier" - sums up so many pundits and pols on all sides.

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:
  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    They Are Not Never Trump – They Are Never You
    https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/08/13/they-are-not-never-trump--they-are-never-you-n2509229

    I really like the way Kurt Schlichter writes...

    He is the Right Wing version of CW.. :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    And... Since ya'all love polls so much.. :D

    POLL: PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROVAL 50%...
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_aug14

    It's just mind-boggling...

    Ya'all claim that Trump is the genetic offspring of Stalin, Hitler, Bundy and that guy that always cuts you off on the way to work...

    And yet, President Trump's poll numbers don't reflect this and are, oft times, BETTER than Odumbo's at this point in Odumbo's presidency...

    So, either all the polls you love to quote are full of shit...

    Or ya'all's claims about President Trump are full of shit...

    Which is it??

  9. [9] 
    John M wrote:

    [8] Michale

    "And... Since ya'all love polls so much.. :D

    POLL: PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROVAL 50%..."

    And I see we are cherry picking again.

    From the very same link you just cited:

    The latest figures include 35% who Strongly Approve of the way the president is performing and 40% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -5.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    The latest figures include 35% who Strongly Approve of the way the president is performing and 40% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -5.

    Iddn't it funny how you accuse me of cherry picking and then turn around and do the EXACT same thing..

    You can spin it all you like, JM..

    But the FACT is President Trump's poll numbers DO NOT reflect ya'all's claims about President Trump..

    President Trump's poll numbers are comparable and oft times BETTER than Odumbo's were...

    These are the FACTS that no amount of HHPTDS spin can erase...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno what? I am gonna be a mensch and tell ya'all (NEN) EXACTLY what ya'all's problem is.

    Ya'all believe so fervently in something.. Ya'all believe it with the totality of everything ya'all are...

    Yet, FACTS and REALITY just continue to prove how wrong ya'all are...

    It's like yer belief in Humans Cause Global Warming... Ya'all believe so fervently and so completely that humans are going to destroy the planet, yet at EVERY juncture, the FACTS and REALITY prove you wrong. That's why there has NEVER been an accurate Humans Cause Global Warming model or prediction..

    So it is with President Trump..

    Ya'all totally and fervently want to believe that Trump is a racist.. Yet, the FACTS keep proving you wrong..

    Jesse Jackson honoring Trump for a "LIFETIME OF SERVICE" to black Americans..

    Black unemployment at it's lowest lever **EVER**...

    You so fervently and unabashedly WANT to BELIEVE that President Trump is incompetent.....

    But FACTS and REALITY show how awesome President Trump has been for the economy and jobs and productivity and the direction of this country..

    You want to believe all this BULLSHIT about President Trump...

    But FACTS and REALITY are ALWAYS calling ya'all on ya'all's bullshit..

    Ya'all have this belief that you accept as gospel, yet ya'all have absolutely NO FACTS that proves your beliefs are accurate...

    THAT is ya'all's problem in a nutshell....

    Yer Welcome...

    "What can I say except, 'YER WELCOME'.."
    -Maui, MOANA

    :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news..

    The future of the Democrat Party is crashing and burning.. :D

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is crashing and burning -- fast
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/14/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-crashing-and-burning-fast/

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    I really like the way Kurt Schlichter writes...

    He is the Right Wing version of CW.. :D

    He most definitely isn't the right wing version of CW. He's more like the right wing version of Lee Papa (aka The Rude Pundit).

    A lot of paranoia in that article - I hope you aren't feeding off it - it is the equivalent of drinking two gallons of coke with extra sugar stirred in. Although it is nice to see the right wing intellectuals and the right wing working class heroes at each other's throats.

    I notice you are still ducking the question about Treasonous Trumps and the n-word tape. Will you call him out as a racist if the tape appears?

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "However, in a world where we must seriously discuss people such as Oprah Winfrey running for president, Avenatti seems to require the same sort of consideration."

    And One Demand and the current opportunity to mobilize the 20-30% of voters that vote in the presidential elections but do not vote in off year elections doesn't require at least the same sort of consideration?

    The main problem the Republicans had in the primaries is the same problem that Hillary had in the general- Trump was able to con people into thinking he was an anti-establishment candidate and the Republicans and Hillary were all Big Money establishment candidates.

    You are right that this election in 2018 is too important- the opportunity to mobilize the above mentioned off year non-voters will not come around again until 2022.

    Getting this started NOW is imperative and could be good for the Democratic Party candidates should they choose to take advantage of the opportunity this could create for 2020. But even if the Democrats do not choose to do the right thing in 2020 it would still be good for democracy and would benefit any candidates that choose to make the commitment to represent ordinary citizens instead of Big Money contributors.

    Whether or not whatever it is that compels you write aboot Oprah or Avenatti running president compels you to inform citizens aboot One Demand or compels you to NOT write aboot One Demand or at least explain why you won't- can't you just do the right thing and write aboot or address it?

    Don't citizens deserve to learn aboot ALL options?

    Why can't you address an issue/idea that doesn't fit into the narrative that the powers that be require?

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    He most definitely isn't the right wing version of CW. He's more like the right wing version of Lee Papa (aka The Rude Pundit).

    A lot of paranoia in that article -

    OK, I'll make a concession..

    He's the right wing version of CW post President Trump election...

    I notice you are still ducking the question about Treasonous Trumps and the n-word tape. Will you call him out as a racist if the tape appears?

    I have actually answered it more than once..

    But why let FACTS stand in yer way, eh Neil.. :D Ya never have before...

    It's OK... I won't force you to admit you are wrong..

    AGAIN.... :D

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale [10]

    Settle things clearly for us. Do you care about poll numbers or don't you?

    Personally I think individual polls are pretty meaningless, but aggregates of high quality polls correlate favorably with election results.

    Polls are a bit like successful basketball shots - individually they don't tell you which is the better team, but over the course of a playoff series the aggregate of them correlates favorably with the better team.

