ChrisWeigant.com

Second Debate Prep

[ Posted Monday, July 29th, 2019 – 16:10 UTC ]

The second round of Democratic presidential debates begins tomorrow night. CNN will host two nights, with 10 candidates randomly drawn for each night. The lineups are more interesting than the last time around, at least to me, so it should make for some interesting television to watch. Added to the excitement is the prospect for many of the candidates on stage that this may be the last time they get to appear at such an event. With little to lose, the minor candidates may be making a lot more noise, in other words.

The mechanics of the lineups were handled better this time around, as the D.N.C. learned from their first attempt at balancing the field between two nights. There were actually three random draws -- one for the top four candidates, one for the middle six candidates, and one for the other 10 who qualified. This avoided the frontloading that happened last time, when there were only two draws. The first night will have Elizabeth Warren facing off with Bernie Sanders, and the second will be a rematch between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. While most people are focusing on the second head-to-head matchup, I'm much more interested in the first one.

There's a hard, cold fact that many progressives haven't yet fully faced, and that is if they want to maximize their chances of seeing the Democrats nominate a progressive presidential candidate, at some point during the race either Warren or Sanders is going to have to voluntarily drop out and throw their support behind the other. Otherwise they'll spend the entire primary season splitting the progressive vote, thus giving Joe Biden (or some other candidate, conceivably) a clearer path to victory. Just look at how the GOP couldn't coalesce around an "anti-Trump" candidate in 2016, if you need proof of how this works.

This is going to be a very tough thing to ask either Sanders or Warren to do, obviously. If they are running a solid second and third behind Biden, then the candidates and their supporters will simply not want to give up. But if Warren and Sanders are pulling in something like 18 and 17 percent of the vote each, to Biden's 35 percent, then if one of them doesn't quit then neither one of them will have a decent shot at winning enough delegates to win the nomination. This could lead to incredible bitterness between the two camps.

This bitterness, it bears pointing out, does not currently exist. Bernie supporters (for the most part) also love Warren, and vice versa. It almost comes down to a question of style, really. Ideologically, the only difference that I can see between them is that Bernie is comfortable using the term "democratic socialism" while Warren proclaims her love of capitalism. Other than that, their plans and policies are almost interchangeable. What this means for tomorrow night is anyone's guess, but mine would be that Sanders and Warren will likely avoid taking potshots at each other and generally defend the other's positions, while perhaps quibbling over tiny details. In other words, no fireworks -- or not very many. In fact, I could even see all the low-polling candidates ganging up on Sanders and Warren, and them presenting a dual defense of progressive action. But more on the minor candidates in a bit.

The second night is the one where there is almost guaranteed to be a fracas at the top. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden both were impacted by their first debate performance, and this time around the only other black candidate (Cory Booker) will also be standing next to Biden. So look for race and racial politics to be (quite literally) center stage.

The lesson learned from the first debate -- and not just by Kamala Harris -- is that attacking Biden can result in a big bump in the polls, as the voters take note of who you are. But the lesson may have been overlearned, because after a few weeks' time, the polling bumps are bouncing back to where it used to be, to some extent.

Biden's rolling daily average on Real Clear Politics now stands at 31.3 percent, which is only about one point down from where he was before the first debate. His numbers initially went down roughly five percent, which is a significant amount, but they've been crawling back upwards more recently. Harris got a huge spike in the graphs after the first debate, but in the most recent polls, this bump is now fading. Harris has not returned to where she was in the polls before the first debate, as she's still polling at 11.0 percent, which is much higher than she started. But she was in a virtual tie with Sanders and Warren after the first debate, at roughly 15 percent (Harris even held a slight lead over the two for a while), which she could not sustain. While Sanders and Warren have both maintained their numbers (Warren is currently at 14.8 percent, Sanders at 14.3), Harris has seen her numbers slide back a bit. So while making a big splash in the debates can launch you upward in the polls, there is no guarantee this bump won't then begin to fade away.

But that's too nuanced for most of the candidates onstage with Biden and Harris. Harris is still only the fourth candidate to poll reliably above 10 percent and the only candidate in the entire field to generate a huge polling spike outside of their launch announcement -- and all that sounds pretty good to all those who struggle to even register in the polling. Cory Booker in particular has seen his numbers slowly slide downwards, and he's only polling at a dismal 1.8 percent right now. So he may be looking to capitalize on attacking Biden in the same fashion that Harris successfully did. And he won't be the only one, on either night, who is getting pretty desperate to be noticed.

While there is a clear division between the front four and everyone else, there's one candidate holding on to fifth place who could easily improve his standings with a good debate performance. Pete Buttigieg has run a pretty solid campaign up until now, and he outraised the entire Democratic field in the second quarter, which is an impressive feat. But to be truly considered a frontrunner, he's got to generate a lot more excitement among a much broader swath of the Democratic base than he so far has been able to do.

Then there's everyone else, of course. Other than the top five candidates, there are only six others polling at even a single percentage point in the daily averages: Beto O'Rourke (2.3 percent), Andrew Yang (2.3), Cory Booker (1.8), Amy Klobuchar (1.5), Julián Castro (1.0), and Tulsi Gabbard (1.0). Everyone else is polling at either a fraction of one percent or at the rock-bottom "0.0 percent." This is the crowd with nothing left to lose and a whole lot of desperation. They know full well that this could be their last chance to address a nationwide audience in a debate -- unless they turn in such a stellar performance that people begin to notice them in a big way. So I expect lots of interruptions and yelling from the sidelines of the stage (as Kirsten Gillibrand tried to do last time, to no avail).

The third debates, which won't take place until September, will have a polling cutoff of two percent. This is going to mean a serious culling of the field, and I'd be willing to bet that the third debate will only be held on one night, because the field will have so drastically been winnowed. Any candidate who doesn't make the third debate will likely have to drop out of the race before the primaries even begin. Unless, of course, they are merely vanity campaigns funded by the candidates' own deep pockets (see: John Delaney, Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer...). If a candidate isn't even appearing in the debates, after all, why would anyone donate any money to him or her? Once their funding dries up completely, they won't be able to keep the campaign office open or allow the candidate to travel to primary states, and the campaign will collapse whether the candidate officially admits it or not. So the stakes are going to be very high for at least half the candidates onstage on each night of this week's debates.

The big question everyone's been asking in the leadup to the second debate round, though, is how Joe Biden is going to do on Wednesday night. Will he come out swinging? Will he be directing his anger at his fellow Democrats or continue to try to keep the focus on Donald Trump? Biden already is seen as the "most electable" candidate in poll after poll, and he's got a good argument to make on that front because he consistently polls much higher against Donald Trump than the rest of the Democratic field. Biden regularly beats Trump in the polling, sometimes by double digits. And Democratic voters want to win this race above all else. Harris dented Biden's electability factor a bit last time, but since then it has been repaired.

Biden has taken a few shots across the bow of both Harris and Booker, showing that he knows he's going to have to put up a strong front on racial issues. Biden warned Booker that if they wanted to talk about past records, then Biden would be bringing up Booker's apparent approval of "stop and frisk" policing tactics when Booker was mayor of Newark, New Jersey. This could blunt any attacks on Biden for the crime bill he helped author in the 1990s. Biden will have done his homework this time around, and he'll definitely have some attacks of his own ready to go, should he need them against either Booker or Harris.

There was one story from the Biden camp over the past few days that was disturbing, at least to me. Team Biden let it be known that Biden himself was very upset that Kamala Harris would dare to attack him in the first debates, because she had been such a good friend to his son Beau (they both were state attorneys general at the same time, so their paths crossed a lot), and because Joe Biden had helped Harris out on one of her campaigns in California. This is rather astonishing, for two big reasons. The first is that Harris is a top candidate for the same job Biden is the frontrunner for, so of course she was going to have to challenge him. The second reason is kind of a reaction to the first -- it is rather elitist and "old boy network" to assume that intraparty loyalty would mean anything to someone who is now your equal -- a candidate for the same job, essentially. The whole thing has the odor of "party bosses" and "party machines" that, to put it bluntly, is not popular at all among Democratic voters today. Biden is thus appearing rather out of touch by making such whiny complaints.

But what almost all the political media is still just beginning to wrap their heads around is that Democratic voters watching the debates are watching through a single lens: Who is the absolute best candidate to beat Donald Trump? Personality is going to matter a whole lot more than policy differences. Splitting hairs on healthcare plans is going to take a backseat to who can most strongly defend and promote the idea of Democrats making healthcare better in the face of Republican attempts to make it worse. These debates are the warmups for debating Trump, after all. So the arguments in the Democratic debates aren't really being weighed against each other so much as they're being imagined against Trump. Who is the best man or woman to counter Trump's lies and misdirections? Who can stay on subject and communicate their hopes for the future in strong enough language to get noticed alongside Trump? Who can best lay bare how Trump has broken almost all the big promises he made in his first campaign?

That is what I'll be looking for in the debates over the next two nights. And I suspect I'm not alone in that, either. These debates aren't about who will lead the Democratic Party, after all, they are about who is the best person to beat Donald Trump. That is the most important goal in this race, and its importance is far, far above any possible ideological differences between the Democratic candidates.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

119 Comments on “Second Debate Prep”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    Just back from a 3 day camping trip - went to Gilroy for the Garlic Festival last night - left just as the place went crazy from the shooter - we walked out the gates at 5:35 PM - basically 5-10 minutes before yet another mentally ill man killed three people including a six-year-old boy who "just wanted to have fun" - all supporters of the NRA should hold themselves in shame. Again.

    This will never stop until we get some sensible gun laws in place that aren't a joke. California has stronger laws, but you can drive for a few hours and buy anything you want in Nevada - basically the NRA and its supporters a culpable of too many murders to count now.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    [1]neilm: Wow.

    This will never stop until we get some sensible gun laws in place that aren't a joke. California has stronger laws, but you can drive for a few hours and buy anything you want in Nevada - basically the NRA and its supporters a culpable of too many murders to count now.

    Yep.

