ChrisWeigant.com

Three-Dot Tuesday

[ Posted Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 – 14:51 UTC ]

It's been a long few weeks covering the two national political conventions, and aside from last Friday, this is really the first day I have had with an open column -- one not predetermined by events or the calendar. And a whole lot has been going on in the meantime. I'm not even going to pretend to cover it all today, instead I'm going to offer up a few random vignettes in the form of brief and disconnected paragraphs. As always when I'm in this kind of mood, I will be doing so in homage to the late, great Herb Caen, master of "three-dot" journalism in San Francisco.

So, with that out of the way, here we go...

 

...I'll begin with a personal (and professional) note, I've been considering applying for press credentials for the final 2016 presidential debate, which is taking place in Las Vegas (which isn't too far for me to travel). Hey, they let me in to the convention, so maybe they'll let me in to debate night, who knows? So, what do you think of the idea? Should I go see the last debate, or watch it on television here at home? Might be kind of interesting to see one of these in person, but watching from the couch is a whale of a lot easier...

 

...The one overwhelming impression I got from the reality sinking in of who both parties nominated is that the early call turned out to be correct. This year, the two parties switched their traditional standard operating procedures for selecting presidential nominees: the Republicans fell in love, and the Democrats fell in line. Make of that what you will...

 

...We're still a few days too early to tell for certain, but it seems like Hillary Clinton's convention bounce in the polls seems to have staying power. Normally, candidates get a convention bounce that usually sinks right back down again -- as Donald Trump just did. But sometimes a candidate can maintain the lead beyond the week after the convention. If Hillary's numbers stay high for the next four or five days, she'll have achieved this task, making it a lot easier for her to win in November...

 

...This brings up an interesting side speculation. Was Trump's bump's disappearance due to the fact that since the conventions he's been... well, being Donald Trump... or could it perhaps have something to do with the scheduling of the two conventions? Historically, the conventions happened weeks apart. Nowadays, they follow one another. Is there an inherent advantage to going last? The second-in-line party has their national week of prominence right after the first-in-line party's candidate gets their poll bump. So maybe it induces a kind of political whiplash on the public? If anyone else comes to this conclusion, we may see a "race to be last" next time around, with Democrats and Republicans both trying to score that second-week bump...

 

...Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has a primary today. Everyone expects him to easily beat his Trump-esque (Trumpian? Trumptastic?) challenger, though. What will be more interesting to see is Arizona's primary (at the end of this month), where Senator John McCain might just be kicked out before the general election. I prematurely wrote about this contest during the presidential primary season, before I realized Arizona held a separate primary for non-presidential offices...

 

...Speaking of Republicans other than Trump, it seems the trickle of GOP establishment types publicly announcing they can't support their party's nominee may not yet have turned into a flood -- but it certainly merits the status of steady stream, at this point. Susan Collins became the seventh Republican senator to back strongly away from voting for Trump, and 50 former national security experts on the Republican side (reaching from those in the Nixon administration to those advising Dick Cheney) just signed a letter saying Donald Trump would be a dangerous man to entrust with the nuclear codes (or anything else within reach inside the Oval Office). Will the last Republican to exit the Trump rally please turn out the lights...

 

...And finally, in the vast "Happened over the summer, so Saturday Night Live will miss an easy opportunity for hilarity" category, we have Donald Trump's recent speech on his new economic plan. Well, "new" is a stretch, since it is essentially the same plan Republicans have been peddling for at least 35 years: "The answer to every conceivable problem is to give your boss a big tax cut. Hey, presto! All fixed!" But the content wasn't what caused a Twitter storm -- it was the fact that Trump tried to say "cities" at one point, but it came out "titties." So we close today with the absolute funniest tweet (from Chris Real) that has so far appeared in response:

Stop making fun of #Trump for accidentally saying titties, it's a mistake anyone could've titties.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

134 Comments on “Three-Dot Tuesday”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "I've been considering applying for press credentials for the final 2016 presidential debate, which is taking place in Las Vegas"

    You really think there will be one?

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Now that Trump is recommending 2nd Amendment solutions to his thugs, I do hope you get out of there before the shooting starts. That is, if there is a "debate".

  3. [3] 
    apophis wrote:

    Clinton's convention bounce seems to be holding. Ran my model this morning and it shows Clinton EV 335 and Trump EV 203 with a probability of a Clinton win at 82%.

    For the 59th time, Trump is toast. I see no way of Trump turning those numbers around.

    I use only state polling data in my model and update the data base at midnight. I believe TheStig is running models and it's always interesting to compare.
    It's beyond the scope and intent of this blog to get into the mathematics, but always good to hear bottom line calculations. Yeah, I'm a geek, and Trump is toast for the 60th time...

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Just When You Think Trump Can't Slink Any Lower..."


    “If she gets to pick her judges ? nothing you can do, folks,” Trump said with a shrug at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina. “Although, the Second Amendment people. Maybe there is. I don’t know.”

    Well, at least the Secret Service won't have to drive very far when it is time to arrest him...

  5. [5] 
    apophis wrote:

    Go for it CW. Should be a great debate.

  6. [6] 
    apophis wrote:

    [4]
    ListenWhenYouHear

    I have nothing. Just WOW!!! Trump is toast # 61...

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    ...I dunno..maybe we ought to just skip this whole election thing and arrange a duel. Glove slap, seconds, meet you on the Mall at sunrise...

    ...Guns. They're not just for Republicans anymore...

    ...Trump says he's willing to duel Clinton if it's "fair." I think he's backing out. He's an awfully big target compared to HC. That's not fair. Awful, big target. That's another and better way of putting it...

  8. [8] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump warned viewers of the GOP debates of the dangerous possibility of “having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon,” and said “that's in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now.” Well, that's one thing I actually agree with Trump on!

  9. [9] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Honestly, a lot of people are saying

    "Soy un perdedor

    I'm a loser baby so why don't you kill me"

  10. [10] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    TheStig [9],

    That was GOOD!

  11. [11] 
    apophis wrote:

    Trump est grillé, # 62..

  12. [12] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I wonder what Abe Lincoln would think about the 2nd amendment solution. "Nice shot John. The better angels of our nature got me."

  13. [13] 
    apophis wrote:

    LOFLMAO

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    Clinton is tweeking Trump by openly considering putting resources into Arizona and Georgia. She is basically saying "not only am I going to win, I'm going to humiliate you in November".

    This is a good tactic if Trump can be prompted into retaliating - we've seen how hopeless he is at controlling himself.

    In related news, there is an upswell in the right of Hillary playing the "female card" (e.g. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-women-voters-perspec-0809-md-20160808-story.html). The article is fair enough, even if I don't agree with all, or even much, of it.

    If Hillary can get Trump worked up about AZ and GA and he latches on to the "female card" meme, Hillary should be able to get a response that will add to the "find a new job if you're harassed" scrapbook of quotes.

