I am very much looking forward to seeing what will happen if the "New Black Panthers" (who are radically different than the real ones, and whom the real ones would universally loathe) make good on their promise to shop up with fire arms. As everyone knows, more guns equals more safety.

Desertphile- See, the trick is that you're only safer if the 'good guys' are armed with guns. Now if we can just figure out who the 'good guys' are walking around in a jumpy crowd of people before gunfire breaks out, then we can all feel safer.

Of course, I would simply make a gun out of a tennis ball, make a gun out of an umbrella, and make a gun out of a metal food can. And carry them openly (preferably in front of Ohio State Troopers).

Oh, and they would have to be a pop gun, a nail gun, and an inoculation gun.

Updated:

"The Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association is pushing the Ohio governor to suspend during the Republican National Convention state laws that allow people to openly carry firearms, USA Today reported. Police union president Steve Loomis said the state's open carry law makes it "much more difficult" to ensure the convention is secure.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/288086-cleveland-polic…

But that will place everyone in terrible danger! More guns means more safety!!!! GUN-FREE ZONES ARE FUCKING DANGEROUS!!!!111````one

Heeh. Did I sound like the NRA?

We cannot allow a tennis ball gap!

The impulse to arm yourself, is a tricky thing. On the one hand, you read the scary headlines of innocent people being attacked by maniacs, and you worry "What if that happened to me or my loved ones?". And you can make a plausible case for being ready to defend yourself with a gun...just in case.
I can picture myself in that situation and wonder "What if???"
The truth is there is no 'right' answer for 100% of every situation that could happen, so trying to argue with a proponent of 'right to carry', is futile.
I have made the calculation to not own a firearm or carry one, based on knowing myself, and my understanding of statistics, as they appear to show that overall, you are worse off (more vulnerable to death or injury) if you own one, much less carry one.
Will that be true 100% of the time? No. Just more often than not, in my situation. Some areas are much more dangerous than where I live, so they will have a different calculation to make. But even then I would urge those individuals to at least take gun ownership very, very seriously, and get and maintain a high level of training, so that they can keep themselves and those around them safe from the inadvertent harm that regularly occurs with the presence of firearms, especially if there are depressed and potentially suicidal people in their lives who might get a hold of those guns.
Just sayin'

Fortunately for Kasich he doesn't have to make a decision - he doesn't have the power to do that he says. His NRA masters are safe..

I would think covering the RNC would be easy: Stupidity , more stupidity, utter stupidity, morons vote.

Hmmm.....this makes me think

#8 Everyone should have the freedom to choose what works for themselves. That's all anyone has ever asked. Nobody is saying that people should be legally compelled to arm themselves. They just advocate for the ability to do so, because they've decided it works for them.

What "anti-science" administration shut down the Space Shuttle Program?

As for Ohio's Open Carriers...Fun to see the police unions ask for the suspension of laws they swore to uphold.

They just advocate for the ability to do so, because they’ve decided it works for them.

... and fuck everyone else and the safety of themselves and their families -- because the only one who matters is the person "deciding that it works for them". To hell with everyone else, especially those who disagree. How American of you! NOT!

Fun to see the police unions ask for the suspension of laws they swore to uphold.
...and good to see law enforcement repudiate a BAD LAW when whey see one.

Now if we can just figure out who the ‘good guys’ are walking around in a jumpy crowd of people before gunfire breaks out, then we can all feel safer.

To the people who advocate open carry laws, the distinction is quite easy. California used to be an open carry state. The original Black Panthers took advantage of that right. The State Assembly quickly passed a bill to prohibit open carry in California. Said bill was signed into law by a governor you may have heard of, one Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Name a current musical band (pop, etc) that has six members where every member is male, white, and kinda old.

"This is Spinal Tap", but alas, they're not current... ;^)

Whoops, "Spinal Tap" (the other being their 'documentary'), and Wikipedia says they're still current.

Do I win the cookie?

#15...I can infer that the 430 laws you reference (without citation) refer to abortion in some manner. What concern do you have for the females that are dismembered and sold before birth?

#14 Rights / Freedoms / Liberties are bound by the Rights / Freedoms / LIberties of others. You may not impede them. Allowing people to carry a tool on their bodies does not impede on the Rights / Freedoms / Liberties of others and is therefore not a crime.(But please continue to use anger and vulgarity to make my point) #'Merica!

Then again, discussing this fundamental concept of our legal system isn't common in liberal circles, they seem fascinated only by the 14th Amendment, and how much mileage they can get out of the Civil War.

#10 Tread lightly there...more and more of the traditional Dem voting blocs are coming around to the idea of self-defense (ladies, LGBT "Pink pistols", non-whites)...you wouldn't want to upset those that you've regularly pandered to, as they reassess their alliances (not that they'll be any less disenfranchised by the GOPe).

Fun to see the police unions ask for the suspension of laws they swore to uphold. #13

Especially considering Dallas and Baton Rouge. Especially considering how much easier Texas's open carry law made it for the police to solve the crime. And, other than getting in the way, what did the "good guys with guns" do? They ran.

What worries me most is that guns won't be allowed within the convention center. I'd like to see more Republican gun advocates protesting that. The more guns there, the safer I'll feel.

@#22 #Heroes :)
That quickly makes the point that one must take responsibility for one's own safety, huh?

killedbypolice.net
Check that database out...(May and June about 100 each...July on pace...)

By the way, Jane Mayer has yet another of her intemperate attacks on America's biggest and best in The New Yorker. This time she impugns Donald Trump's qualifications by showing that he not only didn't write The Art of the Deal, and implying that he also is incapable of sustained intellectual activity.
“Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn’t seem to be fully understood,” Schwartz told me. “It’s implicit in a lot of what people write, but it’s never explicit—or, at least, I haven’t seen it. And that is that it’s impossible to keep him focused on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . ” Schwartz trailed off, shaking his head in amazement.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-…

What worries me most is that guns won’t be allowed within the convention center.