    This, of course, is a problem for you. You initially stated that the only poll that was important was the RealClear aggregate, but when this went tits-up for you, suddenly individual polls, or subsections of individual polls became important. You also, after telling us to only pay attention to RealClear suddenly chastised us for clinging to poll numbers and only citing the aggregate because it was unfavorable to you.

    So, which is it - is it Michale of August 2018 who only likes parts of individual polls that confirm his needs, or the Michale of 2017 who stated:

    The ONLY reliable poll is the RCP Poll Of Polls...

    And THAT has had President Trumps number rising steadily with a minor hiccup now and again...

    THAT is the ONLY poll around here that has any meaning whatsoever...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/15/too-little-from-congress-too-much-from-trump/#comment-94602

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    And all the angst led to one very fascinating development last week: The hallowed Washington Post did a “fact check” on Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, and the outcome was hilarious.

    Now, the Post usually reserves such fact checks for conservatives, shooting down their rhetoric (often by omitting facts). That the vaunted liberal paper would do such a fact check on the Democratic Party’s new darling really is telling.

    The Post’s Glenn Kessler took a spin through “some of her recent eyebrow-raising claims,” and it wasn’t pretty.

    “Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said in a July 13 interview on PBS’s “Firing Line.”

    “Poppycock,” said the Post.

    ? On Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s May 20 claim that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has a quota “to fill 34,000 beds with detainees every single night,” the Post dismissed that as “urban legend.”

    ? On her Aug. 7 assertion that the “upper-middle class does not exist anymore,” the Post got fired up, citing data to declare that “the upper-middle class has actually grown.”

    ? On her Aug. 8 claim that Medicare for all “is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now,” well, the Post had previously given such a claim three Pinnochios.

    The plan, first offered up by socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, would cost $32 trillion, found the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, but that “would reduce the country’s overall level of health expenditures by $2 trillion from 2022 to 2031.” How, you ask? “That’s because the Sanders plan would slash payments to providers by 40 percent.” Oof.

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is clearly waaaaay over her head. She can barely answer the simplest question. For instance, she was asked Aug. 9 by CNN’s Chris Cuomo if she recognized Rep. Nancy Pelosi as the leader of the Democrats.

    “I think absolutely right now … she is, she is the leader of, of … no, no, she, I mean, um, um, speaker or rather leader Pelosi hopefully, y’know, we’ll see … she’s uh … she’s the current leader of the party and I think that the party absolutely does have its leadership in the House and Senate, we have our leadership in the Senate as well,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said.

    Double oof.

    The whirlwind rise of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez came crashing down Aug. 7. All of the candidates she endorsed in primaries lost — badly.

    On Monday, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez finally acknowledged that she’s having a tough time.

    “Alright everyone, after a wild 7 weeks since my primary election and a lot of organizing, I’m taking a few days off to rest,” she said on Twitter.

    But the damage is done. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez IS the new face of a the Democratic Party, whether the party elders like it or not.

    Democrat Party Crash & Burn :D

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh, and Michale, you STILL haven't told us if you would call Trump a racist if he is on tape using the n-word.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Settle things clearly for us. Do you care about poll numbers or don't you?

    I care about showing ya'all how hypocritical ya'all are when it comes to poll numbers..

    It's YA'ALL that care about poll numbers..

    But ONLY for the polls that say what ya'all want to hear... :D

    Personally I think individual polls are pretty meaningless, but aggregates of high quality polls correlate favorably with election results.

    Yet you LOVE to quote them when they say something that supports your agenda...

    THAT is my point.. Always has been, always will be..

    If ya'all want to forsake polls and never mention polls again, I'll be happy to reciprocate..

    But as long as ya'all hypocritically embrace ONLY the polls that say what ya'all want to hear???

    I'll be here to point out the hypocrisy..

    It's what I do.. :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and Michale, you STILL haven't told us if you would call Trump a racist if he is on tape using the n-word.

    Oh and Neil?? I have.. At least a couple times..

    :D

    I know, I know.. You can't admit you are wrong..

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    But the damage is done. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez IS the new face of a the Democratic Party, whether the party elders like it or not.

    This is just the latest line you are being fed to salve your panic over the midterms Michale.

    If Ocasio-Cortez was so powerful then you'd think that like-minded candidates would have swept the primaries. Unfortunately for this little fantasy, reality is very different. CW even wrote a column about it (http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/08/08/primary-season-musings/).

    Take a Ocasio-Cortez chill pill before your diaper needs changed.

    Oh, and you are still ducking the question: "Will you call Trump a racist if he is on tape using the n-word?"

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh and Neil?? I have.. At least a couple times..

    OK, I might have missed it. Just copy your reply and point to it with a link.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is just the latest line you are being fed to salve your panic over the midterms Michale.

    Actually, that's the latest line from the head of the DNC.. :D

    It was Perez who called Osceola-Cortez the "future of the Democrat Party..."

    You lose.. AGAIN... :D

    OK, I might have missed it. Just copy your reply and point to it with a link.

    Or you could just refer back to the previous commentary where I answered your question ad nasuem..

    I accept your apology...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that I HAVE answered your question, maybe you can answer mine..

    How do you reconcile your claim that Trump is a racist with the FACT that Jesse Jackson honored Trump for a "LIFETIME OF SERVICE" to black Americans??

    How do you reconcile your claim that Trump is a racist with the FACT that, under President Trump, black Americans' unemployment is the LOWEST it has ***EVER*** been???

    How do you reconcile your hysterical non-proven bullshit claim with these FACTS???

    Hmmmmmmmm????

  25. [25] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    How do you reconcile your hysterical non-proven bullshit claim with these FACTS???

    Trump is like a fine whine: the bouquet of racism becomes more evident over time.

    By the time Obama diced and sliced him with comedy, Trump's racism was evident by his birtherism, and didn't even have to be brought up. This is what whine connoisseurs call an "undertaste".

    But by the time Trump got the Presidency, the odeur of racism was unmistakable, a heady blend of lower class Queens bigotry mixed with overtones of upper class Manhattan snobbery. Not recommended for weak stomachs.

