Republicans

Coates: Donald Trump and his Supporters Are White Supremacists

gregladen — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:45:09 +0000

Coates: Donald Trump and his Supporters Are White Supremacists

A lot of people will object to the title of this post. I will be told to take the post down. I will be told to modify the title or to change what I say in the post.

Nope.

Ta-Nehisi Coates is correct, and his presentation is brilliant. Watch the following interview (in two parts) and read his book We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy.

Chris Hayes is correct to point out that the historical source of Coates title is critically important and deeply disturbing (this is something we've talked about here in the recent past). He is incorrect, as Coates points out near the end of the second segment, that there will be a future in which we debate the relative merits of the Trump vs the Obama presidency. I have no idea what possessed him to day that (I see Hayes slip into the false balance mode now and then when he's tired, maybe that's what he did there for just a moment).

On the book:

“We were eight years in power” was the lament of Reconstruction-era black politicians as the American experiment in multiracial democracy ended with the return of white supremacist rule in the South. In this sweeping collection of new and selected essays, Ta-Nehisi Coates explores the tragic echoes of that history in our own time: the unprecedented election of a black president followed by a vicious backlash that fueled the election of the man Coates argues is America’s “first white president.”

But the story of these present-day eight years is not just about presidential politics. This book also examines the new voices, ideas, and movements for justice that emerged over this period—and the effects of the persistent, haunting shadow of our nation’s old and unreconciled history. Coates powerfully examines the events of the Obama era from his intimate and revealing perspective—the point of view of a young writer who begins the journey in an unemployment office in Harlem and ends it in the Oval Office, interviewing a president.

We Were Eight Years in Power features Coates’s iconic essays first published in The Atlantic, including “Fear of a Black President,” “The Case for Reparations,” and “The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration,” along with eight fresh essays that revisit each year of the Obama administration through Coates’s own experiences, observations, and intellectual development, capped by a bracingly original assessment of the election that fully illuminated the tragedy of the Obama era. We Were Eight Years in Power is a vital account of modern America, from one of the definitive voices of this historic moment.

gregladen Mon, 09/18/2017 - 06:45

Tags

President Donald Trump

Race and Racism

Coates

racism

Republicans

Trump

White supremacy

After listening day after day to what gets phoned in from various news outlets and other flocks of parrots, I'm always a little shocked by how incisive and insightful Coates is-- in itself a comment on how pedestrian media tends to be...

I listened to this over the weekend while I was puttering around the house. Good discussion, and it simply supports what anyone with an open mind saw from the day President Obama was elected to the day he left office: people who were too lazy to provide intelligent comments on his actions resorted to very thinly veiled complaints about the non-white man using the front door to the White House. Whether it was the constant racist messages from the tea-baggers (the only reason they exist is to spout their racist crap) to the stated refusal of the right to soil their hands by working with him.

Completely agree, and Coates's interview with Hayes was magnificent. These two guys in conversation was a perfect half hour of intelligence and integrity.

Maybe most impressive was that Coates had the courage to strongly admit that right now, Climate Change is the No. 1 problem anyone has. Clearly, the oppression of people of color, either overtly or implicitly, is the USA's most egregious sin, but ruining our ability to live on this planet is humankind's worst blunder.

I was already a big admirer of Coates, but with that interview, he became a hero of mine.

Coates for President. Or anything important.

Climate change is the number one problem? Elect HRC so she can sell uranium to North Korea. And here come the disingenuous personal insults and attacks......

Of course wtf, since she never sold uranium to anyone your intended bit of misdirection is as stupid as you are. That's neither disingenuous nor an insult and attack, it's a fact.

Coates is a black racist. However, it doesn't really matter what Coates thinks. He is a token for white liberals whose purpose is to attack other whites the liberals do not like.

I encourage all readers to watch either or both of the clips, and then read MikeN's comment. Then judge.

Re #6:
We white liberals are perfectly capable of attacking (in right-speak that means disagreeing with) other whites. Where did you get any other idea? Or is this another example of you extrapolating one person's actions or attitude to all the people in a large group? Your recent previous example turned out to be based on false information..

They find great value in having attacks on Republicans as racist coming from blacks, particularly ones who are clean and articulate.

@ MikeN

Please, either try to write with simpler grammar for those of us who are ESL, or stop digging. I am not sure I'm parsing the meaning of #9 correctly. Or I'm afraid I did it correctly.

I got bad vibes from your "ones who are clean and articulate". I guess you mean Black people who happen to be educated and well-groomed also make great speakers when accusing Republicans of being racists.
Well, yes. Same for everybody. Why is it an issue here?

I cannot parse #9 any other way than "Coates is a Black dude being taken seriously and fronted by liberals only because he is clean and articulate".
IOW, an illiterate Black bum with crooked teeth speaks in Carribean patois about the hardships in his life, he can be ignored; replace him with a snappily dressed Black lawyer who graduated from Harvard, he can be ignored as well.

tl;dr: If you can not see the racist subtext - and the circular reasoning - in your "clean and articulate", I cannot help you.

A quick run by from a lurker:

As a writing teacher, I want to introduce students to Darwinian concepts--homology, phylogeny, etc.--because it's important to take a stand in these so-called culture wars.

My justification for doing so in an English class is this: We are never going to get anywhere on the issue of race in this country until we incorporate the fact of evolution into our collective view.

The moral/religious arguments against racism are tired and have never impressed me because racists just appeal to "their" version of religion or "their" morality.

The bottom line is that racist views represent the persistence of the Great Chain of Being (the Ladder of Life) that comes down through Christianity and goes all the way back to Aristotle. This is the view that there is a hierarchy in nature, that things are "created" for reasons, that there is a place for every thing, and everything is in its place--including whites at the top of the list and non-whites down below.

Darwin's idea kicks this view right over on its ass and says we're all family. Ranking by race--like ranking by "superior" species--is a myth.

Agree?

"If you can not see the racist subtext – and the circular reasoning – in your “clean and articulate”, I cannot help you"

Yup. That post is dripping in racism the way the hotcake special at a cheap diner drips in syrup.

You can almost imagine the response to your comment beginning "I'm not a racist, but..."

The first rule of white supremacy is don't let people talk about white supremacy.

People here might be interested in an Australian perspective on American racism:

http://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pePD6K21A3?play=true

So two groups of Anglo-Saxons decided to have a war decades after the successful break off of colonial ties between the two groups. Due to the primitive nature of communications at the time, the soldiers and sailors continued fighting for some time after a peace treaty was signed. The former colonials celebrate the war whenever they can with an anthem cribbed from a British drinking song. Our local Methodist church plays a slightly off pitch carillon recording of it every day at noon. Followed by an unidentifiable song that probably has meaning to Methodists.. I wonder what Jesus thinks about the whole “bombs bursting in air” part of the song?

Donald Trump wants to be the high priest of the flag totem religion. A master of symbol manipulation, he is apparently doing whatever he can to take attention away from his linkage to Russian mobsters, oligarchs, and and other tyrants.

I hope that Mueller hurries up and squeezes the orange Julius out of the white house before the end of September. October would be okay September would be better.

'Clean and articulate' comes from Joe Biden talking about Obama.

So your racism is Biden's fault. So very convenient for a trump supporter to have someone else to blame for all their racism.

The Kelly Fallacy

gregladen — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:35:06 +0000

The Kelly Fallacy

General John F. Kelly is retired from the US Marine Corps, where he commanded the Southern Command. He replaced political operative Reince Priebus as President Trump's Chief of Staff.

The White House Chief of Staff is the highest ranking staff member in the White House, and was formalized as such in 1961. This is not a Senate confirmable position. What the Chief of Staff does varies from administration to administration but it is almost always about the same. This person can be the puppeteer, in the case of a President who is weak and in need of a guiding hand. This person is always a gatekeeper. Communication with the president is actually communication with the POTUS/COS and if the actual president is present is the decision of the Chief of Staff. If a president is not present or unable to make an important decision, it is not the Vice President who steps in, but the Chief of Staff, short term. Or, at least, this is what we have come to understand from the combination of glimpses into real life and realistic fiction about the workings of the Executive.

The Trump administration has never been in control. Trump has blundered from tweet to tweet, changing and randomizing American policy, bringing the US to what feels like the brink of a war with North Korea, destroying all of our relationships with other nations, frightening and angering most of the citizens with bone-headed domestic policy blunders, and generally being annoying. Much of this confusion and clownish governing happened prior to about two weeks ago, peaking with the rolling out of a particularly awful communications director, a character from a first draft of a Carl Hiaasen novel. And when the insanity reached that crescendo, they called in the Cavalry. Or, actually, the Marines. In the form of General John Kelly.

At the time, everyone said the same thing. The General, being a general and a Marine and all, would impose order, control Trump, bring some sense of normalcy to the White House.

But that didn't happen. Of all the bad things that have happened in the train wreck known as the Trump administration, some of the worst things have happened since Kelly landed on that particular beach. It was after Kelly arrived that we moved to the brink of a new Korean War. It was after Kelly arrived that Trump lost the confidence even of many of his supporters with his blatant nod to the white supremacist movement. Most recently (though I've not checked my twitter feed in 45 seconds so who knows) we have top advisor Steven Bannon declaring his own war on All The Staff, reversing Trump's North Korea policy, and doing an end run around the State Department to advance an entirely new policy with China. Who knows where that will go?

So, there are two facts that tell me that there is a fallacy lurking here, for which I think I have a simple explanation.

Fact 1: Everybody knows that a disciplined Marine General like John Kelly means the restoration of order. This fact is so clear and certain that after two weeks of unmitigated chaos exponentially worse than any prior two week period in the Trump Circus, it is still held on to by everyone.

Fact 2: Fact 1 is clearly untrue.

The fallacy is that being of a military background (in this case a Marine General) fully qualifies a person to know how to generate and impose, restore or maintain, and manage, order.

It could be that John Kelly was actually a lousy general, or that he is purposefully trying to Ruin America, or perhaps some other explanation pertains. But none of that seems to apply.

Rather, I think this: Order exists in the military when you get there. Ask around. You probably know people with this story. A person who is wandering, directionless, unable to maintain order in their own life, joins the military and there finds order not because the military inspires it in them, but because the military imposes it on them. This changes their life, for the better, and thereafter they can thank the already in place inherent fundamental order of the military.

Marine generals do not create order and discipline, nor do they bring it with them to unordered chaotic climes where they can put it. The military has evolved over centuries of time, and is older than most existing nations. It has the order and discipline built in, it is a hierarchical structure based on chains of command and the concept of order itself. It is not a coincidence that the essential communication, utterance, linguistic event, in the military is called an "order" an that order is obeyed on pain of punishment anywhere from doing 100 pushups up to execution by firing squad.

Marine General John Kelly moved from an environment where order is the order of the day, often in the form of orders inevitably obeyed, to a place of deprived chaos. He moved from a milieu in which his wish was someone else's command to the job of baby sitting a psychotic megalomaniac with zero impulse control who is, in fact, his commander in chief. Having a retired Marine General put in charge of a Trump in this manner, at this time, is actually the worst possible idea. Marine Generals give orders and they are followed. A Chief of Staff for Trump can not order Trump to do anything, and is likely unequipped with the laser pointers, shiny objects, yummy cookies, and psychological tasers needed to control the stupendously horrific combination of the world's biggest baby who happens to also be the word's most powerful person.

I suspect Reince Priebus had more of the skills to manage Trump than Kelly will have in ten lifetimes. Controlling the staff and the communications is Kelly's only option, and that is clearly far less than what is needed. There may be no controlling Trump in any event, but this commander will never be controlled by any general.

General John Kelly can not serve as an effective Chief of Staff on the basis of his experience in an environment of order, precisely because the remnant of that environment is the Commander in Chief that he needs to, but can not, boss around. He might have been a good Chief of Staff for other reasons, or on the basis of other experiences, but that apparently is not the case.

I believe this is the fallacy. I believe this is a deep fallacy, because it is unnoticed even though it is right in front of everyone's face. I expect that someday we will know of a thing called the "Kelly Effect," when someone moves from a place of great order to a place of chaos, and the chaos wins.

gregladen Thu, 08/17/2017 - 02:35

Tags

President Donald Trump

Seems to me a defendable analysis. Question: did you check facts with Mr. Kelly himself? You fill the answers in for him, but we have a saying, don't fill in answers for another. Keep in the back of your mind that things can run different than what you expect or have expected. I follow this with great curiosity. It is a thus far not known ballgame in democratic based states.

Gerrit, I checked with Wikipedia and found out that John Kelly is indeed a retired Marine General.That's the only pertinent fact here. The cultural translation I'm talking about here is general (as it were) and has little to do with John Kelly.

I allow for the possibility that John Kelly has the special superpower of being able to be both a successful general and an amazingly good clown wrangler. I imagine there are such folks. That he is not one of them is evidence because of the well documented events of the last two weeks.

However, your point that we don't yet know the outcome is valid. But, in two weeks one can start more than one nuclear war, so we do need to hold those involved responsible for handling this situation quickly. And they have not.

It could be that John Kelly was actually a lousy general, or that he is purposefully trying to Ruin America, or perhaps some other explanation pertains. But none of that seems to apply.

Possibility: Kelly was brought in for appearances only. The President and his people had no intention of changing their ways, but the PR output would be that Kelly was bringing change. (And he's just a stooge in the game.)

The footage of him standing off stage during Trump's 2nd grade level press conference, arms folded, head down, indicates to me he was realizing just what a moral shitstorm he'd stepped into. I'm thinking he may decide to leave (in the not too distant future).

I allow for the possibility that John Kelly has the special superpower of being able to be both a successful general and an amazingly good clown wrangler.

I think this possibility is low. Not that there aren't occasionally clown of the high level of the current president and his staff in the Marines, but when they reach this level they aren't wrangled they are booted out.* Kelly can't do that here.

* Yes, there are losers of all types in all branches of the military. But the level of "clownery" and lack of ability seen in the president and those around him would be dangerous to others in the military and wouldn't be tolerated.

I was under the impression that Kelly was going to control the White House staff, but was not planning on controlling the President.

The President will do whatever the President wants and Kelly will not be able to control him.

I would not count that as a failure on the part of Kelly.

Trump is in charge, and no one can control him.

Not the Republicans.

Not the Senate.

Not the House.

Not his chief of staff.

Trump is an will follow court orders - but he will appeal everything that goes against him to the Supreme Court.

So Trump is in charge of the executive branch of the United States and many are finding this uncomfortable - because Trump doesn't act like any President who came before him.

Just the tweets alone are driving some people crazy.

Yes - Trump keeps shooting himself in the foot.

I don't think he cares.

Part of his charm I guess.

Better buckle your seat-belts - because we have 3 1/2 years left.

I think of Edmund Burke: “All there is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.”
We have to wait and see what Kelly and others do.

" because Trump doesn’t act like any President who came before him."

That's the most dishonest way of saying the president hasn't been acting with any sense of morality or integrity I've ever seen.
But then you have to consider the source of that comment.