The Secret Service is charged with protecting presidential candidates as well as presidents. Understandably, they don't want to take the risk of somebody pointing a rifle in Mr. Trump's general direction and pulling the trigger--doubly so as there is a substantial anti-Trump minority among the delegates. Being a Federal agency, the Secret Service is allowed to override state laws that directly interfere with their mission. That's why civilians with guns won't be allowed in the convention center or within a perimeter around it.

One of the ironies of the open carry law is that Cleveland police can and will enforce a ban on toy guns and umbrellas (as well as tennis balls), which might be mistaken in the heat of the moment for real guns. But because of the state law, they cannot ban real guns outside the Secret Service perimeter. We saw the same thing at the Republican National Convention in Tampa in 2012: fake guns prohibited, real guns allowed thanks to the state legislature.

#23
I think most persons would condemn the loss of innocent lives in general.

Your "solution" would only make the situation worse. Denmark has restrictive gun laws, and we're far safer. But in the case of persons like you, ideology trumps evidence.

#26
Giving a very serious response to an ironic comment could lead one to believe that you didn't understand the comment you were replying to.

#25 Brilliant retort. I am undone by your avoidance of the issue you raised.

http://tinyurl.com/lnhvau4

"Everyone should have the freedom to choose what works for themselves. That’s all anyone has ever asked"
Except for the Republicans' habit of demanding small government except when they don't. As has been noted, look at the incredible number of laws aimed solely at those evil women and their icky bodies.

"What concern do you have for the females that are dismembered and sold before birth?"
ron, do you just make up stupid shitty falsehoods and toss them around because they meet your conservative worldview? Desertphile's response at 25 was spot on: your childish answer at 29 is the dodge (although the repeated word in the cartoon to which you linked makes far more sense than anything you've ever said).

"The Secret Service is charged with protecting presidential candidates as well as presidents."

Can you imagine the stories those men and women will have after this election year, dealing with the types of people involved with these candidates and their campaigns?

#30 IDK if we want to make this an abortion discussion, but from a legal sense, indeed from a scientific prospective (because I know how y'all love me to use that http://tinyurl.com/nnwwgg8), abortion does impede on the rights of the child in utero (right to L-I-F-E, m'kay?). Whereas the original question that seems to have offended in post #20 was in response to a yet uncited number of laws that post #15 seems to object to, as freedom restricting (as though people have freedom to destroy people if they reside in utero) a process of dismembering or liquidating/suctioning a child in utero.

I suppose there's an attempt to say that one cannot advocate for self-defense freedom if one does not advocate for the false freedom to destroy living creatures in utero. Again, I reject the notion that a woman has the freedom to destroy a human in utero just as many have rejected the notion that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with people outside a "well-regulated militia". Difference being that the term "abortion" is not in the plain English of the Legal document we're both referencing (it was speciously "interpreted" under a "privacy" right), where "the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is plainly stated.

Both positions (pro RKBA, anti-abortion) are consistent with the idea that life is to be protected under the rule of law. Other positions legally impede on the rights of one or more individuals involved.

Furthermore, the offending question in post #20 illustrates how 'women's advocates" are all too willing to destroy females in utero and the inconsistency of their pseudo-advocacy.

@32: a fetus is not a human life. You seem to be ignorant of basic biology.

There is usually a convention bump.

I expect that the difference in bump size will be bigger this year than in 2012.

Wow. Are you watching the first night? A constant droning call to go to all out war in the middle east, and to put aside normal rules of engagement, commit war crimes, etc.

All of which means, pretty much, using nuclear weapons in Iraq/Syria. Or am I hearing the dogwhistles wrong?

doubly so as there is a substantial anti-Trump minority among the delegates

There was a call for a point-of-order vote to try and change the Republican Party's rules so that a new rule would bar Trump from being nominated--- a move that was anticipated. That call was quashed when the anti-Trump delegates counted themselves and discovered they are in the minority (or appeared to be).

I am not saddened; I am not horrified. I will be dead soon, leaving no children behind. I have no stake in the future.

I have no stake in the future.

Mighty presumptuous of you to assume that they'll even leave a future for anyone...

WHERE THE BLOODY HELL ARE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY’S CONSERVATIVES?!

The dictionary-definition conservatives have long since abandoned the Republican Party and tend to vote for Democrats. My mother would be an example of this phenomenon: she had been Republican all her life until the early 1990s, when she saw the religious nuts taking over the party and decided she wanted no part of that.

To put it another way: What you're seeing in Cleveland cannot be described as a lunatic fringe. Lunatics, yes, but they are the base of the Republican Party.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/plagiarism-controversy-jolts-re…

#41 Your mom...

RL Dabney http://tinyurl.com/zg6ceud

"This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom."

Ms Melania Trump's behavior freaked me out. She stated that Donald Trump isn't really the way he seems; he really is different; he really can change.... It reminded me of thousands of battered wives and girl friends who tell themselves "He really loves me; I know he loves me; I'm just doing something wrong to make him punch me in the face,"

"Paul Manafort, the chairman of the Donald Trump campaign, on Tuesday morning denied that Melania Trump's Monday night speech used part of Michelle Obama's address at the 2008 Democratic convention, arguing that Melania Trump's speech used 'common words.'"

The faux outrage at plagiarism in public addresses

vs

the willingness to vote for a publicly known criminal

ron, more evidence that you have no understanding of the meanings of words: "known criminal" implies there has been a conviction. Where is it?
Unless, of course, you are simply lying again. Since ignorance and dishonesty are your trademarks, it's 50/50 on probability for the correct response.

#34
Click the link in #32 Cure yer ignerence.

Oh come on Desertphile, Christie said something like "93% of the speech wasn't plagiarized". Surely that's good enough?