    But like many uncorked quaffs, the longer it's exposed to the light, the more vinegary the whine has become. Eventually it will only be suitable for masking the smell of rotting red meat.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhh...

    So, it's your claim that a SINGLE utterance of the word 'nigger' over President Trump's entire 70 years of life is relevant...

    But the fact that Trump was HONORED by black Americans for a LIFETIME of service TO Black Americans..

    The FACT that, as POTUS, President Trump has pushed black unemployment to it's lowest point EVER...

    NONE of that is relevant..

    But an alleged SINGLE utterance of "nigger" in 70 years.

    THAT is the ONLY relevance here..

    Is THAT really your claim???

    BBBWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I wish you could step outside yerself and view your claims with a clinical and objective eye..

    You would see how utterly bigoted and ridiculous you sound...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what is so sad is that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that drivel...

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale, you haven't answered the question, you've only stated that it isn't possible that Trump is a racist.

    So I'll just ask the question again:

    Will you call Trump a racist if he is on tape using the n-word?

    Yes or no?

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    How do you reconcile your hysterical non-proven bullshit claim with these FACTS???

    It isn't about me - I think Trump is a racist because of the balance of what he has said and his actions. But that isn't the point. The point is why you won't answer a simple yes/no question:

    Will you call Trump a racist if he is on tape using the n-word?

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Joshua has it exactly right: "you don't have to insult someone to entertain your audience, just perform better."

    The 2020 Democratic nominee for president will beat Trump with an intelligent and inspiring message that is effectively communicated and that doesn't insult the intelligence of voters.

    Hillary didn't have that and that is why she lost to none other than the likes of Donald J. Trump.

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hillary didn't have that and that is why she lost to none other than the likes of Donald J. Trump.

    I'm not sure I agree with that. I'll bet dollars to donuts that if I took Hillary' 2016 positions and the 2020 candidate's positions most people would struggle to tell one from the other.

    Hillary wasn't an entertainer, and that is the key to CW's argument - 2016 was all about the sizzle, and the Democrats need to appeal to emotions as well as the intellect.

    This is why Anenatti is an interesting candidate - as CW says, he will ensure that the Democratic candidates are stress tested to deliver an emotional appeal to match his carnival-like performances and that will prepare them for the king of BS and carnies.

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You can't beat Trump at the only game he knows.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, you haven't answered the question, you've only stated that it isn't possible that Trump is a racist.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/08/13/taking-back-the-streets/#comment-124497

    I did answer the question..

    You just don't like the answer because it totally decimates your tenuous hold on reality.. :^/

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Btw, there are many reasons why Hillary lost to none other than Trump. I just highlighted the most important one.

    You don't have to be an entertainer to deliver an inspiring message that will excite voters.

    By 2020, I think we'll all be CRAVING inspiration from a presidential nominee.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    It isn't about me - I think Trump is a racist because of the balance of what he has said and his actions.

    Yes.. You THINK Trump is a racist because of your spin of his statements and his actions..

    But his ACTIONS are being honored by black Americans for a LIFETIME OF SERVICE to black Americans..

    Do you factor THAT into what you "THINK"???

    No, you discard it because it doesn't support your agenda..

    You SHOULD be basing your opinions on the facts.. But you are cherry picking your spin'ed "facts" solely based on your opinions..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't beat Trump at the only game he knows.

    But you just have to know that Democrats will NEVER stop trying... :^/

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    as CW says, he will ensure that the Democratic candidates are stress tested to deliver an emotional appeal to match his carnival-like performances and that will prepare them for the king of BS and carnies.

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean - what does a Democratic emotional appeal look like?

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me ask you a question, Neil..

    Even though I know you'll ignore it..

    If someone uses the word "nigger" do you think that context has any bearing???

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean - what does a Democratic emotional appeal look like?

    Ever heard of Joe Biden?

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't get my hopes up, Neil.

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm is right that the positions of the 2020 Democratic nominee will not be much different than Hillary's 2016 positions.

    It is not aboot being an entertainer, it is aboot manipulation and believe-ability.

    In 2020, Trump will continue to manipulate the emotions of his supporters and the Democrat will try to manipulate the emotions of those that don't like/ fear Trump.

    But as long as the Democrats are controlled by Big Money the emotional manipulation, whatever the Democrat's positions are, will not believable.

    It is not possible to communicate an intelligent and inspiring position that you will represent ordinary citizens while you are financing your campaign with Big Money (see recent reversal on fossil fuel money) and expect people to believe you.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't get my hopes up, Neil.

    Health wise, I doubt Biden is capable of a Presidential run...

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    If someone uses the word "nigger" do you think that context has any bearing???

    Yes.

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As for you can't beat Trump at his own game and that the Democrats will never stop trying, Avenatti running is the equivalent of:

    "Maybe we should get our own midget with a broom."
    -O Brother, Where Art Thou?

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    If someone uses the word "nigger" do you think that context has any bearing???

    Yes.

    OK great...

    So, even if you ever find a FACT that proves President Trump uttered the word 'nigger', would you at all be interested in the context of this alleged event??

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michael,

    Does Biden have a health problem?

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    It is not possible to communicate an intelligent and inspiring position that you will represent ordinary citizens while you are financing your campaign with Big Money (see recent reversal on fossil fuel money) and expect people to believe you.

    I think you are mixing up credibility with entertainment.

    For example, I'm highly entertained by Batman, but I don't think he is a credible solution to crime.

    Trump, for me, was as credible as Batman, but a lot of people want to believe in Batman, so ignore reality because Trump told them what they wanted to hear.

    He has on idea how to achieve the things he claimed (Mexico is going to pay for the wall, healthcare is going to be cheaper and better when he enacts his secret plan, etc.), but he lied to them in an entertaining way, and he snubbed their enemies.

    I had a discussion last night with a friend who knows a lot more Trump supporters than I do. He said that the overwhelming reason they pick Trump is because they feel "they are being looked down on".

    It was an interesting discussion, I think he went overboard, and he couldn't explain why 1/3 of Trump supporters make $50-$100K and another third make over $100K - in fact affluent white America voted for Trump - why are people driving around in BMWs feeling "looked down on"?