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    1

    Wow. Glad to hear you are fine.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJO-MTh6NNo

    Hug. :)

  4. [4] 
    Paula wrote:

    CW: Was just seeing some video of Liz Warren in Toledo - she had almost twice as many people as expected and lots of enthusiasm there. Afterwards she was asked by a reporter how she intended to "attack" Bernie in the debate - she basically said she won't; she and Bernie have been friends for years.

    So evidently her strategy for Bernie - if it's any different than her strategy for any of the others - is to try to get more votes so THEY bow out or get forced out. She has said more than once, when questioned about other candidates, that she's not "here to criticize other democrats." (Presumably she's including BS under that label.)

    I suspect, in the end, Bernie, Biden, Harris, will attack her. Bernie's staffers threw out a few jabs awhile back at EW, but since have focused more on Biden and, today, on K. Harris and her healthcare plan. I guess we'll see how she responds when that starts to happen.

    I've seen polling/analysis, too, about how BS & EW fans overlap to some extent, but then diverge. So if one or other drops out the remainder will not necessarily pick up all the others' supporters. EW has a big chunk of college-educated; BS has a big chunk of non-college. If EW drops, a chunk will go to Biden or Harris (Harris would get me); if BS drops, a chunk will go to Biden.

    I have to go out tomorrow night so won't get to watch the debate live; I'll watch it later or Wednesday. (Sigh.) I'm looking forward to it.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    Thanks Paula and Kick. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong people forcing easy access to guns without a care for the consequences.

  6. [6] 
    Paula wrote:

    [5]neilm: Yep. That had to be the weirdest feeling - like deciding not to take the trip and finding out later the plane crashed.

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: In fact, I could even see all the low-polling candidates ganging up on Sanders and Warren, and them presenting a dual defense of progressive action.

    A dual defense? While I can certainly see Elizabeth Warren presenting a very valid and solid debate performance in defense of any manner of progressive policies from A to Z, Bernie Sanders' idea of "debate" defense is the wagging up and down of his right forefinger during the standard recitation of his stump speech... and he rarely varies.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    The second night is the one where there is almost guaranteed to be a fracas at the top. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden both were impacted by their first debate performance, and this time around the only other black candidate (Cory Booker) will also be standing next to Biden. So look for race and racial politics to be (quite literally) center stage.

    Of course Race is front and center..

    With Democrats, it's ALWAYS front and center.. And on all sides.. Democrat Party = Race Party = Slave Owners Party... :^/

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    This will never stop until we get some sensible gun laws in place that aren't a joke. California has stronger laws,

    So, apparently gun laws don't mean a thing if they can be so easily evaded, eh??

    And, I'll ask again, but I know your only answer is silence..

    What "sensible" gun law would you impose that would have stopped this shooter and would be in keeping with the 2nd Amendment??

    basically the NRA and its supporters a culpable of too many murders to count now.

    Hay, Odumbo and the Democrats had the chance to make useless ineffective gun laws in the aftermath of Sandy Hook..

    They failed..

    Of course, you don't blame any of them.. Which proves this is nothing but a Party agenda..

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanks Paula and Kick. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong people forcing easy access to guns without a care for the consequences.

    You ever bought a gun, Neil??

    If you did, you would realize how full of shit you are when you claim access to guns is "easy"...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Democratic voters want to win this race above all else.

    Not factually accurate...

    Democrat voters want a pure candidate above all else..

    That is what I'll be looking for in the debates over the next two nights. And I suspect I'm not alone in that, either. These debates aren't about who will lead the Democratic Party, after all, they are about who is the best person to beat Donald Trump. That is the most important goal in this race, and its importance is far, far above any possible ideological differences between the Democratic candidates.

    There is scant evidence to support this..

    It's clear from the MOUNTAIN of facts that electability is taking a back seat to Party Purity...

    It's a Lose Lose for the Democrat Party..

    If the nominee is Biden, the progressives will stay home.. If the nominee is a Left Fringe candidate (anyone but Biden) the moderates will stay home..

    So, no matter WHO wins the nomination, President Trump still wins the General.. :D

    I rest easy knowing this is the fact.. :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Joe Biden’s Age Worries Some Democratic Allies and Voters
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/29/us/politics/joe-biden-age.html

    I'll be very surprised if Biden survives this round of debates..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the Eve of the Debates, the Long Knives Come Out for Joe Biden
    https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/on-the-eve-of-the-debates-the-long-knives-come-out-for-joe-biden/

    Ditto...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically Biden's campaign can be summed up thusly..

    "I AM NOT TRUMP"

    That's what Hillary's campaign was and we all know how THAT ended up... Thank the gods for THAT one.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    2020 Democrats keep shifting left. Moderates fret they’ll shift even further at next debate

    Bob Buckhorn remembers sitting at home in Florida last month watching the first Democratic presidential debate — and openly worrying about what he was seeing.

    The former centrist Democratic mayor of Tampa said the candidates were lurching much too far to the left on key policy issues, damaging the party’s chances of defeating President Donald Trump during next year’s election.

    “I don’t think most Americans are comfortable with some of what they heard last debate,” Buckhorn said. “And I think it’s unfortunate.”
    https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/campaigns/article233177051.html

    As I said.. Party Purity is reasserting itself as the number one Priority..

    If the Dem nominee is NOT Biden, then all the other candidates are wounding themselves mortally for the General...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Buckhorn’s view is a common one among moderate Democrats. In interviews, many of them expressed deep concern that this week’s debate in Detroit will feature another inevitable shift to the left, one that will alienate swing voters in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

    Last month, Democratic candidates debated — and in many cases, embraced — issues like eliminating private health insurance and decriminalizing illegal border crossings that are unpopular with the broader electorate.

    Even some of those who will participate in the debate are unsure where the conversation will move next.

    “This primary is becoming about moving the goalposts on these issues,” said John Delaney, one of the presidential race’s most outspoken moderate candidates. “And you never know what the next one is going to be.”

    And it's not just me who has noticed this Left lunge....

    Anyone who doesn't acknowledge this Left ward surge is simply and willfully ignorant..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    But centrist Democrats say the last debate was, even for a primary, unusually fixated on subjects that either didn’t interest or outright repelled voters in the middle of the political spectrum.

    “I hope that in the next debate there’s more of a discussion about education and public safety and issues of the economy and those other issues that a lot of moderates are looking for,” said former Democratic Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska.

    Even more alarming, they said, was the speed at which some once-fringe issues were widely adopted by the presidential field, like decriminalizing border crossings.

    The idea gained broad acceptance among most of the candidates after being introduced by former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro — despite polls showing that it had little support among the broader public and even uneven backing within the Democratic Party.

    Fringe Left policies that will be IMPOSSIBLE to defend in the General...

    In other words, the Dem candidates (sans Biden) has NOTHING to appeal to Independents, NPAs and Trump supporters..

    More importantly, the polices that these candidates support ACTIVELY REPEL Independents, NPAs and Trump supporters...

    Once again, the Democrat Party is being maneuvered into another perfect LOSE LOSE situation..

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since I know that ya'all are slaves to polls..

    Just 27 percent of Americans say it would be a good idea to decriminalize border crossings while 66 percent say it would be a bad idea, according to a NPR/PBS NewsHour/Maris poll released last week. The idea has split support among Democrats, with 45 percent saying it would be a good idea and 47 percent saying it’s a bad idea.

    The polls CLEARLY show that Open/Decriminalized Border is overwhelmingly NOT wanted by the American people...

    And yet, Democrats are pushing this anyways??

    Why???

    Because they are anti-America... They don't like the America we have and would prefer it to be a Venezuela America...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    “What President Trump would like to do is for us to talk about the rights of Central Americans instead of the rights of American citizens,” said Scott Peters, a moderate Democratic congressman from the San Diego area. “And we can’t fall into that trap.”

    Exactly.. But Democrats WILL fall into that trap.. The progressive base will PUSH Democrats into that trap..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    The conflict among Democrats in part stems from different views of how the party can defeat Trump. For some, they think the key is driving up turnout among their core liberal base.

    For others like Jeff Smith, a former Democratic state lawmaker in Missouri, the key is winning over more moderate independent voters.

    Smith said when he watched last month’s debate in a right-leaning part of his home state, he kept thinking how few people near him would agree with what the Democratic presidential candidates were saying.

    And there lies the rub..

    Democrat polices simply REPEL Independents, NPAs and Trump voters..

    The problem with Democrats is that the vast majority think they can win the election WITHOUT Independents, NPAs and Trump voters..

    They are sadly mistaken..

    As they will learn, come 4 Nov 2020....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Memo to Our Democratic Presidential Candidates
    Don’t make Detroit’s debates a repeat of Miami

    https://gen.medium.com/a-memo-to-our-democratic-presidential-candidates-7f168c563252

    Too bad the Democrat Party is too far Left to listen..

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let’s start with the basics. If you’re going to evict Donald Trump from the White House and secure the country’s future, you have to replicate what the last two Democratic presidents did so successfully on their campaigns. You need to unite all primary voters. There’s a reason Trump gleefully tweeted “That’s the end of that race!” during the first debate: Too often, you succumbed to chasing plaudits on Twitter, which closed the door on swing voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. If you win the nomination in a way that forecloses a path to victory in the general election, we will lose, and your name will go down in infamy.

    Exactly.. The Dem nominees are running as if the Primary is the ONLY election that matters...

    Newsflash for the Dems.. The General election is a majority of Independents, NPAs and Trump supporters..

    You nominees are running on a foundation that actively REPELS those majority of voters.

    What are you going to say in the General??

    "Oh I just said all that stuff to fool my base into voting for me!! I am not really going to do all that stuff!!! What am I, crazy!!???"

    And what do you think will happen if the Dem nominee tries THAT in the General???

    I can tell you what will happen..

    President Trump wins re-election by a landslide..

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    This time, don’t fall into the traps that had many of us shaking our heads during the debates in Miami. Before our party promises health care coverage to undocumented immigrants — a position not even Ted Kennedy took — let’s help the more than 30 million Americans who are a single illness away from financial ruin. Before we start worrying about whether the Boston Marathon bomber can vote, let’s stop states that are actively trying to curtail voting rights of citizens. And before we promise a guaranteed minimum income to healthy adults who prefer to stay home and play video games, let’s increase the minimum wage and the Earned Income Tax Credit to benefit the millions of people who work hard and still live near poverty.