"EXPOSED: Michelle Obama's secret time travel plan to travel to the future and plagiarise Melina Trump's speech!" --- Alex Jones

ron @ 51: I read the posts. Your point that WOMEN (or any other human, in the sense of a person after birth) are being destroyed in utero is a lie: as pointed out, you don't understand (or, more realistically, lie about) biology.

#50 I didn't say that the legal status was "criminal"
Everyone agrees that the law was broken. The will to prosecute and convict based on the evidence is absent, but that doesn't change the acknowledgement that the law was violated.

It is publicly known, however, that the law was violated. Even the highest ranking FBI officials (tasked with investigating) admitted as much, calling a press conference to make such pronouncements (previously unheard of). Are you going to make a case against what the FBI has said?

We have a "legal" system, not necessarily a "justice" system. They're not supposed to be different, but with today's "leaders"...some animals are more equal than others...if you will.

@#55

You say you read the posts...then capitalized WOMEN when I said "females" in post #20 . "What concern do you have for the females that are dismembered and sold before birth? "

Good try, though.

As was pointed out, that isn't happening ron. You are lying.

https://www.facebook.com/DatPiff/photos/a.148162604550.108686.383729545…

#58
Is that a retort, when you stick your fingers in your ears and repeat "no, no, no, no" until the other person stops making an actual point?

It is pointing out that what you said isn't true. I assume you get that quite a bit.

"Manafort Blames Hillary Clinton For Melania Trump Plagiarism Controversy"

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/07/manafort-blames-hillary-melania-trump

Are you challenging that sopher clamps are utilized in D & Es?
Or are you challenging that females are destroyed in utero?
http://tinyurl.com/gvgwoaz

@ ron 63

"female", Merriam Webster definition:

- a woman or a girl : a female person
- an animal that can produce young or lay eggs : a female animal
-a plant that can produce seed or fruit : a female plant

Just sayin'

The faux outrage at plagiarism in public addresses
vs
the willingness to vote for a publicly known criminal #49

This is yet another example of what we might call pathological evasion. Melania Trump's plagiary has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Ron isn't capable of admitting this, so he establishes a false equivalence and in effect says, "and so are you." This is the same kind of dishonesty we've seen with Michael 2 when, confronted with overwhelming proof that the Kochs have supported climate denialism, he argues "Tom Steyer."

Huh. Tuned in briefly and saw what I thought was an unhinged Alzheimer's patient on stage. Turns out it was Giuliani. Gotta admit the Trumpholes were eating it up, though. America may never fully recover from this.

Having not given the plagiarism of a candidate's wife's convention speech any analysis....I'll concede that Melania (elitist name) did indeed read a plagiarized speech. I'm not advocating for Trump in the least. He could simply blow a kazoo on stage and people would cheer. But the puppet-like reading of a speech by a candidate's wife seems to pale in comparison to an actual candidate's lawless handling of classified / Top Secret data (which you will dutifully defend).

Earlier people were saying that said candidate hadn't been charged with a crime and was therefore not a criminal...and now you use "beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard to emphasize M Trumps' guilt..tres legal chic. Watching these conventions is such an enormous waste of time, if you're expecting politicians to actually make promises they plan to deliver.
I'll engage the issue....will you?

Cue Dean saying "nuh uh"

lawless handling of classified / Top Secret data

You're referring to the way Colin Powell & Condi Rice mishandled classified & top secret data? They're not declared candidates, ron. But your point about how they should be charged with a crime is taken.

You really expect that to happen? (Perhaps Madam President would tell her Justice Dept to bring charges next year?)

why can we say the speech Trump's wife gave was plagiarized ron? Because we can compare it to the original and can compare her speech to it. It is the same procedure we use to find plagiarism in research papers in our classes. (And for your attempt with "big words": the evidence against Clinton did not meet the reasonable doubt standard, which is why she wasn't charged. Nobody has said what she did wasn't incredibly stupid, it just isn't criminal. It is your immense lack of understanding of that fact that makes it so easy to laugh at your "arguments".) Why do you have a problem with evidence and facts?

For Trump himself: his complete lack of adequacy for the presidency has been demonstrated by his record: there is nothing from her speech that reflects on him, as we know he is the ultimate empty suit.
I won't hazard a guess about where the responsibility for the plagiarism should go. I would not have guessed that the writing of such an important speech would be left to her, but it is difficult to believe that an experienced speechwriter for the Trump campaign would have been so blatant.

Why do you have a problem with evidence and facts?

This one is easy: They don't support his ideology. So ron rejects them.

Why did the pseudoconservatives cheer when Ms Trump was quoting Ms Obama? Given how much they hate all things Obama, shouldn’t they have booed?

That's the $64 question. The talking heads should be all over that. Or could they just sum it up as "They're all a bunch of dishonest hypocrites" and leave it at that...

For all I know...the same speechwriter wrote M Trump and M Obama's speeches...I conceded the plagiarism. Just comical to see people on the left get excited about, ignoring the lumber yard in their own candidate's eye.

Clinton wasn't prosecuted because of "who she is", not her lack of guilt. Prosecutorial discretion has little to do with guilt. Nobody thinks that she'll be prosecuted under a Trump administration, either.

Why did the pseudoconservatives cheer when Ms Trump was quoting Ms Obama? Given how much they hate all things Obama, shouldn’t they have booed?

The other question on this is, "Does this indicate that The Donald is still holding true to his Democratic/liberal roots?" After all, so many conservative leaders have been screaming that Herr Drumpf "is not a real conservative".

Is this proof of their claim?

Nobody thinks that she’ll be prosecuted under a Trump administration, either.

That must be it: right-wing commentators are also saying that Trump supports prominent Democrats. (He did give money to Madam President's husband's campaigns.)

"Clinton wasn’t prosecuted because of “who she is”, not her lack of guilt. "

If that's a statement of opinion, fine. If it's a statement of what you think is fact - absent of any evidence, it's just another line of your crap.