Gerrit:

Trump cannot be "fired" - by the GOP or anybody else.

He can be impeached by the House and if impeached, tried by the Senate - but only if he commits a high crime or misdemeanor. So far, nothing even close to that is on the table - so I don't see impeachment in the rest of his term.

We will have to see what Mueller finds - but so far, there seems to be less there than most thought.

Russia is looking like a big nothing burger (so far) - so now maybe they are looking at Trump's other business dealings? None of that has anything to do with his conduct since he became President - but we will see.

Better buckle your seat-belts – because we have 3 1/2 years left.

We'll see.

but only if he commits a high crime or misdemeanor. So far, nothing even close to that is on the table – so I don’t see impeachment in the rest of his term.

You sound so sure. Yet the Russia inquiry is only now gathering momentum.

RickA's partisan crap aside, I agree with the OP.

"Trump cannot be “fired” – by the GOP or anybody else."

Lie.

Congress can "fire" him.

"Russia is looking like a big nothing burger"

Lie. Nothing more expected from you, though, dick.

"So far, nothing even close to that is on the table "

Emoluments, conspiracy with a foreign power, election fraud, incompetence, insanity, but apart from all THAT, what does reality have on donald trump?

Fraud? Oh shut up.

AS a general, you impose order because you demand it happen.

As chief of staff to trump, he can't demand shit. Probably the closest gotten was trumps' scripted speech about how nazis are nothing the USA stands for blah blah blah. And that was likely a demand, and therefore liable to be Kelly's demand. And that pissed off trump so much that his off-script meltdown that had Kelly hanging his head in shame was trump giving a big F-U to Kelly for making demands (that to trumps mind clearly did not work, people still asked what the fuck he's on, likely the carrot dangled to trump to make him sit up and notice that the flapping of the pieholes in front of him needed to be listened to).

And Kelly can do bugger all.

"...Part of his charm I guess..."

By all means, let's romanticize the juvenile, snotty blitherings of a playground bully gone senile. Holy crap on a cracker.

>Trump is an will follow court orders

Sure about that? His hero is Andrew Jackson.

> but only if he commits a high crime or misdemeanor.

A vague term that can be interpreted any way Congress wants. If there were a secret ballot Trump would be convicted right now. They are just hunting for a charge big enough to get away with it.

While it is true that the structure of the military demands order and that no one individual is responsible for that culture, it is also true that some managers are better at adhering to these rules than others.

Given a generic political apparatchik and a high-ranking military officer I would suspect the military officer to be more likely to instill and demand order from an organization.

Your analysis also fails to take into account any information contrary to your position. One of Kelly's first acts was to fire Scaramucci. He also backed McMaster's firing of Cohen-Watnick. One his 2nd or 3rd day on the job he specifically talked about respecting the chain of command.

'Order' does not equate to 'good policy' or 'wise decisions' - that's a completely different animal. One can devise stupid policies in an orderly fashion.

Order and the chain of command really do not include Trump himself; the President sits at the top of the CoC so it's difficult to see how the President deciding to blast out another insane tweet is somehow disorderly vis a vis respecting the chain of command.

I find Kelly's whole mythos as some sort of truth-teller more problematic. Why, because he wrote a book on Vietnam that was critical of the officer corps? Jesus, David Halberstam published that book while the war was still ongoing.

MikeN says "If there were a secret ballot Trump would be convicted right now."

I disagree - but respect your right to your opinion.

I think that a majority of house members would actually need to believe a high crime or misdemeanour had taken place before they would vote to convict (or rather indict).

Not only would most republicans not find this, but at least 1/2 of the democrats would also fail to find this (in my opinion).

The democrats which actually believe you can indict based on what Trump has done thus far is fairly small. One or two (like Maxine Waters).

Most need actual evidence and not just allegations.

But that is just my personal opinion.

Many blogs commented on a [hoped for?] "soft coup" where Kelly and Mattis would bring some sanity into the WH. This was in the midst of the Korean fiasco - so there was some rationale for that "hope its a coup" dream . Trump's tweets even sounded measured for a couple days. But then his vacation tweets- nope. No soft coup here kids.
My guess is that there may have been a nanosecond of reality check wherein the POTUS thought something like "I am really really a fuck up and this job is way to bigely for me" and - given his fetish for uniforms and tanks and stuff- decided that he himself needed a Big Handsome Soldier to fix things up....like his measured tweets , that turned out to run counter to his entire life's default mode: "all my whims shall be catered to NOW' Kelly can't be around much longer. The WH already has a higher turnover than my local 7-11. Be high hilarity if so much of consequence wasn't at stake...

interesting that some are reporting Pence is scurrying back and a Camp David confab is scheduled soon . Wonder when we get our "third world banana republic " sash.....

and now Corker[ R.Sen, Tenn ] is using the "competence" word...

">Trump is an will follow court orders

Sure about that? His hero is Andrew Jackson. "

Sure about that? Not only, but that's a nonsequitur "mike".

"but respect your right to your opinion."

But your opinions ARE like assholes. And therefore nobody cares. Yours is a meaningless phrase.

" One of Kelly’s first acts was to fire Scaramucci. "

Trump was against the mooch because he was on the TV more than trump. It was the reason why Spicer was removed: his appearing on TV more than trump.

People are starting to realize that Trump is a Nazi, that he is likely a traitor, that his demeanor is vindictive and childlike and wholly inappropriate to the highest office in the land. It is clear to me that his continual lying provides sufficient cause to remove him from office. Serial lying is indicative of a serious behavioral or cognitive disorder, or both. Trump is not likely to last the summer as President IMO.

After he is removed, I'm sure that there will be books written about Trump and how he managed to deceive and manipulate so many people through his skilled distortion of cultural norms of loyalty, and of the human desire for security.

Simple formula for winning conservative loyalty. Distracting hair. OK signs. Open palms. Say something hurtful and childish about the opposition. Repeat until your followers will follow you to the waters of the Lethe.

But republican voters still support him because "both sides are the same" and "at least he's OUR bigoted white supremacist imbecile".

SteveP:

You should look up what is required to remove Trump from office.

Most of your list is not relevant.

Treason (if proved) would qualify.

Lying under oath wasn't enough to get Bill Clinton removed as President (but he did get disbarred for it).

It is ok to wish for Trump's removal - but so far there is nothing which has popped up which qualifies as a removal level event.

Maybe Mueller will turn something up - but I wouldn't hold my breath.

(but he did get disbarred for it)

This is one of the best things about you rickA -- the lies you repeat are so blatantly false that it only takes a moment to find out.

While Clinton can no longer practice law in front of the highest court, it’s not accurate to say that he was disbarred from either the Supreme Court or from practicing law in Arkansas. Clinton’s license was suspended in Arkansas, but he was not disbarred, and while Clinton did face the possibility of being barred from arguing in front the U.S. Supreme Court (which he had never done), he resigned before the ruling was handed down.

I guess to a modern Republican, being a serial or pathological liar is not a disqualifier for being president. That, I think, is one of the main reasons that scientists have such a hard time tolerating Trump. Science requires the accurate reporting of observations, and that is just about the complete opposite of how Trump behaves. Lying is not tolerable in the world of science, and when it is discovered, it is punished. Again, as I said, if the adults in the room decide that Trump has exceeded his shelf life, he will be dumped. If enough people in the government decide to interpret Article 2 or the 25th amendment in a manner that necessitates his removal, he will be removed. They will not consult blogging here. I'm pretty sure that the wheels have all come off of Trump's wagon, and that he will quite likely be gone before the summer is over. This is not a wish. It is a speculation based on the observation of Trump's increasingly erratic behavior, of his stupid tendency to viciously gore his own party, of his siding with outright Nazis , oh right, and did I mention the Mueller probe?

Factors such as the half-life of public outrage, competing news,and the strength of his hold on his supporter may affect his completion date, but his term is likely nearly over.

I normally avoid responding to the likes of RickA, but since he has claimed to be a lawyer his false statement about the unimpeachability of Trump should be challenged.

Congress itself will decide what constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, and its decision and judgment cannot be appealed.

dean - You are correct - his license was suspended for five years. I was wrong. Thank you for correcting my mistake. The important point is even lying under oath wasn't enough to remove Clinton as President.

magma - I agree that Congress gets to decide what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors and treason and bribery for that matter. I didn't say Trump was unimpeachable - I merely pointed out nothing yet has risen to that level.

The House can vote out articles of impeachment on a simple majority. Than the Senate tries the President, with the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court presiding (so kind of an appeal). Ultimately, it takes a 2/3's super majority of the Senate to vote to convict the President of the articles of Impeachment.

It is certainly possible - but very very tough.

It would be easier if the Democrats took over the Senate and House after the 2018 elections, but still very very tough (unless the Democrats had 2/3's of the Senate).

RickA - perhaps you ought to read the 25th Amendment. Nothing to do with impeachment is required to remove the President.

"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

Given that even prominent Republicans are now saying Trump is not competent to be President, how far are we realistically from his inability to carry out his duties? If his political staff starts resigning en masse as have some of his commissions that might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

"I was wrong."

Oddest admission of lying I've ever seen.

"The important point is even lying under oath wasn’t enough to remove Clinton as President."

Correct, since the issue was over something that wouldn't have been investigated for anyone else.

Kevin #29:

Yes, I am aware of the 25th amendment.

However, Trump can fire every principal officer of the executive departments - they all serve at the pleasure of the President.

The 25th amendment was designed for medical disability - coma or something similar.

Not bad PR or mean tweets.

The Republicans I have heard are criticizing the Presidents words, not saying he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

The two things are very very different.

I think we are very very far from the 25th amendment coming to the rescue.

> I didn’t say Trump was unimpeachable – I merely pointed out nothing yet has risen to that level.

>I agree that Congress gets to decide what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.

I think these are contradictory statements. Indeed you unwittingly acknowledge it with
>It is certainly possible – but very very tough.
impeachable, able to be impeached, possible to be impeached.

MikeN #32:

I also said "Treason (if proved) would qualify." in #24.

So I never said that Trump couldn't be impeached - I even gave an example of an event which if proven would qualify for impeachment.

I just don't see anything publicly available which rises to the level of an impeachable event so far.

RickA - you need to read Senator Bob Corker's words on Trump's competence and stability. He isn't talking about merely Trump's words.

'Competence' is also used by courts to determine ability to make legal, medical, and/or financial decisions for themselves. When one seeks legal guardianship it is usually because a family member is no longer competent to make these decisions. IANAL, but I've had to participate in two guardianships in the last 6 months.

Obviously 'stability' has nothing to do with his words, but his very character. An unstable person is ......????

#26
Thats an intersesting observation about the required integrity of science.
Its got me wondering how many people have had an initial career in politics and then gone " stuff this job " and moved into a career in science. Fuck all i bet.

"You should look up what is required to remove Trump from office."

You should look.

"So I never said that Trump couldn’t be impeached "

You did. #7: "Trump cannot be fired".

Dumbass.

"MikeN #32:

I also said “Treason (if proved) would qualify.” in #24."

Irrelevant as an answer to #32, dumbfuck.

Even lying under oath wasn’t enough to remove Clinton as President. Trump will likely resign before his term is up. He doesn't need the job and he is probably tired of the hysterical far left people.

Those hysterical far left people like Orrin Hatch? Ileana Ros-Lehtinen? Marco Rubio?

But what is more interesting is that you think Trump is such a weakling that he can't handle criticism from a small group of people. I do realize that for you anything left of the alt-right is "far left", and that you thus have a feeling you are completely surrounded, but to the rest of the world even the average Democrat is right-wing, so that's have far right you must be to be a Republican in our view...

"Even lying under oath"

Has not gotten people fired from Trump's team. Note the multiple: PEOPLE. And not forgetting Pat Michaels who lied to congress but because he was invited to speak by republicans he was not charged.

Trying to get people charged for crimes is something republicans do, BUT ONLY TO THEIR OPPONENTS. Criminality in their side is 100% absolutely fair "because they do it too". Doesn't stop you morons complaining about it, though, despite insisting it's fine because both sides do it.

And what the fuck billbob? "HRC LOST GET OVER IT!" then "WADDABOUT BILL CLINTON!!!".

What a fucking baby you are.

"I do realize that for you anything left of the alt-right is “far left”,"

And everything far left is communism. Reds under the bed, remember. Gotta be shit scared or there's no reason for the rightwingnutjob to live.

Trump touts racial segregation, antisemitism, lewd behavior, at Boy Scout rally

gregladen — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:12:10 +0000

Trump touts racial segregation, antisemitism, lewd behavior, at Boy Scout rally

If you give your children over to the Boy Scouts for a day or two, they may do something to them akin to abuse. This happened.

The Boy Scouts knew what they were getting into when they invited Donald Trump to speak at their national event. They even posted warnings for the troop leaders and scouts, on their blog.

As a unit leader or staff member, you can help make the president’s visit a success by ensuring that any reactions to the president’s address are, as we state in our Scout Law, friendly, courteous, and kind. This includes understanding that chants of certain phrases heard during the campaign (e.g. “build the wall,” “lock her up”) are considered divisive by many members of our audience, and may cause unnecessary friction between individuals and units. Please help us ensure that all Scouts can enjoy this historical address by making sure that your troop members are respectful not only of the president, but of the wide variety of viewpoints held by Scouts and Scouters in the audience tonight.

The speech was a travesty. It was rambling and foggy, the sort of thing that might make one worry about drug abuse or a brain problem. It was insulting to many people. It was inappropriate, including profanity and reference to sexual exploits of famous people (see below). It was dishonest, unfair, un-American, and stupid.

Many felt right away that the Boy Scouts should be asked to formally and publicly disavow the speech or make some sort of comment on what happened. For my part, I called the Northern Star Boy Scout office (that’s our regional Boy Scout thing) and complained. My friend Dave wrote this public letter:

Dear Boy Scouts of America,

During the Kennedy administration, I was a cub scout in Vienna, Austria, a city on the front line of the Cold War. Parts of that city, and nearly every other city in Europe, were still in ruins after the war ignited by an out-of-control demagogue placed in power by a minority of the voters. Part of my mother’s family had to flee their homes to America, while others were murdered by agents of that government.

That is why I forced myself to watch the current president’s speech to the Boy Scouts Jamboree in its entirety. It was a disgrace. It began with outright lies and accusations. (“The fake press will say there were 200 people here.”) It trashed his opponent, who was favored by more voters, though not by electoral tampering with the majority, and whom many Boy Scout parents must have voted for. It favored one religion over another. It used what at least used to be a swear word. It sowed divisiveness amongst Americans. It urged disrespect against a former President. It denigrated the nation’s government itself. It promoted its political campaign rhetoric and co-opted the audience into shouting its slogan.

According to the speaker, he is an honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America. I urge you to rescind that title.

I expect that as honorable officials of the Boy Scouts of America, you will issue a statement to all troops identifying the remarks that were inappropriate and did not conform to the Boy Scout regulations about politics.