    (Source for 1/3 state: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-trumps-appeal-wider-you-might-think)

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Yes, Biden has a health problem common to many Democrats- an addiction to Big Money.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does Biden have a health problem?

    Apparently..

    Joe Biden ‘under doctor’s orders’ to skip Illinois State Fair Democrat Day
    https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/joe-biden-falls-ill-wont-campaign-for-dems-at-illinois-state-fair/

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    (Source for 1/3 state: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-trumps-appeal-wider-you-might-think)

    There's yer first problem.. Using MSNBC as your anti-Trump source...

    It's like using InforWars for an Anti-Odumbo source.. :^/

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was an interesting discussion, I think he went overboard, and he couldn't explain why 1/3 of Trump supporters make $50-$100K and another third make over $100K - in fact affluent white America voted for Trump - why are people driving around in BMWs feeling "looked down on"?

    Suppose maybe how Democrats demonize and attack those Americans who are well off has anything to do with it???

    :^/

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I don't think I am mixing up anything.

    Trump is manipulating those that want to believe him and doesn't care aboot credibiliaty for the rest of us.

    The more affluent Trump voters were probably just voting Republican and may not be the ones that feel looked down on. That is the status of the Trump voters I know.

    And the Democrat's Thin Blue Lying aboot representing ordinary citizens while financing their campaigns/party with Big Money is all aboot credibility.

    It is entertaining to listen to Democrats say the right thing but I do not think Big Money candidates/legislators are a credible solution to the problem of Big Money in our political system.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Can't people get sick without having a health problem?

    You know, Biden has been travelling the country for the last many months on his Promise Tour.

    Of course, he gets little media coverage; and if he does get any, it's the old asinine Biden storyline … :(

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can't people get sick without having a health problem?

    Of course.. But, at Biden's advanced age, it's possible, even likely, that it's indicative..

    Imagine if, in the midst of campaigning, Biden can't travel...

    It would be Hillary Clinton's 9/11 collapse all over again..

    Don't get me wrong. I would LOVE to see Biden run..

    The Demcorat Party.. The Party of Old White Guys :D

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You never did really appreciate who Biden is and what he has to offer, Michale.

    And, I know you have plenty of company, a good portion of your country, in fact, is with you along with the vast majority of the media.

    I still hope he decides to run because that would really and truly make me happy.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me rephrase …

    If Biden runs and wins the nomination and beats Trump, then THAT is what would make me truly happy.

    I still believe that Biden is the Democrat with the best chance of beating Trump. And, he won't have to insult the president and play Trump's game to do it.

    He won't need Avanati, either.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    You never did really appreciate who Biden is and what he has to offer, Michale.

    Au contraire...

    I am on record as appreciating Biden and saying he was 100 times the candidate that Hillary was...

    Granted, that last part doesn't say very much... *I* am 100 times the candidate that Hillary was.. :D

    But I like Biden... The problem is he is the last of the old school gentleman Democrats...

    The New Democrats have no use for an honorable guy like Biden... Today's Democrats are your Avanatis and your Hodgkisons and your antifas...

    That's today's Democrat Party...

    Sad to say...

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If ever there was a time for a "gentleman Democrat", then it surely is now.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    If ever there was a time for a "gentleman Democrat", then it surely is now.

    A-Frakin'-Men to THAT

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Time for the pendulum to swing in the other direction, in other words ...

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    would you at all be interested in the context of this alleged event??

    Of course. And if it was in a pejorative manner, then I'd call it racist, would you?

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, just to be clear, it's not good enough for the 2020 Democratic nominee just to be a gentleman - he has to have all that it takes to set the country on a better course, domestically and internationally.

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You better answer a resounding 'YES!' to [61], Michale.

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's today's Democrat Party.

    That is what you want to believe is today's Democratic Party because it offers you a target rich environment.

    But re-read CWs analysis of the primaries - it is decent men and women (and in one case both) that are succeeding.

    This should scare you. The people who look and sound like people you want your kids to emulate are running as Democrats, and the right, fairly or not, is over represented by Trump's abhorrent behavior - e.g. called in woman a "dog", making fun of a disabled reporter, etc. etc. etc.

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    he has to have all that it takes to set the country on a better course, domestically and internationally.

    Firstly, "he or she has to have ..."

    Secondly there will be a snap back to normality as soon as the Trump is gone. Our allies will pick up the phone and talk to us and work with us. We'll wind down the nonsense trade war, re-affirm NATO, work to get a good deal back in place with Iran, isolate Russia with help from Europe and China.

    The reason Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize was due to a big sigh of relief that the Republicans had been kicked out of power and normal people, not wingnuts like Bolton and Cheney were back in power. The awards waiting Trump's replacement will probably include an Oscar, a Pulitzer, obviously a Nobel, a Grammy, a Bammy, and the yellow jersey of the Tour de France.

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What happens if Trump is re-elected, Neil?

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Can America and Planet Earth survive another term?

    And, what will happen in the rest of the world during another Trump term?

    It won't be easy to get things back on track, if it even will be possible.

    Democrats must choose wisely in 2020.

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is it too early to have a discussion about what the Democratic Party platform should be for 2020?

    Yes, that was a little joke. Heh.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    This should scare you. The people who look and sound like people you want your kids to emulate are running as Democrats, and the right, fairly or not, is over represented by Trump's abhorrent behavior - e.g. called in woman a "dog", making fun of a disabled reporter, etc. etc. etc.

    How many names do ya'all call Trump and Republicans on a DAILY basis??

    Ya'all are guilty of everything you accuse Trump of...

    Name-calling.. Bigotry.. all of it...

    And yes, the Democrat Party is exactly as I characterized it..

    That will become obvious to you once the GOP retains the House and Senate..

    I wonder.. What will be your excuse then?? :D

    The reason Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize was due to a big sigh of relief that the Republicans had been kicked out of power and normal people,

    So, you agree that the Nobel was awarded SOLELY for political reasons and had absolutely NO bearing on merit..