    All of that makes perfect sense..

    Which is why the Democrat Party will ignore it..

    The majority Progressive base are too 'woke' to care about American citizens..

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Trump Will Win Independents in 2020

    The radical Democrat agenda will drive Independents into the president’s arms.
    https://spectator.org/why-trump-will-win-independents-in-2020/

    Yep.. Exactly...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like many World War II veterans, my father didn’t talk much about the war, but he occasionally retold one anecdote that clearly made a strong impression on him at the time. At the end of the war, when it became obvious that the Nazis had lost, thousands of German infantrymen suddenly began appearing at the American lines anxious to surrender. This was less about love for our GIs than fear of the Red Army. And it’s not a bad analogy for what Independents will do in 2020. They are ambivalent about President Trump and the GOP, but they are afraid of the Democrats.

    Yep, exactly.. X2

    That's the problem that no one here will discuss because no one wants to be seen agreeing with me..

    But this huge Left-ward lurch is a VERY big problem for the Democrat Party..

    But hay.. Continue to keep your heads in the sand... If your ignoring the problem, yer not acknowledging the problem.

    And if your not acknowledging the problem, you can't FIX the problem..

    And the result??

    President Trump.. 4 more years...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why? Independents see themselves as reasonable people who reject what they perceive as extremism in one or both of the two major parties. Most Democratic positions are now seen as radical by these voters. For example, virtually every candidate vying for the Democratic presidential nomination favors providing taxpayer-funded health care to illegal aliens, but this position is deeply unpopular with Independents. An NPR/NewsHour/Marist poll, conducted July 15-17, found that 67 percent of Independents characterized this proposal as a “bad idea.”

    And these people will decide the 2020 election. Gallup reports that 42 percent of Americans identify as political independents, while 29 percent say they are Democrats and 27 percent call themselves Republicans. It is no coincidence that the man who now resides in the White House garnered more Independent votes than did Hillary Clinton. And, if the 2020 Democratic nominee tries to win the general election with the kind of left-wing red meat the candidates have been tossing to the audience in the recent “debates,” it will drive Independents toward Trump.

    Yep, exactly.. X3

    It's simply a fact to state that the Dem candidate will NEED Independents, NPAs and Trump voters to win..

    It's ALSO a fact that the policies espoused by the current crop of Dem candidates are totally anathema to Independents, NPAs and Trump voters..

    How do you think the Dem nominee will disavow these toxic policies in the General??

    And how will such disavowal impact the support of the base for the Dem nominee???

    These are real and pressing questions that need to be answered if the Dem nominee is to have a chance in the General..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Consider another crowd-pleaser that has wowed the attendees at the Democratic debates. Virtually all of the candidates propose to “decriminalize” illegal immigration. This idea is even less popular with Independents than providing free health care to “undocumented immigrants,” as the Democrats call them. The NPR/NewsHour/Marist poll found that even more Independents — 68 percent — dislike this proposal. When decriminalization came up in the second Democratic debate, Pete Buttigieg demonstrated that their general position is incoherent:

    Let’s remember that’s not just a theoretical exercise — that criminalization — that is the basis for family separation. You do away with that, it’s no longer possible. Of course, it wouldn’t be possible anyway in my presidency because it’s dead wrong.… The Republican Party likes to cloak itself in the language of religion. Now, our party doesn’t talk about that as much largely for a very good reason — which is, we are committed to the separation of church and state.

    If you believe this works as a justification for an open-borders policy, and that’s what he’s arguing for, you should probably demand a refund from whatever university you attended. First, his claim that the problems involved with enforcing the law, like family separation, will go away if we eliminate criminalization is ridiculous. It’s like saying that we can avoid a lot of family disruption if we decriminalize armed robbery. For example, it would no longer be necessary to separate a child from a criminal’s custody if he is carrying the kid in the getaway car.

    Can you people imagine an Independent or NPA, let alone a Trump voter, voting for a candidate that spews such Far Left Fringe propaganda???

    If you have more than 2 brain cells to rub together, of course you can't imagine it..

    And THAT is the trap the Dem nominees are falling into.. They are positioning themselves to be far Left and trying to outdo all the other nominees in how far Left they can go...

    IGNORING the fact that they will HAVE to find the center in the General... But if you are way WAY out in Left Wing Bumfuq, how the hell are you going to make it back to Centersville???

    Answer: Yer not...

    Result: President Trump... 4 more years..

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another big issue in 2020 will, of course, be health care. And the Democrats are out of sync with Independents on that issue, as well. During the June debates, Sens. Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren all came out for replacing our current system with Medicare for All. What they didn’t realize was that polls showing wide public support for this single-payer system just meant the public didn’t get it. When they discovered that it meant the elimination of private health insurance, this enthusiasm plummeted. As the Wall Street Journal explains:

    The Medicare for All proposal would ban private health insurance that duplicates the plans’ federally provided benefits. Most private plans could fade away because Medicare for All would cover such a panoply of benefits, from hospitalization to long-term care to dental services. There would be no out-of-pocket charges except for prescription drugs.… It could provide a boost to President Trump, who is attacking Medicare for All as socialism.

    According to a new Pew survey, this version of Medicare for All has anemic support across the board: “27% of adults support a single national government program.” According to the NPR/NewsHour/Marist poll noted above, 55 percent of Independents are also against it. It goes without saying that none of the Democratic contenders for their party’s nomination have been asked why the country went through all the agony associated with Obamacare if they now want to toss it overboard in favor of single-payer. Hmm … It’s almost as if that was the plan all along.

    Once again, even with Healthcare, Democrats lose Independents and NPAs...

    No matter where Democrats turn, they are running into the wall that is Independents and NPAs...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    The least popular Democratic proposal among Independents involves slavery reparations. At one time or another during the never-ending campaign for the White House, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand have come out for reparations. This enjoys a whopping 23 percent support among Independents. The only issue of substance raised by the Democrats that enjoys the support of an actual majority of Independents is the minimum wage. The proposal to raise that figure to $15 per hour is supported by 52 percent.

    But this wrong-headed position will never save the Democrats from the loss of Independents pursuant to hare-brained schemes like providing taxpayer-funded health care to illegal aliens, decriminalizing illegal immigration, Medicare for All, and slavery reparations. Some Democrats are no doubt hoping that Joe Biden will save them by declining to embrace all of these wacky positions, but their primary voters won’t have it. They will probably nominate Elizabeth Warren, and Independents will vote overwhelmingly for Trump in self-defense.

    The facts are the facts..

    Independents and NPAs will NOT support a Dem candidate who supports Reparations, Full & Free Healthcare for Crimmigrants, decriminalized/Open borders and throwing ALL Americans off the healthcare plans they like..

    I won't even bother pointing out that neither will Trump voters support any of that garbage..

    And without Independents, NPAs and Trump voters...

    Democrats will LOSE...

    "Simply logic.."
    -Admiral James T Kirk

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Moving on.."
    -Robert Singer, SUPERNATURAL

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats have been discussing the same ideas on guns for 25 years. It’s time to change that.

    There should be a Medicare-for-all or Green New Deal for ending gun violence.
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/1/18683860/democrats-2020-gun-control-mass-shootings

    As long as the plans take into account the 2nd Amendment and will actually have an impact on gun violence and Crowd Based Mass Shootings....

    "I'm all ears.."
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    The results can be seen in the Supreme Court. In 1939’s United States v. Miller, Justice James McReynolds ruled that Congress can ban sawed-off shotguns because that weapon has no “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” In 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia ruled, to the contrary, that “the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

    There was also an accompanying shift in public opinion. In 1959, when Gallup asked if the law should ban handguns except for the police and other authorized persons, 60 percent of Americans said yes. By 1980, that dropped to 38 percent. As of the latest survey, in 2018, it was 28 percent.

    The NRA and Republicans helped shift public opinion and even the Supreme Court over decades. A similar political movement could reverse that.

    Not factually accurate..

    The reason why public opinion has shifted so far in favor of gun rights is because the country has become increasingly more violent and it's become obvious that tools are needed to protect ones life and family..

    Imagine if Neil was armed and had confronted the scumbag in Gilroy.. Neil could have ended the mass shooting before it even started, saving that 6 yr old little boy's life..

    In this particular case, LEOs were on scene and this scumbags rampage was cut short..

    But the presence of armed good guys could have cut the rampage even shorter..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    It’s not that there’s a lack of ideas to confront gun violence. With the right goal — reducing the number of guns in the US — and a serious commitment to it, there are plenty of evidence-based policies, tried in cities, states, and other countries, that could work.

    One way to start addressing the issue would be requiring a license to buy and own a gun. On its face, this might seem like an extension of the background check model, since the idea is still to filter between qualified and unqualified people.

    OK fine...

    We also start licensing and training people who want to exercise their Constitutional Right to Free Speech..

    Want to assemble?? You must first be licensed and go thru training on how to and how NOT to assemble..

    This is exactly the problem the hysterical anti-gun nuts face..

    Owning a gun is as much a Constitutional Right as Freedom Of Speech and Freedom Of Assembly...

    To show how foolhardy these ideas are, simply apply them to OTHER Constitutionally protected rights and see how they stack up..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    But a licensing process can go way further: While a background check is more often than not quick and hassle-free, gun licensing in, for example, Massachusetts is a weeks- or months-long process that requires submitting a photograph and fingerprints, passing a training course, and going through one or more interviews, all involving law enforcement. That adds significant barriers for even a would-be gun owner who has no ill intent or bad history.

    OK, let's do that with guns..

    AND...

    We'll also do it with Voting..

    We'll institute a program for would be voters that is a weeks- or months-long process that requires submitting a photograph and fingerprints, passing a training course, and going through one or more interviews, all involving law enforcement.

    I mean, if some druggie ass clown with a rap sheet a mile long wants to vote!!??

    We have to stop him!!

    Again, people, the facts are clear... Owning a gun is as much of a right as voting...

    You want to restrict gun ownership?? We apply the EXACT SAME restrictions to voting..

    Any problems with that???