Sincerely,

David J. Formanek

All the media, being fake and all, have gone after Trump (though I’m not sure about FOX news), and generally speaking, the reaction is strong and widespread. Even as this is happening, of course, Trump-trolls are scanning social media for anti-Trump comments, and complaining about how we are taking away Donald’s “free speech.” Which, of course, no one has done. We have the First Amendment right to complain about what the president says, and forces that intend to curtail that right are truly nefarious.

(Note: One item on a local FOX news page decries the comparison liberals are making between Hitler, the Hitler Youth, and Trump’s Boy Scout Speech. That comparison certainly has been made by many! I just watched the famous Hitler to the Youth speech (not the Hitler Youth, just German youth). The comparison is apt, but Hitler was a much more focused orator than Trump.)

Many parents of scouts, and many former scouts, reacted negatively to Trump’s speech and in many cases to the Scouts’ lack of good decision making and failure to take responsibility for the fiasco they knowingly created. See twitter examples below. The BSA, for its part, has as of this writing said nothing other than that they do these events and invite the presidents, so what?

Clearly, the Scouts, as an organization, are clueless, even if many of their members are still prying their jaws off the floor. They should know something about the Constitution by now, and recognize that Donald Trump is the greatest threat to it since Major General Sir George Prevost. After all, the Boy Scouts of America have been in a Constitutional fight or two.

In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA’s “expressive message” and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message.

It is inappropriate to subject youth, especially in the context of an organization that desired to have no undesirables near their boys just in case, to the sort of Drek spewed by Donald Trump at this Jamboree. It is Orwellian, at best, to pretend nothing bad happened, that the Boy Scouts of America didn’t do something horribly wrong by inviting the profane and obnoxious pussy-grabber-in-chief to speak to their kids. The Boys Scouts of America have committed the unforgivable sin of pretending that nothing is wrong, that all is normal, of standing by while our Democracy burns, and perhaps, adding fuel to the fire.

My son will not be joining the Boy Scouts. What about yours?

Example Tweets About The Trump Youth Rally

https://twitter.com/Leila_A_Rice/status/889676297852604417

https://twitter.com/Sage_dude/status/889664666137317376

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/889651708225351680

https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/889688561250783232

https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/889831687265431552

https://twitter.com/joehick58/status/889919983756685312

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/889920964670226432

The William Levitt Digression

I put this as an appendix because to get the full force of it all, you have to read a lot of rambling and offensive text and look stuff up in Wikipedia.

I remember growing up in New York State learning that William Levitt was famous for creating white suburbs developing land on Long Island and elsewhere in order to facilitate a white flight from increasingly non-white Manhattan. He may or may not have been involved in the conspiracy to keep public transit busses off Long Island because they were used by black folk to get to places like Coney Island. Anyway, from Wikipiedia:

Levitt refused to integrate his developments. The Jewish Levitt barred Jews from Strathmore, his first pre-Levittown development on Long Island in New York, and he refused to sell his homes to blacks. His sales contracts also forbade the resale of properties to blacks through restrictive covenants, although in 1957 a white couple resold their house to the first black family to live in a Levitt home. Levitt’s all-white policies also led to civil rights protests in Bowie, Maryland in 1963. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union opposed Levitt’s racist policies, and the Federal Housing Administration prepared to refuse mortgages on his next Levittown. Nevertheless, Levitt would not back down and continued planning another whites-only Levittown in Willingboro Township, New Jersey. He fought legal challenges in New Jersey courts until the United States Supreme Court refused to hear his case.

Trump, also associated with promoting and renting segregated housing in New YOrk, went on a long tirade about how great Levitt was, and how the Scouts should aspire to be him.,

… When I was young there was a man named William Levitt. You have some here. You have some in different states. Anybody ever hear of Levittown?

And he was a very successful man, became unbelievable – he was a home builder, became an unbelievable success, and got more and more successful. [Note: Levitt was like Trump, went bankrupt and otherwise failed quite often at business.] And he’d build homes, and at night he’d go to these major sites with teams of people, and he’d scour the sites for nails, and sawdust and small pieces of wood, and they cleaned the site, so when the workers came in the next morning, the sites would be spotless and clean, and he did it properly. And he did this for 20 years, and then he was offered a lot of money for his company, and he sold his company, for a tremendous amount of money, at the time especially. This is a long time ago. Sold his company for a tremendous amount of money.

And he went out and bought a big yacht, and he had a very interesting life. I won’t go any more than that, because you’re Boy Scouts so I’m not going to tell you what he did.

[This may be a reference to Levitt’s divorse, affair with his secretary whom he later married, and his later affair and marriage with a french art dealer, but who knows. Maybe Trump knows more than just that. Anyway, Levitt might have been a fellow pussygrabber.]

Should I tell you? Should I tell you?

You’re Boy Scouts, but you know life. You know life.

So look at you. Who would think this is the Boy Scouts, right? So he had a very, very interesting life, and the company that bought his company was a big conglomerate, and they didn’t know anything about building homes, and they didn’t know anything about picking up the nails and the sawdust and selling it, and the scraps of wood. This was a big conglomerate based in New York City.

And after about a 10-year period, there were losing a lot with it. It didn’t mean anything to them. And they couldn’t sell it. So they called William Levitt up, and they said, would you like to buy back your company, and he said, yes, I would. He so badly wanted it. He got bored with this life of yachts, and sailing, and all of the things he did in the south of France and other places. You won’t get bored, right? You know, truthfully, you’re workers. You’ll get bored too, believe me. Of course having a few good years like that isn’t so bad.

[None of that is true. Levitt became the titular head of the company after he sold it, and it was even named after him, but he never re-owned it. Not that this matters; Just letting you know the alt-facts are flowing. Most of this story is incorrect, muddled, or made up.]

But what happened is he bought back his company, and he bought back a lot of empty land, and he worked hard at getting zoning, and he worked hard on starting to develop, and in the end he failed, and he failed badly, lost all of his money. He went personally bankrupt, and he was now much older. And I saw him at a cocktail party. And it was very sad because the hottest people in New York were at this party.

[Reminder: this is a speech to the Boy Scouts of America.]

It was the party of Steve Ross – Steve Ross, who was one of the great people. He came up and discovered, really founded Time Warner, and he was a great guy. He had a lot of successful people at the party.

And I was doing well, so I got invited to the party. I was very young. And I go in, but I’m in the real estate business, and I see a hundred people, some of whom I recognize, and they’re big in the entertainment business.

And I see sitting in the corner was a little old man who was all by himself. Nobody was talking to him. I immediately recognized that that man was the once great William Levitt, of Levittown, and I immediately went over. I wanted to talk to him more than the Hollywood, show business, communications people.

So I went over and talked to him, and I said, “Mr. Levitt, I’m Donald Trump.” He said, “I know.” I said, “Mr. Levitt, how are you doing?” He goes, “Not well, not well at all.” And I knew that. But he said, “Not well at all.” And he explained what was happening and how bad it’s been and how hard it’s been. And I said, “What exactly happened? Why did this happen to you? You’re one of the greats ever in our industry. Why did this happen to you?”

And he said, “Donald, I lost my momentum. I lost my momentum.” A word you never hear when you’re talking about success when some of these guys that never made 10 cents, they’re on television giving you things about how you’re going to be successful, and the only thing they ever did was a book and a tape. But I tell you – I’ll tell you, it was very sad, and I never forgot that moment.

And I thought about it, and it’s exactly true. He lost his momentum, meaning he took this period of time off, long, years, and then when he got back, he didn’t have that same momentum.

I’m so glad the Boy Scouts got to hear that inane and inaccurate story.

gregladen Tue, 07/25/2017 - 08:12

Tags

President Donald Trump

A loved one just died, and today is her birthday. #Sad

gregladen — Mon, 03 Jul 2017 23:00:10 +0000

A loved one just died, and today is her birthday. #Sad

I speak, of course, of America.

America became very ill early last year when one of the two main political parties seriously embraced a fake candidate for the most important job in the land.

America was given a very poor prognosis in August when that party endorsed this clown for president. Then, in November, the fatal blow happened, but as is the case with many fatal things -- being sentenced to death, being told you have incurable cancer, etc. -- it took a while before the death throes.

From some point in time, around January, though the late winter and spring, we gained the full realization that the country's election had been hacked (already suspected), but that the people who voted for the clown didn't care. Then the leaders of the world singly or in small groups wrote off America and its leader, and so on. The last moments of life consisted of this or that horrific tweet or tweet storm, perhaps yesterday morning's short video of the clown pretending to beat the crap of the press at a boxing match was the moment.

Unlike in the movies, it is sometimes hard to tell exactly when death happens. We understand it as a range of time.

Now, there is still life in this country. But it is not the essential life. It is the life we find in a dead carp washed up on a stinking muddy bank. The maggots, the bacteria, the bits of still greenish water plant stuck to the gills. Life, yes, but not the life. There are those who had wished the clown would be elected so that he could destroy America and we can start over. They got the first part of their wish. The second part is unlikely to be realized in their benighted lifespans. Today the stinking carp-clown is putting together a list and we all know what he is going to use that list for.

Do you, America, have the understanding you need, the bravery you need, and the commitment you need to renew the revolution? I think not. You've shown no evidence that you do.

There are advantages to living in a third world country. But those advantages come only after the fall has completed, and that will take some decade or two worth of misery, and those advantages will only pertain to the richest of the rich. They, the richest of the rich, have taken, finally, what they want.

The bad news is this: The hyper-privileged have won. The good news: They won a stinking dead carp. Enjoy, suckers.

A fish rots from the head.

This pertains:

gregladen Mon, 07/03/2017 - 19:00

Tags

President Donald Trump

Republicans

clown

Dead Carp

Happy Birthday America

Trump

Poor depressed Greg, what will he do?

[He'll delete your comments and throw you off my blog again]

I laughed out loud -- yes, LOL -- when I saw up above the juxtaposed pictures of Dead Carp and Supine Clown. Now, amid all this Russian intervention in U.S. politics, I have feverishly been coding Russian artificial intelligence in Perl. Then in Russian I announce my work in a Russian AI Forum. I am counting on the Russians developing my AI in such a manner that it takes down the Trump regime.

We're still experiencing a sucking wound from America's original sin. It can draw in all different kinds of infectious crap.

You know how white supremacists are always puffing and gabbling about starting a race war. You can hear a repurposed version of that among culture warriors. It's weird human psychology, cleansing with blood.

So now things are slowly heating up once again while bobble-heads bobble and virulent trolls instigate:
https://www.juancole.com/2017/07/whats-victorious-obsession.html

So the Republicans set up a mega primary for their presidential candidate, and it pretty much consisted of a cage fight. And guess what. The biggest thug walked out of the cage with the belt. Then, with the help of the biggest thug in the enslaved world (Putin) , he squeaked out an electoral college victory.

Lady Liberty has now been replaced with a bona fide fascist authority figure. A tasteless, bullying, uncurious, prejudiced, poorly educated lout. He is ruining a half century of diplomacy. He is stoking the fires of division and polarization everywhere in the world, and he really couldn't have done it without the Republican Party.

Somebody please strike a Hero of the Republicans award for Reince Priebus. He has finally and successfully delivered payback to everyone who ever put a “Kick Me” sign on his back. In spades! The fact that he may have mortally wounded his country in the process is not important because the only country that matters to Republicans is Republicanistan; a land that claims Lincoln but votes Duke. A place where empathy and compassion has no place, and where the ultimate love of country is self love.

Well said, SteveP

Way to bring the stupid Wesley. That last post shows your keen lack of intellect well.

Democrats, try not to nominate a crook next time. Obama vs Trump in 2008, he is over 500 electoral votes, and maybe a sweep(even if Trump neutralizes Obama's biggest issue).

Crook? Do you have information on trials and convictions everyone else doesn't mikeN, or is it that more of your usual baseless crap?

Depressing times. Throwing a right wing ignoramus like Betula off of your blog will slightly lessen the gloom. But the silver lining in all of this is that the election of a sexist, misogynistic, racist, anti environmental buffoon might be just what is needed for progressives to rally for real change. Trump of course is an unmitigated disaster on every level. But let's see if the descent into fascism can be prevented by critical mass.

Nope have no trials and convictions. Nevertheless, you might want to consider someone who meets a higher standard.

So MikeN, how do explain the liars and thieves in the Trump administration? The entire bunch of them are vile. Not a redeeming trait amongst any of them. Pence, De Vos, Pruitt, Tillersen, Perry et al. Pure unadulterated scum. With Tump himself the worst of the lot.

"Nope have no trials and convictions."

So when you said "crook" you were lying, "mike".

"you might want to consider someone who meets a higher standard."

Irony.

And when it comes to politicians lying, you need to blame yourself, "mike". When Hillary said to the coal workers "Face it, your jobs aren't coming back", nobody there cared she was telling the truth and didn't listen to the "We need to teach you new skills for new jobs", they just heard "You're piles of worthless shit" because to them their job WAS them. And when trumpaline lied out of his orange arse with "You're gonna be so busy with the jobs I'm bringing back", they didn't, and still don't in some cases, care that he lied, knew he was lying, and THEY knew he was lying.

When politicians lie on the campaign trail, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. Because you reward liars with votes then forgive them with partisan BS "Oh everyone does it". Yet if some politican doesn't lie, if you don't like the truth, you punish them.

No wonder they fucking lie. You make them.

Poor depressed Greg, what will he do?
[He’ll delete your comments and throw you off my blog again]

I didn't realize I had ever been thrown off before....when was this and what was it for?

Thanks.

Nevertheless, you might want to consider someone who meets a higher standard.

Considering you believe President Trump is a great choice and is doing a fine job as president, I can only assume you have no standards at all, and that "rich, white, anti woman, anti minority, anti poor, anti decency." work just fine for you.

Well said Dean. Throw in anti-environmental, anti-intellectual, anti-compassion for good measure. Thus far the worst POTUS by far in history and he had only just begun.

If Trump had lost, there would have been lots of people saying, grumbling, angry, that Republicans nominated the wrong candidate and lost a winnable election. I doubt there would have been universal rejection of someone who said, 'Next time don't nominate an assaulter of women.' There would have been no counters of 'you have trials and convictions?'

I'd have liked it if the liberal candidate lost for being a liberal, but unfortunately I know being a crook was a large part of it.

Hillary a liberal? Now you really have me on the floor. Truth is that Hillary is a neoconservative who would have fit well into the Reagan administration. Why else would Kagan, Perle, Wolfowitz and Kristol back her nomination? Noam Chomsky was saying this week that the US has gone so far to the right since Reagan that even 'socialist' Bernie Sanders would have been politically closer to Eisenhower. The bottom line Mike is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Nope, being a crook was not part of it.

The constant barrage of accusations of being a crook was part of it.

So, again, you continue the complete fabrication of reality and prove that you don't have any standards.