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    A lot of people are saying "orderlies with nets and big syringes full of tranqs. As seen in Beautiful Mind. Before he injures himself or others."

  16. [16] 
    apophis wrote:

    [14]
    neilm

    "In related news, there is an upswell in the right of Hillary playing the "female card""

    They'll keep it up until momma goes down in the basement and says STFU...

    Sorry momma. Damn right, we own all the pussy and half the money, so get over it...

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    In all honesty, Jeb! Bush slapped his cheek and and cried out "no mas pantalones."
    "Can we have a do over?"

  18. [18] 
    apophis wrote:

    [15]
    TheStig

    There coming to take me away. Ha Ha

  19. [19] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Rudy Ghouliani is suggesting that the Orange One was suggesting that 2nd amendment people should get politically active. Big Orange only does "suggestions", after all.

    I was under the impression that 2nd amendment people already are politically active, not to mention the fact that getting politically active after she's already elected will not stop her from picking judges.

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I had lunch with a woman I know today. She's been on Trump's Crazy Train for quite some time now. She claims that her main issue is tax relief. Yeah, I know. She's not paying attention to what he says. I told her that, since KY is a very red state, she should vote Libertarian. I don't think I convinced her. She said she hates McConnell and all of these politicians who stay forever. I have to say that the GOP does a good job of teaching their low info voters to memorize nonsensical, self-defeating talking points. She's going to vote to re-elect Rant Paul (R).

  21. [21] 
    BigGuy wrote:

    Yesterday Mr. Trump seemed to be listening to the little Mitt Romney dressed as an angel on his right shoulder. He actually spoke for an hour staying mostly on an issue. It was kind of refreshing and I agreed with a couple points. It seemed main stream Republican: lower taxes mean more jobs. Don't specify where cuts will be from to offset the cuts and to reduce the deficit/debt. All titties (sic) problems can be laid to rest at the feet of Secretary Clinton's policies - give me a break. Repeal the ACA without a plan to replace it.

    To earn my vote a candidate will have to provide a sensible plan on controlling health care costs and to provide every American affordable health care. The ACA was a foot in the door, but much more needs to be done. I used to split ticket, but that doesn't seem too likely this year.

    Today the guy with a pitchfork on his left shoulder, who looked suspiciously like Dirty Harry, could not take it any longer and stabbed little Mitt. But not to worry, his personal interpreter Rudy Giuliani told us what he really meant.

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Republicans have been offering tax cuts for the rich as the panacea since 1980 with no details. Do we really expect Trump of all people to actually deliver a real business plan?

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you want me to answer that?

    Where's Timothy Geithner when you need him?

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    John From Censornati [1] -

    I'd put the odds (being Vegas and all...) at about 50/50 that there'll even be a third debate.

    First debate? 90%
    Second debate? 60-65%
    Third debate? 50%

    Especially if Trump is universally panned for his first debate appearance. If he comes out of it surprisingly strong, then there'll be subsequent debates. If he loses his cool and Hillary eats his lunch, no more debates.

    But I've got to apply now -- there's a deadline...

    :-)

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    BigGuy [21] -

    I know it's OK to call you Guy, but I'm a formal sort of... um, well... guy. Heh.

    I just had to say I liked your angel/Romney, demon/Clint metaphor -- pretty funny!

    Hmmm... haven't seen Michale on this thread yet, so allow me a pre-emptive shot across his bow:

    Michale -

    No matter what you have to say about the rest of the article, you've got to admit that that response tweet was funny, right? Just on comedic value alone....

    :-)

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig [7] -

    Bladensburg. DC outlawed dueling even at its height. So all the politicians rode their horses out to the Maryland 'burbs (Bladensburg Field) to hold their duels.

    Just to be 100% historically accurate (and to tweak one of my readers who shall remain unnamed, but who I know lives in Bladensburg today... heh).

    :-)

    "Pistols at dawn, Sir! Out in Maryland, of course..."

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all whining about Trump's 2nd Amendment joke..

    Yet ya'all are completely silent when Trump supporters are attacked, vandalized, assaulted and shot...

    Hell, ya'all didn't even say dick about the 2 assassination attempts on Trump's life..

    You people have absolutely NO MORAL AUTHORITY or NO ETHICAL FOUNDATION to complain about ANY alleged violence coming from Trump.

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

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    JFC,

    I had lunch with a woman I know today.

    Do you usually have lunch with low-information women?? :D

    Birds of a feather, I guess.. :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    No matter what you have to say about the rest of the article, you've got to admit that that response tweet was funny, right? Just on comedic value alone....

    heh Yea, that was pretty good..

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    apophis,

    For the 59th time, Trump is toast. I see no way of Trump turning those numbers around.

    Even ya'all begin to acknowledge how wrong ya'all have been, over and over and over again.. :D

    I admire such adherence to Party dogma and such loyalty to Party ideology... It's refreshing in a sad sort of way to see someone so enslaved by Party that they can't have a singularly independent thought.. :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    apophis,

    And, just channeling my inner Joshua...

    There coming to take me away. Ha Ha

    That would be "THEY'RE".....

    I know, I know... Grammar lame.. :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wonder what Abe Lincoln would think about the 2nd amendment solution. "Nice shot John. The better angels of our nature got me."

    WOW...

    What's next? Making jokes of the Orlando victims??

    :^/

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess that's what passes for "serious" discussions around here.. Making jokes of a beloved president being killed..

    He was just a Republican after all, so I guess the jokes coming from ya'all are understandable... :^/

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's rather ironic in a sad sort of way...

    For all the talk of the Left Wingery's "tolerance" and "diversity" 99.9% of all the attacks against Trump are PERSONAL attacks...

    For the most part, attacks on Clinton are based on what she has done, her incompetence based on her actions..

    Ya'all attack Trump for his hair, his hands and his skin....

    Take a step back from yerselves and see how ridiculous ya'all sound...

    If that's possible...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bloomfield police: Man beaten with crowbar for wearing Trump shirt
    http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime-and-courts/man-with-trump-shirt-attacked-with-crowbar-in-bloomfield-police-say-1.1642025

    Trump supporters are BEATEN because they are Trump supporters...

    Ya'all don't say diddley squat...

    Trump makes an off-color joke about 2nd Amendment people rising up and ya'all hysterically lose your frakin' minds...

    Yea, THAT'S not partisan ideological slavery at work.. :^/

    Like I said...

    NO..... MORAL.... AUTHORITY....

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The problem with a duel is that one will likely survive. My previous suggestion for a Trump/Clinton horseshoe contest with hand grenades shaped like horseshoes still has a better chance of achieving the elimination of both threats to the well being of our country.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    The Republicans have been offering tax cuts for the rich as the panacea since 1980 with no details.