Why did the pseudoconservatives cheer when Ms Trump was quoting Ms Obama? Given how much they hate all things Obama, shouldn’t they have booed?

Because they didn't know that Ms. Trump was quoting Ms. Obama. That detail wasn't discovered until after Ms. Trump delivered those lines.

For all I know…the same speechwriter wrote M Trump and M Obama’s speeches

The speechwriter who wrote those lines for Ms. Obama now works for Hilary Clinton, so I find that unlikely. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory that Mr. Trump is a Democratic plant.

Clinton wasn’t prosecuted because of “who she is”, not her lack of guilt.

In his press conference, Mr. Comey explicitly stated that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring the case. Mr. Comey, by the way, was part of Ken Starr's investigative team during Bill Clinton's administration, so I would expect Comey to be biased in favor of prosecution if the facts supported it. But the investigation found no evidence that Hilary intentionally shared information that she knew was classified--the classified info she apparently shared was poorly marked, incorrectly marked, or (most often) both. Gen, Petraeus, by contrast, knew he was sharing classified information with his mistress, who was not authorized to see it.

I conceded the plagiarism. #73

Thank you. And I believe the persons you're discussing with would agree that Clinton's use of a private email account was stupid and irresponsible, and that her attempts to gloss over her mistake only made it worse. But there's no evidence that she committed a crime, and that's why she wasn't indicted. It's that simple. Unfortunately for you the truth is inconvenient, so you dig up a conspiracy theory revealing that she wasn't indicted because of who she is. What proof do you have?

In case you've forgotten, Republicans repeatedly praised Clinton when she was secretary of state, with the aim of belittling Obama.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/20/gop-prais…

You might ask yourself why Republican attitudes have changed?

@#77
Comey has a history of allowing Clinton crimes: http://tinyurl.com/hhtbo7a

Petraeus knew, and Clinton is ignorant (after taking the training and signing an affidavit to handle certain information in specific ways...http://tinyurl.com/hdjdew7). Let's make her POTUS?

Let’s make her POTUS?

Which implies, given that he's 100x worse, that you're much more against electing Trump.

So, what? Leave the White House empty, just like the "damn-America" Republican bullies in Congress insist on keeping a seat empty in the SCOTUS?

You got a third choice, wise-ass?

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/288342-norovirus-outbreak-reported…

"Norovirus is known to cause vomiting and diarrhea, and symptoms can last for up to three days." And here we all thought they were prepared, planned, rehearsed speeches....

re: norovirus at the RNC: the shitstorm that was predicted has arrived.

I am sure that THE RUMP will declare: A bioweapon has been used on the RNC. We must hunt down the (insert group or person) and bring to justice (kill) this (insert group or person).

I would caution against making too much about the Melania Trump's speech.
First, she is not the candidate, and attacking her (or even the perception of such) can easily be framed as 'punching down'.
Since she clearly did not write the speech, that means that several possibilities exist:
1. A low level speech writer lazily cribbed from Michelle Obama's speech.
2. A clever speech writer deliberately cribbed the speech, knowing that it would come out and Trump opponents would overplay their hand in piling on.
2A. This is a 'honeypot' trick to get people to jump on the plagiarism angle, only to be hit with ready multiple examples of Obama, Biden, (any Dem really), doing the same thing, since many examples exist, but then, they were the candidate, not the spouse of same (see opening about punching down).
3. Donald Trump now knows (and so do we) that nothing he does or says will dissuade his base from supporting him, and all controversies make him stronger because they have to keep contorting themselves into ever more alternative realities in order to tamp down their cognitive dissonances and keep the illusion alive that he is some kind of savior that has come down to fix all of their fears and grievances. They are too much invested now (see Sunk Cost Fallacy).
I think that a good strategy is to not argue, but simply keep pointing out matter of factly where he is factually wrong (Politifact, Factcheck, and Snopes are good sources), and avoid rhetoric attacking his supporters, because no matter how satisfying that feels to fight back (since they are relentlessly using false claims and fallacious arguments), it throws up a defensive wall that will not allow facts to flow in their direction.
I like a good fight as much as the next person, but I also understand human psychology and the capacity for self deception. If you want to change a person's mind, you must play chess, not Slap Jack.

"I would caution against making too much about the Melania Trump’s speech.
First, she is not the candidate, and attacking her (or even the perception of such) can easily be framed as ‘punching down’."

Nope, no punching down wrt to the first lady. The GOP defined the rules on that when they started calling the current first lady an ugly ape. So, really, no no and really no.

But anyway, she and her speech are themselves irrelevant. What is relevant is that the GOP spent a lot of time and effort to get a certain set of messages out last night and every one of the died an instant and untimely death the moment social media realized that this had happened.

Her speech is only important as a messaging failure. But it is one of the most epic messaging failures ever, anywhere, on this planet.

There's an interesting theory that, given that she did not write her speech (even though she lied and claimed she largely did), that it was Lewandowsky sabotaging her to get back at The Don's family for ousting him. So, possibility #4:

http://blackbag.gawker.com/a-theory-donald-trumps-ex-campaign-manager-d…

And as for "keep the illusion alive that he is some kind of savior", that would be the "Your Cheetos Jesus" meme? Which was, I think, given to us by a (properly outraged) Republican consultant, Rick Wilson:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/16/1539585/-Cheeto-Jesus-A-New-Mem…

Melania Trump's speech – a symptom of incompetence and a pathological inability to admit to errors:

It was, by all accounts, an entirely preventable blunder, committed in front of an audience of 23 million television viewers, that exposed the weaknesses of an organization that has long spurned the safeguards of a modern presidential campaign, such as the free software that detects plagiarism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/melania-trump-convention-…

The blunder was compounded by Manafort's patently false excuses and allegations:

Manafort insisted on CNN that “there’s no cribbing of Michelle Obama’s speech. These were common words and values that she cares about.”