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    The solution is really simple people..

    The SCOTUS has come out flat out and STATED that individual gun ownership is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, separate and apart from any participation in any organized militia or other such type function..

    This is the law of the land.. And NO ONE is above the law, right???

    So, the LAW says gun ownership is an individual right.. And ya'all accept the law..

    So, as I said, the plan is simple

    If you want your gun ban... You must first get rid of the 2nd Amendment..

    Good luck... Godspeed...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    California has stronger laws, but you can drive for a few hours and buy anything you want in Nevada -

    Not factually accurate..

    Nevada has background checks, just like California..

    The Gilroy scumbag (I make it a policy never to mention a mass shooter's name.. It's always scumbag or dirtbag) could have easily bought the hunting rifle in California...

    He didn't HAVE to drive to Nevada to buy it..

    So, even the strict gun laws of California would not have prevented the Gilroy shooting..

    It's time to face reality..

    If people are going to kill, THEY WILL kill...

    No amount of restricting the tools of the deed will save lives..

    In Australia in the previous 20 years before the mass shooting that brought about the gun ban, 74 people were killed in mass murder events..

    In the 20 years in the aftermath of the gun ban, 79 people were killed in mass murder events..

    MORE people were killed AFTER the gun ban then before the gun ban..

    Gun bans do little to actually save lives..

    You want to save lives??

    Mental health laws are what you need to pursue... But then you run afoul of the Democrat Party platform of privacy and social justice..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    'IN DANGER' Jeffrey Epstein’s life ‘in jeopardy’ as powerful pals ‘don’t want their secrets out’, victim’s lawyer claims
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9605078/jeffrey-epsteins-life-in-jeopardy-pals-dont-want-secrets-out/

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, Democrats bullshit hysteria

    VS

    AP FACT CHECK: Some inconvenient truths for 2020 Democrats

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democratic presidential contenders have some inconvenient truths to grapple with.

    It’s not easy, for example, to summon foreboding words on the economy — accurately — when the U.S. has been having its longest expansion in history.

    Related: AP Fact Check
    Health care for all raises questions of costs to average taxpayers that the candidates are loath to confront head on.

    And in slamming President Donald Trump relentlessly for his treatment of migrants, the Democrats gloss over the record of President Barack Obama (and his vice president, Joe Biden), whose administration deported them by the millions and housed many children in the border “cages” they assail Trump for using now.
    https://apnews.com/b1751f8466f34a4ebd37a95f6ca30956

    THE FACTS....

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    KAMALA HARRIS: “You look at the fact that this is a president who has pushed policies that’s been about putting babies in cages at the border in the name of security when in fact what it is, is a human rights abuse being committed by the United States government.”
    — remarks at NAACP forum Wednesday in Detroit.

    PETE BUTTIGIEG: “We should call out hypocrisy when we see it. For a party that associates itself with Christianity to say it is OK to suggest that God would smile on the division of families at the hands of federal agents, that God would condone putting children in cages,” that party “has lost all claim to ever use religious language.”
    — June debate

    THE FACTS: There is hypocrisy to be called out here.

    By Buttigieg’s standard, the Democratic Party has also lost its claim to invoke religion — because the “cages” were built and used by the Obama administration. Harris, a California senator, calls them a human rights abuse, but, like other Democrats, solely blames Trump.

    The facilities are sectioned-off, chain-link indoor pens where children who come to the border without adults or who are separated from adults in detention are temporarily housed. The children are divided by age and sex.

    A year ago, Associated Press photographs showing young people in such enclosures were misrepresented online as depicting child detentions by Trump and denounced by some Democrats and activists as illustrating Trump’s cruelty. In fact, the photos were taken in 2014 during the Obama administration.

    Many Democrats continue to exploit the imagery of “babies in cages” — as Harris put it — without acknowledging Obama used the facilities, too. His administration built the McAllen, Texas, center with chain-link holding areas in 2014.

    Under Trump, journalists have witnessed migrants crowded into fetid chain-link quarters. The maltreatment of migrants is the responsibility of the Trump administration — and arguably Congress, for not approving more money for better care.

    But the facilities are standard fare through administrations and the caged-babies accusations stand as one of the most persistent distortions by the 2020 Democrats.

    Buttagig says that children should NEVER be separated from their parents..

    Yet criminals are ALWAYS separated from their children when they commit crimes..

    I guess Democrats think that Crimmigrants are above the law..

    :eyeroll:

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrat Hysteria....

    VS

    JOE BIDEN: “Under Trump, there have been horrifying scenes at the border of kids being kept in cages, tear-gassing asylum seekers, ripping children from their mothers’ arms.”
    —June 24 opinion piece in the Miami Herald about his Latin America policy.

    THE FACTS: Again, the scenes of kids in cages go back to the administration Biden served.

    He is correct that U.S. authorities have fired tear gas to repel migrants trying to get across the border. Biden and other Democrats are also correct in identifying widespread family separations as a consequence of Trump’s policy. His now-suspended zero-tolerance policy resulted in thousands of children being removed from their parents in holding centers, something the Obama administration did not do routinely.

    Another form of family separation was seen, however, in the Obama years. The record deportation of 3 million migrants during Obama’s presidency drove many families apart as some members were forced out of the U.S. while loved ones weren’t.

    THE FACTS....

    Democrats complain about Trump's Crimmigrant actions, yet give Odumbo a pass for the EXACT same actions..

    How is this not hypocrisy???

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    IMMIGRATION

    BIDEN: “There’s 11 million undocumented (people), they’ve increased the solvency of the Social Security system by 12 years, because they’re all paying in.” — candidate forum in Iowa, July 16.

    THE FACTS: He’s wrong that “all” people in the country illegally are paying into Social Security and that they’ve extended the program’s solvency by a dozen years.

    Once again.. Hysterical Left Wing bullshit vs THE FACTS...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    ECONOMY

    ELIZABETH WARREN: “When I look at the economy today, I see a lot to worry about. ... I see a manufacturing sector in recession. ... A generation of stagnant wages and rising costs for basics like housing, child care, and education (has) forced American families to take on more debt than ever before.... Whether it’s this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high — and growing.” — Medium blog Monday.

    THE FACTS: The Massachusetts senator is exaggerating some of these threats. It’s true that U.S. manufacturers are struggling as a result of slower overseas growth and the Trump administration’s trade wars, which have meant that many U.S. goods face retaliatory tariffs overseas. But U.S. factories have faced rough spots before during the current expansion, particularly in late 2015 and 2016, when their output actually declined. Yet economic growth continued. Manufacturing is no longer large enough to necessarily pull the rest of the economy into recession.

    And Americans are in better financial shape than Warren suggests. While household debt has risen 6.8% in the past decade, that figure isn’t adjusted for population growth or inflation. On a per capita basis, household debt levels have actually fallen.

    More fear-mongering from the radical Left Wing fringe...

    :eyeroll:

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    HARRIS: “Some estimate that as many as 700,000 autoworkers are going to lose their job before the end of the year.” — remarks in July 12 radio interview.

    THE FACTS: This isn’t happening. Harris mischaracterized the findings of a study that is also outdated.

    This concludes the FACT CHECK of hysterical bullshit Democrat fear-mongering claims...

    Your attention is appreciated.. :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rep. Ilhan Omar faces challenge from Chris Kelley, a celebrated Iraq war veteran

    When Rep. Ilhan Omar ignited steep controversy in March describing the September 11 attacks as “some people did something,” it was then that a longtime cop in her neighborhood decided he needed to do more than just bemoan what he perceived as a shocking trivialization of a terrorist attack that tore through the fabric of his beloved country.

    Now, Chris Kelley, who has collected eleven military medals as a 27-year veteran of the U.S. Army and Army Reserves and clocked more than 36,000 hours patrolling the Minnesota streets as a 20-year veteran of the Minneapolis Police Force, has his sights set on knocking Omar from her seat representing Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District in 2020.

    “September 11 was a terrible loss of life, not just for police officers and firefighters and other first responders, but 3,000 people and non-combatants died, and to be dismissive of that was an outrage. I could sit and complain or I could do something about it,” Kelley, who is campaigning as an Independent, told Fox News. “And I believe I can be a positive voice in standing up for people in our country, and for our first responders and the people every day on the frontlines.”

    In his view, current representative Omar has devoted too much time to crafting her “celebrity” than on being of service to the community, which he insists he will serve honorably if elected.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/minneapolis-police-officer-and-celebrated-iraqi-war-veteran-announces-run-for-rep-ilhan-omars-seat

    It's Independents like MSGT Kelley who will save this country from the scumbags America Haters like Omar...

  45. [45] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    What you can't seem to wrap your head around is that not all Democratic voters are looking through the single lens of who can beat Trump. And not all voters or potential voters that are not Trump supporters are Democrats.

    For many voters the direction of the Democratic Party is more important than defeating Trump because the direction of the Democratic Party is what gave us Trump in the first place.

    These voters no longer buy the this election is too important to do the right thing now argument.

    Get Real.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Federal government to resume capital punishment, schedule executions for first time since 2003

    Daniel Lewis Lee is scheduled to be executed on Dec. 9. Lee, a white supremacist, was convicted in May 1999 of murdering a family of three, including an eight-year-old girl. “After robbing and shooting the victims with a stun gun, Lee covered their heads with plastic bags, sealed the bags with duct tape, weighed down each victim with rocks, and threw the family of three into the Illinois bayou,” the DOJ said in a statement.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-government-to-resume-capital-punishment-schedule-executions-for-5-inmates

    But!!! But!!!! But!!! President Trump LOVES White Supremacists!!!

    How could he be executing one!!!

    {/sarcasm}

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Today is National Whistleblower Appreciation Day.

    In the spirit of the day, an article aboot One Demand that blows the whistle on the scam perpetrated by the CMPs, the big money interests they both work for and the media lackeys that peddle the lies such as the one mentioned in comment 45 seems appropriate and long overdue.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rapper RZA says arrested A$AP Rocky is a 'hostage' in Sweden

    President Donald Trump has also spoken out against Rocky’s detention.