    Yea, cuz Odumbo's and the Demcorats plan of scrooing over the Middle Class has done WONDERS, right?? :^/

    Maybe you should take the time and smell what you are shoveling..

    I'm just sayin'....

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem with a duel is that one will likely survive. My previous suggestion for a Trump/Clinton horseshoe contest with hand grenades shaped like horseshoes still has a better chance of achieving the elimination of both threats to the well being of our country.

    Careful Don...

    Suggesting that ANY harm should come to rhymes-with-witch Hillary will cause the W.P.G. to lose their collective minds... :D

    It's really ridiculous the threaten the rhymes-with-witch anyways...

    She is likely to keel over and croak from one of her many neurological maladies anyways, without any help from anyone else..

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, so, am I the ONLY one around here who misses Secretary Geithner??

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Okay, so, am I the ONLY one around here who misses Secretary Geithner??

    Considering how crappy this so-called "recovery" has been... I would say yea... :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would you like to hazard a guess at to where your sorry ass would be without him?

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would you like to hazard a guess as to where your sorry ass would be without him?

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Anything worth saying is worth repeating, as they say ... :)

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would you like to hazard a guess at to where your sorry ass would be without him?

    Me, personally??

    A helluva lot better off than I am now... :D

    And I take exception with the description of my ass as "sorry"...

    I have a VERY cute ass, thank you very much... :D

    “First of all: this face? Is super cute.”
    -God, AKA Chuck Shurley

    :D

    Anything worth saying is worth repeating, as they say ... :)

    Which is exactly why I do it so much.. :D heh

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I take exception with the description of my ass as "sorry"...

    I have a VERY cute ass, thank you very much... :D

    Did you WANT to talk about my ass?? Or were you just makin' chit chat?? :D

    "We may catch a break and have that blizzard blow by us. All this moisture coming up out of the south... will probably push on east of us. At high altitudes it will crystallize and give us what we call snow. Probably will be some accumulation... But here in Punxsutawney our high will be about 30 today, teens tonight.
    Chance of precipitation about 20 percent today and 20 percent tomorrow.

    Did you WANT to talk about the weather?? Or were you just making chit-chat?"
    -Bill Murray, GROUNDHOG DAY

    :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Well, we knew the gloves were off. Apparently the safety is of as well.

  47. [47] 
    TheStig wrote:

    NYP22-46

    Good God..there's a safety? Since?

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, we knew the gloves were off. Apparently the safety is of as well.

    The gloves AND the safeties were off when Trump and Trump supporters were being attacked and assaulted..

    Ya'all just refused to acknowledge it until YOUR candidate was in the cross-hairs...

    Funny how that is, iddn't it..

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @48,

    first of all, all political violence is wrong, unless you legitimately felt your life and health were being threatened, making self-defense necessary. there is no excuse for someone harming donald or his supporters, just as there is no excuse for harming hillary or bernie or ted cruz or their supporters.

    nonetheless, the reason this is a false equivalency and the appeal to hypocrisy argument falls flat (beside the fact that it is a logical fallacy and invalid anyway), is that there is a BIG difference between what a candidate says and does and what some random citizen says and does.

    we have already accepted and agreed upon the premise that a candidate is NOT responsible for actions taken on their behalf without their knowledge or consent, such as the kkk and american nazi party on donald's side, or the orlando bomber's dad on hillary's side. those people are crazy or evil all on their own, and the candidates don't control their independent decisions.

    however, a candidate IS responsible for what he or she says and does, AND what their campaign says and does. so, when hillary claimed director comey had called her statements truthful ("no evidence of deception" is not the same as true), that's not what he said, and she deserves whatever flack she gets for misrepresenting that fact. likewise, when donald himself says he'd like to punch someone in the face, or jokes about "second amendment people" preventing judges from being appointed or making rulings after the election, he IS responsible for that statement.

    maybe donald genuinely didn't intend for that statement to be interpreted as an incitement to violence. maybe in his head he really did mean people should get out and peacefully protest for their second amendment rights.

    however, failing to realize that such a statement could be legitimately interpreted as an incitement to armed revolt was, to coin a phrase, "extremely careless."

    JL

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    nonetheless, the reason this is a false equivalency and the appeal to hypocrisy argument falls flat (beside the fact that it is a logical fallacy and invalid anyway), is that there is a BIG difference between what a candidate says and does and what some random citizen says and does.

    For you and I, maybe...

    But I am talking about the general Weigantian population...

    See how quick they are to jump on suggestions of violence from Trump..

    Yet they ignore the very REAL violence committed against Trump and Trump supporters..

    Trump was the victim of TWO (likely 3) assassination attempts!! You don't think the rhetoric of the Left Wingery had ANYTHING to do with that??

    Turn it around and see what ya'all would say if HILLARY had been the victim of an assassination attempt.. Ya'all would have lost your frakin' minds!

    The hypocrisy charge sticks... If ya'all can't condemn ALL violence when it occurs, then ya'all have absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to condemn ANY violence...

    It's really that simple...

    Irregardless of all that, Trump's statement was obviously geared towards 2nd Amendment supporters banding together to go against Hillary...

    This is nothing more than TRUMP IS A RACIST/MCCARTHY SAID BENGHAZI WAS TO GET HILLARY bullcarp all over again...

    Nothing but spin...

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    however, failing to realize that such a statement could be legitimately interpreted as an incitement to armed revolt was, to coin a phrase, "extremely careless."

    Of course, you would say the same thing about "careless" statements coming from the Left, right??

    Well, *YOU* probably would... No one else here can legitimately make the same claim...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    we have already accepted and agreed upon the premise that a candidate is NOT responsible for actions taken on their behalf without their knowledge or consent, such as the kkk and american nazi party on donald's side, or the orlando bomber's dad on hillary's side. those people are crazy or evil all on their own, and the candidates don't control their independent decisions.

    Well, "we" as in you and I agree..

    But it's clear that the rest of the WPG clearly believe that Trump is responsible for EVERYTHING his supporters do and Hillary is NOT responsible for ANYTHING her supporters do..

    It's all about the little '-D' after Hillary's name... :D

    Which is why it's clear that the hypocrisy label is a valid one..

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    first of all, all political violence is wrong, unless you legitimately felt your life and health were being threatened, making self-defense necessary. there is no excuse for someone harming donald or his supporters, just as there is no excuse for harming hillary or bernie or ted cruz or their supporters.

    And if people like Paula, Neil, etc etc would agree to that in word and in deed, then you might have a case..

    But you and I both know that they et al will not, so.......

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    How come we didn't hear anything about assassinating candidates from the WPG when Hillary intimated that Obama could be assassinated???

    I know that CW raked Hillary over the coals for that statement. Even awarded her an MDDOTW award, if I recall correctly..