In the news conference, he accused the media and the Clinton campaign of distorting her message. “It’s just another example as far as we’re concerned that when Hillary Clinton is threatened by a female, the first thing she does is try to destroy the person,” Manafort said.

There is no evidence that the plagiarism allegations originated with the Clinton campaign.

(And the accusation that Clinton destroys women she feels threatened by stems from the false charge that she "enabled" her husband's behavior.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/19/fact-che…)

In the same article there are additional indications of how poorly the Trump campaign has organized the convention and how Trump's narcissism interferes with whatever plans there are:

Who had vetted the long and rambling speech by retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, which prompted so many delegates to walk out that the closing act by Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa — a rare next-generation star willing to address Trump’s convention — came close to midnight in a mostly empty Quicken Loans Arena?

Why had Donald Trump called into Bill O’Reilly’s program on Fox News, resulting in the network cutting away from the emotionally resonant remarks by Patricia Smith, whose son Sean was killed in the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya?

... “I don’t think we should be Pollyannaish about the organizational shortfalls we’re witnessing here,” said Alex Conant, a senior aide with Sen. Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign. “Every aspect of the campaign is lacking, and I don’t think anybody should be surprised by the first 24 hours of the convention.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/melania-trumps-apparent-plagiar…

According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll Americans say by 59-39 that Clinton is “qualified to serve as president,” but they also say by 60-37 that Trump is “not qualified to serve as president.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/07/18/donald-tru…

When the two conventions are over, commentators will obviously be talking about the different messages they've sent out. One of those messages will be the fundamental difference in competence and professionalism.

@#80
I'm not FOR Trump. In our system you can only register a vote FOR a candidate. I'm not on the Trump-train. Didn't vote for Cruz, either. I can understand how people that tend to vote R have tired of electing RINOs. A lifelong liberal / master of monosyllabic bluster / TV celebrity / reality game show host isn't exactly a step up (but very different from the norm). So, don't paste me with the worthless conservative / Republican tag, because I can be honest and critical of them (against Bush wars/ Medicare part D/ No Child Left Educated / bailouts...)

If I could cast a vote AGAINST a candidate, I would vote against HC, because she's a criminal (past, present, future). But that's not our system. It's interesting that a person who can claim ignorance is sometimes considered the "smartest woman on Earth" (http://tinyurl.com/h7knp6h).

So, this "ron" writes in two different comments>

#49 "the willingness to vote for a publicly known criminal"

#56 "I didn’t say that the legal status was “criminal”"

Is that an example of Trump-followers' behaviour? For it does not recommend the person behind it.
Most people - for a good reason - despise lies.

And if there is nothing to be said against Mrs Clinton that she is a criminal-or-wait-no-I-didn't-mean-it-like-that, well, not so bad then.

ron, be careful, you have been stupid in your life and broke laws as well (we all do, just by mistake), so whatever you demand for Mrs Clinton should be applied to you as well...

How Melania Trump’s Speech Veered Off Course and Caused an Uproar seems the best so far at figuring out what happened.

The material was clearly plagiarized, but the process and actors are not yet clear.

Considering the other PR gaffes, the main message to me is the quality of staff selected by Donald Trump and/or his family, since his children seem his closest advisors beyond himself. But, at least he is still humble.

@92 "ron, be careful, you have been stupid in your life and broke laws as well (we all do, just by mistake), so whatever you demand for Mrs Clinton should be applied to you as well"

i agree...there are some that theorize the average citizen can commit 3 felonies a day (http://tinyurl.com/hv33rao) "As attorney Harvey Silverglate argues in his book Three Felonies a Day, even the most honest and informed citizen "cannot predict with any reasonable assurance whether a wide range of seemingly ordinary activities might be regarded by federal prosecutors as felonies." Silverglate even claims that the average American does something about three times a day that could be turned into a federal crime by an enterprising or overreaching prosecutor. " I agree with you that there are too many laws (pro-small government). I don't care to bring the "ham sandwich" indictments that are all too common.

When we publicly repudiate the rule of law (http://tinyurl.com/nnymc2m) and decide to let public officials roam free to commit the next series of blackmails, frauds, corruptions, we undermine the faith of a minority group that the law will protect them. Hence, they feel as though they must take matters into their own hands. Civilization then deteriorates.

Am I running for office? Is there some doubt about giving me a security clearance and what I would do with that intel? It's Animal Farm...we're no longer a nation of laws, but of men (and HC).

So post 94 show Ron has no evidence to support his allegation that HRC is a criminal. At least he's consistent in lacking evidence

Desertphile, I mostly agree with your comment about the NYT story, although they did mention that she sought the help of someone in New York. But in the end it just ads to the evidence of a campaign run with little oversight.

The interesting roots today concern the coming speech of Cruz. Several news reports say he "is very unlikely to express supoort for trump " but will attack HRC. That seems to be support in spirit rather than spoken word. It would be interesting if true.

... there are some that theorize the average citizen can commit 3 felonies a day

Lightweights. I daresay they haven't had much practice. Why, sometimes I've committed as many as six felonies before breakfast.

What crime(s) is Ms Clinton guilty of?

My, my.. Three per day and still can't come up with even one??

Funny that you can cite the 3 per day line, but none have seemed to click the link in the next paragraph of post #94, where I cite 18 U.S. Code § 1924...the section Her Most High Inevitability is most likely to have violated: "Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."

When was she convicted on this? Or, I'll help you out here: When was she indicted on this? Still in trouble? I'll help you again: When did a prosecutor in in any form or jurisdiction recommend her to be indicted?

Well??

ron: You do NOT get to make criminal law judgments of any politician you do not personally like -- unless you are sitting on a jury for their criminal trial following an indictment for such.

You've been repeatedly asked to cite what she's been convicted of -- and repeated shown up empty-handed, whining like a kid who's been told they can't take the cookie away from their schoolmate.