    RZA says if Trump helped, “that’d be a beautiful thing.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/rza-asap-rocky-sweden

    But!!! But!!! But!!!!

    President Trump hates black Americans..

    How could he be HELPING one???

    {/sarcasm}

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again...

    We have all of Democrats and their hysterical Trump/America hate...

    And then we have the FACTS....

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    For many voters the direction of the Democratic Party is more important than defeating Trump because the direction of the Democratic Party is what gave us Trump in the first place.

    Oh.... SNAP.... :D

  51. [51] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Paragraphs 3,4 and 5 describe the current situation perfectly. A lot of voters prefer a progressive candidate, but no agreement on which progressive is preferred...Sanders the seasoned (if unorthodox) politician, Warren the razor sharp technocrat, and Harris the junior senator from the biggest state who has a solid resume of public service. Unless the Three Progressives can mutually sort things out among themselves (rock, paper scissors?) Biden seems in a good position to take a moderate stance and win the nomination. No pressure, right?(heh, heh)

    Biden's last debate performance wasn't his finest outing, but it wasn't a catastrophe either, and if he survives the debate process long enough for the field to shrink, I think he's in a better position to pull Old School Democrat support than any of the 3 Progressives, who collectively poll about 1/3 of the poll respondents.

    I suspect Joe can pull in a lot of favors given his seniority. On the other hand, voters may be a bit put off by his age. Joe's actuarial seniority says he has a roughly 3% probability of snuffing it every 365.25 years (Social Security Actuarial Tables). Trump's odds are a wee bit better - if you ignore the fried chicken and early morning toilet tweeting factors - which are not explicitly factored into the Social Security tables.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Opinion: The numbers don't lie – Trump movement growing by putting America first

    Those efforts mean that in 2020, President Trump will not just be relying on his 2016 “base” – he will expand the map and engage with an entirely new, and previously untapped, pool of voters.

    One of those voters is a lifelong Democrat in Ohio. Scott Ford recently made a splash on social media when he announced that he will be attending the president’s next rally in Cincinnati on Thursday. Scott endured what he described as "complete torture" and "hate" from liberals over his defection, but he’ll be welcomed into the Trump movement with open arms.

    Scott is far from the only Democrat to walk away. Americans experience the benefits of President Trump’s leadership every day in the form of the booming economy his policies created. Meanwhile, endless investigations and a "Squad" of radical Democrats are synonymous with the Democratic agenda. Instead of resistance, wouldn’t it be nice if the Democrats worked with Republicans to end the crisis at our southern border, pass the USMCA and rebuild America’s infrastructure?
    https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2019/07/29/numbers-dont-lie-trump-movement-growing-putting-america-first/1855914001/

    The fact is, Democrats are going to get massacred in 2020.. Metaphorically speaking.. :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    The president is right about Baltimore. Are Democrats really prepared to defend failure?

    Baltimore is one of the least livable, most dangerous cities in America. It's not racist to point that out.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/07/30/trump-baltimore-sun-rats-elijah-cummings-mayor-bernie-sanders-column/1856666001/

    Still waiting for someone... ANYONE.. to provide facts that simply being truthful about Baltimore is, somehow, "racist"..????

    Anyone?? Anyone??? Beuhler???

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ask yourself honestly: Would you ever consider living in West Baltimore? And are you a racist if you say no?

    Baltimore ranks in the top 10 of the least livable cities in America. Until this week, it was not controversial to point that out. But now that President Donald Trump has tweeted about Baltimore, it seems as though anyone who criticizes the awful conditions there is opening themselves up to charges of prejudice.

    The flap began last week when Rep. Elijah Cummings, whose 7th district covers much of Baltimore City, lashed out at acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan at a hearing on conditions inside illegal alien detention centers. “What does that mean when a child is sitting in their own feces, can’t take a shower?” Cummings shouted. “Come on, man. What’s that about?”

    President Trump responded with tweets saying Cummings’ district was “FAR WORSE and more dangerous” than the detention facilities, “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.” The president suggested Cummings focus more on cleaning up this “dangerous & filthy place” than on bullying in hearings about the border issue.

    Baltimore is 20x worse than anything at the border, Cummings..

    Fix your own house before you complain about others..

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    The president’s remarks were immediately denounced as racist by Democrats and the usual frantic pundits, even though the tweets had no racial content. Trump responded that “Democrats always play the Race Card, when in fact they have done so little for our Nation’s great African American people.”

    As I am wont to do, President Trump was wrong to tweet that..

    They are black Americans.. Charlize Theron is an African American... Theresa Heinz is an African American....

    The people in Baltimore are simply black Americans..

    Or, better yet.. Simply Americans...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said Sunday that it was “unbelievable that we have a president of the United States who attacks American cities.” But it was perfectly fine four years ago when Sanders said during a visit to West Baltimore, "Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood … would think that you were in a Third World country."

    Sanders’ comment came in the wake of riots sparked by death of Freddie Gray while in police custody. Articles from that period routinely cited the city’s endemic poverty as a root cause of the rioting. A typical 2015 report from the Associated Press noted that Baltimore “struggles daily with pervasive poverty and widespread joblessness, failing schools, drug addiction, a crumbling infrastructure and corruption.”

    Two old white guys.. Both say the exact same thing about Baltimore...

    The one with the -R after his name gets viciously attacked as a racist..

    The one who is a Democrat hero gets a pass...

    Yea... NO Party Slavery there whatsoever.. :eyeroll:

  57. [57] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I'd like to temper my own comment 51 by saying I think Biden would probably be a better President than many recent examples.

    If you going to be the CEO of a sausage factory, it is helpful to have spent many year making sausage on the factory floor. It doesn't guarantee success - think Bush I - but it probably shortens the learning curve (think Obama). A President basically has 100 days to get things right and many more years to mull things over.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you going to be the CEO of a sausage factory, it is helpful to have spent many year making sausage on the factory floor. It doesn't guarantee success - think Bush I - but it probably shortens the learning curve (think Obama). A President basically has 100 days to get things right and many more years to mull things over.

    The problem Biden faces is that he has never won an election outside of teeny tiny Delaware...

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Barack Obama said then that difficult conditions in Baltimore required national “soul searching” — because the $1.8 billion stimulus bonanza he had lavished on the city didn’t seem to solve anything.

    Apparently Barack Hussein Obama is a racist..

    :eyeroll:

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Many Americans probably imagine West Baltimore as the gritty, open-air drug mart portrayed in HBO's “The Wire,” and they aren’t that far off. Last year, USA TODAY reported that “Baltimore is the nation's most dangerous big city.”

    The poverty rate is over 22%, and the population is shrinking. The city’s politics are riven with endemic corruption — former Mayor Catherine Pugh resigned in disgrace this May. She's the third Baltimore mayor in a row to leave in the wake of intense scandal. Baltimore is dotted with thousands of vacant buildings, and as for rodents, exterminator Orkin listed Baltimore in the top 10 of its annual survey of “rattiest cities.” The 1970s promotional nickname “Charm City” is as ironic as ever.

    Once again, President Trump's claims were not racist..

    They were factually accurate...

    Still waiting for someone to offer any facts that prove President Trump's claims are racist..

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Baltimore Sun rose gamely to the city’s defense against President Trump, editorializing that Baltimore is better than you think, citing inter alia “the beauty of the Inner Harbor or the proud history of Fort McHenry.” (Note that the gentrified Inner Harbor neighborhood is one of the whitest neighborhoods in the city at 68%, so maybe not a great example for the Sun’s purposes.)

    “If there are problems here, rodents included,”the newspaper claimed, “they are as much (Trump’s) responsibility as anyone’s, perhaps more because he holds the most powerful office in the land.”

    It is a bit of a reach to argue a president in office since 2017 bears more responsibility for city sanitation issues than the local congressman elected to his safe seat in 1996. Maybe the people of the 7th district just need a more effective champion.

    No more of a reach to say that President Trump stating the FACTS about Baltimore is racist..

    Further, it's funny that the Baltimore Sun is rushing to Baltimore's defense..

    It wasn't too long again that the Baltimore Sun was saying the EXACT same things that President Trump has said..

    "Food containers, balled up clothes, paper, banana peels, plastic bags and tons of other pieces of litter line the shoulders of roads, pile up in alleys and are strewn across fields and yards,” an editorial in the newspaper said. “Not only is it unsightly and contributes to a rodent problem, but it can create a glum and gloomy feel in a time when the city is already facing self-esteem issues because of high crime and the scandal surrounding the University Maryland Medical System and Mayor Catherine Pugh, who’s now on an indefinite leave, and her Healthy Holly books. If anything, the city needs a major scrubbing to help restore some of its faith and image."

    So, I guess the Baltimore Sun is ALSO racist..

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    It’s hard to say when this latest tweet-based freakout will subside. Will Democrats carry the #WeAreAllBaltimore banner into the 2020 election? Is Baltimore now the model city they will present to the country as the representative product of Democratic social and economic policies in action? Good luck with that.

    Hehehehehehe

    Sure, Dumbocrats...

    Democrats In 2020. We Want To Make ALL Of America Like Baltimore!!!

    Go with THAT campaign slogan!!!! :D

    Critics can continue to shout about racism, but that is no replacement for a rational discussion about the problems of poverty, crime, drug abuse, family breakdown and lack of educational attainment. A job-creating economy will do more in the long run to help the people of Baltimore than endless political posturing about race. It probably already has.

    Yep, President Trump has done more in 2+ years to help Baltimore residents than Cummings has done his entire time in Congress!!!

    Ooops I just attacked a black person.. I must be racist!!! :eyeroll:

  63. [63] 
    John M wrote:

    [36] Michale

    "Nevada has background checks, just like California..

    "The Gilroy scumbag (I make it a policy never to mention a mass shooter's name.. It's always scumbag or dirtbag) could have easily bought the hunting rifle in California...

    He didn't HAVE to drive to Nevada to buy it..

    So, even the strict gun laws of California would not have prevented the Gilroy shooting.."

    NOT factually accurate:

    Authorities say Legan bought the semi-automatic rifle used in the shooting legally in Nevada on July 9, less than three weeks before the shooting. The weapon looks like a military-style AK-47. With its standard clip and stocks, it’s considered an assault rifle that is banned under California law.