    I am glad to see you concede that...

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    What happens {when} Trump is re-elected, Neil?

    More of the same....

    RUSSIANS!!!! RUSSIANS!!!!! RUSSIANS!!!!!

    :^/

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    What happens if Trump is re-elected, Neil?

    You will note that I didn't say "in 2020" - could be 2020, could be 2024 ... but probably 2020. America is fed up of this clown.

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, I noted that, Neil.

    My point was simply that it will be very hard to "snap back to normality" if Trump wins another term.

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    How many names do ya'all call Trump and Republicans on a DAILY basis??

    I'm not running for President. And don't intend to. We hold our leaders to a higher standard - the standard we behave around our kids to teach them adult behavior.

    But we are allowed to let of steam and have some fun on social media, especially as my family would probably choose starting at linoleum over engaging in political discussions on a blog.

  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:

    starting -> staring

    Oh for a 5 minute edit feature.

  75. [75] 
    neilm wrote:

    My point was simply that it will be very hard to "snap back to normality" if Trump wins another term.

    I don't think so - the rest of the World is just ignoring the U.S. now and building their own plans - these plans are normal plans (e.g. free trade agreements between the E.U. and Japan, etc.).

    Once we are run by adults again we'll be invited back to the adult table and the mess Trump has left at the kiddies' table will be cleaned up and thrown away.

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My point was also about the rest of the world and all that might happen there during another Trump term.

    In other words, there may not be an adult table to join up with when Trump is through ...

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am so with you, Neil, on the need for a time limited edit function.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Once we are run by adults again we'll be invited back to the adult table and the mess Trump has left at the kiddies' table will be cleaned up and thrown away.

    Cleaning up after Trump may turn out to be a Herculean effort, of Augean Stables fame.

    And, that's still assuming the adult table on the world stage will be intact. Given the existential threats we and our planet face, let alone with the climate change denier-in-chief at the helm for too long, it is not at all clear that the mess can be cleaned up at all.

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting report on income from Pew. Median real income has not moved significantly for 40 years. If this were applied evenly it would be bad. But what makes it worse is that the top 10% have seen fairly strong real income growth, but most people have flat lined or dropped.

    As many of you know I'm a bit over the top regarding numbers and track every cent I've spent since the mid 1990's when Quicken first appeared. I have a spreadsheet where I put he numbers from Quicken in and then adjust for inflation (yes, I know CRS). It is surprising how much inflation impacts prices. For example an item that cost $100 in 2000 would cost $144 today all other things being equal. So if I was earning $100,000 in 2000, I'd need to be earning $144,000 today just to maintain the same purchasing power.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    For all ya'all's claim of the "mess" Trump is making, the FACT is, this country is back on track.. Confidence is up.. Americans feel this country is heading in the right direction... Economy is good, jobs are up...

    Allies are pulling their weight Trump is stopping all the feeding at the USA trough....

    In 2024, the US is going to be back on top, the world will come to heel and things are going to be like the 80s again..

    And the Democrat Party will be left on the dustbin of history.. :D

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK That last part is just wishful thinking..

    But all of the rest is factually accurate and, give the facts, a rational and logical prediction..

    But look at the bright side, people.. Ya'all will always have yer pussy hats.. :D

  82. [82] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The reason Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize was due to a big sigh of relief that the Republicans had been kicked out of power and normal people,

    So, you agree that the Nobel was awarded SOLELY for political reasons and had absolutely NO bearing on merit..

    No, Obama won the Nobel Prize because of what he, a black man, symbolized to people all over the world by becoming the President of the United States. Parents told their children that they could one day be president if they worked hard; but until Obama ran, for children of color, those were just words. Obama ran an incredible campaign that beat out two opponents with far more political experience - Hillary Clinton and John McCain. His campaign gave hope to people all over the world that they could rise above their circumstances to achieve their goals. People all over the world were looking to him as the leader of the free world.

    His winning of the Nobel prize had nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican. It wasn’t politically motivated in a partisan way.

    From the official Nobel announcement:

    “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

    For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

    Oslo, October 9, 2009

  83. [83] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    yes, the USA can and will survive a second trump term if he wins in 2020.

    Lisa Simpson 2024!

    JL

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    I wonder if the Norwegian Nobel Committee feels similar to neilm in wishing there was a five year edit function.

  85. [85] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (81)-
    As Jimmy Carter would say:

    "MEOW!"

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, Obama won the Nobel Prize because of what he, a black man

    AHhhhhh

    So he won the Nobel prize because he was black!!!

    So, it wasn't a political prize, it was a RACIST prize..

    Figures... :^/

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    As Jimmy Carter would say:

    "MEOW!"

    Heh

    President Trump and patriotic Americans have a roaring economy and JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.....

    And the Democrat Party has a socialist and pussy hats..

    Yea.. That about sums things up perfectly.. :D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lisa Simpson 2024!

    Yea!!!! Have life imitate art!!!! :D

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    “This is probably going be ... the most pro-black president that we’ve had in our lifetime.”
    -Black American Pastor Darrell Scott

    And yet SOME ignorant fact-less people STILL claim that President Trump is racist...

    Despite have absolutely NO FACTS that prove this..

    "Fascinating"
    -Spock

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    32

    You can't beat Trump at the only game he knows.

    The good news is: Insulting people is not the only game Trump knows, and I can assure you he can be beat. Ask those associates of his who have plead guilty and currently spending time in prison or awaiting sentencing for their crimes and more coming.

    Ask Paulie! ;)

  91. [91] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    “This is probably going be ... the most pro-black president that we’ve had in our lifetime.”
    -Black American Pastor Darrell Scott

    And yet SOME ignorant fact-less people STILL claim that President Trump is racist...

    No, the fact that he makes discriminatory and prejudicial comments based on a person’s appearance is what makes him a racist...and a sexist, and an ageist.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, the fact that he makes discriminatory and prejudicial comments based on a person’s appearance is what makes him a racist...and a sexist, and an ageist.

    No more so than any Democrat..