I’d have liked it if the liberal candidate lost for being a liberal

As others pointed out, she is not liberal (unless you mean not thinking minorities are inferior and same sex marriage is fair is enough to qualify someone as liberal). She is primarily right of center, just as President Obama was when he continued most of President Bush's policies.

but unfortunately I know the constant lies from the right that began in the 90s that accused her of being a crook without any proof, trial, or conviction was a large part of it.

Fixed your poorly written sentence for you: you admitted there were no trials and convictions -- you know the usual things that mean you can factually call someone a crook.

I doubt there would have been universal rejection of someone who said, ‘Next time don’t nominate an assaulter of women.’

Really? There are people who say he didn't mock a handicapped man even though he was recorded doing it. There are people who say he didn't encourage supporters to assault protesters even though he was recorded at rallies doing just that -- and offering to pay legal fees. There are people who say he treats women with respect despite the recordings of him saying despicable things (reference his "blood" comments or "grab them by the ****) and contestants at his pageants saying he had a habit of walking unannounced into their dressing rooms.

There would have been no counters of ‘you have trials and convictions?

As pointed out above, there have been flat out "he didn't do that" in spite of the evidence of him doing (whatever "that" references).

The difference is that your cries of "crook" are bullshit because they are based on your opinion without any supporting fact (no surprise there, that is the common method for the modern right), but the comments about President Trump are based on things he's been recorded, videoed, or both, saying.

I guess you're right and I'm wrong. Hillary is not a crook. She is as healthy as Paul Bunyan. Her speeches are a combination of Obama and Lincoln. She is the most qualified ever to seek the office.

Yet she still lost to an incompetent, fascist, insulting, assaulting, bully who can't talk right.

Must be that on the issues his positions are so overwhelmingly favored.

Count me in for he didn't mock a handicapped reporter. There is video of Trump doing the same thing to Ted Cruz, the generals who he claims he knows more about ISIS than them, and even Donald Trump. The media fooled you by putting a still photo of the reporter to make you think he had the same disability that Trump was supposedly mocking.

Now poor old Mike is getting tetchy. Whoever said that Clinton was not a crook? I loathe her and the DNC. They sandbagged the Sanders campaign and their was certainly skullduggery involved. The Democrats are just as beholden to the rapaciously predatory form of capitalism called neoliberalism as the Republicans. Both parties have overseen a corporate coup-det-tat in slow motion in the US, what writer Sheldon Wolin refers to as 'inverted totalitarianism'. Sanders was hardly a 'socialist' but at least he was not part of the wretched established order. Noam Chomsky said recently that the US has swung so far to rhe right in since Reagan was in power that Sanders' policies would not have differed much from Eishenower's.

The bottom line is that anyone who voted for Trump but who is not filthy rich needs to have their head examined,. My guess is that you fit into this category. Trump and his regime are vile in just about every way. Despite his rhetoric, he has pushed the US from a plutocracy towards a kleptocracy. Some achievement. He is an international embarrassment, as one goof after another proves. And he doesn't give a rat's ass about helping the poor or the disenfranchised, His regime is all about further concentrating wealth in an already lopsided society. That middle and working class people actually voted for this vile idiot says a lot about society and about the profound ignorance that pervades it.

"There is video of Trump doing the same thing to Ted Cruz"

Ah, wrong, "Mike". That is no proof of anything other than he hates and despises Ted Cruz.

Not proof he didn't mock a reporter for being disabled.

Try again.

Count me in for he didn’t mock a handicapped reporter.

I'm not surprise. Denial of facts is one of your only consistent attributes.

There is video of Trump doing the same thing to Ted Cruz, the generals who he claims he knows more about ISIS than them, and even Donald Trump.

Show me the video of him waving his hands around, waving his arms spastically, imitating slurred speech, when he talks about Cruz and the generals. Otherwise -- your comment is just another lie.

The media fooled you by putting a still photo of the reporter to make you think he had the same disability that Trump was supposedly mocking.

No two ways around that one -- it's simply a bald faced lie.

Your other comment (@21) is just the typical right-wing bullshit, pretending (or, in your case, I believe, believing) that pointing out someone is not a crook is exactly the same as designating that person a saint. Completely asinine, but par for the course for you.

They sandbagged the Sanders campaign and their was certainly skullduggery involved.

That's as foolish and unsupported as anything mikeN has said.

"I guess you’re right and I’m wrong. Hillary is not a crook"

When we tell you you need proof to say Hilary is a crook and point out you have sweet F A, why the fuck do you come out with THAT load of sniveling BS, "mike"?

"Yet she still lost to an incompetent, fascist, insulting, assaulting, bully who can’t talk right."

Because those who voted for that incompetent, facist, insulting, sexual shitwad, bully coward who can't string two words together without proving himself a retarded narcissist with a massive ego and inability to take one second to think about anything (other than how to get his daughter in his bed) WANTED an incompetent, facist, insulting sexual shitwad bully coward because he was THEIR incompetent, facist, insulting, sexial shitwad, bully coward and not a woman or a black man.

Meanwhile those who look PAST the veneer of appearance saw there was little to no reason to vote for either, given they were both going to be rightwing.

>WANTED an incompetent, facist, insulting sexual shitwad bully coward because he was THEIR incompetent, facist, insulting, sexial shitwad, bully coward and not a woman or a black man.

Then how did Obama win? Is it because Trump's negatives are actually positives not possessed by Romney or McCain?
Should we conclude that for Dems to win they should avoid women and nominate someone more like Trump in character?

>>They sandbagged the Sanders campaign and their was certainly skullduggery involved.

>That’s as foolish and unsupported as anything mikeN has said.

We'll find out if judges let the lawsuit against DNC proceed.

Trump on Cruz,
https://youtu.be/M4604reEqk0

However, I think this was later, so it could be deliberate by Trump to defend against the earlier charge.

In the same speech:
https://youtu.be/LQQq50JWsmY?t=45

One from before the reporter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFO9ww1xMqo

On Trump
https://youtu.be/20KAquo3BxQ

MikeN, I'd like to think that not even you are trying to say that President Obama is "incompetent, facist, insulting sexual shitwad bully coward because he was THEIR incompetent, facist, insulting, sexial shitwad, bully coward".

Of course, he isn't white, so there is a good chance that you have exactly that opinion of him.

What MikeN hasn't explained is what wonderful qualities Trump posseses as POTUS. Moreover, what stunning policies has he promised or followed through on that will benefit ordinary Americas like Mike? I agree that the Democrats have become every but as much of property party as the Republicans. But Trump is utterly depraved. Is campaign was one big lie. He didn't drain the swamp but he filled it with a newer and bigger pile of corporate and banking scheisters than any previous administration had. He has filled his cabinet posts with rich kleptocrats and is pushing an agenda to further eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. What makes this program so alluring Mike?

"Then how did Obama win? "

Because he ran and won.

Dumbass.

"Is it because Trump’s negatives are actually positives not possessed by Romney or McCain?"

Nope.

"Should we conclude that for Dems to win they should avoid women and nominate someone more like Trump in character?"

Nope again.

You really are a stupid fuckwit, aren't you "mike"?

"Trump on Cruz,"

Still says fuck all about anything other than his despite of Cruz. It doesn't prove he didn't mock a disabled reporter.

Try again, moron, and with less spazzing out, please.

"We’ll find out if judges let the lawsuit against DNC proceed."

Still has no bearing on the claim that that was "as foolish and unsupported as anything mikeN has said".

Dean, #31 I don't think that of Obama. Wow gave an explanation for why Trump beat Hillary, including that opponent was woman or black. That explanation does not appear consistent with Obama's winning. What changed? I don't think Trump's character is a positive that pushed him to victory(though some parts were). I think not nominating a crook would have given the Dems a victory, but others disagree. Why did Trump win, and what can Dems do to win next time?

"Wow gave an explanation for why Trump beat Hillary"

Nope. I did not you lying toerag.

I gave why Trump got votes. Because he's your asshole and party before country is your motto.

" including that opponent was woman or black"

Wrong again, asshat.

You prefer incomprehension, as long as you can manage to twist reality to say what you'd like to be there instead of what is there.

"What changed?"

The election.

It was a different one, moron.

"I don’t think Trump’s character is a positive that pushed him to victory"

Nope, you don't think, we all agree on that. But he's your asshole and he's getting back at those uppy lefties who won last time. You WANT hm to be a complete asshole. And you'll ignore his assholishness because he's YOUR asshole.

"I think not nominating a crook "

They didn't, idiot.

". Why did Trump win"

Because you trump supporters support YOUR arrogant and idiotic asshole, because YOU put party before country.

>>“Wow gave an explanation for why Trump beat Hillary”

>Nope. I did not

>“Yet she still lost to an ...

>Because ...and not a woman or a black man.

Well, ignore the fact that you are quotemining there, fuckwit, but that quote does not say why Trump beat Hillary.

What did Trump Know, and When did he Know It?

gregladen — Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:19:48 +0000

What did Trump Know, and When did he Know It?

And, can we hear the tapes please, before they get Wooded?

gregladen Wed, 03/22/2017 - 11:19

Tags

Politics

President Donald Trump

Republicans

As always with Republicans, it's party before country and bullshit most of all.

"[C]an we hear the tapes please, before they get Wooded?" Ah, that's a beautiful phrase! Making a verb out of President Nixon's secretary. Shades of the "eighteen-minute gap" The allusion to Ms. Wood makes me feel old, because I can't remember her first name. It was perhaps "Valerie." Let's Google it. Oh, she was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Mary_Woods sitting there just outside the Oval Office. But then again I _am_ indeed old, because at the Seattle World's Fair I saw a door open and out walked Richard Nixon and Pat and Patricia and Julie. A while later I found Mr. Nixon again coming out of the exhibit of the now defunct United Arab Republic, and Mr. Nixon gave me his autograph. To quote Bob Hope -- "Thanks for the memories."

This is interesting.

I will be very interested to see if the Obama administration was spying on the Trump transition team (and possible Trump).

Also, it will be interesting to see what the "incidental" event was that allowed the collection of this intelligence.

Doesn't this look worse for Obama and not Trump?

Maybe you should be asking what did Obama know and when did he know it!

Greg:

Did you see this:

https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-c…

A hearing with Curry, Christy, Mann and Pielke Jr. - must watch tv.

The topic:

Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method

@RickA:

I will be very interested to see if the Obama administration was spying on the Trump transition team (and possible Trump).

There is literally no hard evidence to support this claim. Tell me, does your arse get jealous of all the s**t that comes out of your mouth?

“I have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI” - FBI Director James Comey, on the claims by Trump of wiretapping.
Why are you lying?

Why are you lying?

He can't help it - it's constitutional.

I will be very interested to see ...

Would you be "very interested to see" if the Climatic Research Unit was hacked by the Russians, as is widely suspected?

Julian #4:

That is why I said "if".

Bernard #7:

Yes - I would be very interested in that. I am assuming FOIA was an inside job, until proven otherwise.

What Trump knew and when he knew it is very important.
This morning, on CNN- "The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN." Trump is, of course, a doddering malignant narcissistic idiot who has taken over the country like a brainless micro-organism would, at the behest of his DNA , which in this case is Steve Bannon and the Russians. He believes and/or propagates the most insane conspiracy theories. Being a narcissist, he is easily manipulated. Does he believe all the crap he spews? We can only guess.

There is an awful lot of religion in this current turn of events. It is as if the Christians of Murka all prayed that the filthy atheist communist Russians would not take over Murka, and Gawd heard their prayers and said "OK". But instead, tricky guy that he is, he turned Russia into a corrupt orthodox christian capitalist state, arranged to have the Russians infiltrate the Trump campaign, and helped them win the election through hacking, disinformation, and better arithmetic, Ha ha on you, Murka! You are now part of the New Russian Empire! Ha ha!

"I will be very interested "

But there is no evidence for it, so why aren't you already interested in the answer?

Because your interest is JAQing off.

Wow #10:

Not sure what you are talking about - but assuming it is climategate - there is no answer.

We don't know whether it was a hack or an inside job.

That is why I said I would be interested if it was shown to be a hack.

Bottom line - there is no answer (yet).

We have to wait and see.

@RickA #11:

That is why I said I would be interested if it was shown to be a hack.
Bottom line – there is no answer (yet).

Then why in #2 did you say:

Doesn’t this look worse for Obama and not Trump?
Maybe you should be asking what did Obama know and when did he know it!

?
It certainly looks as if your mind was already made up about the answer.

Then why in #2 did you say:

Because RickA is dishonest. This has be exhaustively established already.

"Not sure what you are talking about"

Why not? Where did the quote come from? Or is what you said also unimportant to you?

You have no evidence and all the evidence is that there IS no evidence, because it never happened. And there SHOULD have been evidence.

Even Hollywood when presenting black ops show that people write things down and document them when doing bad things legally.

But you already know that there is nothing to the claim.

You are "interested" because you WANT it to be true, just like Steyn's lying libelous comments. Without evidence you take their side because you WANT to. Without evidence that there is nothing to it, you WON'T be interested in FBI's or Mann's POV, because you DON'T want it to be true.

You are a dishonest and lying arsehole, dick. There's no interest there, no inquiring, just JAQing off to support your conspiracy that, despite all the evidence being against you, you are despite all that right.

Watch out. RickA is trying to change the subject away from Trump's lies about wiretapping, which means the subject is a problem for RickA.

"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson plans to skip a meeting with NATO foreign ministers next month in order to stay home for a visit by China’s president and will go to Russia later in April, U.S. officials said on Monday, disclosing an itinerary that allies may see as giving Moscow priority over them."

We certainly live in crazy times. Imagine calling back in time to tell the folks back in 2015.... " Hello? Hi. This is steve from the future. You aren't going to believe this! Donald Trump is going to be elected president in 2016! Really! AND, he is going to be aided in his campaign by illegal attacks against his opponent by.... wait till you hear this.... THE Russians! And Trump's National Security Advise has to resign because he lied about his contact with the Russians! But wait! It gets better! The former head of Exxon is named Secretary of State AND he disses Nato to go visit Vladimir Putin.... Who is his best buddy!!! Yeah. I know. This sounds like a bad novel...... AND trump's campaign manager has now been found to have worked for the Putin mob!

Trump! Rusia! Trump ! Russia!.

Holy shit.

RickA spews:

"I will be very interested to see if the Obama administration was spying on the Trump transition team (and possible Trump)."

Nobody is claiming this. In fact, Nunes explicitly (in a follow-up) made clear that his claim that Trump's team may've been "incidentally" monitored was not support for the claim that Trump and his team were targetted.

"Also, it will be interesting to see what the “incidental” event was that allowed the collection of this intelligence."

Nunes was clear. A foreign power was being LEGALLY monitored and conversations with some of Trump's team was incidentally picked up. Emphasis on LEGAL.

Or so his source claims. He's telling us he'll never reveal how he received this information which contradicts under-oath testimony by the heads of the NSA and FBI on Monday. But even if true, Nunes made clear that the monitoring of the foreign power was legal, and that Trump and his team were not the target.

"Doesn’t this look worse for Obama and not Trump?"