    The Nevada gun shop, Big Mikes Guns and Ammo, said in a Facebook post Monday that the buyer ordered the gun online.

    California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said Monday the investigation may determine that the gunman broke a law by purchasing the weapon in Nevada and bringing it into the state.

    “That weapon could not be sold in California. That weapon cannot be imported into the state of California,” he said. “There is a very strong likelihood, as we develop the evidence, that the perpetrator in this particular case, violated California law, on top of the crimes of homicide.”

    I also look forward to Michale's meltdown when he is ALSO proven wrong about Trump's re-election as president.

  64. [64] 
    Patrick wrote:

    The gunman in the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting used a military-style semiautomatic rifle that is illegal to own in California.

    It was a WASR-10 with its standard clip and stocks is considered an assault rifle under California law and therefore banned. The Romanian-built weapon looks like an AK-47.

    The Gilroy Garlic Festival website states:
    “Obey Garlic Festival and park rules so you don’t find yourself being escorted away by security. You may not bring alcohol onto the grounds. Bottles, cans and coolers are all prohibited. It goes without saying that weapons, even pocket knives are prohibited”.

    So much for the good guy with a gun bullshit.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    The weapon looks like a military-style AK-47. With its standard clip and stocks, it’s considered an assault rifle that is banned under California law.

    Not according to witnesses..

    It was a hunting rifle..

    Where is your source for your BS??

    Regardless, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle"... It's a media creation that has no legal definition..

    The Nevada gun shop, Big Mikes Guns and Ammo, said in a Facebook post Monday that the buyer ordered the gun online.

    So?? Relevance???

    California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said Monday the investigation may determine that the gunman broke a law by purchasing the weapon in Nevada and bringing it into the state.

    So, the law failed.. OK..

    So, apparently, GUN LAWS don't work...

    “That weapon could not be sold in California. That weapon cannot be imported into the state of California,” he said. “There is a very strong likelihood, as we develop the evidence, that the perpetrator in this particular case, violated California law, on top of the crimes of homicide.”

    Yea, I am sure the California gun law violations are of real concern to the scumbag...

    You still haven't given me a law that is permissible under the 2nd Amendment and would have prevented Gilroy..

    I also look forward to Michale's meltdown when he is ALSO proven wrong about Trump's re-election as president.

    Yea, like the "meltdown" in the aftermath of the 2016 election...

    Like the "meltdown" in the aftermath of the Mueller report that completely exonerated President Trump..

    You mean THOSE "meltdowns"??

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was a WASR-10 with its standard clip and stocks is considered an assault rifle under California law and therefore banned. The Romanian-built weapon looks like an AK-47.

    Facts to support??

    Witnesses reported the scumbag had a "long rifle" IE a hunting rifle..

    As to the California law??

    http://cdn0.wideopenspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/lfAg0wR.png

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

    The upper rifle is what the scumbag in Gilroy had..

    The lower rifle is what is banned in California..

    Both rifles have the EXACT same specs..

    California bans the lower one because it looks scary..

    :eyeroll: morons..

    SO, Patrick.. Since you want to participate..

    Give me a law that you can pass that would have prevented Gilroy and still be permissible under the 2nd Amendment..

    Can ya do that??

    Of course you can't...

    Dismissed...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://i.imgur.com/yNgIrAr.png

    This is exactly why Dumbocrats are so moronic and simply cannot be taken seriously...

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    So much for the good guy with a gun bullshit.

    Yea, I bet the 6 year old boy and young girl think it's bullshit..

    They needlessly died because Dumbocrats are afraid of guns..

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me dumb it down for ya'all...

    https://pics.me.me/lets-make-this-simple-good-guys-with-guns-bad-guys-44310390.png

    Class dismissed...

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    11 times a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy, saving lives
    With tragic events such as the shooting of a bible study group at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, the stories of heroic self defense and lives saved by legal gun owners are often overlooked. Here are just a few stories of law-abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves against criminals.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/

    A very very VERY small tip of the good guy with a gun iceberg..

    Ya'all would prefer that all those people had been killed instead... :eyeroll: morons..

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all can't win and here is why...

    To get the gun ban you want, you are going to have to eliminate the 2nd Amendment..

    And you won't...

    So, the ONLY logical alternative is to address the mental health issues that produces the mass-murdering scumbags..

    But Democrats won't do that because personal privacy is paramount and they want to protect the social status of would be mass-murders..

    Democrats have been coddling criminals and psychos and terrorists as long as I can remember...

    :eyeroll:

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, no one has the facts to back up their bullshit claim..

    OK, back ta work I go.. :D

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, no one has the facts to back up their bullshit claim..

    And now we see why...

    All ya'all's info came from the LA Times, a bastion of liberal Left Wingery agenda..

    Yea.. If my sources were such bullshit sources, I wouldn't want to mention it either... :eyeroll:

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, by the way, JM... If you post information without attribution, that's plagiarism...

    Makes me no never mind.. But some people in this form whine incessantly and hysterically about it..

    Just helpin' ya out.. :D

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump claims Baltimore residents 'thanking' him for taking on Cummings, exposing 'corruption'

    President Trump on Tuesday said the people of Baltimore, specifically in African-American communities, are calling and “thanking” him for exposing the “corruption” in Baltimore, amid the days-long controversy surrounding his criticisms of the city and its Democratic leadership.

    The president has been locked in a feud with Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., for days after he called Baltimore—which is in Cummings’ district—a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.”

    Trump, before departing the White House for Jamestown, Va. Tuesday, was asked whether he felt he was “hurting” himself with his comments about Baltimore. The president scoffed that he was, instead, “helping” himself.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-claims-baltimore-residents-thanking-him-for-taking-on-cummings-exposing-corruption

    Like I told Blathy.. Far from "losing" Baltiore, President Trump is being thanked by the residents of Baltimore for calling attention to their horrible situation..

    A horrible situation, thanx to the incompetence and corruption of Democrat leadership...

    Orkin did a study on the most rat infested cities in the country.. Baltimore was 6th..

    EVERY city in the top 10 were all Democrat run cities..

    The conclusion is obvious..

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    African American faith leaders defend Trump after White House meeting: 'He's not a racist'

    President Trump met with 20 African American faith leaders on Monday as he was coming under fire for his criticism of Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., Baltimore and Al Sharpton.

    Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., who was among the faith leaders from the African American community that met with the president at the White House, called the meeting sincere and productive.

    "The president spent a long time with us and the meeting was not a photo-op," King told "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning. "He's not a racist. Absolutely is not, and the programs he has moved forward, the higher job market is helping African Americans, the criminal justice reform is helping African Americans."

    Dr Alveda King.. You may know her uncle.. Dr Martin Luther King???

    SHE says that President Trump is not a racist. His policies are HELPING black Americans...

    Now, ya'all want to call her a liar or racist names, be my guest..

    But that just says more about ya'all than it does about Dr King..

    If MLK were alive today, he would be a Trump supporter...

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    King told Trump she had photos of him with Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson, the civil rights leader whose nonprofit Rainbow PUSH Coalition is based in Chicago, when they gave him awards.

    What a difference the -D/-R makes, eh?? :eyeroll:

    "They began to hurl insults at the president. Nobody wants to understand that. What the president's simply saying is your communities need to be fixed and he said to Representative Cummings, Elijah Cummings, who actually said either abort the babies now or you'll kill them later. He says things like that and then you look at his community and you see individuals suffering, communities suffering, and families suffering."
    -Dr Alveda King

    Again, this is the niece of Dr Martin Luther King speaking...

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cuomo also signed a bill banning bump stocks. A federal bump stock ban took effect in March.
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-extends-waiting-period-gun-purchases

    This is one of the more useless gun laws that Dumbocrats pass...

    The scumbag in the Vegas Country Festival shooting used a bump stock and it's a good thing he did.. If he hadn't, if he had just relied on semi-automatic fire, the death toll would have been at least TRIPLE what it was..

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    57

    I'd like to temper my own comment 51 by saying I think Biden would probably be a better President than many recent examples.

    Demented Donald makes voting for a ham sandwich and all sorts of other items sound good; it's a very low bar, indeed.

  80. [80] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [79] Demented Donald makes voting for a ham sandwich and all sorts of other items sound good; it's a very low bar, indeed.

    It's true! I always struggle to come up with the right one for every circumstance. At the Waffle House, I talk about voting for coffee - at the Midas, I vote for a muffler.

    This is good. It's a reminder to Democrats that whoever wins the nomination, he or she gets all of our votes, because the first order of business is getting rid of Trump. Full stop.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Demented Donald makes voting for a ham sandwich and all sorts of other items sound good; it's a very low bar, indeed.

    In other words, Hillary was worse than a ham sandwich..

    Yea.. I believe that.. :D

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is good. It's a reminder to Democrats that whoever wins the nomination, he or she gets all of our votes, because the first order of business is getting rid of Trump. Full stop.

    Yea???

    That was the plan after the Hillary/Bernie contest..

    Tell me.. How did THAT work out for ya'all?? :D

    Face reality, Blathy...

    If Biden is the nominee, the Democrat Party is the Party of Old White guys and progressives will stay home by the millions..

    If anyone else is the nominee, The Democrat Party is the AOC/OMAR/Terrorist Loving/America Hating Party and moderate Democrats stay home by the millions..

    There simply is NO PATH to victory for the Democrat Party...

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's going to be entertaining to see what ya'all's excuse will be THIS time when President Trump wins re-election..

    :D

  84. [84] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    Disagree, it wont be interesting at all, cause it'll be a big "ditto 2016" (He colluded wiwth theRussians)!"

    Of course, if he loses, it'll be "the Russians forgot to interfere".

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    80

    It's true! I always struggle to come up with the right one for every circumstance. At the Waffle House, I talk about voting for coffee - at the Midas, I vote for a muffler.

    You may have just inadvertently invented a new game for all of us!

    My turn:

    * At Jiffy Lube, I talk about voting for a dipstick versus the criminal con.

    * At Starbucks, I talk about voting for a mermaid cup versus the criminal con.