    But, of course, ya'all don't care about that..

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let's face reality...

    90% of those comments ya'all have to SPIN to make it come out what ya want..

  94. [94] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen Your [82]

    What one's gotta wonder about Obama's Peace Prize is why wasn't it revoked/repo'd, etc. after he began to assassinate people (by means of drone strikes) pretty much on a daily basis throughout his administration???

  95. [95] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    91

    No, the fact that he makes discriminatory and prejudicial comments based on a person’s appearance is what makes him a racist...and a sexist, and an ageist.

    But, Russ... aren't you aware that if a black guy that's on the Trump payroll says something nice about Hair Dick-Tater, that absolves him from being a racist?

    It's the moron racism rule: You quote black people who say nice things about Your Orange Worship while referring to any other people of color such as him as "scumbags." Duh! *wink*

    Pay no attention to all that other stuff in Trump's history, that black pastor who was a crack user, drug dealer, car thief, was expelled from school for carrying a pistol and aspired to become a pimp said something nice about the guy whose ass Michale's head is firmly surrounded by; he'd be calling him a "scumbag" otherwise.

    And Russ, remember what Michale said:

    How could Trump be a racist when Jesse Jackson himself honored Trump for a "LIFE TIME OF SERVICE TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY"??? ~ Michale

    I know, right?! How could Adolf "He Who Must Not Be Named" be such a bad guy if Time made him "Man of the Year" in 1938? /sarcasm off

    How do these morons figure a few words of Jesse Jackson erases a lifetime of Trump's actions? Jackson said some good things about Trump in speeches in the late 1990s and thanked him for working with Bill Clinton on the "Wall Street Project." Any Trump cultist and/or right-wing moron who thinks a speech by a black man somehow inoculates a person for a lifetime of racial slurs and bigotry has got some serious "denial" issues. :)

  96. [96] 
    neilm wrote:

    And let's face reality.

    You don't understand reality Michale - your worldview is completely dominated by an "us vs. them" prism - somebody has to lose for you to win.

    Seriously dude, adulthood is a lot of fun.

  97. [97] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Questioning why TIME could have designated Hitler "Man of the year" in 1938 implies ignorance of TIME's criteria for chosing "Man of the Year".

  98. [98] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [95]

    But, Russ... aren't you aware that if a black guy that's on the Trump payroll says something nice about Hair Dick-Tater, that absolves him from being a racist?

    DOH! How could I have forgotten that rule!? Trump supporters are so desperate to avoid the reality that they have backed a bigot and traitor.

  99. [99] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:
  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't understand reality Michale

    Really?? Of the two of us, who was more in tuned with reality post-2016 election???

    Nothing has changed since then with ya'all..

    - your worldview is completely dominated by an "us vs. them" prism - somebody has to lose for you to win.

    Says the guy who has a HUGE bigot hard-on for Trump and Trump supporters...

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    What one's gotta wonder about Obama's Peace Prize is why wasn't it revoked/repo'd, etc. after he began to assassinate people (by means of drone strikes) pretty much on a daily basis throughout his administration???

    Yea, one DOES gotta wonder that..

    Giving the Nobel Piece to Al Gore started the prize on the road to ignorance and irrelevant-ness...

    The Piece prize going to Odumbo simply cemented that journey...

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really?? Of the two of us, who was more in tuned with reality post-2016 election???

    Of course, that should read...

    Really?? Of the two of us, who was more in tuned with reality PRE-2016 election???

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, thinking about it, BOTH are applicable...

    The fact is, ya'all were completely clueless PRE and POST 2016 election..

    And nothing has changed.. Most of ya'all have just gotten nastier and more hateful...

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    [97]
    C. R. Stucki
    97

    Questioning why TIME could have designated Hitler "Man of the year" in 1938 implies ignorance of TIME's criteria for chosing "Man of the Year".

    What part of the term "sarcasm" confused you, Stucki? I wasn't questioning why Time chose Adolph as their "Man of the Year," I was making a joke regarding the tendency of morons to use whatever means necessary to justify prejudice.

    Here's another example for you from Sarah Huckleberry Sanders [paraphrasing]: Donald Trump can't be a racist because Bill and Hillary Clinton attended his wedding.

    Don't you get it? It is ridiculous on its face to claim that a statement made by a black American politician made two decades ago is proof that someone/anyone isn't a racist... like anything nice a black person says about you is a magic inoculation forever and ever for a white recipient... but equally or even nicer words by a black person about another black person are scoffed at routinely by the very same people spewing this obvious nonsense because morons seem to never think things through. It's equally silly to quote a "Black American Pastor" and serve it up as proof that someone/anyone isn't racist if a black pastor is of the opinion that he'll "probably" be "the most pro-black," and it's infinitely ridiculous for the White House mouthpiece in pearls to insinuate that an appearance by Bill and Hillary Clinton's attendance at Trump's third wedding in 2005 signified plenary approval of the groom's character in every single respect before that time and in perpetuity. *laughs*

    Sarah Sanders and Bill Clinton are both from the State of Arkansas and the Jim Crow South where avoiding any or all socializing with racists would be a tricky proposition indeed, and her father Mike Huckabee isn't exactly famous for promoting tolerance and diversity throughout Arkansas... quite the contrary, in fact. Anyway, regardless of upbringing or Arkansas or the South or anything else, it's patently ridiculous to claim that attendance at someone's wedding is some kind of lifetime endorsement or voucher for their character and about the stupidest words I've heard uttered from the podium from the Briefing Room in the West Wing.

    If you still don't understand what I meant, it's okay and makes you no different than the board troll using a black politician and a black preacher to somehow prove that the Orange Blowhole isn't a racist. I really should keep in mind that there is a ginormous percentage of right-wing dingbats and dumb butts who simply cannot understand sarcasm, nuance, or anything that requires critical thinking skills... or basic reasoning for that matter. :)

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see Welfare Girl still has nothing but name-calling and personal attacks....

    Once again, the difference between now and when she was gone from this community is staggering and very telling..

    https://tinyurl.com/yb6wjluk

    But what can ya expect from Veronica, eh? :^/

    Nothing but hate and bile and intolerance and bigotry..