    But no one here did or will condemn Hillary for THAT assassination intimation, right?? Well, you probably will..

    But again, people like Paula, Neil, TS, Listen et al won't...

    So, my accusation of hypocrisy still stands....

    It just doesn't apply to you.. :D

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    I also note that no one here in Weigantia condemned Glenn Beck and author Brad Thor when THEY intimated that Trump should be assassinated..

    You see my point???

    Ya'all (obvious exceptions noted) don't MIND assassination talk and assassination attempts..

    As long as it's TRUMP who is the target of the talk and the attempts..

    The facts clearly show this to be the case...

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    "And I'm spent"
    -Austin Powers

    :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    "If only.... If only...."
    -Hades, HERCULES

    :D heh

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And if people like Paula, Neil, etc etc would agree to that in word and in deed, then you might have a case..

    i believe that most if not all weigantians would indeed agree to those terms.

    so, submitted for community approval:

    1. candidates are not responsible for actions taken by private citizens on their behalf, without their knowledge or consent.
    2. all political violence and incitement to violence are wrong, unless someone's life and health are in immediate danger.
    3. candidates are responsible for the harm done by their own words and actions, no matter how much or how little we may like them politically.

    if anyone here agrees, speak up!

    JL

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    i believe that most if not all weigantians would indeed agree to those terms.

    The words are easy...

    It's the deed part that's gonna slap them down.. :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, even saying the words is a bridge too far.. :D

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Obama daughter is ALSO a pothead...

    Wish I could say I was surprised... :^/

    And before I get dinged, just remember how the Left Wingery treated the Bush daughters...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Police: Man Assaulted After Saying ‘All Lives Matter’ To Group At Bar
    http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/08/08/police-man-assaulted-after-saying-all-lives-matter-to-group-at-bar/

    Ahhhhh yes...

    The peace and tolerance of the Left Wingery.... :^/

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, forget about all the violence coming from the Left Wingery..

    Let's talk the economy...

    Real hourly compensation decreased 0.4 percent after revision, rather than the previously-published increase of 4.2 percent. Compensation also fell another 1.4 percent in the second quarter, from April to June. That’s 2 percent drop in wages since December.
    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm

    Well... OKAY... Talking the economy is ALSO not a strong suit for the Democrat Party... :^/

    Gee whiz... Demcorats don't have much good to talk about at all....

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Paula wrote:

    So this came out today: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/10/12418428/baltimore-police-investigation-justice-department-report

    The Baltimore Police Department is a complete and utter disaster.

    That’s the only possible takeaway from reading the US Department of Justice’s 163-page report into Baltimore police, leaked on Tuesday. The report found major flaws in even the most basic modern policing practices, from arrests to use of force to basic interactions with the community. To make it worse, these findings are compounded by what appears to be purposeful, disproportionate targeting of the city’s black residents.

    "Racially disparate impact is present at every stage of BPD’s enforcement actions, from the initial decision to stop individuals on Baltimore streets to searches, arrests, and uses of force," the report concluded. "These racial disparities, along with evidence suggesting intentional discrimination, erode the community trust that is critical to effective policing."

    The Justice Department’s conclusions come after an investigation that lasted more than a year, launched swiftly after protests and riots over the death of Freddie Gray while in Baltimore police custody and, more broadly, over racial disparities in policing and the criminal justice system. Federal investigators pored through data and police reports, as well as attended in-person events, including ride-alongs, to conduct their investigation.

    Noted later in the article, there had been plenty of complaints over the years and the Baltimore PD had paid out millions of dollars in settlements, but nothing was done until the protests that followed Freddie Gray's death.

    The article concludes:
    Almost everyone who spoke to us — from current and former city leaders, BPD officers and command staff during ride-alongs and interviews, community members throughout the many neighborhoods of Baltimore, union representatives of all levels of officers in BPD, advocacy groups, and civic and religious leaders — agrees that BPD has significant problems that have undermined its efforts to police constitutionally and effectively. As we note in this report, many of these people and groups have documented those problems in the past, and although they may disagree about the nature, scope, and solutions to the challenges, many have also made efforts to address them.

  65. [65] 
    Paula wrote:

    [58] nypoet -- almost. The tricky part? Where is the line where Candidate's words/actions (#3) lead to acts by others? (#1).

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Big deal..

    That's the same DOJ that said Zimmerman's actions were racist... They weren't..

    The same DOJ that said Officer Wilson's actions were racist.. They weren't..

    The same DOJ thgat said Officer Pantelano's actions were racist... They weren't...

    The DOJ has been wrong time and time and time again....

    These claims against the various PDs and SOs are nothing but political ideology at work...

    No factual basis whatsoever..

    Nothing but conclusion based evidence...

    Michale.....

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    3. candidates are responsible for the harm done by their own words and actions, no matter how much or how little we may like them politically.

    So, what you are saying is that if there is no harm done by a candidate's words or actions by 3rd parties, the words or actions are perfectly acceptable??

    For example, when Hillary intimated that Obama could be assassinated.... No harm came to Obama, so Hillary's intimations were perfectly acceptable...

    Right???

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    DOJ BLOCKED CLINTON FOUNDATION PROBE
    Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html

    Like I said, you can't trust ANYTHING coming out of Obama's DOJ....

    It's NOTHING but politics.. No real justice to be found....

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    For example, when Hillary intimated that Obama could be assassinated.... No harm came to Obama, so Hillary's intimations were perfectly acceptable...

    Right???

    Don't get me wrong.. I am not trying to be facetious or snarky here...

    About ANY of it...

    My only beef is that the standards ya'all want to follow be CONSISTENT and not based, as you say, "no matter how much or how little we may like them politically."

    In other words, if ya'all want to slam Trump for intimating assassination of Hillary, that's fine.. I have no problem with that..

    Where I have the problem is when ya'all give Hillary a pass for doing the exact same thing....

    My beef has never (usually) been what ya'all do or say... My beef has always been that it's not consistent... It's strictly based on partisan ideology...

    It's like the violence thing.. If violence is unacceptable, great.. No biggie.. Peachy... But it should be unacceptable across the board..

    If violence is acceptable, then again.. GREAT... No biggie... Peachy keen... But it should be acceptable across the board....

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @Paula,

    If there is a clear sequence of events tying the candidate's words to the followers' actions, then there is culpability.

    @Michale,

    If there is no harm done we can still condemn the words and perhaps warn of the potential for harm. Direct incitement can lead to arrests as well. For example if a candidate tells his followers to go kill some Jews, that's a hate crime even if none of them actually do.

    As to the 08 primary you'll have to provide the entire quote.

    JL

  71. [71] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    See Brandenburg v Ohio

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    As to the 08 primary you'll have to provide the entire quote.

    Is CW's commentary sufficient???