    * At Trader Joe's, I talk about voting for Joe versus the criminal con. (factual versus funny)

    This is good. It's a reminder to Democrats that whoever wins the nomination, he or she gets all of our votes, because the first order of business is getting rid of Trump. Full stop.

    Yes, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents and others like me with no Party whatsoever, it's definitely a great reminder. Lately I'm hearing quite a lot from Independents and Republicans asking whom I believe will win the nomination because they've already made the decision they aren't voting for Trump and might vote for the Democrat. I tell them they should vote for a "ham sandwich" if they value democracy, but now I'm officially adopting your system right straight away. :)

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Disagree, it wont be interesting at all, cause it'll be a big "ditto 2016" (He colluded wiwth theRussians)!"

    I disagree to your disagree..

    I don't think even the DEMOCRATS would be stoopid enough to try and pull the Russian Collusion Delusion again..

    "Sergei... You lost ANOTHER submarine!??"
    -Jeffery Van Pelt, THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER

    Not even Democrats would be THAT lame..

    No.. They'll have to be REAL imaginative this time around...

    They'll claim that Trump is an extraterrestrial and used a Jedi Mind Meld on everyone...

    Of course, if he loses, it'll be "the Russians forgot to interfere".

    They also tried that on the 2018 mid-terms..

  87. [87] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Trump isn't going to win in 2019, because in 2016, according to Steve Bannon, he "drew to an inside straight". What that means is that he was able to gather just under 1% of the vote in three states: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, to win it.

    In each of those states were voter suppression, voters that voted for third party candidates, and voters that didn't vote. And all three had Republican governors.

    This time, the governors are Democratic, and nobody is voting for a third party candidate.

    So it would take a small miracle to pull off that "inside straight" again...

  88. [88] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS:

    Of course, if he loses, it'll be "the Russians forgot to interfere".

    The problem is that we can expect the Chinese, Iranians, and in fact just about any nation that wants to pick our President or other "elected" representative to interfere with our elections going forward.

    Moscow Mitch might find this out the hard way if he is primaried by a well orchestrated Chinese campaign.

    We spend more money that the next 10 nations combined on our defense, but ignore a direct and well documented attack when it plays to our short term interests.

    Imagine if China wiped out large parts of rural Texas by poisoning the drinking water, making it a blue state. The Democratic version of Moscow Mitch - Shanghai Schumer for example - might say "well, nothing really happened, the FBI report is fake news", and stall all activities because the result works for the Democrats - without Texas, Republicans can kiss D.C. goodbye for a generation.

    More likely than the above example is a constant stream of disinformation from all sides targeting everybody. We've seen what Fox News can do to seniors and the gullible like Michale, but a concerted effort coupled with deepfake videos and simple hacking of our election computers could cause far more widespread confusion.

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    Trump isn't going to win in 2019,

    Of course Trump isn't going to win in 2019..

    First Paula and now you.. :^/ jeeze...

    This time, the governors are Democratic, and nobody is voting for a third party candidate.

    No?? How do you know??

    So it would take a small miracle to pull off that "inside straight" again...

    It was a small miracle the first time as well..

    Face the facts, dood.. Democrats are making ALL the same mistakes they made in 2016...

    Explain to me how a Dim candidate who is for Open Borders, Reparations, Kicking all Americans off their health plans and giving free full health care to Crimmigrants is going to appeal to Independents, NPAs and Trump voters..

    You can't explain that because you and I both know that it's NEVER going to happen..

    No matter WHAT Democrats do, they are going to lose..

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    The problem is that we can expect the Chinese, Iranians, and in fact just about any nation that wants to pick our President or other "elected" representative to interfere with our elections going forward

    If you think they haven't already, your stoopider than I thought.. And THAT says something...

    We spend more money that the next 10 nations combined on our defense, but ignore a direct and well documented attack when it plays to our short term interests.

    You mean "well documented" when Mueller said that the election was NOT AFFECTED at all???

    We've seen what Fox News can do to seniors and the gullible like Michale, but a concerted effort coupled with deepfake videos and simple hacking of our election computers could cause far more widespread confusion.

    Except that Election computers are NOT hooked up to the internet, so they CAN'T be hacked..

    And, thanx for proving I still live rent-free in your head.. :D

  91. [91] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Food for thought:

    Fascinating article by the guy who played Trump in Hillary's debate prep. Here's the best part, when he talks about how to take on Trump's lies:

    As we see every day, the sheer number of Trump’s lies overwhelms even the most diligent media outlets trying to fact check him. Doing so in real-time is all the tougher. So our nominee should know that Trump will lie throughout their debate, but can’t count on the moderator to call them all out and can’t expect the audience to know on their own. So our nominee needs to be able to say, “You’re lying.” Easier said than done. Especially if Trump lies every time he opens his mouth.

    One possible tactic is to simply, and calmly, count out loud. First time he lies, the nominee should say, “That was the first of many lies to come because that’s what he does best.” After that, when Trump lies again, the nominee should interject with a simple “Lie number two,” or, “That was a few, so we’re up to six.” The moderator might scold the candidate for interrupting, but he or she should respond, “If you were calling out his lies, I wouldn’t have to. But someone has to. He gets away with it all day every day. But not here, not now.”

    Here's the link:

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/30/democratic-debates-philippe-reines-trump-clinton-227487

    -CW

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    88

    You are correct, of course.

    In the same way law enforcement, military, and domestic and foreign intelligence have been intercepting communications of their allies as well as adversaries worldwide, voting totals can be intercepted and manipulated. Anyone who tells you otherwise has a political agenda or is an imbecile... or both.

    Enough said. *smiles*

  93. [93] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [88]

    You folks who live, breathe, eat and sleep 'social media', (and that appears to be everybody other than CW and CRS) have totally lost touch with the world of reality.

    People vote their ideology and/or their wallets, they do not vote according to some subliminal propaganda message they get on their facebook page. You guys GROSSLY overestimate the power of foreign governments to affect U.S. elections.

    "Disinformation" and hacking of election systems is not even a genuine threat to our democratic electoral processes.

    The same proclivity that causes you to GROSSLY overestimate the effects of man-made global warming, has the identical effect on your evaluation of threats to our electoral systems. You guys so LOVE to see boogey men behind every door, that you invent them where none such exist.

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    You folks who live, breathe, eat and sleep 'social media', (and that appears to be everybody other than CW and CRS) have totally lost touch with the world of reality.

    Word...

    The same proclivity that causes you to GROSSLY overestimate the effects of man-made global warming, has the identical effect on your evaluation of threats to our electoral systems. You guys so LOVE to see boogey men behind every door, that you invent them where none such exist.

    X2...

    This is evidenced by the FACT that everyone here (NEN) screamed hysterical about Russian Collusion for over 2 years..

    And when the report was done??

    NO COLLUSION

    NO EFFECT ON THE ELECTION OUTCOME

    These people here have been WRONG time and time again and they simply can't handle it..

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Do you HONESTLY think you are telling American voters something they don't already know???

    Everything you SAY about President Trump, the American people ALREADY KNOW...

    And yet, they STILL voted him in as POTUS..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that this time will be any different???

    "'Strenuously object!'?? Is that how it works?? 'I object!!' 'Overruled..' 'I STRENUOUSLY object!!' Oh, well if you strenuously object, then I'll have to really think about it.."
    -Sam Wiseman, A FEW GOOD MEN

    You are not telling anyone anything about Trump that's new..

    Why do you think it's gonna make any difference this time around???

    Sincere question there...

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you think people CARE about the truth??

    I mean, YA'ALL didn't care when Odumbo was lying thru his teeth.. Ya'all STILL supported him..

    What makes you think Trump supporters are going to be any different??

  97. [97] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    88

    Imagine if China wiped out large parts of rural Texas by poisoning the drinking water, making it a blue state.

    Interesting that you would mention China wiping out large parts of rural Texas. The fact is, immigrants from Asian countries have actually been moving to Texas in larger numbers than those from Mexico. We're also getting quite a lot of migration from Californians and New Yorkers.

    Yes, sir. Americans are relocating to so many cities in Texas that they've been dominating the Census charts of late.

    https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/4332422.html

    I'm sure I don't have to tell you how this makes Texas ripe for the flipping.

    Could it flip in 2020? Depends on the candidate, but they're dang sure going to have to spend a lot money in Texas that would be better spent elsewhere.

    Get packing, y'all. When Texas flips, the Republican Party as we know it -- or Trumplican Party if you prefer -- is over... and they know it. :)

  98. [98] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Everything you SAY about President Trump, the American people ALREADY KNOW...And yet, they STILL voted him in as POTUS..Do you HONESTLY believe that this time will be any different?

    Yep. Let me tell you why: first of all, you seem to have an exaggerated sense of how 'big' a win Trump got - as I said before, less than 1% of the vote of more than three states, and less than 5% of others.

    And Hillary beat Trump by almost five million votes the last time, don't forget.

    The question is: what makes you think that Trump will do BETTER this time? He hasn't grown his base at all, and has in fact disqualified himself with many constituencies. Where is Trump gonna pick up the votes that he needs to win?

  99. [99] 
    Paula wrote:

    [91] CW: Brilliant.

  100. [100] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    Liar and imbecile.

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [93]

    You folks who live, breathe, eat and sleep 'social media', (and that appears to be everybody other than CW and CRS) have totally lost touch with the world of reality.

    Interesting that you claim to never have used social media, but know all about it - quite the expert in not only social media, but my use of it.

    In the real World, rather than the one you make up in your head, you would see the impact of social media on our society - the instant trends and viral videos that sweep through the engaged majority of society.

    Let me give you an example from before social media was around to dramatically amplify the memes - remember the Macarena? Even Bob Dole joked that he fell while dancing to it (he wasn't, I'm pretty sure) - but for a few months "doing the Macarena" was a thing.