BS, In post #99 you axed what crime she committed. I cited the law and THEN you go on in #102 to demand a conviction. Discretion was used in this case, and there had to be a press conference / House Committee meetings to explain the miscarriage of justice.

http://tinyurl.com/huy2tx4
"In a scandalous announcement, FBI director James Comey moments ago said that "although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information" and he gave extensive evidence of just that, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He added that "prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."

Section 793, subsection (f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
"

She ain't innocent, pal. Nobody is seriously advancing the notion that she is. They just don't have the hangy-downy things to put her on trial. But you're a great sports fan, always belligerently giving the line that paints your squad in the best light possible, denying all the corruption and guilt along the way. Good on ya.

I can understand how people that tend to vote R have tired of electing RINOs. #88

Of course the Republican most Republicans hold up as a true Republican raised taxes numerous times, supported the deal to protect the ozone layer, and signed treaties that reduced America's nuclear arsenal. As Ronald Reagan obviously was a RINO, I'm wondering if Ron can name one post WWII Republican president who wasn't one.

She ain’t innocent, pal. Nobody is seriously advancing the notion that she is. They just don’t have the hangy-downy things to put her on trial. #104

Just a little reminder:

The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

And before Reagan there was Nixon, who was responsible for the Watergate scandal and war crimes in Cambodia and Vietnam.

And after Reagan there was George W. Bush, who was asleep at the controls when Al Qaeda was plotting the 9/11 attack, launched a war based on fabricated evidence, undermined the American economy, and oversaw a financial crisis that the world still hasn't fully recovered from.

In short, whenever there's a big American scandal, a Republican is there.

Compared to these, Clinton's string-er-up email controversy is trivial, and the attempt to inflate it is comical:

Michael Mukasey, the former Bush Administration attorney general, delivered a blistering denunciation of Hillary Clinton’s email-server security practices by way of tacitly endorsing Trump. Five months ago, Mukasey contributed to National Review’s widely discussed “Against Trump” issue, where he wrote that Trump “says he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists. That would be a direct violation of the most basic laws of armed conflict,” and noted he “summons applause with tantrums and homicidal fantasies.” Mukasey is now a member of the burgeoning movement of Republicans Against Trump for Trump. The promised human-rights violations and homicidal fantasies may be less than ideal, but think of the email server!
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/economy-night-is-actually-…

@#105...ya see how your colleagues admit HRC is guilty as you posited in Post #78? :) Ha.

Reagan also began gun control (http://tinyurl.com/h9zyssg) and no-fault divorce (http://tinyurl.com/hgbw84r) as governor in Cali. Again, I am not a GOP apologist. Both parties (if you think we have a two party system) are criminal at the core At least under Reagan people were actually investigated, indicted and / or convicted. I will advocate for the Rule of Law (assuming just laws...yep, there's the rub).

American Politics today (or in recent history) ain't full of innocent do-good-ers.

The FBI is familiar with the law and its application, and they concluded that Clinton could not be indicted.

The end.

In post #99 you axed what crime she committed.

"Asked", and are you even aware of how you twist people's words, or have you inured yourself to it, having had too much practice?

I said, as a quote of Desertphile, "What crime(s) is Ms Clinton guilty of?" She wasn't found guilty of the "alleged crime" you cited. You still come up empty-handed.

Citing law gets you no credit, as citing the law regarding someone who has not been found to having broken it is meaningless at best. You are trying to push your personal opinions of "what she's guilty of" as facts for all. I'm not going to buy that. Few here seem to, either. That does NOT amount to "denying all the corruption and guilt along the way". (We don't believe quack pseudo-science claims, either, without evidence.)

Need I remind you that James Comey is not a judge or a jury? His job is to recommend indictment if he finds that laws are broken, but he doesn't decide guilt whether he says yea or nay. He's also been a long-time faithful Republican -- what more can you ask for? (Does it really bother you that much that he put honor ahead of party in this case?)

No one here is saying she's innocent. Nobody is seriously advancing the notion that she is, to quote you. And again, denying all the corruption and guilt along the way. Show us a quote where anyone here denied any of that.

Show us a conviction in court. A judgment. A real one, not the petulant, hypocritical finger-pointing of someone feeling threatened by a woman president, and playing petty political one-upsmanship games.

And if you really want to go that route, we'll start with Cosmicomics' #105 to point out that Republican leaders are guilty of more/worse crimes. Where's your outrage? Why do you "deny all the corruption and guilt along the way?" And yet you conveniently ignore that to focus on the small stuff of a Democratic candidate. How petty.. but then that's about all the right-wing has for ammunition, huh? (Maybe the dead horse of Benghazi, arguing irrelevancies and misdirections in desperation? How'd that work out for the G0P "leadership"?)

Cite the law books all you want -- you need a conviction, or at least an indictment.

Put up or shut up.

#106
@#105…ya see how your colleagues admit HRC is guilty as you posited in Post #78? ? Ha.

Don't misrepresent what I or others have written. Clinton was careless and irresponsible. She was not guilty of a crime.

She [HRC] was not guilty of a crime.

If she were, then ipso facto, so is Colin Powell and Condi Rice, for having been equally "careless and irresponsible" with classified information during their tenures.

Yet, where is ron with his tar brush and bucket of feathers? No, he's too busy "denying all the corruption and guilt along the way" as he "paints [his] squad in the best light possible".

#110

I'm glad you agree that there should be indictments and due process rights for a fair and impartial trial of Colin and Condi. Let's tee it up. If they've broken the law, they should not be above the Law. Lock em up, if they deserve it.

You willing to give HRC her day in court?

#108 Threatened by a woman POTUS...HA!

Agree on the injustice of not jailing Colin, Condi and Clinton...see...we can be united...under the Law

there should be indictments and due process rights

Okay, glad we can agree on impartial equal treatment under the law. I myself didn't know what to expect the FBI to recommend to the Justice Department regarding an indictment -- especially with Comey being a (formerly registered) Republican... You never know how politics will pollute "pure" law enforcement issues.