    On May 23, Hillary Clinton said something downright despicable. There's just no other word to describe her insinuation. From "Hillary Clinton Raises the Specter of the Unspeakable," here is Hillary musing on a possible end to the Democratic nomination race:

    Smart candidates don't invoke the possibility of their opponents being killed. This seems so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, but apparently, it needs to be said.

    "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," Hillary Clinton said yesterday, referencing the fact that past nomination contests have stretched into June to explain why she hasn't heeded calls to exit the Democratic race. She was in an editorial board meeting with a South Dakota newspaper, and she didn't even seem to notice she'd just uttered the unutterable.

    The nation's political science students, our future strategists and campaign managers, would do well to pay attention to this moment. There are taboos in presidential politics, and this is one of the biggest. To raise the specter of a rival's assassination, even unintentionally, is to make a truly terrible thing real. It sounds like one might be waiting for a terrible thing to happen, even if one isn't. It sounds almost like wishful thinking.

    She had to immediately apologize, but within the apology article ("Clinton Sorry For Remark About RFK Assassination; Comment Was Made in Reference to Primaries") were a few other slights she had recently made (there was an enormous battle over whether the Florida and Michigan delegations would count at the convention, since they had defied D.N.C. rules by scheduling their primaries too early):
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/04/27/the-end-of-hillary-clintons-2008-campaign/

    As he is wont to do, CW took Clinton to task..

    You will also note that NO ONE ELSE DID....

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    See Brandenburg v Ohio

    Interesting read....

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    The important part is this:

    The nation's political science students, our future strategists and campaign managers, would do well to pay attention to this moment. There are taboos in presidential politics, and this is one of the biggest. To raise the specter of a rival's assassination, even unintentionally, is to make a truly terrible thing real. It sounds like one might be waiting for a terrible thing to happen, even if one isn't. It sounds almost like wishful thinking.

    I will grant you that it appears Trump is guilty of this..

    But so is Hillary...

    So, if Trump is condemned, then Hillary must be as well..

    Again.. Consistency is the key...

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Paula wrote:

    The full report on the DOJ investigation of Baltimore PD: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3009376/BPD-Findings-Report-FINAL.pdf

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    The full report on the DOJ investigation of Baltimore PD: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3009376/BPD-Findings-Report-FINAL.pdf

    Does that report include the fact that the State Attorney had her ass handed to her by the courts because she put cops on trial just to appease the black community??

    No???

    Then that report ain't worth dog carp....

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I will grant you that it appears Trump is guilty of this..
    But so is Hillary...

    I'd forgotten about that. I concede the point.

    JL

  78. [78] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Banana Republic Don has already made it clear that he wants his political opponent imprisoned, so I really don't believe that he was asking his thugs to shoot HilRod. With the Secret Service in the way, it would be difficult anyway.

    He was suggesting that they could kill the judges. He probably believes that she'll nominate that Mexican judge for helping her out.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    I'd forgotten about that. I concede the point.

    Thank you... Now, you and I will never have to speak of this again....

    To The Rest Of Weigantia,

    Ya'all see how easy that is??? :^/

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Banana Republic Don has already made it clear that he wants his political opponent imprisoned, so I really don't believe that he was asking his thugs to shoot HilRod.

    You mean, as opposed to Hussein Obama who HAS actually imprisoned political opponents and who has sic'ed his IRS on other political opponents???

    You mean like that???

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michael, [66]

    The DOJ did NOT find Officer Wilson's or Officer's Pantelano's actions to be racially motivated. That's a freaking LIE! I can't speak on whether you are lying about the DOJ's findings in GZ case because I haven't read it, but seeing how all the evidence clearly supported GZ's innocence and the fact that he is not a gov't employee, I cannot see how they could conclude his being attacked by Trayvon Martin was "racist"! You are the one trashing their reputation when they were completely exonerated by the DOJ, but I always forget that with you, you'll say anything to prove your point!

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    The DOJ did NOT find Officer Wilson's or Officer's Pantelano's actions to be racially motivated. That's a freaking LIE!

    Uh.. That's what I said..

    They ACCUSED Wilson and Pantaleno of racism, but they couldn't PROVE any racism at all.

    Just like in the Sanford shooting..

    I cannot see how they could conclude his being attacked by Trayvon Martin was "racist"!

    The DOJ *ACCUSED* Zimmerman of racism, even though there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support the accusation..

    You are the one trashing their reputation when they were completely exonerated by the DOJ,

    Yes they were completely exonerated by the DOJ.. You are making MY argument..

    But my point was that the DOJ put these cops (and neighborhood watch guy) thru the ringer, TOTALLY trashing their reputations and ALL for naught, because there wasn't a SINGLE IOTA of factual evidence to support the accusation that ANY of those guys were racist..

    THAT's my point..

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    NO! The DOJ did not ACCUSE the officers of anything! That isn't how it works, NOR IS IT WHAT YOU SAID!!


    That's the same DOJ that said Zimmerman's actions were racist... They weren't..

    The same DOJ that said Officer Wilson's actions were racist.. They weren't..

    The same DOJ thgat said Officer Pantelano's actions were racist... They weren't...

    You lied. You weren't saying that they were investigating these things, you claim that the DOJ stated that they found the actions these men had committed were "racist". You can back peddle all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you are the one here bashing the police's credibility and reputation with your dishonesty!

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jeezus, talk about trying to define what the definition of IS is..

    Listen, listen...

    The DOJ said that Zimmerman's actions were racist... Then the DOJ went about trying to PROVE that Zimmerman's actions were racist..

    The DOJ couldn't..

    The same thing happened with Wilson and Pantaleno..

    you claim that the DOJ stated that they found the actions these men had committed were "racist".

    I said nothing of the sort.. Matter of fact, I said the COMPLETE opposite...

    The DOJ *SAID* that the actions of the cops and Zimmerman were racist. But the DOJ couldn't PROVE that their actions were racist because there was NO EVIDENCE to support the DOJ's accusation...

    You need to look at what I actually say, rather than assume that you THINK you know what I am saying...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Americans are getting sick and tired of all the ignorant Trump Bashing by the media..

    CNN SLIPS TO 3RD PLACE WITH TRUMP BASHING OVERLOAD...
    http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-tuesday-august-9/301887

    When is the Left Wingery going to learn? Such blatantly ignorant, false and utterly ridiculous attacks on Trump only makes Trump stronger and makes more Americans want to vote Trump...

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Let me lay it out for you..

    The DOJ said that Zimmerman, Wilson and Panteleno were racists and that their actions were based on racism..

    But when the DOJ went about PROVING that, the DOJ couldn't find ANY evidence to support that accusation..

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

    So, the DOJ reluctantly cleared the officers and Zimmerman but then set about nit-picking their way thru the various PDs and SOs to redeem themselves..

    When it comes to charges of racism, Odumbo's DOJ simply CANNOT BE TRUSTED....