    The key here is that society is like a large computer, and memes are like computer viruses - some are benign (although some people who were filmed dancing the Macarena might make me revisit that categorization), but many are far more destructive. We learned through trial and error to handle the disinformation from newspapers as a society, and developed a firewall to the more crazy supermarket checkout "journalism", and we were protected during the radio and TV explosions by the limited number of outlets at first. But the ability to broadcast to massive audiences really got going with CNN, and that spawned Fox News - many of our more gullible citizens still believe all they see on TV. (I've probably lost CRS by now folks - his reading limit is about 2 minutes based on the level of thought and critical thinking he displays around here - let us know if you are still with us CRS.) However the real game changer was the personalization of the latest mediums, including our search results, the targeted emails, and ads in emails, phone marketing, as well as, of course, social media sites. This is not a problem limited to social media, but social media allows for incredibly fast A/B testing and thus weaponization of memes.

    Anybody who thinks they are too smart for propaganda are the key market for it - they are fed confirmatory information to make them feel smart, then led down the garden path of the manipulator's choosing.

    There is a bill, co-sponsored by Lindsay Graham, that intends to at least audit these types of activities, but Moscow Mitch (the latest meme - aren't they effective?) has stomped it out - even though it is expected to get at least 80 votes if it gets to the floor of the Senate.

    There is no escaping the more sophisticated meme development and propagation. Finland, who are often the testing ground for Russian interference programs, have embarked on a country wide program to teach the skills that allow a defense against these attacks. The chances of America being able to teach our whole nation to learn how to fact check is pretty low. Especially with people who think they are too smart to be influenced.

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    98

    And Hillary beat Trump by almost five million votes the last time, don't forget.

    He meant three million votes. Don't forget. ;)

    Where is Trump gonna pick up the votes that he needs to win?

    Balthasar makes a valid point here. Trump is going to need to replace the millions of voters from 2016 who are no longer living in 2020 since Trump voters are primarily uneducated old white guys, and statistically speaking, there isn't enough of them. Trump is a "bridge burner" so not at all likely to win back those voters in the suburbs who've already flipped. Just saying.

    Bottom line: There aren't enough stupid white guys to keep Trump in office. For Trump to win, he's going to have to appeal to others. Who would that be?

  103. [103] 
    neilm wrote:

    The word "meme" is interesting in its own right. I first read it in Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" in the late 1970's but it didn't catch on until a lot later. (BTW, Dawkins made up the word by splicing "gene" and the ancient Greek word mimeme — meaning something imitated.)

    Sidenote: Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" was one of the most influential books I've ever read.

    When you look at the rapid development of our cranial capacity (Michale excepted of course) and the convolution of our brain structure, it is difficult to tie it to changes in our environment at the time - central Africa wasn't undergoing major changes that would drive such expensive evolution - to the point where a baby human is born "half done" to allow the head to come out of the mother.

    One of the more likely, in my view anyway, reasons is the social structure complexity and the ability to manipulate other hominids in the group. Thus our intelligence arms race was directed between individuals not as a consequence of the outside world. We were not unique in this, but we did adopt a unique level of intelligence, just as the peacock with the nicer tail got the peahen.

    So gossip and manipulation have been central to our society forever - the latest tools used to spread gossip and manipulate others are just the latest weapons in a multi-million year path.

  104. [104] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Yeah, all those memes constitute a real threat, but I think the mames and the mumes might be even worse!

    "Too smart to be influenced" is a superior and a highly valuable attribute, but I'm guessing that 'insufficiently gullible' could be even more valuable.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep. Let me tell you why: first of all, you seem to have an exaggerated sense of how 'big' a win Trump got - as I said before, less than 1% of the vote of more than three states, and less than 5% of others.

    304 for Donald Trump to 227 for Hillary Clinton..

    That was a BIG win, regardless of how your ego has to spin it to make it thru your day..

    And Hillary beat Trump by almost five million votes the last time, don't forget.

    And if the popular vote had ANY relevance, then you would have an argument.

    But it doesn't so yer just a schmuck trying to spin a HUGE loss into a win..

    The question is: what makes you think that Trump will do BETTER this time? He hasn't grown his base at all,

    Not factually accurate as I have PROVEN several times..

  106. [106] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Too smart to be influenced" is a superior and a highly valuable attribute, but I'm guessing that 'insufficiently gullible' could be even more valuable.

    This issue is that nobody is immune - either by being "too smart", or "insufficiently gullible".

    You have to constantly fact check against multiple reliable sources regarding a few top issues that are important to you to have any chance of independent decision making. For other subjects just about everybody is subject to "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome" - you think you are an "expert" in everything until you actually learn how ignorant you are of a subject.

    Also, as I stated, this is not limited to social media - I barely touch social media now - Facebook used to be fun at first but became a swamp about 3 years ago - and I've not signed up for Instagram, etc and only use Twitter for work.

    However we run very expensive social media marketing campaigns and have diverted most of our money to these (search engine result ads, FB, Twitter) because they are most effective. They also act as a primer for other mediums who broadcast the latest memes on social media - so everybody ends up targeted directly or indirectly.

    Anybody who thinks they are immune from this should see the results from marketing campaigns where we run A/B testing, personalized follow up and personalized step-by-step paths, etc.

    We know where we want to get you, and if you engage, we will get you there - if you don't engage then we have brand management as a backup - and that is also very effective. You are not more or less gullible than most people - you are average gullible, and everybody 3SDs in the lower susceptibility direction are still malleable, as we have proven.

  107. [107] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    Liar and imbecile. A perfect example of someone too stupid to know how stupid he is.

    Is Stucki such a damn fool and a moron that he's completely unaware that his name is easily searchable and all over the damn Internet, sometimes discussing some of the same ridiculous shit he tries here?

    http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/?p=15334

    Ignorant fool!

  108. [108] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    You folks assign such a degree of importance to what nefarious stuff you believe foreigners can do by way of deceiving your fellow U.S. voters, but I'd bet serious money that not a single Dem-type Weigantian would EVER acknowledge having had his vote revised or even influenced by something he encountered on the internet or social media, right?

  109. [109] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [108] since I use the internet as my primary source of information, I always have my vote influenced, and often revised, by the internet - I would assert that the same applies to you but you might just add in different mediums - physical newspapers, TV, radio, your buddies.

    It isn't the medium, it is how you use the medium. Are you open to alternative ideas, are you happy when you learn something new, do you regret decisions made when you uncover new knowledge?

    To paraphrase Keynes:

    "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"

    Where do you get your information from to make your decisions - or do you already know the answer to every question put in front of you?

  110. [110] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Neilm-103

    Dawkins has been an influential popularizer of evolutionary theory and is particularly good at "branding" and "packaging" other people's theories for popular consumption. He can make you think, but there is a maddening lack of mathematical rigor in his ideas that drives experimental biologists nuts....especially if you catch them after they've had a few drinks. It's one thing to explain, quite another to make predictions that can tested by experiment and/or observations. His peer revewed ouput is very limited. He also goes off on a philosophical tangents - atheism being a case in point.

    Memes are not one of his better popularizations.

    I'm not bad mouthing the guy - he inspired a younger me....but you have evaluate him in the proper context. I understand why my grad school mentors tended to give him the the snake eye.

  111. [111] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [109]

    My "information" (ideology, philosophy, etc) have been informed by a (very long) lifetime of observation of how the real world actually works, and a B.S. degree in Econ (with a scary-high GPA). Can't really think of any meaningful contributions from "newspapers, TV, radio or even "my buddies". Perhaps I may have "altered my conclusions" (ala Keynes) when "my information changed", altho nothing of that sort comes momentarily to my mind.

    BTW, I find the concept of "using the internet as (ones) primary source of information" downright scary, and the fact that you do resolves a lot of questions for me.

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    It takes a special kind of bone-deep stupidity like yours to post so prolifically all over the Internet and then attempt to downplay its influence on anyone.

    So which is it?

    * Do you believe only the posts of Americans -- or maybe your own posts -- are capable of influencing others?

    or

    * Do you post prolifically on the Internet simply to practice your keyboarding skills?

    Duh!

  113. [113] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-91

    Wow!

  114. [114] 
    dsws wrote:

    I want a nominee who can win, more than I want one who agrees with me on the whole list of issues. I don't think that Biden is that candidate. On paper, I like Steve Bullock. But I didn't feel as though I could get a clear picture of the candidates from this debate format.

  115. [115] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    OK, no time to dig through all of these, but calling Trump's win a "big" one is hilarious. I don't have the charts I drew up before me right now, but of the something like 50+ elections for president we've had, Trump's victory was something like the 40th-smallest one in the Electoral College.

    So, sorry, but that's not "big," much less a landslide of any sort. [When I'm on my other computer, I can dig the actual figures out, if you require them...]

    -CW

  116. [116] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I went and looked in my own columns for the data, but this is all I came across, from Jan 2017:

    There's been a lot of armchair psychoanalysis of Trump (ranging from "narcissistic" to "megalomaniacal") due to his absolute, unshakeable belief that his election was the most stupendous election in the annals of American history. Again, it was not. It was fairly impressive for a Republican in modern times, but that's about it. It was not, for instance, "a landslide," no matter how many Trump spokesfolk insist that it was. A truthful and verifiable statement on the size of Trump's electoral victory would be something like: "Donald Trump earned the biggest Electoral College victory of any Republican since George H. W. Bush." This is factual, because Trump could have even lost a few states and still won the election. He bested both George W. Bush's records, in other words. But he didn't best Obama's two elections -- not by a longshot. He didn't beat Bill Clinton's record, either. And he certainly didn't come close to Reagan's impressive landslides, or even the tally for the elder Bush. None of these facts matter to Trump -- in his mind, his presidential election was (at the very least) the most awesome since the time of Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps even the best since George Washington. That this is not in any way true does not bother him in the least, because he sees things the way he sees them, and nothing is going to change his opinion.

    I'll go dig the actual numbers out now from my Excel sheet...

    -CW

  117. [117] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, found it.

    13th from the bottom in Electoral College victories, out of 58 elections.

    That's pretty small -- the opposite of "big."

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/16/trumps-easily-debunked-lie/

    You're welcome.

    :-)

    -CW

  118. [118] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-116, 117

    To be fair, when a person posts at 5 minute intervals, in bouts of 2 or 3 hrs, several times a day, it doesn't leave them a lot of time for research, fact checking and such like.

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    118

    Heh. :)

Comments for this article are closed.