But Comey has a reputation of scrupulousness, and putting law and principle ahead of political goals/gains -- even when that pisses off both his party and his employers. So I actually trust him more than any other actor in this.

I myself have a Secret clearance, so I know what the rules are, what you get told (and when), what the law & penalties are, etc. And I know where corners get cut, how the finer points get forgotten or neglected, etc. Can every employee handle classified info perfectly, all the time? Probably not -- hence your "3 felonies". Part of being able/not able to adhere to the strict letter of the law is what someone else does/sends to you. (Not to mention that the classification levels can --and have-- changed on some of the info since the "alleged crime".)

So, not having sufficient details to make a proper judgment, I, as with everyone else here, must defer to the FBI's call on whether a crime was committed and prosecution is called for. Comey said "no", and that will have to do. Did she "get away with it"? Maybe yes, maybe no. The anti-Dems will have live with not hanging her up on this one.

Just as Condi & Colin never got their prosecutions, either. So as no one raised a ruckus over that, it's time to put this one to bed, too. The country has important things to deal with and consider. This is (no longer) one of them.

As was already stated, "Case closed".

@ Desertphile 117,

Her crime is that she is a woman who could actually become President. This makes people Left and Right uncomfortable, mostly men but women as well.

It's a big change/step for the USA.

People always say "I'm fine with a woman, just not her, for example .....", but it is never a woman who actually has a chance of winning.

HRC has done nothing that disqualifies her to be President or even to be well-liked-- she has had very high approval ratings, even among Republicans, at various points in her career.

The closest male analog is President Bush The Elder-- he was wealthy, he was a career guy, and no doubt had blood on his hands from the fallout of private dealings and when he was DCI.

All of which didn't bother people that much because boys will be boys. There was none of the visceral reaction there is to HRC, and I think we can apply Ockham here: "It's the woman thing, stupid."

#117 "Her evil behavior has been and is sanctioned by the USA government." Yep, that's the upshot of it.

#116 Good luck with the server in your basement.

" Yep, that’s the upshot of it."

So answer the question already. What seems to be the hold up?

"people left"... Just another gratuitous shot from a hillbot (or possible stealth Republican) working hard to make sure that all Bernie supporters, male and female, and fans of Elizabeth Warren feel alienated and pissed upon.

"Her crime is that she is a woman who could actually become President. This makes people Left and Right uncomfortable…."

Ah, so the crime is that those against her are not for her, therefore they are bad people (tm).

Tell me, are people against Trump because he's a male with a bad hairpiece that makes people uncomfortable? Have I discovered THE MATRIARCHY?!?!?!

"#117 “Her evil behavior has been and is sanctioned by the USA government.” Yep, that’s the upshot of it."

Indeed, sanctioned DECADES EARLIER by other Secretaries of State who did the same thing.

Or are you thinking that the Dems have a working time machine and went back in time so as to get Hilary off the hook?

Loons like ron have had a hard-on waiting for these "investigations" against her to come to fruition and lead to criminal charges against a Clinton for years. Having their priapism come to an end without anything they imagined and hoped for actually coming true has to hurt.

Dean- "Having their priapism come to an end without anything they imagined and hoped for actually coming true has to hurt."

If your prosecutorial fantasies last longer than 4 election cycles, consult your psychiatrist ;)

Trump never mentions laws or the legislative process. His program is based on what he can accomplish: I will...

He offered himself as a singular leader uniquely equipped to lead the country through the turmoil he described. His self-portrait was not that of someone eager to join forces with Republican majorities in Congress but that of a strong, even autocratic, leader who by sheer force of personality could deliver a dramatic national turnaround.

“Nobody knows the system better than me,” he said, “which is why I alone can fix it.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-offers-vision-of-unyieldi…

Trump, of course, has zero experience in government.

Also striking is that he increasingly whitewashes all traces of historical Republican responsibility in order to make Hillary Clinton the main protagonist in a story of American decline. The decline began with Bill Clinton, enabled and supported by Hillary, and continued under Obama when she was secretary of state. No before, no in between. The war in Iraq should have ended with the surge, and everything since then is largely her fault. The financial crisis was an insignificant ripple, and America's economic problems were caused by Bill Clinton's Hillary-supported trade agreements, which sent good-paying American jobs to Mexico and China. There's no mention that many of these jobs were automated away, or that the move to lower paying countries was a logical consequence of capitalist competition (which Trump too took advantage of).

If I were to sum up the Republican convention in three words, they would be demagoguery, demonization, and incompetence.

I would also caution against the repeated "Law and Order" Trump drumbeat. Understanding that he's pandering to a large group of voters prior to an election...there is a large distinction between L&O and "Justice". Consider China...Much L&O (and perhaps many desire America to be more like China), but little Justice.

"(and perhaps many desire America to be more like China)"

Does saying things that stupid come naturally to you or do you have to work at it?

I would also caution against the repeated “Law and Order” Trump drumbeat.

The federal government is not much involved with "Law and Order". That's a function mainly of state & local governments.

Just another example of "demagoguery, demonization, and incompetence".

Desertphile@131

The FBI usually engages in lawlessness and disorder. Judi Bari’s bomber, for a fine example.

It takes a criminal to catch a criminal. Or something...

The FBI needs to be above the law. How else besides hosting and distribution child pornography do you expect them to catch child pornographers?

A little off topic, sorry, but I reckon Jim Wright's post here :

http://www.stonekettle.com/2016/07/the-decider.html

on the respective candidates vice-presidential selections and Tim Kaine especially is well worth reading and considering especially for those who are arguing against Kaine as the pick. Seems he's a lot more progressive in practice and nature and a lot wiser choice than I think a lot of progressives online are giving him credit for.