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://tinyurl.com/yb6wjluk

    But what can ya expect from Veronica, eh? :^/

    Nothing but hate and bile and intolerance and bigotry..

    Still have that weight problem, eh Victoria???

  107. [107] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    98

    DOH! How could I have forgotten that rule!?

    *laughs* :)

    Trump supporters are so desperate to avoid the reality that they have backed a bigot and traitor.

    It's a sad commentary on the voters of this country that they could be so gullible to fall for Trump's cons before and after the election. Donald Trump has a large portion of the GOP and Trump cultists singing the praises of Vladimir Putin and Russians who attacked the United States of America and continue to do so. They're convinced that Trump is their hero because he whips them into a frenzy of fear of the "others" with their fake propaganda, false equivalency, and the stoking of the perpetual grievance and white identity politics. Pay no attention to the fact that the GOP has abandoned political ideals and cannot govern, the message is "be afraid." The Trump era shines a klieg light on the ignorance of a large portion of the American electorate, but there will be a turning point, Russ... there always is. :)

    It's instructive to remember how those in denial in the Nixon era were fully behind Tricky Dick and his identical cries of "witch hunt" and vilification of the press right up until they weren't, and suddenly for quite awhile you couldn't find anyone who claimed to have voted for him. Having said all that, Nixon was lots of things, but even he wasn't a traitor to his country like Benedict Donald... but Trump too shall pass. :)

  108. [108] 
    Kick wrote:

    chaszzzbrown
    99

    [97] CRS
    https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-the-joke

    Charles Brown, Esq... a gentleman and a scholar who gets it! :)

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    103

    Actually, thinking about it, BOTH are applicable...

    The fact is, ya'all were completely clueless PRE and POST 2016 election..

    And nothing has changed.. Most of ya'all have just gotten nastier and more hateful...

    Translation: Pay no attention to all the hate and bile that Michale spews daily and the ridiculous bullshit that he posts that insinuates a black man saying something nice about a white man two decades ago is somehow absolution in perpetuity for the words, deeds, and actions of the Orange Blowhole he worships who is a demonstrable traitor to America. #Helsinki Summit

    Ya'all should ignore all the myriad of other things he posts that are incorrect and ridiculous and be impressed that the moron called a 50/50 election in 2016. /sarcasm off

    What is this pattern with the board troll where he keeps making asinine statements ad nauseam insinuating that one thing in history constitutes as unequivocal proof of something in perpetuity?

    Oh, right... it's demonstrable and repetitive ignorance, and that also explains why no one else on the board does it. :)

  110. [110] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    105, 106

    Once again, the difference between now and when she was gone from this community is staggering and very telling..

    Translation: Michale is a "wussy" with thin skin who can sure dish it out but can't quite take it. Pay no attention to all that lip service regarding "freedom of speech" because if the snowflake had gotten his wish, he would have instituted rules on CW's blog in order to censor those who disagree with him and call him on his ridiculous bullshit... not unlike the Orange Blowhole whose head his ass is lodged firmly inside is attempting to censor those who disagree with Trumple-Thin-Skin.

    Still have that weight problem, eh Victoria???

    I've never had a weight problem, but I do have an obvious observation and a question. A person such as yourself with such highly visible multiple chins and "table muscle" rolls demonstrating so much intolerance and bile about weight must truly be a person who hates himself.

    We've likely all read the tales you posted on the board about you being a player: Are you and your wife still whores? :)

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Translation: Pay no attention to all the hate and bile that Michale spews daily

    Says the crack whore Welfare Girl who spews hate and bile daily...

    Here's the simple FACT that puts EVERYTHING you say to lie, Victoria...

    When you were gone, things were great around here.. We had great discussions that were spirited yet didn't venture into hatred and intolerance..

    But you bring with you hatred and intolerance with you wherever you go like the plague that you are...

    "It's no wonder yer single"
    -Metatron, DOGMA

    Get yer weight problem under control..

    https://tinyurl.com/yb6wjluk

    You'll feel better about yourself then...

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    I'm fine, moron. Call me whatever you wish if it makes you feel better about yourself. *laughs*

    But I will state what is obvious to everyone else on the blog who have the critical thinking skills that you are so obviously and demonstrably lacking:

    An uneducated self-described knuckle-dragger living in a doublewide in Shithole, Florida who has posted pictures of himself and his visible multiple chins and demonstrable girth and bragged several times about his life as a "player" whose favorite insults toward posters are regarding welfare, obesity, and whores is broadcasting in no uncertain terms to everyone else that he is a miserable wretch of a human who obviously hates himself.

    Let me put it in terms even a moron could understand: So you think welfare, obesity, and whore are insults? Have you any self-awareness whatsoever? :)

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you think welfare, obesity, and whore are insults

    No, in your case, they are simply facts..

    Yunno another fun fact??

    When you were gone, things were REALLY great around here...

    Why don't you take the hint...

    https://tinyurl.com/yb6wjluk

    I get why you are bitter and alone...

    Who would want to be around THAT!?? Especially when yer on a crack binge...

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    The simple fact is, this place is better without you, Welfare Girl..

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    113

    No, in your case, they are simply facts..

    Like I said, call me whatever you want. It lets everyone know how thin skinned you are and that you're a snowflake who can sure dish it out but can't take it.

    The words with which you choose to label others is an obvious exercise in self-denigration, and Neil is exactly right. You obviously think that in order for you to win, somebody else has to lose. You pontificate near daily from your shithole spewing your favorite epithets every chance you get while whining about personal attacks... ignorant in your belief that the use of the collective "ya'all" in order to denigrate others somehow absolves you of your own stench.

    One would think a little self-awareness might finally dawn on you, but there you are... still mired in your ignorance and complete lack of introspection.

    You think obesity is an insult?
    Check your pictures.

    You think denigrating the poor is an insult?
    Check your trailer.

    You think being a whore is an insult?
    Check your posts about your whoring.