No, it still makes Trump a liar for claiming that Obama ILLEGALLY targetted him for surveillance. Not his team, not a foreign power his team was talking to, but TRUMP. POTUS was very specific that he, personally, was being targetted and that Obama had ordered it.

BBD #16:

I have a fairly open mind about the Trump "tapping my wires" allegation.

Trump may be wrong or Trump may turn out to be right.

We don't know yet.

We will have to wait and see.

Isn't it possible a Russian (or the alleged non-Russian target of the FISA monitoring) could have called Trump tower?

I am not saying any did - but I am also not saying any didn't.

Wouldn't that be Obama Administration "tapping of wires" at Trump tower?

Didn't one or more of Trump's transition team live at Trump tower (I vaguely recall reading that) - if any conversations were incidentally recorded - wouldn't that be "tapping of wires" at Trump tower?

I guess we will see.

But it wouldn't matter that much to me if Trump turned out to be wrong.

When you rely on newspaper coverage you are wrong more than your are right - so it wouldn't be anything new.

"I have a fairly open mind about the Trump “tapping my wires” allegation."

You say this like it's somehow a good thing.

You see when you asked for a cite you would have been expected to close your mind to the claim being wrong if it supplied the proof you wanted the cite for.

But because you will insist on keeping the option of what you wanted in the first place to be true to remain true, despite evidence against it, that is why your wanting a cite was irrelevant.

And here you are again, ignoring evidence against you but virtue signalling that this intransigence in the face of contrary evidence is somehow the right and holy thing to do.

"Didn’t one or more of Trump’s transition team live at Trump tower (I vaguely recall reading that) – if any conversations were incidentally recorded – wouldn’t that be “tapping of wires” at Trump tower?"

No, not support for the assertion trump made at all, you incredible douche canoe.

I have a fairly open mind about the Trump “tapping my wires” allegation.

So you are equally prepared to accept that Trump is lying in an attempt to divert attention from his links with Russia.

Yes?

I have an open mind. The allegation is that RickA was harboring evil flying monkeys in the CIA's secret lair on Mars. Doesn't matter that there's no evidence for this; I think Rickety Rick should be perpetually investigated over flying-monkeygate.

I don't really care about the outcome (diversionary waste of time and resources) and that proves I have an open mind, because I said so, and my mind is so awesomely mysterious that you can't possibly know otherwise, so everything I say is just as good as what anybody else says, though we all secretly know I'm better because I'm a lawyer AND an engineer which is two brilliances in one and covers everything and supersedes all other forms of knowledge for ever and ever amen.

Also I'm polite.

So the question is, how much did Trump know about the Russian connection? Was he in the dark ( like an idiot) or was he completely knowledgeable about it ( a traitor). It astounds me that the Republicans can embrace this inarticulate, narcissistic , silver spoon clown. His ability to understand and manipulated the basest levels of the Murkan psyche is remarkable. I can't imagine that he didn't receive insights and guidance through Paul Manafort, his now known to be clinging to Vladimir Putin's polyps.. with his his Czech and Yugoslavian born wives ,he is clearly a slavophile, and he is one to the extent that he loves Russia and Putin more than half the people in Murka. . He certainly seems to love Putin.

Trump has some grandiose idea that he can make some sort of of super government alliance with Russia. Good luck with that. Alliances with bears do not often end well. Were it not for our primacy in inventing nuclear weapons, I think that we can readily surmise that WWI would have morphed into a conflict between the Soviets and the West.

Oh wait. The WWII alliance between the West and Soviet Russia DID morph into a conflict between them and the West. I forgot!

RickA vomits:

"Isn’t it possible a Russian (or the alleged non-Russian target of the FISA monitoring) could have called Trump tower?"

In which case it would've been that individual's communications being listened to, not Trump being "tapped". Trump's allegations were very specific. You're pretending he wasn't.

@RickA:

I have a fairly open mind about the Trump “tapping my wires” allegation.

Which is why you JAQed Off in your first comment?

Trump may be wrong or Trump may turn out to be right.

The Director of the FBI says he found no evidence that Trump is correct.

Isn’t it possible a Russian (or the alleged non-Russian target of the FISA monitoring) could have called Trump tower?...
Wouldn’t that be Obama Administration “tapping of wires” at Trump tower?

No, it wouldn't. It would be tapping the wires of the target when he or she was making a call to Trump Tower. In addition, unless Obama or a member of his administration ordered the wiretapping, it wouldn't be anyway.
The fact that you can't (or more likely don't want to) grasp these subtleties is disappointing.

BBD #22:

Yes - if that is what the evidence shows. So far that is not the case.

OA #23:

Go ahead - investigate away.

RickA @ ~ 28

Sure Rick, we'll just use your tax dollars and bog down government to the point where it can't function... Oh wait, I forgot. You don't pay taxes and you hate government (unless it's blowing stuff up in).

Rick A calls for a special investigator to be named to investigate the suspected treason by Donald Trump and his cohort, as well as by McConnell and other congressional Republicans.

You know, you can always count on Republicans to create a robust house of mirrors. Who's investigating whom about what. You investigate me, I'll investigate you. Who's leaking what for what reason? You are. No you are. It's ok. It's not ok. What means this strange word 'ethics'? We don't need no stinking ethics. Yes you do. No we don't -- we don't understand it, which means it's silly ha ha ha. Everybody say, "Ha ha ha."

And you gotta love Trump saying that the intelligence services are unreliable: Because Iraq. For some reason nobody remembers the Office of Special Plans --maybe because the press want to forget the days they spent taking dictation for Republicans with one hand and beating the drums of war with the other...

RickA

Yes – if that is what the evidence shows. So far that is not the case.

But all the top bods who would know have stated unequivocally that Obama did not have Trump surveilled (per his specific claim).

So the evidence *so far* is that Trump was making shit up. Given the awful probs he's got with the stink of Russian connections, and given his standard MO, it seems very likely that this was a gambit to divert attention from the awful smell.

So on balance, I'd say you were being dishonest again.

BBD #32:

It is funny how when you disagree with someone they are a liar.

The investigations are not over.

Personally, I will wait until the investigations are over - and then look at what evidence has turned up and then decide if Trump is wrong (or a liar).

You can do what you want.

So dick's claim is that the lack of evidence trump is wrong in his claim means that the lack of evidence trumps' claim is right should be ignored....

Because there's evidence that trump SAID it. And that's valid to Dick.Forget that there's evidence that the ones who should know said it wasn't, and that's not proof.

"they are a liar."

Incorrect. He said you were dishonest, not called you a liar.

Julian #27:

Interesting.

What about a call out of trump tower to a target of interest - would that be tapping the wires of trump tower?

What about surveillance which is not being done pursuant to a FISA warrant? Of course, that couldn't be pinned on Obama unless he ordered it illegally (which we have no evidence of). But still - sometimes peons do stuff they aren't supposed to do.

We will have to see what turns up.

All the top guys did testify they are not aware of any FISA order targeting trump tower - but after the latest revelation I would like to ask them all if they are aware of any intercepted communications by any member of the Trump transition team or Trump campaign team (whether phone, cell, text or email), whether they were the target or merely incidental.

It sounds like the answer to that question would be different - and maybe Trump was briefed on some of those intercepts and was referring to that when he tweeted about his wires being tapped.

We will have to wait and see what happens and what more comes out.

it would also be interesting to see what exactly Obama meant when he ordered the preservation of all evidence of Russia stuff (I cannot remember his exact language). What was done pursuant to this order? Another area for possibly overzealous peons to overreach?

Or maybe there is absolutely nothing to support Trump's tweet - we will see.

It is funny how when you disagree with someone they are a liar.

Your claim was that, so far, the evidence doesn't point to Trump making shit up. But actually, it does. So you are being dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Read harder. It wastes less time.

Wow #35:

What is your understanding of the difference between being dishonest and being a liar?

What about a call out of trump tower to a target of interest – would that be tapping the wires of trump tower?

No, of *course* not. It would be tapping the subject (recipient) of the call *from* TT. Not tapping TT.

This is so self-evident, so obvious, that it strongly suggests further partisan dishonesty on your part.

What is your understanding of the difference between being dishonest and being a liar?

See #32 #37.

BBD #37:

You are mischaracterizing my post.

You asked me "So you are equally prepared to accept that Trump is lying in an attempt to divert attention from his links with Russia."

I said "Yes – if that is what the evidence shows. So far that is not the case."

I see absolutely no evidence of Trump lying at all about this issue, let alone lying to " in an attempt to divert attention from his links with Russia." But we will see.

You are mischaracterizing my post.

No, I'm not. But you have *switched* from the post I was discussing (#28) and which I quoted to a different one

Now that too, reeks of dishonesty.

I see absolutely no evidence of Trump lying at all about this issue, let alone lying to ” in an attempt to divert attention from his links with Russia.”

You mean all those top bods who denied the validity of Trump's claims don't count as evidence that he made them up??

Most people would call your position in the light of the *evidence* partisan and dishonest.

let alone lying to ” in an attempt to divert attention from his links with Russia.”

Why else would he do such a crazy thing?

"I see absolutely no evidence of Trump lying at all about this issue"

Just out of curiosity, Rick, what would you consider evidence of lying? Or is it that, just in this case, there can never be any way to positively prove lying?

BTW, I see absolutely no evidence that RickA isn't hoarding flying monkeys on Mars.

No evidence of President Trump lying about this, despite the fact that the intelligence community says it didn't happen and no evidence to support him has been presented.

Only someone as monumentally stupid as a libertarian could represent the above quote with reality.

"Why else would he do such a crazy thing?"

Because he's crazy? Senile, delusional, hallucinatory, schizophrenic, on bad acid, has smartphone Turrets...

BBD #43:

Sure - there testimony is evidence.

But it is not dispositive.

There may be other evidence which shows they are wrong.

Also - all there testimony shows (assuming there is nothing else to come out during the investigation) is that Trump is wrong - not that he lied.

You really need to look up the definition of lie or liar in the dictionary. It requires intentional deception.

If Trump reads an article in the New York Times saying he was wiretapped and tweets about it - that doesn't make him a liar (if the article is incorrect) - it makes him wrong.

But you misuse the word liar and dishonest quite frequently - so perhaps "liar" and "dishonest" merely mean incorrect to you.

Well, RickA, dean understands me perfectly.

So how come you... won't?

OA #45:

An admission by Trump that he lied.

Also - an admission that he made it up without any basis whatsoever - that might do the trick also. In other words - no newspaper articles no briefings etc.

Short of that - we need to be able to read his mind to know his intent, and I cannot read minds.

it makes him wrong.

Not admitting his error in the light of all the subsequent evidence suggests he is being (and probably was being) dishonest.

Plus there's the back catalogue of all the other stuff he lied about.

OA #45 says "BTW, I see absolutely no evidence that RickA isn’t hoarding flying monkeys on Mars."

That is not a lie.

You need a better example.

Short of that – we need to be able to read his mind to know his intent,

Not really. It's actually rather obvious to honest people.

Here we are wasting time talking about lying again.

BBD - you have never shown I lied about anything.

You just assert it because you cannot understand how someone can disagree with your opinion about something.

But I can and I do disagree with your opinion about lots of things.

dean uses the word "liar" improperly also.

Lots of people do.

RickA, BBD has already answered your question to me about calls made from Trump Tower to a person under surveillance.
w.r.t.

What about surveillance which is not being done pursuant to a FISA warrant? Of course, that couldn’t be pinned on Obama unless he ordered it illegally (which we have no evidence of).

There is no evidence to support this conjecture, and you acknowledge that even if there is, there is no evidence to show Obama ordered wiretapping of Trump.
Your question is JAQing Off.

There is a bit of bayesian thinking going on here: we have a long collection of incidents where Trump has made blanket statements that were shown to be lies (Obama wasn't born in the United States being the premier example).

Now we have a statement about President Obama going so far as to "tapp" (Trump's spelling) his communications.

Using Trump's long history of making statements that are flat out lies, we can say the probability that this one is also a lie is so close to one that no person of integrity would disagree.

"dean uses the word “liar” improperly also."

No, not at all.

You just assert it because you cannot understand how someone can disagree with your opinion about something.

No, I said it because your claim was that, so far, the evidence doesn’t point to Trump making shit up. But actually, it does. So you are being dishonest to pretend otherwise.

As I have already explained, several times.

What dean said at #56, and me at #51.

Read harder, RickA.

RickA @ ~ 52

I did not say it was a lie (or technically, anything else for that matter). It is simply a practical absurdity.

Speaking just for myself, I do make a distinction between lying and dishonesty. Trying not to be too pedantic, if you are lying you are being dishonest, but being dishonest does not necessarily mean that you are lying, it simply goes to character. This may not translate into legal language, but I think it is fair enough colloquially.

New York Times Jan 20 headline
"Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides"

When it was convenient to declare Trump a Russian mole, this was the story. When Trump flipped it around and said Obama was wiretapping him, then the Democrats had to jump around and say all these stories are false. Win for Trump, whose tweets happened when the story was Jeff Sessions and the Russians.
If Nixon was the one who had been targeted by criminals, then What Did The President Know, and When Did He Know It, would have been irrelevant.

We have various government agents breaking the law and leaking classified material. The identities of Americans who are incidentally picked up in monitoring of targets is supposed to stay private. Nunes is complaining about these illegal leaks.

SteveP #10, that CNN story is very weakly worded. I wonder if it comes from the 'news' that Roger Stone was communicating with WikiLeaks. He said that shortly before his book is coming out. I say 'news' because this was revealed by Stone on The Circus in August.

The main Sigint agency in the US is the No Such Agency (NSA). NSA basically intercepts all electronic communications in the world even those in the US. However, to use any of sigint derived from US sources a FISA warrant is required. There are some exceptions to this requirement for a warrant: if you are making a call to a foreign party or receiving a call from a foreign party that trips one of the filters a FISA warrant may not be necessary.

(This is hard to say) Trump could be right about the surveillance but totally incorrect as how it went beyond being blocked.

So if the calls fell into the criteria that an FISA warrant was not needed then treason by the president or his coat hangers becomes a real possibility,

Julian Frost
“I have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI” – FBI Director James Comey, on the claims by Trump of wiretapping.

Unfortunately, no one followed up get specifics. Before that, Comey had objected to the claim that Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump. If that is the focus of his 'no information found', then that is different from there was no wiretapping of Trump, he is not under surveillance, etc. Though if asked, I'm not sure he would have been allowed to answer if someone is under surveillance.

"Here we are wasting time talking about lying again."

That was you brought it up, dick. BBD was saying dishonesty. Your attempt here "Here we are, having me talking abut lying again" phrased like that is, again, dishonest.

"What is your understanding"

They are different words. You can tell by the use of letters that are not identical. Letters are what identify words, and if they don't use the same letters, this means they are not the same word.

There is no evidence that BBD is wrong in calling you dishonest.

"You mean all those top bods who denied the validity of Trump’s claims don’t count as evidence that he made them up??"