@120. Desertphile :

"Progressives and liberals overwhelmingly approve of a woman president— look at their candidate (Jill Stein)."

As an Aussie citizen of our pale blue dot I really wish the United States had preferential voting like we do here in Oz where a vote for a candidate of another party - JIll Stein for the US Greens, Ralph Nader as an independent, hell, even Gary Johnson & the Libertarians - wasn't worse than a wasted vote as far as preventing the most destructive and dangerous demagogues like Trump from taking power.

Sad thing is, in reality, it is a two horse race and a vote for Stein is a vote that effectively helps Trump defeat Hillary Clinton rather than working to send a message as it would if you could vote say, 1 Stein, 2 Clinton, 3 Trump.

Imagine for instance if that had happened in the exceptionally close and hotly disputed Presidential election of 2000 if people could have voted 1) Nader, 2)Gore 3) Dubya Bush. If that had been the electoral system, Gore would almost certainly have been POTUS and well, history woyuld've been vastly different and, I think we'd all almost all agree, much better in so many ways.

You have the system you have there. I think and urge y'all to look at reforming and fixing it but for now, it is as it is. I like the Greens policies and vote for our Aussie Green party but if I were in America I would vote for Hillary Clinton and I urge y'all to do so because, well, remember the proverb about those not learning from history having to repeat it?

Remember what happened in 2000? Please, please, please lets not see it repeated but this time giving Donald Trump of all flippin' people the Presidency of the USA!

Please don't risk that being repeated again with a Trump Presidency this time..

Reform your system later and fix it so there can be preferential voting. hell, reform it in other ways too and make it still better. Maybe even scrap Congress completely if its proven to be so incapable of working? Maybe shift to a Westminster style system of more parliamentary democracy like ours or Ireland's or Sweden's, etc .. Make the effort to create viable third parties and make them potential real alternatives and not pointless and impotent.

But for now for the 2016 election, please vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party.

Because the way your system works in reality, it really is only her or Trump and Trump would be a global disaster bringing real torment and misery and death to far too many real people everywhere.

@100. Desertphile

She appears to be a horrid human being; she appears to be unethical, immoral, greedy, and utterly uncaring about human life and well-being—- but I have yet to see her convicted of any crime.

I really don't see Hillary Clinton as any of those things.

But even if she was, her policies and what she'd actually do as President eg her choices for the US Supreme Court, etc .. are vastly preferable to Trump's and Trump is far worse correct?

Well, here it is the following Sunday, and the Republic seems to have survived its first nationwide Trumping. I personally watched only Thursday night's "festivities" and so I'm grateful for Greg's account.

Of course the major developments were well covered by the next day's news broadcasts — sometimes too well, as with Mrs. Trump's plagiarism. That was important, but not more important than whatever else went on at the convention.

BTW: Who else caught the news of an Illinois delegate being sent home because she posted that she hoped the police would shoot some African-Americans. (She used cruder terms: "cops" and the N-word.) I don't recall seeing this on CBS.

I must have shouted "FALSE!" about 15 dozen times during Trump's speech. If more proof that he's a demagogue were needed, this speech provided it. I noted that the bit about the LGBTQ community was artfully worded: he promised to protect them from "a hateful foreign ideology" — thus leaving the hateful domestic ideology unfettered. All this, of course, was written into the speech for him to read from teleprompters. The party can't have him undermining its platform, or annoying its base.

Keith Olbermann has an interesting article in Vanity Fair: Could Donald Trump Pass a Sanity Test?

As there isn't (yet) an equivalent post on the DNC, this must be the most reasonable place to state one's thoughts. What struck me most is that Trump is being Goldwatered. The Democrats' criticisms aren't limited to his proposals; more fundamentally, they're saying that he's dangerous – an ignorant demagog – and that he doesn't represent American values. And this is the argument that the Republicans, the Bloombergs, and the other non-Democrats who are supporting Clinton are making.

I think that Sanders's speech was extremely good, and hasn't gotten the credit it deserves. It's clear that his campaign has reshaped the Democratic Party. The DNC was the uplifting experience that a political convention should be.

#138
For example, Ms Clinton said she wants to stop being bribed by corporations by passing a Constitution amendment “within the first 30 days."

Please document that Clinton has said that "she wants to stop being bribed by corporations." If you can't, you're lying.

Please document that Clinton would pass rather than introduce a constitutional amendment. If you can't, you're lying.

She knows damn well that she cannot pass such an amendment.

Se above.

Please document that a proposed amendment would be about something other than overturning Citizens United, and that she has supported that decision. If you can't, you're lying.

What the DNC claims it will do, and what it plans on doing, are probably vastly different.

Once the votes are counted, we will see the DNC do nothing liberal or progressive—- just business as usual.

The DNC plays no role in the legislative process.

For example, Ms Clinton posted on Twitter that she is “sick” of paying a smaller percentage in taxes than public school teachers pay. She implied that she wants to pay more in taxes. How likely is it that she will actually raise her tax rate?

Clinton is flawed and has made some very serious mistakes. You've blown that up into making her the epitome of evil. What I know is that she has proposed to raise taxes on the wealthy. I don't know how much she'd earn while president, and am therefore not able to say how she herself would be affected by any such increase, which, in case you've forgotten, would require congressional assent. I don't doubt that she will try to enact a more progressive tax code.

According to a number of articles from progressive sources, the DNC emails were about as scandalous as the Climategate ones.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/tweetstorm-bernie-sanders-f…
https://www.thenation.com/article/what-the-leaked-e-mails-do-and-dont-t…
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-the-d-n-c-e-mails-arent…

See my story at Huffpost, Naive Melania Plagiarism, Not McIver Error And Excuse.

A careful look at the texts, following the style developed in the Wegman days, reveals some things that most writers missed.

Say Ron, since you reference them so much one can only conclude that you do indeed have a tinyurl.