    The evidence to support this conclusion is factual and it is well-documented.

    But I understand where you are coming from.. You simply CANNOT allow yourself to believe that Odumbo's DOJ is anything but perfect..

    When it comes to loyalty to the Democrat Party or loyalty to Law Enforcement, your loyalty is perfectly clear..

    PARTY UBER ALLES and throw the cops under the bus... :^/

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    When it comes to loyalty to the Democrat Party or loyalty to Law Enforcement, your loyalty is perfectly clear..

    PARTY UBER ALLES and throw the cops under the bus... :^/

    And yes.. That's as low of a blow as your previous one was...

    "Don't start none.... Won't be none...
    -Will Smith, MEN IN BLACK

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    i believe that most if not all weigantians would indeed agree to those terms.

    so, submitted for community approval:

    1. candidates are not responsible for actions taken by private citizens on their behalf, without their knowledge or consent.
    2. all political violence and incitement to violence are wrong, unless someone's life and health are in immediate danger.
    3. candidates are responsible for the harm done by their own words and actions, no matter how much or how little we may like them politically.

    if anyone here agrees, speak up!

    As I indicated, looks like it's just you n me, Joshua... :D

    Don't take it personally... It's just a case of no one can bear to bring themselves to be on the same side as me, no matter how dead on ballz the right thing to do it is..... :D

    Their partisan ideological filters simply will not allow it...

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

    And Trump cuts Hillary's lead to just 3 points..

    So much for Hillary's convention bump... It's gone..

    Cherry picking polls is fun!!! :D

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Paula wrote:
  91. [91] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    [88] paula requested clarification but seemed pretty much on board. neil and others may not have read my comment yet.

    [86] you've made a factual claim, and russ has disputed it. the way to put this question to rest is to provide a quote from the DOJ indicating that they made accusations of racism prior to completing their investigations. as yet all i've found from them on any of the cases is of the "we are investigating" variety, i.e. not an accusation.

    as you well know, it's one thing for a private citizen to armchair litigate, and quite another for a government agency to make an official statement. so, if you have evidence to support your assertion that the DOJ made accusations, please provide a quote and a link for each case. unless you can, i tend to side with russ on this (although i would give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you're not lying but mistaken).

    JL

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    More anti-cop rhetoric based on no facts whatsoever...

    The same kind of BS rhetoric that caused State Attorney Mosby to file bogus charges against good cops..

    When you can address THAT, then come talk to me about your DOJ BS report...

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    if the most donald-friendly poll you can come up with still has hillary in the lead, i'll take it. rasmussen has traditionally sampled more right-leaning voters, so any lead by hillary in their poll is a good sign.

    JL

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    [88] paula requested clarification but seemed pretty much on board. neil and others may not have read my comment yet.

    I see no evidence of that..

    She said " -- almost. The tricky part? Where is the line where Candidate's words/actions (#3) lead to acts by others? (#1)."

    I have NO IDEA what that means and, as usual, she refuses to address the points..

    you've made a factual claim,

    Yes.. The DOJ accused those cops and Zimmerman of being racists and that racism was the reason for their actions...

    That is a factual claim..

    if you have evidence to support your assertion that the DOJ made accusations, please provide a quote and a link for each case.

    The mere fact that the DOJ **INVESTIGATED** each person is proof that the accusations were made...

    Before you can have an investigation, you have to have an accusation...

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    if the most donald-friendly poll you can come up with still has hillary in the lead, i'll take it. rasmussen has traditionally sampled more right-leaning voters, so any lead by hillary in their poll is a good sign.

    But the TREND, the MOMENTUM is going in Trump's favor..

    But my point in the poll is not that Hillary is winning.. It's that Hillary is winning by a SMALL margin and that margin is shrinking..

    This counters the BS from the WPG that Trump's campaign is "imploding" and is on it's last legs...

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The mere fact that the DOJ **INVESTIGATED** each person is proof that the accusations were made...

    perhaps made by someone, but i've seen no evidence that accusations were made by the DOJ. suspicion and accusation are not the same thing. comey and the FBI investigated clinton, but they didn't accuse her of a crime, for lack of evidence. agencies investigate BEFORE they accuse, not after. i think you know that well enough.

    JL

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, if you want to play the semantic/what the definition of 'is' is, I can't stop you... But it's funny how you so often have to resort to semantics to "prove" your case..

    The simple fact is, Obama's DOJ accused the officers and Zimmerman of racism..

    Many Weigantians stated in the immediate aftermath of those investigations that the DOJ's accusations were valid, even though no evidence was found against the officers or Zimmerman.. I believe the term that was used is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and that it's almost impossible to prove racism...

    That clearly sounds like accusations were made..

    But, it's one of those points that no one here will admit so, we'll just have to agree to disagree...

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    perhaps made by someone, but i've seen no evidence that accusations were made by the DOJ.

    If the DOJ didn't think the accusation was valid, they wouldn't have investigated..

    Agreeing with an accusation and taking action BASED on that agreement is de-facto MAKING the accusation...

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way... If a District Attorney accuses someone of murder, takes that person to court and LOSES because there is no evidence to support the accusation, that doesn't change the fact that the DA *DID* in fact, accuse the person..

    So it is with the DOJ... The DOJ accused the officers and Zimmerman of racism.. They investigate and determined that there wasn't a SINGLE bit of evidence to support the accusation...

    But that doesn't change the fact that the accusation was made...

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Well, if you want to play the semantic/what the definition of 'is' is,

    i'm not playing "semantics," i'm playing "prove it." you're saying an accusation was implied, which is the same as saying donald's call for hillary or her judicial appointments' assassination was implied. many people may make that inference, but proof it is not. and unless you have proof, your statements about the DOJ are exactly as unfounded as russ said they were.

    JL

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    and unless you have proof, your statements about the DOJ are exactly as unfounded as russ said they were.

    See comment #98...

    The proof is that the DOJ investigated.... If the DOJ didn't think the racism accusations were valid, they wouldn't have investigated...

    Agreeing with an accusation and taking action based on that agreement is a de-facto accusation.. See my District Attorney example..

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If a District Attorney accuses someone of murder, takes that person to court and LOSES because there is no evidence to support the accusation, that doesn't change the fact that the DA *DID* in fact, accuse the person..

    yes, and there's a word for that particular kind of accusation: INDICTMENT

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes, and there's a word for that particular kind of accusation: INDICTMENT

    Yes.. That is the word used AFTER the accusation and the investigation supports the accusation.....

    But that doesn't change the fact that there HAS to be an accusation before there can be an investigation and before there can be an indictment..

    If you want to be pedantic.

    No.. Eric Holder did NOT stand on a podium and say, "Darren Wilson/Officer Pantaleo/George Zimmerman I accuse you of racism!!"