Remember to a dishonest prick like dick here, only Trump's accusations count as evidence. There is no evidence TT was tapped [sic].

And there is no evidence that the claims of the FBI et al are wrong.

But dick will insist that this hasn't been proven the case, but won't accept that turnip trump's case hasn't been proven either. He's only open minded to the idea that orangina is correct, not that anyone else is.

While complaining about Nunes, liberals should be asking if they really want the status quo to be Trump as President, free to leak to the media any intelligence gathered on communications of Democratic candidates and activists? It's just 'incidental' surveillance, no harm no foul, right?
Nixon in his autobiography apologized for WaterGate, but he thought behavior like this was just how politics was done, and did not apologize for sending the IRS after opponents(He was audited many times). Do liberals want to go with the Nixon rulebook?

RickA #50
You said that evidence that Trump was lying would be

An admission by Trump that he lied.
Also – an admission that he made it up without any basis whatsoever – that might do the trick also. In other words – no newspaper articles no briefings etc.

As a matter of interest, can you give any documented example of Trump ever admitting to be wrong, under any circumstances? It seems to me that you are basically saying that you will never accept that he was being untruthful.

Richard Simons #69:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-iran-video-geneva_us_5…

Worth noting that Trump did not complete admit he lied. His original statement was that he saw the plane and that the payment was ransom -- which is was not. Nothing at all about that in his statement.

It seems the current president will continue to provide the right wing loons plenty of lies to explain away.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/23/media/time-magazine-donald-trump-interv…

dean #71:

I cited the article to show Trump admitting he was wrong.

Mr. Simons asked for an example of Trump admitting he was wrong.

Julian #55:

Maybe tomorrow:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/23/potential-smoking-gun-showin…

We will have to wait and see.

Rick, be said originally it was ransom. He didn't take that back. Not a complete admission.

Why is that too complicated for you?

Trump didn't admit he was lying about Iran and the ransom, he was repeating the claim! The whole point was he didn't say ransom, he spoke of watching a video with the money being unloaded. That's what he wanted people to see in their mind. When he 'walks it back' he again speaks of planes headed to Iran and hostages coming back, reinforcing it. And yes it's a ransom.

I meant he didn't just say ransom.

MikeN, you are still being disingenuous and dishonest.

Comey had objected to the claim that Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump. If that is the focus of his ‘no information found’, then that is different from there was no wiretapping of Trump, he is not under surveillance, etc.

There were two parts to Trump's claim. They were that:
1) He was wiretapped, and;
2) Said wiretapping was done on Obama's orders.
If he wasn't wiretapped, he was wrong. If he was wiretapped but Obama wasn't responsible for ordering it, he is still wrong. You are now handwaving.

Sure, but then he has a convenient assigning of responsibility to Obama for everything his administration does. Twitter 140 characters, he can't explain it all! If it's found Obama did it, he's fine. If not, he says he was just being unclear.
On top of that, once the targets of the wiretapping found their communications leaked for political purposes, then Trump's point about it being Watergate still stands(unless these were anti-Obama Republicans doing the leaking).

It could be that Comey found no evidence of 1 or 2, but he wasn't asked that clearly.

It's hard to get from
Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides
NYT Jan 20
to no wiretapping.

Mike, he said ransom in his original statement. Look it up.

And no, moronic assertions aside, it was not ransom.

Julian Frost's #78 bears repeating, so here it is again:

"There were two parts to Trump’s claim. They were that:
1) He was wiretapped, and;
2) Said wiretapping was done on Obama’s orders.
If he wasn’t wiretapped, he was wrong. If he was wiretapped but Obama wasn’t responsible for ordering it, he is still wrong. You are now handwaving."

Got that, kids?

But if he was wiretapped, is the government wrong to do it?
Don't you see that Trump flipped the script, and got the media liberals to backtrack on the story 'The FBI is furiously investigating Trump.'?

Dean, hence the followup, he didn't JUST say ransom. The visual was important for Trump. So money that didn't get paid for 30+ years just happens to get paid at the same time hostages were released. Sure, not a ransom.

MikeN, twist and deny facts all you want. There was no wiretapping by President Obama. President Trump lied about it and his goons tried to support him.

Ando no, in the real world, it was not ransom. The fact that the sitting president was black does not translate to ransom having been paid, no matter how badly you want it to be seen that way.

"But if he was wiretapped"

Since he wasn't, isn't claiming he was worse?

>“But if he was wiretapped”
>
>Since he wasn’t

Was the New York Times story of January 20th wrong?
“Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”

MikeN:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/fact-check-trumps-day-of…

Mr. Trump cited news reports as evidence for his wiretapping claims.

“I’ve been reading about things. I read I think it was a Jan. 20 article in The New York Times — they were talking about wiretapping.”

This is misleading. The Times article Mr. Trump referred to did use the word “wiretap” but it did not assert that Mr. Obama had ordered surveillance of Mr. Trump, nor did it even mention Mr. Obama. Rather, the story referred to intercepted information collected overseas.

The headline in print read, “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.” And the word appeared twice in the text of the article: “intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House” and “If Mr. Sessions is confirmed, he will for a time be the only person in the government authorized to seek foreign intelligence wiretaps on American soil.”

"Was the New York Times story of January 20th wrong?"

Was it right?

When the National Enquirer claimed that Elvis was seen in a DesMoines burger house, were they wrong? When The Daily Sport showed pictures of a London Number 9 bus on the moon, crash landed, was it wrong?

Is the story of Adolf Hitler being the first man on the moon wrong?

"Adolf Hitler first man on the Moon? Nazi Germany's 'secret space missions' revealed "

That headline, by the way is from the Daily Star.

"Mr. Trump cited news reports as evidence for his wiretapping claims."

And additionally, he calls them "Fake News". Is "Mike" saying that Trump was wrong?

And was it "mike" or dick who pointed out as if it were some kind of unusual failure of Obama when he failed to pass laws despite (just) holding a supermajority of seats (but not the supreme court)?

But it looks like Republicans can't manage it any better either. Even though they just won, own both houses and the supreme court, and the two idiots insist that Obamacare is failing and unwanted, which means fairly safe politically to remove.

Add that hipocrisy to their lack of complaint about the massive holidaying Drumpfh (another point: why worry about not using the orange turdmonster's name when his family already changed it once?) does, the massively increased executive orders, the use of the out clause of claiming a bill is budgetary (forget the name), the threat to remove the filibuster entirely, the ACTUAL INSTITUTION of FEMA camps, and all those things they claimed Obama was going to do Any Day Now (tm), that they are suddenly silent about when their guy, instead of just being theoriesed about doing it HAS ALREADY STARTED DOING.

RickA #74

Maybe tomorrow:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/23/potential-smoking-gun-showin…

We will have to wait and see.

Did anything come of this? I heard no more about it yesterday (what with all the bad news about the bill).

Or was it just more Faux News? Like the other Faux News lie about GCHQ that caused rather a lot of trouble recently.

Meh. Source sez WMD found in Iraq. Orange juice can filled with rancid bacon grease proves it! Yuge whatsis to be released later... later... psst! Have they forgotten about it yet?Also Kim K gives birth to baby that's half alligator. Real Photos!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Trump sez "I know you are but what am I? Neener, neener!"

FWIW:
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/03/24/life-cycle-donald-trump-lie/21…

>Did anything come of this? I heard no more about it yesterday

Nope, other than James Rosen has chimed in. There are now two groups that are under pressure to show some evidence. Comey all but said that there is nothing on Trump. It is a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. So there is no specific crime suggested, and the investigation is open ended.
Now we have David Nunes claiming evidence from whistleblowers that will be coming soon...

>Mr. Trump cited news reports as evidence for his wiretapping claims.

But not at the time. This was after the fact citations. The point of the claims was Trump reframing the story. Media liberal cheerleading over intelligence leaks on members of his administration, turned into why is Obama investigating his political opponents?

"There are now two groups that are under pressure to show some evidence. "

But this is going to be impossible because there's no evidence for a thing that never happened.

"Now we have David Nunes claiming evidence from whistleblowers"

Ah, you mean the dude who gave a press conference telling the man under investigation what was found before the rest of the comittee, who then after saying it was something to do with trump, but listened to foreigners and as a byproduct listened to trump, then said that it was two foreigners who MENTIONED the name trump, trump being 100% not listened to at any time.

That guy, yes?

"But not at the time. "

But at the time he said he had proof. If you're going to ignore what he said later, then you're stuck with him lying about having proof.

" turned into why is Obama investigating his political opponents?"

Except it hasn't. It's turned into "Is there any evidence that ever happened", to which the answer is still "No".

Meanwhile the other investigation has turned into is trump employed by the Kremlin.

>“But not at the time. ”
>
>But at the time he said he had proof. If you’re going to ignore what he said later, then you’re stuck with him lying about having proof.

Assuming you actually understood that the line was about Trump and not Nunes, I concede that Trump lies a lot.

"Assuming "

Us what you've been doing.

Why start worrying about it being an assumption now?

Republican Fast Food Pusher Andrew The Putz Puzder Not In Labor

gregladen — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:01:02 +0000

Republican Fast Food Pusher Andrew The Putz Puzder Not In Labor

As the Republican led US Senate has voted to confirm (or deny) the party leader's cabinet picks, they've done a poor job, approving, for example, people who have acted in direct opposition to the areas of government they are expected to serve, or in some cases, being abjectly incompetent. The Republicans in the Senate were not vetting the nominees. Some of the Democrats were, but even there, we saw failures of conscious.

The Senators need to be reminded that the critical choices made by the Trump administration tend to be poor ones. Look, for example, at the first NSA choice. General Flynn was caught engaged in acts that were at least unethical and annoying, if not downright illegal and, worst case scenario, treasonous. Why would we expect the Trump administration to had better choices to the Senate for their approval?

"This would have been really bad." Former fictional Secretary of Lbor, Leo McGarry.

I'm pretty sure the Republicans in Congress have no clue what "advice and consent" means or what the Constitution says, or history says, about this.

The total number of Senators voting for each of Republican President Trump's nominees is less than usual, with many, sometimes most, Democrats voting against the various and often very unqualified nominees. The Democrats who did vote for these individuals will be held to account over coming years, especially those who voted for Tillerson, and others who may ultimately be linked to currently developing scandals.

But now we have an interesting development. One of the most awful choices ever put forth for a high cabinet post ever, in any government by any president -- equal to in level of insult and injury to the Betsy DeVos nomination which Congress narrowly approved -- was Andrew Puzder as labor secretary.

The public outcry about putting this particular fox in charge of that particular hen house should not have exceeded the outcry against Tillerson or the others, but the general public and, certainly, Trump's Republican Congress, appear not to understand too much about what happens in government and why it is important. But an attack by Oprah, armed with withering truth, seems to have mattered. Outrage over Puzder's misconduct in business and personal life, some of which could be an embarrassment even to the Trump administration and to Republicans generally, was too much.

Moments ago, Puzder made a move we wish so heartily that Republican Donald Trump's father had done years ago: he withdrew just in the nick of time.

________________________________

By the way, have you read Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few by former actual good Secretary of Labor Robert Reich?

America was once celebrated for and defined by its large and prosperous middle class. Now, this middle class is shrinking, a new oligarchy is rising, and the country faces its greatest wealth disparity in eighty years. Why is the economic system that made America strong suddenly failing us, and how can it be fixed?

Leading political economist and bestselling author Robert B. Reich presents a paradigm-shifting, clear-eyed examination of a political and economic status quo that no longer serves the people, exposing one of the most pernicious obstructions to progress today: the enduring myth of the “free market” when, behind the curtain, it is the powerful alliances between Washington and Wall Street that control the invisible hand. Laying to rest the specious dichotomy between a free market and “big government,” Reich shows that the truly critical choice ahead is between a market organized for broad-based prosperity and one designed to deliver ever more gains to the top. Visionary and acute, Saving Capitalism illuminates the path toward restoring America’s fundamental promise of opportunity and advancement.

gregladen Wed, 02/15/2017 - 10:01

Tags

President Donald Trump

"But an attack by Oprah, armed with withering truth..."

That's a rare, but welcome, move for her.

It is surprising to find that it is possible for a person to be so lacking in ethics and integrity that Trump and his people realize they are better off without him than with him. (It isn't surprising that, given someone that bad exists, it is Puzder.)

Puzder is out because he hired an illegal immigrant. OMB director might survive that, but not for Labor(Linda Sanchez), Attorney General(Zoe Baird), or DHS(under W).

"Puzder is out because he hired an illegal immigrant. "

Hardly a major issue - republicans love to complain about "those people" while hiring them. He did have problems paying here, not paying taxes, and being misleading about it.

He was also advertised as someone who had a history of fighting for workers, but in reality eliminated jobs at CKE and put his primary focus on overseas expansion (not necessarily bad, but not the same as working for jobs here, as advertised).

There have been wage and hour violations at over 60% of the restaurants operated by his company. There are still numerous lawsuits over employees being cheated of overtime, denied breaks that are mandated by law, and requiring workers to stay in the building after they clock out of their shift so that can do more work - off the clock.

He has claimed that he is not responsible for the types of violations at the restaurants of franchisees and action was taken when violations were discovered - but no evidence of those actions has been discovered in the lawsuits.

In addition to his personal hypocrisy over undocumented workers, a 2014 audit of Carl Jr and Hardee's restaurants in the southwest and midwest found one in three of their employees were undocumented - 1200 in total were fired.

He has said his company's restaurant chain, Hardees, hires the "worst of the worst" -- "it's kind of the bottom of the pool". (From Bloomberg: his first memo to Hardee's managers said "No more people behind the counter unless they have all their teeth.")

Yeah, this isn't just about him being a dishonest hypocrite in his personal behavior - he is especially scummy as a person. That's probably his appeal to the modern right: as I said earlier, the amazing thing is that the scum we have in the White House found him so toxic they decided they couldn't use him.

Where does the Trump Presidency stand a fortnight and a half in?

gregladen — Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:54:17 +0000

Where does the Trump Presidency stand a fortnight and a half in?

The most recent polling indicates that Donald Trump has a 43% approval and 53% disapproval rating. So he is not exactly loved by the American people, which is odd because he seems so lovable. And, he has told us that the American people love him. And his victory in the November election was unbelievably big league. But, that's how it is, according the scientific polling.

Approval and favorability are apparently slightly different, but the pattern holds. The same polling tells us that the American people have a 45% favorable attitude about the president, which would be tremendous for any product in a market economy. But for a president it is not so good, as a majority of Americans, 52%, look at the president with an unfavorable eye.

But what about some of the specific, Trump Brand signature issues? How's he doing, and what do people think?

Building The Wall

The wall is still not built, but Trump still intends to build it. But, the promise was that Trump would "make Mexico pay for it." The president has now learned that you can't do that, and it is in fact not going to happen. And, the wall is still not built yet.

According to this recent poll, 56% of Americans oppose building the all, 37% are in favor of it, if Americans are paying for it.