    Your perpetual grievance, self-loathing, and constant whiny victimhood and blaming others for it is glaringly obvious... to everyone but yourself. Check your mirror. Figure it out already. :)

  116. [116] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    114

    The simple fact is, this place is better without you, Welfare Girl..

    Another badge of honor from Michale! Thank you so much, moron; my collection grows ever larger by the day.

    Pity you have such little self-awareness and lack of memory that you seem to have completely forgotten about the multiple times you've bragged about the multiple posters you've run off from this blog while promising I would be no different than them.

    You can be certain that I will continue to support the author of this blog while I am quite certain you will continue to troll his readers and attempt to run them off in similar fashion as before... all while whining incessantly about your perpetual grievance and victimization. Boo effing hoo, snowflake. :)

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welfare Girl says "Waaaa Waaaa Waaaa Whine Whine Whine"

    If you REALLY want to support the author of this blog, you would cease with the personal attacks and name-calling against his users...

    But you ONLY want to support your hate-filled and intolerant bigotry....

    This author's blog was a REALLY nice place to discuss things.. When you were gone..

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    This author's blog was a REALLY nice place to discuss things.. When you were gone..

    This is a simple fact that no amount of your hatred, and bigotry and spewage and personal attacks can change...

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    117

    This author's blog was a REALLY nice place to discuss things.. When you were gone..

    You keep whining incessantly about when I was "gone." Since the day I found this blog, I've never been "gone." I did stop commenting for awhile in response to my significant other betting me that I couldn't read and not comment. I won that bet and the vehicle of my choice... which naturally would be a tank, but I finally recently decided I would settle for a Honda Pilot Elite AWD.

    I definitely remember reading the blog near daily, and you were the same jerk as you ever were. You refer to many other posters on this blog using equally moronic names like Prozac Girl and various other assorted things that regular readers are aware of that you seem to have conveniently forgotten. My "reading yet not responding" had zero effect on your standard operational bullshit and predictable repetitive spew, of course.

    You should work on your memory and reading comprehension problems, snowflake, and stop blaming your standard operational name calling on somebody else. I can assure you that it will surprise no one that you're blaming somebody else for the words coming out of your own keyboard and your perpetual grievance and whining about you being a victim and the insinuation that somebody else that somebody else is the cause of your regular repertoire of near daily spewage. :)

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welfare Girl says "whine whine whine whine"

    None of your BS and lies changes the fact that, when you were gone a month or so ago, people commented how nice things were in your absence..

    So, once again, you are full of shit and everyone here knows it...

  121. [121] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    117

    If you REALLY want to support the author of this blog, you would cease with the personal attacks and name-calling against his users...

    Said the guy who bragged about running off multiple posters and promised I'd be next.

    But you ONLY want to support your hate-filled and intolerant bigotry....

    You have no idea what I want, and your incessant fake quotes and putting words in people's mouths and claiming to know what they want and what they think is just part and parcel of your standard operational modus operandi and regular bullshit that no one forces you to spew near daily and direct it toward the group collectively and certain posters individually.

    It's your standard handiwork; the very least you could do is own it. You didn't mind owning it when you were bragging about how you successfully ran off multiple other posters and promised you'd do it to me, and it will surprise no one that regularly reads this blog that your memory is suddenly selective. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. :)

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    120

    Welfare Girl says "whine whine whine whine"

    Your self-loathing is again duly noted; however, I am not the poster who is perpetually aggrieved and screaming what a victim I am and running away whining and stating I will not come back as long as another poster is here and then breaking my promise and coming back with promulgated rules for the author of the blog and giving out my personal email in order to plot with another poster how to censor comments and have people banned off the board who don't toe your line, even when neither of you won't toe your own line and feel free to comment in colorful language and hurl insults and orders and pass judgments on whomever you please. Neither you nor Elizabeth Miller scare me in the least; although, I am pleasantly surprised that you haven't blamed me yet for you being forced to divulge your email to anyone with a keyboard and an Internet connection in order that you and EM could get together off the board and plan your censorship efforts... so there's that.

    I wasn't "gone" a month ago... just reading and not commenting for awhile. Yes, I read your comments regarding how pleased you were that I was "gone," and laughed out loud that I obviously live rent free in your head, but your characterization that people "commented how nice things were in your absence" leaves out the fact that it was you doing the commenting and obsessing. Even when you believed I was "gone," you couldn't contain your incessant whining and perpetual aggrievement and victimhood, and I laughed out loud about that for quite a few hours. #Pathetic

    So, once again, you are full of shit and everyone here knows it...

    I can see your head has not been removed from Trump's ass. Yes, everyone here seems to know that Trump is full of shit with the singular exception of yourself. Perhaps your torso is simply too far up Trump's "shithole" [his term] to adequately assess the reality of the obvious situation. Pity. :)

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Crack whore says "Whine, whine, whine, cry cry cry...."

    Yes, I read your comments regarding how pleased you were

    And it wasn't just me who was so pleased you were gone..

    Like I said.. When you are gone, things are pleasant and peaceful around here...

    So why don't you take a hint, Welfare Girl...

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    123

    Crack whore says "Whine, whine, whine, cry cry cry...."

    I believe you've posted a plethora of comments about your life as a whore. Enough already... TMI.

    And it wasn't just me who was so pleased you were gone..

    I was never "gone," moron, and I think you might have me confused with the poster named "Michale" if you're looking for someone who needs the approval of other posters and feels the need to turn near everything into a competition because he seems to think that someone has to lose in order for him to "win."

    That guy doesn't quite understand the concept that dishing it out near daily while whining incessantly about his perpetual aggrievement and victimhood makes him the biggest loser of all: A poster who brags about running other posters away who is nothing more than a whiny little snitch seeking to control another man's blog through censorship and attempts at bullying and promulgating rules for other posters that he ignores himself.

    So why don't you take a hint, Welfare Girl...

    Why don't you stop attempting to run posters away from another man's blog, Chicken Shit? Balthasar is exactly right about you: You reek with the stench of desperation and fear. #Pathetic

Comments for this article are closed.