    That didn't happen, you are correct..

    But the mere fact that the DOJ investigated the officers and Zimmerman for racism PROVES that an accusation was made and that the DOJ agreed with that accusation and took action BASED on that agreement with the accusation..

    In my world, in the world of common sense and non-Political Correctness, in a world where a spade is a spade and a lie is a lie, THAT is an accusation...

    Your world may be different, I grant you...

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But the mere fact that the DOJ investigated the officers and Zimmerman for racism PROVES that an accusation was made and that the DOJ agreed with that accusation and took action BASED on that agreement with the accusation..

    disagree completely. let's try an analogy:

    you're a cop on the beat, and a whole bunch of people are pointing at this house, saying they saw someone in there selling drugs. you feel these people are sincere and honest, so you call a judge, get a warrant and search the house. you don't find any evidence, so you don't seek an indictment.

    in what way did you accuse the house's owner of running a drug den? you were not making an accusation, you were just doing your job and checking the accusers' claims to see if there was evidence. unless you have some other information to add, it seems to me that the DOJ did the same.

    JL

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    you're a cop on the beat, and a whole bunch of people are pointing at this house, saying they saw someone in there selling drugs. you feel these people are sincere and honest, so you call a judge, get a warrant and search the house. you don't find any evidence, so you don't seek an indictment.

    If I felt the owner's were sincere and honest and there was absolutely NO factual evidence to support the accuser's claim, then I absolutely WOULD NOT get a warrant and search the house...

    If there was some evidence to support the accuser's claim then I would get a judge and get a warrant..

    By AGREEING with the accusation and taking action based on that accusation, then I am de-facto making the accusation..

    Let me use your analogy to illustrate....

    If the cop got a judge and got a warrant and searched the house, do you think that the couple would feel that it's the COP who is making the accusation??

    Yes they would.. Because the cop, by his actions, is de-facto making the accusation by agreeing with person who made the actual accusation and taking action based on that agreement...

    But let's take your tack on this..

    WHO accused Wilson, Pantaleo and Zimmerman of racism??

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Your world may be different, I grant you...

    you mean the world in which people are accused by evidence, not inference or speculation? in zimmerman's and pantaleo's cases (but not in wilson's), there was evidence to suggest prior acts of racism - at least enough to justify investigating whether or not there was any there there.

    JL

  107. [107] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    WHO accused Wilson, Pantaleo and Zimmerman of racism??

    in all three cases, the local communities and the national media. in zimmerman's case also personal acquaintances, neighbors, family members, witnesses, police investigators, the DA and the grand jury. in pantaleo's case, also four not-guilty suspects he had previously profiled and subjected to unusual searches.

    JL

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    there was evidence to suggest prior acts of racism

    No there was not..

    you mean the world in which people are accused by evidence, not inference or speculation?

    As you say, Darren Wilson wasn't afforded that..

    We're never going to agree on this point..

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    in all three cases, the local communities and the national media.

    OK... So, the DOJ was under NO OBLIGATION to join in the accusations of the officers and ZImmerman..

    But the DOJ DID start the investigation because the DOJ believed in the validity of the accusation..

    De-facto...

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    OK... So, the DOJ was under NO OBLIGATION to join in the accusations of the officers and ZImmerman..

    But the DOJ DID start the investigation because the DOJ believed in the validity of the accusation..

    that's attribution of cause and effect without evidence to support it. when a public accusation is made, in fact it IS the ethical obligation of government attorneys to investigate that accusation, and to gather evidence if it exists either to support or rule out the claim. the subject of the investigation may FEEL accused by the government, but that's neither here nor there.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    But, since we're having a legal discussion, maybe you can help me on something...

    I was reading an article where a Subway server was accused of spiking a cop's drink.. No word yet on whether the DOJ accused him or agreed with the accusation.. :D heh

    Seriously though.. The guy was arrested and paid a 10,000 bail to be released..

    But he wasn't charged!??

    If he wasn't charged, there was no reason to keep him in jail.. And if there is no reason to keep him in jail, why would he have to pay a bail to be released from jail???

    I have more than a passing acquaintance with the criminal justice system, but this one stumps me..

    Your take??

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's attribution of cause and effect without evidence to support it. when a public accusation is made, in fact it IS the ethical obligation of government attorneys to investigate that accusation, and to gather evidence if it exists either to support or rule out the claim. the subject of the investigation may FEEL accused by the government, but that's neither here nor there.

    A woman accused a Pokemon character of raping her... :D

    Is there an "ethical obligation" to have government attorneys investigate that accusation?? :D

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    A woman accused a Pokemon character of raping her...
    Is there an "ethical obligation" to have government attorneys investigate that accusation? [smileys removed for incredibly poor taste]

    rape is a state crime, so the state or municipal police psychiatrist would have to suss out whether or not there was a real event behind the claims.

    the DOJ can only respond to federal crimes, so they would have jurisdiction over neither the subway employee who put meth in a police officer's lemonade nor the victim of sexual assault by someone dressed as a pokemon.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    But why would the Subway punk have to pay bail to get out of jail if he wasn't charged??

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    A woman accused a Pokemon character of raping her...
    Is there an "ethical obligation" to have government attorneys investigate that accusation? [smileys removed for incredibly poor taste]

    You COMPLETELY misunderstand..

    The woman accused a Pokemon character *from her phone* of raping her...

    Ya know.. Pokemon Go???

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    no idea.

  117. [117] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'd still ask a psychyatrist

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'd still ask a psychyatrist

    It happened in Russia so it's not really germane to our discussion here..

    I just used it to illustrate the idea that District Attorney office or a department of justice is under NO OBLIGATION to investigate accusations unless A> the accusations are supported facts or B> the RP firmly believes and agrees with the accusations...

    The State Attorney for Baltimore is a perfect example of the latter...

    If an accusation is ludicrous (in the case of the Pokemon example (poor taste my ass.. :D)) or the accusation is completely unfounded, the RP can simply say "take a hike"...

    The fact that the DOJ choose to investigate shows that the DOJ felt the accusations had merit...

    Like I said, we're never going to agree...

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just used it to illustrate the idea that District Attorney office or a department of justice is under NO OBLIGATION to investigate accusations unless A> the accusations are supported facts or B> the RP firmly believes and agrees with the accusations...

    The State Attorney for Baltimore is a perfect example of the latter...

    If an accusation is ludicrous (in the case of the Pokemon example (poor taste my ass.. :D)) or the accusation is completely unfounded, the RP can simply say "take a hike"...

    The Baltimore accusation/prosecution is a perfect example of an RP that SHOULD have told the accusers to "take a hike"...

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Top Justice Department officials pushed for a public corruption probe of the Clinton Foundation earlier this year, but were overruled by their colleagues after a bank alerted the FBI to the "suspicious activity" of a foreign donor to the charity.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2599142

    See... You have an accusation and the DOJ tells them to take a hike..