The Muslim Ban

Trump promised to ban Muslims from the United States, and to practice extreme vetting. One of the main reasons he got elected was because of this promise. How's that going?

A Trump Tower in Turkey, a Muslim country not banned.

Trump's idea of "extreme vetting" seems to be "don't let anyone in who is trying to get in legally." Which, of course, leaves the death squads that are streaming across our borders leave to come, but leaves people like graduate students, professors, folks who went overseas to visit their grandmothers, etc. in the lurch.

Also, the ban on Muslims only banned some Muslims, from certain countries, so Muslims from countries where Trump does business are unaffected. So there may be an ethical issue there.

As you know, a key Federal court ruled unanimously to uphold a lower court decision to stay the ban because it negatively affects people and states. No higher court ruling has come down about the Second Amendment violation but that may happen later. There are more law suits against this ban than hairs on a dog, so we can expect a lot more news in this regard.

Meanwhile, the recent pol shows that 49% of Americans are opposed to the ban, with 45% in favor of it.

More interestingly, though, the vast majority of Americans, a whopping 66%, think Trump's ban was poorly executed (27% thought everything went just fine). A majority of Americans recognized the "Muslim Ban" as an effort to ban Muslims. (Trump's people claim it never was, even when it was called a "Muslim Ban.") A strong majority (65% over 22%) do not think Muslims should be banned. In a sense, the courts are helping Trump out here, by shutting down this whole operation so we can move past what has turned out to be one of the most self damaging political nosedives witnessed in American history.

By the way, a strong majority of Americans trust Judges over Donald Trump to make the right decisions for the United States.

Repealing and Replacing Obamacare

Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare. Most observers were under the impression that Trump and Congress, between them, had no idea what to replace Obamacare with. Boy, were they ever right! Congress made a couple of initial procedural moves that will allow them to later undo Obamacare, ran in to major opposition, forgot to have any ideas about reforming Obamacare, and then stopped.

"The White House response is that he's not going to release his tax returns. We litigated this all through the election. People didn't care. They voted for him, and let me make this very clear: Most Americans are -- are very focused on what their tax returns will look like while President Trump is in office, not what his look like."

The White House has been mostly silent on the issue. Polls show that a strong plurality of American support Obamacare (far more than those who oppose, with 47%-39% supporting-opposing). A YUGE majority of Americans, 65%, do not want Congress to repeal Obamacare and, rather, keep what works in the plan.

Keeping his Tax Returns Secret

Trump never did release his tax returns. He promised to release them after an "audit" was over. But soon after the election, spokes-minuteman Kellyanne Conway, announced a new policy: since Trump won, it must be true that nobody cares about his tax returns, or why would the majority of Americans have voted for him?

There are two problems with this "logic." First, a majority of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump. Second, at present, an overwhelming majority of Americans want Trump to release his tax returns. (58% say yes, 31% say no.)

Keeping his business ties ethical

LOL.

At his first press conference, Donald Trump showed us piles of folders containing all of the plans to unlink him from his businesses. A lawyer explained how all the ethical rules would be followed. We were also told that all the ethical rules did not apply to the President anyway, and that nothing would really be done.

The folders, we learned later, were as empty as his earlier promises to disassociate his business and his activities as president. Indeed, just yesterday, Kellyanne Conway went on Fox News, representing the White House, and urged listeners to buy Trump's daughter's products. Perhaps, technically, though I don't know, Trump himself has no direct ties to this business. But it is his daughter's business so legal and ethical constraints apply. Conway should not have made the statement she made.

Had she been a Democrat, the calls for her being fired would never end. But since she is a Republican, there was a minor outcry. But, the event was a clear enough case of unethical behavior that even the FOX news people sensed something was wrong:

The moment three FOX news anchors realize that Kellyanne Conway stepped over the line, legally and ethically.

By the way, 62% of Americans think Trump should fully divest himself from his businesses.

The Investigation of Voter Fraud

In his never ending but always unsuccessfull effort to not be the Biggest Loser, Trump issued the blatant lie that millions of people, mainly Illegal Immigrants, voted illegally in the last election, and that this is why he actually lost the vote. As you know, great efforts were made to recount the votes in several states, and this showed no problems. Also, the Secretaries of State across the country declared that there was no measurable problem with the voting. The White House has been relatively silent about this issue lately, perhaps because they sensed that the country was against them on this. Indeed, it seems that about 55% of Americans think there was no illegal voting by millions of people in the last election.

Be Presidential

During the election, Trump told us that he'll be big league presidential. I assume this means, among other things, being, or at least, seeming, credible.

How's that going?

Well, the poll I've been referring to all along (see below) pits the New York Times against Trump in credibility, which is appropriate because Trump has been engaging in an aggressive Twitter war against the Paper of Record. The result? 52% of Americans think the NYT is more credible than Trump, 37% think the opposite.

Saturday Night Live, the fictional, comedy, all the stuff is made up TV show of fame, doesn't do quite as well as the New York Times. A mere 48% of Americans put SNL above Trump in credibility, with 43% saying the opposite. So, while it may be stranger than fiction, it seems that Trump is less credible than fiction in the minds of a plurality of Americans.

People are about evenly divided on whether or not Trump should be impeached, with about 46% saying each "yes" and "no." That is a lot of people who want to see his presidency ended immediately. But, one might expect a higher percentage of people saying "Impeach" than indicated here, given all the above information.

Rachel Maddow has a theory as to why more people don't, at the moment, want to see Trump thrown out of office. I'll let her tell you. Watch the whole video, but the key moment starts about 4 minutes.

I hope you watched that whole thing to see how Trump supporters seem to not know about, or care about, the Constitution.

gregladen Fri, 02/10/2017 - 07:54

Tags

President Donald Trump

Oh, they care. Just on that one bit that they think says they can have 50 Cal armaments and that other little bit that says that there's freedom of religion, giving them a right to spout off any ignorant bigotry they want without any consequences (and then they are shocked when there is some form of reprisal).

Trump isn't doing anything!

What a relief.

Well, maybe more will happen when his full cabinet gets voted in.

Maybe he's so unpopular because he hasn't done anything?

Apart from be a three year old with a tantrum fetish.

Not forgetting bedwetter...

But you;re right about a few things. Trying to get a muslim ban, on hold. Ignoring people's property rights for DAPL, but on hold. Most of the executive orders complete insanity bullshit, really unable to be added.

And a fixation on the size (or rather lack) of his inauguration.

Other polling shows that the less intelligent and dishonest citizens (essentially 50% of those who voted for him) believe the Bowling Green Massacre is justification for Trump's immigration ban. That's rickA level stupid.

Google CNN gigapixel to reveal the fake news about the size of his inauguration. Obama's crowd was larger, but the media pic is a deliberate lie.

Hmmm.
The Real Bowling Green Masacre
Christians setting an example:
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/real-bowling-green…

I'm INCENSED that the White house IGNORED that Bowling Green Massacre!

REFUSED to talk about it, apart from one brief mention, then suddenly it's as if it NEVER HAPPENED!!!

More hiding the truth from The Real People Of America!

"Obama’s crowd was larger, but the media pic is a deliberate lie."

Yeah, showed a bigger crowd (MUCH bigger) and lied about it being a much bigger crowd...

FFS, you're a moron.

God mikeN, just how effing stupid are you?

Take a look at the Gigapixel, and compare to the media lie they showed you representing Trump's crowd. They even chose to present the half of the picture that showed less Trump crowd, but the Gigapixel shows the true size.

How do people feel about Melania Trump's defamation lawsuit going forward? The publication didn't have the resources to go to trial, so they apologized for the article and said they were at fault for the reckless publication, where they said that Melania was a prostitute.

Uh what half? The area that was occupied in Obama's inauguration was filled. Doing a trump and cutting out the massive area that WAS filled for Obama and empty for Trump doesn't lie about the size of the crowd at all.

To cut out the areas that HAD been, for Obama, crowded, just so as not to show that area unoccupied for Trump's limp attraction is to lie about the size (or lack of it) for Trump.

If you'd complained about a city-wide shot or a wider shot for Trump than Obama, you'd have a point.

But you didn't so you don't.

Hmmm.

Trying hard to be delusional. Apparently not a good thing:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0125/Why-Republicans-and-Dem…

Take a look at Obs link. I think it's a little later than the media photo, showing a little more people for Trump than I remember, and I think a wider shot. Now look at the right and left halves of Trump's crowd. It is not symmetric. The media showed the left half to make Trump's crowd look smaller. Compare the white space in the two halves.

Now look at the Gigapixel, and we find that almost all this whitespace is filled on both halves.

Post normal in action...

Again, not comparing Trump crowd to Obama crowd, but Trump crowd in media photo that was widely circulated vs Gigapixel of Trump crowd.

And you're still working post-normal. The pic was the same area. Why whine about how they could have taken a closer shot? They could have zoomed right in until it looked like Orangina was there on his own. And then you'd be whining about how they misrepresented it.

STILL post-normal in action.

MikeN - you're claim that the MSM is biased is based on CNN's Gigapixel? Isn't CNN part of that mainstream media? Odd.

Since the Gigapixel is a different POV, it's difficult to compare with the Mall shots from the Washington Monument end. My recollection is the side-by-side comparison photos were of crowd size at the same time of day. Is the gigapixel shot from the same time of day as the side-by-side comparison?

There were 193,000 Metro trips taken by 11 a.m. on Inauguration Day 2017. In contrast, there were 317,000 trips taken by the same time on the day of Obama’s second inauguration in 2013. Ridership the morning of Obama’s first inauguration ceremony in 2009 was 513,000 — more than double 2017's.

These numbers would seem to contradict your assertion that the actual crowd size was much larger than perceived.

Trump had a medieval doppleganger
https://twitter.com/donaeldunready
History always repeats...

Sure you can directly compare photos from different distances and different resolutions as one of the contributing idiots believes.

Wait - no you can't.

More directly - "he hasn't done anything yet" has to be the most disingenuous support for "it's not that bad" there could be. I know that rickA and mikeN care nothing about anyone other than themselves, certainly not children in general, at risk children in particular but they are ignoring the installation of a woman who said she wanted to "defeat" public education in Michigan - and worked her damndest to do it. Now she has the national system to corrupt.

Also - it should need no pointing out but: tea-baggers, idiot libertarians (redundant, I know) and other habitual liars like rickA and mikeN regularly accused President Obama of numerous heinous things despite the fact that none of the accusations were true. Had he behaved the way President Trump has been their responses would have been totally different.

Let's see - what key difference is there between the previous president and the current president that could possible bring out the ire of low-lifes on the right? (Hint: it's obvious when you look at their pictures.)

Whoever it was who made that observation was correct:

History would have turned out way much better if women only had been given the right to vote, and if colored people owned white people.

Heck, we might even have had an actual future if things had gone that way...

Brainstorms, colored people DID won white people. The word slave comes from Slav. Egypt took slaves from Europe in the 1900s.

Kevin O'Neill, the point was not Obama vs Trump crowd, but depicted Trump crowd vs actual Trump crowd. The gigapixel allows rotation and you can see that the whitespace is full except for some parts that were barricaded. With that picture, an exact crowd size can be determined if anyone bothers to count it.
Yes, it is ironic that CNN is the source of debunking the media lie.

"according the scientific polling" as always based on interviews with about 400 democrats and 100 republicans LOL

Wrong, Sam.

Tell me, how do you manage to make statements you KNOW you haven pulled from your ass and present them with a "LOL" at the stupidity of what YOU JUST MADE UP???

That sort of aberrant blind stupidity is why Trump got elected and is currently shaking you down like you're a free piggy bank to raid.

Because you're SO HAPPY that others are getting the shaft, you're ignoring the pants around your ankles and the dick up your ass.

"Brainstorms, colored people DID won white people."

English much, "Mike". There are plenty of adult education courses for you to apply to.

"The gigapixel allows rotation and you can see that the whitespace is full except for some parts that were barricaded."

So when you kettle a group of people, you're supposed to forget how few there are in the crowd (why were they not barricaded off for the Obama inauguration?) but look at the density of the crowd (literally as well as figuratively for the trump supporters) when they're bunched up.

The point IS Obama vs Trump crowd size.

And Trumps was a tiny feeble limping tiddler of a crowd. Even compared to other presidents.

Know why?

Trumps' assinine claim that it was the biggest crowd in history.

Total bollocks.

MikeN, the actual Trump crowd was likely less than half of Obama's 2009 inauguration. Do you believe this to be true? I do and I think any close examination of all the photographic evidence supports that belief.

MikeN seems to prefer those "alternative facts" about crowd size.

Kevin, it was likely a hell of a lot less than half. It was unlikely to have been much more than 250,000. Obama's was about a million in his second term after all that republican gloating "how's that change going for ya!". He got about 1.8 million in his first inauguration.

Some people are saying - I don't know- you tell me - but some people are saying there were lots of Trump supporters on the mall that you couldn't see because their hoods and robes blended into the white ground cover.

I hear that there may have been some fires lit with two bits of wood to keep the people there warm too.

Just asking if the rumours are true.

~ #'s 25 and 26

"present them with a “LOL” at the stupidity of what YOU JUST MADE UP???"

Yeah, you see a lot of that. It's easy. It's juvenile. It is very stupid. Right wing celebrity loud mouths have used variations of it for decades as a vehicle for turning dim bulbs into agitprop bots.

Essentially you take a shell of simple observational humor, empty it of content, and fill it with weaponized shit before launching it.

See also:
"...a typical Trump speech has the structure of a stand-up routine."
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/19/510628831/comic-hero-why-donald-trumps-ca…

BTW, as a point of interest, Bannon made $$$$ off of the Seinfeld show (unpleasant characters made interesting by an over-used laugh track).

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/11/1632589/-New-Jersey-congressm…

Once the committee (Ways and Means) has them they can send them to the House at which point they would be public.

They've decided against it...

Kevin ONeill that is plausible. The Obama picture looks to be an overflow crowd and has lots of people that are blending into the grass on the sides. Not the 1.8 million number includes the parade route.
Again, my point is about the pic of Trump's crowd shown all over the media vs the actual Trump's crowd.

Trying to figure out why showing trumps crowd, while smaller than Obama's, is not as massively smaller as we thought matters. Maybe to demonstrate there are more vile people than first believed?

"crowd envy"

It doesn't 'matter', but it is an example of media lying. They chose to show a half empty crowd, when it is actually full.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-giga…

"It doesn’t ‘matter’, but it is an example of media lying. They chose to show a half empty crowd, when it is actually full."

You keep believing that, and keep believing that nobody else but you has noticed.

Good lord.

It wasn't full. Unless it was half-full of white males dressed in white frocks with white pointy hoods that obscured their faces. That's about the only thing that would cause them to fade into the white background that makes it painfully obvious that it was at best half-full.

Pretending otherwise is terribly childish.

No, but there are lots of little green men at the back if you look carefully. Without the gigapixel, people could argue about oblique angles and different viewpoints, as there was another picture at PBS that also revealed the media lie, but again not as clear. For example it couldn't debunk the right half of the picture that was only half as empty.