    Has an obligation, my ass.... :D

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:
  122. [122] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22 [91]

    Thanks for the assist!

    Also, the Subway worker was charged with a crime:

    Police arrested Ukena and booked him into the Davis County Jail on suspicion of Surreptitious Administering of Poisonous Substance, which is a felony offense. Bail was set at $10,000.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, the Subway worker was charged with a crime:

    Tanis Ukena denied the allegations but acknowledged what investigators learned after watching surveillance video: He was the only one to prepare and handle the beverage.

    He posted $10,000 bail and left jail. He has not been formally charged yet, and it's not known if he has an attorney. No listed phone number for him could be found.
    http://www.fox5ny.com/news/187661000-story

    Yours certainly makes more sense...

    So, I was right.. One can't bail themselves out of jail unless they are first charged with a crime..

    Right??

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanks for the assist!

    As I have proven beyond any doubt, it's EASY for the DOJ to ignore accusations they don't politically like or agree with..

    So, for the DOJ to pursue an investigation of racism against the officers and Zimmerman, the DOJ MUST have agreed with those accusations...

    Agreeing with accusations and taking actions based on that agreement is tantamount to making the accusation...

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    Like in Joshua's cop on the beat example above.. If a cop agrees with a person's accusations and takes actions based on that agreement, the homeowner's can rightly ask the cop, "Why did you accuse us of that!??"

    Of course, the cop would lamely sputter, "Well, I didn't actually accuse you. They did!!"

    Which is, technically true, but in actual practice, false..

    The cop has as much responsibility for the accusation as the person who actually articulated the accusation..

    In the case of the officers and Zimmerman, the DOJ has as much responsibility for the accusation as the phantom unidentified people who made the accusation..

    GAME.... SET..... MATCH.... :D

    Now that I have decimated ya'all's argument, allow me to throw you a bone..

    Yes.. I could have been more technically accurate and worded my accusation against the DOJ with a little more specificity... For not doing so, you have my humblest apologies..

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    For not doing so, you have my humblest apologies..

    BLUE MOON!!!

    :D

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Has an obligation, my ass.... :D

    "Buck ninety, my ass!!"
    -Ralphie, THE EQUALIZER

    :D

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Has an obligation, my ass....

    you're wrong about this, except perhaps when you say we'll never agree. the DOJ has an ethical obligation to investigate any credible charge within their jurisdiction. the case you cited may or may not be evidence of them behaving unethically, but does not under any circumstances invalidate their ethical requirements in the first place.

    as to whether or not the DOJ did behave unethically in ignoring some officials who wanted a more robust investigation into the clinton foundation emails: the government has already been burned on numerous previous high profile attempts to prosecute the clintons, and may be a bit gun-shy. the accusation came from citizens united - yes, THAT citizens united, and there's no proof the DOJ ignored whatever evidence citizens united presented.

    Now that I have decimated ya'all's argument... Yes.. I could have been more technically accurate and worded my accusation against the DOJ with a little more specificity

    so... wait a minute, are you saying you were right or wrong? how would you better word your argument to be "technically accurate?" see what happens when we leave you to chat with yourself - now you disagree with yourself as well ;)

    "I guess I should talk for a moment about the very serious subject of schizophrenia." "No, he doesn't" "Shut up, let him talk!"
    ~robin williams - live at the roxy

  128. [128] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ah, here's what you meant:

    Of course, the cop would lamely sputter, "Well, I didn't actually accuse you. They did!!"

    Which is, technically true, but in actual practice, false..

    no, it's false in practice as well. imagine the charge was something more serious. if one person accuses another, failure to investigate is a major breach of ethics. the cop may think the charge is weak, but he still has to do his due diligence and perform at least a cursory investigation.

    that doesn't mean he has to send in the swat team (which seems to be what citizens united were looking to happen to the clinton foundation), but he is absolutely ethically obligated to at least take a look.

    JL

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    you're wrong about this, except perhaps when you say we'll never agree. the DOJ has an ethical obligation to investigate any credible charge within their jurisdiction

    But the DOJ is the SOLE DETERMINING FACTOR in whether or not a charge is "credible"..

    In this case, THREE FBI field offices, individual of each other, decided that charges were credible..

    The DOJ said they weren't..

    You can do the math..

    so... wait a minute, are you saying you were right or wrong? how would you better word your argument to be "technically accurate?" see what happens when we leave you to chat with yourself - now you disagree with yourself as well ;)

    I am saying that ya'all were right in the technical literal sense and I was right in the spiritual sense. :D

    If you like, I can go back and re-word the original off-hand remark that started this whole hulla-balloo to be more in line with this new found wisdom I have acquired.. :D

    that doesn't mean he has to send in the swat team (which seems to be what citizens united were looking to happen to the clinton foundation), but he is absolutely ethically obligated to at least take a look.

    And the DOJ sent in a SWAT team to COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED accusations that had NO BASIS in fact or reality...

    What it all boils down to is the Obama's DOJ cannot be trusted to be impartial when it comes to accusations of racism...

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    so, let's have it, what would you say to make your statement technically accurate?

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK....

    ORIGINAL STATEMENT
    That's the same DOJ that said Zimmerman's actions were racist... They weren't..

    The same DOJ that said Officer Wilson's actions were racist.. They weren't..

    The same DOJ thgat said Officer Pantelano's actions were racist... They weren't...

    The DOJ has been wrong time and time and time again....

    NEW STATEMENT
    That's the same DOJ that agreed with the accusation enough to investigate that Zimmerman's actions were racist... They weren't..

    The same DOJ that agreed with the accusation enough to investigate that Officer Wilson's actions were racist.. They weren't..

    The same DOJ that agreed with the accusation enough to investigate that Officer Pantelano's actions were racist... They weren't...

    The DOJ has been wrong time and time and time again....

    As the facts clearly show, the DOJ is under NO OBLIGATION to investigate accusations that they don't want to for whatever reason..

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    also, let's move this discussion to the marijuana column so we can segue to prosecutorial discretion regarding state-sanctioned marijuana use. technically there's an ethical obligation to investigate every federal crime, but they also have limited resources so they have to set priorities.

    justice under obama has decided to push marijuana cases to the bottom of the stack, so to speak. they seem to push homicides, especially ones where race may be a factor, to the top of the stack.

    this is done regardless of the merits of the individual case, as you rightly point out. but i don't believe it's a trust issue, it's just about doing a better job of prioritizing resources.

    JL

  133. [133] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    As the facts clearly show, the DOJ is under NO OBLIGATION to investigate accusations that they don't want to for whatever reason...

    i'm going to take my answer to this to the latest column.

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'm going to take my answer to this to the latest column.

    Meet ya there.. :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.