That's the thing, the white background isn't half full. There are large parts where it is empty or very close to it. This is clearly not the case as seen in other photos.

MikeN -Comparison of the paved areas actually gives an **overestimation ** of the comparative size of the crowds. Even the areas that hold Trump supporters hold far less than the same area held Obama supporters.The side and park areas are also sardine-packed during the Obama inauguration - they are basically empty during Trump's.

Take the Gigapixel of the Trump Inauguration and concentrate on just the area around the U.S. Grant Memorial and an equivalent area on the other side of the reflecting pool. Compare to the gigapixel of Obama's 2009 inauguration. Note how the Grant Memorial is basically hidden from view during the Obama Inauguration? The area 50 feet either of the reflecting pool holds thousands more in 2009 than in 2017 - yet this is an area that is pretty much "equal" in the side-by-side MSM photos.

How do *you* characterize the MSM side-by-side photos? I said "less than half" and I believe this is an accurate depiction.

Kevin ONeill my reference to half full was in response to Brainstorms who I think is talking about the side-by-side photo.

Yes, Obama does look more packed. I wasn't aware there was a gigapixel of his inauguration.
http://gigapan.com/gigapans/033ef14483ee899496648c2b4b06233c?fullscreen…
I thought this was something new that CNN produced. I don't know where the Grant Memorial is. The horse is in view in both gigapixels, and I can't make it out in the side-by-side.
The side by side is obviously much less than half, maybe 20%. Side-by-side gigapixels may be half as well.

OK, I think I see your point about Grant, they are occupying the whole area, while it is empty in the Trump photo.

"MikeN -Comparison of the paved areas actually gives an **overestimation ** of the comparative size of the crowds. "

Yup.

If the place were crowded, you'd see only the heads and shoulders of people "occupying" the view. But if the crowd is thin, you can see the body and legs too, making each person "occupy" a large area in the field of view.

The problem is that in his claims about the crowd size the loofah-faced shit-gibbon plainly shows he is a fantasist, and his obesession over the "meaningless" tiny size of his crowd, among other things, shows the tiny-handed-one is excessively self-obsessed and vain.

The resignation of Flynn is a blow to the Trump administration.

He apparently forgot his conversation with the Russians (or lied about it) to the Vice-President.

That is not a good character trait for a political appointee.

Especially when telling the truth is so easy.

He could have said, yes we spoke about the sanctions - but I made no promises - the call was merely introductory. Or words to that effect.

Calls like this are fairly routine for incoming administration officials.

It wouldn't have been a big deal at all - but for making the VP look like a liar.

The lesson - never lie to your boss.

Just fess up and this tiny error would have been no big deal.

The dipstick could have just waited a few weeks.

But here's something for you to explain away. Orangina insisted that nobody knew who his picks were. But Putin already knew flynn was one of them, and which role he'd play.

The russians knew what was going to happen, according to the loofah-faced shit gibbon, more than anyone in the USA did!

Word coming out is that Pence was behind pushing Flynn out the door. It was needs to be pointed out that Trump fired the person who told him Flynn had done this but didn't think it was important enough to fire Flynn.

The person he fired was fired because she wouldn't do her job. She was leaving soon anyways, but got some attention for herself and boosted her job prospects among liberals on the way out.

The leak to the newspapers is ridiculous. Sure they probably knew it, but confirming that the government is listening in on the Russian Ambassador's phone calls, is giving up that info worth the damage to Donald Trump's political standing.

So can anyone tell me what it is the Russians would blackmail him for? As near as I can tell, it is that they would reveal that Flynn lied about Flynn's talk with the Russians.

Yeah, right. The ship of state is unlike any other: it's the only one to leak from the top.

Tiny Tweet Hands can't stop leaking.

After the revelations of "GoldenGate", it seems to be a think for him...

"So can anyone tell me what it is the Russians would blackmail him for? "

Uh, the problem is he'd broken the law and was working as a russian agent, dumbass. What the hell do you think foreign agents do?

Flynn was working for the russians, not for the US government. Or at the very least, working for two masters, only one of which was *supposed* to be his boss.

The person he fired was fired because she wouldn’t do her job.

I thought it was that she pointed out - apparently correctly - that what Trump was doing was unconstitutional.

"The leak to the newspapers is ridiculous."

Bah. It probably was someone at Maralaga when trump was cosying up to paying customers of the business he's supposed to have no frigging dealing with as president who just use the phone cam and flash to take a pic of some information and put it on their facebook account...

It's not like there was the dude carrying around the codes was photographed and named because he had to go to see the president who decided they didn't want to stay at the whitehouse, where there's some fucking SECURITY to hold off random people seeing the classified stuff being talked about and handed over.

FFS, this would be like Hilary posting her stuff directly to WikiLeaks instead of a private server.

Jail the orange twat!

The leak to the newspapers is ridiculous. Sure they probably knew it, but confirming that the government is listening in on the Russian Ambassador’s phone calls, is giving up that info worth the damage to Donald Trump’s political standing.

MikeN, be serious. Of course the Russians know the Ambassador is tapped. They know it for a fact. So *nothing whatsoever* has been 'given up'. But the damage done to Trump is huge, IMO. And it's far from over yet.

MikeN - "The person he fired was fired because she wouldn’t do her job."

Last I checked she did her job well. Upholding the constitution and providing accurate legal advice being top of the list.

She was fired because she did her job.

You have to wonder how much Trump supports hate reality when they say things like she was fired for not doing her job. Dishonesty of that level is impressive, in a very sad way.

It's also worth remembering that President Trump is still surrounded by incredibly vile people (Pence, Bannon, etc.) --fundamentalist Christian loons and white nationalists. Not a good time to be anything other than a rich white male.

I get that they find it a mirthful challenge to see how much dishonesty they can sell to the public and still get away with it. It's a fun game for them...

Far and away, if you're a dedicated, fervent anti-Christ agent in society, the best way to cloak yourself in an acceptable sheep's skin and fool most of the people most of the time is to vociferously proclaim yourself to be a "fundamental christian".

"I'm a fundamentalist christian" translates to English as "you'd better literally burn me at the stake if you care to save your skin".

Brainstorms, if the source is wiretapping, that's fine. I assumed it was some other type of surveillance.

And we all know how truthful your polls are right? Just like all the polls that had Hillary winning by historic numbers!! If you liberals would just pull your head out of your ass and stop believing the blatant lies and disinformation CNN and MSNBC are vomiting on a daily basis, think for yourselves for once maybe you can actually become a decent member of society, and not the self absorbed hate filled social justice warriors normal hardworking people have come to loathe!!

They were pretty damn accurate, dav.

The polls predicted a Hilary win of 53%, and that is with an error of 3%. And she won the popular vote by, oddly enough, nearly 2%.

But we know how numerically illiterate trump supporters and the rightwingers in general are.

Something you didn't learn in 2nd grade is just too difficult for you to comprehend, isn't it, dearie.

I thought Trump's speech last night was surprising Presidential.

He did well.

Better than I thought he was going to do.

I wish him well, and hope he gets everything he wants done, done - and before the midterms in 2018.

I thought Trump’s speech last night was surprising Presidential.

He did well.

WTF? Alt-reality. Please let this just be trolling.

Real reality.

It was script written. Additionally he claims to have stopped TPP, a progressive ideal, a trillion dollars in infrastructure building (which when Obama wanted to increase spending by a few hundred million dollars they screamed holy murder and blocked it... so this is another leftist idea).

So his best bits were left and populist.

But he's not going to manage many of those because the party needs the money...

Republican National Convention: Info, Live Blog, Open Thread

gregladen — Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:40:14 +0000

Republican National Convention: Info, Live Blog, Open Thread

I have no idea if this will be of interest to this community of science oriented and smart readers, but a group called The Republicans is having a big convention this week.

Here's the basic schedule:

Mon 18 July 1:00 PM EST: Convention Opens
Tue 19 July 5:30 PM EST: Resume convention
Wed 20 July 7:00 PM EST: Resume convention
THU 21 July 7:30 PM EST: Resume convnetion.

Funny how every day they start a bit later.

Here are some of the speakers expected to attend. This information is culled from the NYT.

Watch the RNC Convention Live Here

At CSPAN

Pam Bondi

Florida attorney general who had an interesting conversation on CNN with Anderson Cooper after the Orlando massacre. Like this:

Eileen Collins

Collins is the first woman to command a space shuttle mission. Why is she speaking at the convention of the anti-science party that would just as soon shut down NASA?

Here is the only info I could find addressing that, from SpaceNews:

Collins, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel who has publicly criticized the way the Obama administration canceled NASA’s Constellation return-to-the-moon program, is scheduled to speak July 20, the day before Donald Trump, the GOP’s presumptive nominee, is due to give his acceptance speech.

...

In February, she testified at a House Science Committee hearing on long-shot legislation that aims to restructure NASA’s management by, in part, creating a board of directors to choose a NASA administrator who would be given a 10-year term. Currently, NASA administrators are nominated by the White House, confirmed by the Senate and serve at the pleasure of the president.

Testifying alongside former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin — a Bush administration appointee who stepped down when President Barack Obama took office in January 2009 — Collins told the committee she and NASA colleagues were “shocked” by the administration’s 2010 decision to cancel Constellation, saying the timing of the decision, so close to the shuttle’s 2011 retirement, left the agency with few options.

“I believe program cancellation decisions that are made by bureaucracies behind closed doors, without input by the people, are divisive, damaging, cowardly and many times more expensive in the long run,” she testified.

Obama’s April 2010 decision to cancel Constellation and direct NASA to send its Orion crew exploration vehicle to an asteroid instead of the Moon followed months of public debate about the future of the U.S. human spaceflight program by a presidential commission. That commission, led by former Lockheed Martin chairman and CEO Norman Augustine, concluded that Constellation was unsustainable and should at least be revamped.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin

Some background on Fallin’s politics, from her Wikipedia article:

Fallin was criticized for bias after ordering state-owned National Guard facilities to deny spousal benefits (including the provision of identification cards that would allow them to access such benefits) to all same-sex couples.

Under Fallin, Oklahoma has pushed for increased use of lethal injection as a means of ending life in capital punishment, Fallin pushed strongly for the execution of convicted murderer Clayton Lockett to proceed in spite of the lack of tested drugs to use for lethal injection... Lockett's execution was attempted on April 29, 2014, but was abandoned when he could not be sedated and was left writhing in pain. Lockett died 43 minutes later of a heart attack. Fallin appointed a member of her staff to lead the investigation into the botched execution....

Fallin was a supporter of a controversial Ten Commandments monument that had been erected on the Oklahoma State Capitol grounds in 2012.

During her term as governor, Fallin has signed 18 anti-abortion measures into law. In April 2015, Fallin signed into law a measure banning a common second-trimester abortion procedure, except when necessary to save the life of the woman. In May 2015, Fallin signed into law a measure that tripled the mandatory waiting period in Oklahoma for an abortion, extending it to 72 hours. The measure also included other anti-abortion provisions.

...

Fallin is part of a group of Republican governors who have said that they will refuse to comply with Environmental Protection Agency regulations to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change.

...

In April 2014, Fallin signed into law S.B. 1023, which prohibits cities in Oklahoma from establishing citywide minimum wages or sick-leave requirements....

In May 2015, Fallin signed into law a measure prohibiting Oklahoma local governments from enacting local bans on oil and gas drilling. ...

In April 2015, Fallin signed into law a measure that expanded charter schools statewide

Iowa Senator Joni Ernst

Some background on Ernst culled from Wikipedia:

Constitutional and federal issues[edit]

Ernst has proposed eliminating the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Education, and the Environmental Protection Agency

Ernst has expressed her support for allowing law-abiding citizens to "freely carry" weapons but abide by rules against carrying in public buildings like schools.

Ernst co-sponsored resolutions concerning state nullification of federal law. One such bill asserted that Iowa could ignore any federal laws which "are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment"...

... said that Obama had "become a dictator", and that if he acted unconstitutionally, he should face the proper repercussions as determined by Congress, "whether that's removal from office, whether that's impeachment." ...

... opposes the federal minimum wage...

On the subject of global warming, Ernst has stated: "I don’t know the science behind climate change, I can't say one way or another what is the direct impact from whether it's manmade or not", and believes that any regulatory role by the government to address it needs to be "very small"...

warned ... a 1992 United Nations voluntary action plan for sustainable development, could force Iowa farmers off their land, dictate what cities Iowans must live in, and control how Iowa citizens travel from place to place....

... Ernst indirectly endorsed Paul Ryan’s partially privatized Medicare model ... supports replacing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act...

... co-sponsored a failed bill to amend the Iowa constitution to have marriage legally defined as between one man and one woman. She opposes same-sex marriage.

... voted for a fetal personhood amendment in the Iowa Senate in 2013 and has said that she would support a federal personhood bill.

Melania Trump

Whatever

Other Speakers

African American Jamiel Shaw Sr., who's son was "killed by an undocumented immigrant" will speak. Darryl Glenn, running for Colorado Senate may speak. Highly conservative former football player Tebow may speak, as well as "ultimate fighter" Dana White.

And now ...

What do you think of this: Cleveland Police Ask For Emergency Suspension Of Open Carry Laws During Republican Convention

Ohio is an “open carry” state which allows gun owners to carry them in plain sight. People have been exercising this right around the site of the Republican convention...Strangely, in the area around the convention, “tennis balls, metal-tipped umbrellas or canned goods” are prohibited. But AR-15s or other firearms are not. But now, the Cleveland Police Union has made an emergency request to suspend open carry for the duration of the Republican convention.

Story is here.

Will there be a convention bump for Trump?

There is usually a convention bump. Four years ago, the bump thing was interesting (see this post).

Here is the starting point for this year's bump-tracking:

Will Trump pass Clinton in polls after the convention?

Monday's RNC Convention Speaker

Today's speakers include but are not limited to:

Melania Trump

retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst

Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke

veterans activist Jason Beardsley

Willie Robertson of "Duck Dynasty"

former Texas Gov. Rick Perry

actor Scott Baio

Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell

Sen. Tom Cotton

Sen. Jeff Sessions

former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Which of these speakers will end up in a Trump cabinet, and in what position?

Pokemon Go at the RNC Convention?

Apparently it is a thing, tough I'm not sure what it all means.

Will convention delegates be playing Pokemon Go during the convention?

Hey, wait a second!

Did the turtles give permission to the RNC to play their song? @FloandEddie #RNC2016

— Greg Laden (@gregladen) July 18, 2016

Gun mayhem fails to develop so far

Cleveland Gun Rights Rally on RNC Eve Fails to Draw Crowd

Protests Erupt Over Rules, Chair Rules Against Roll Call Vote

LOL GOP

NBC covers it here.

War Hawks

The Republicans seem bent on entering a major war in the middle east. Or somewhere.

Also, they are calling for the end of the Geneva Convention. They seem to prefer the "war criminal" method of "defending ourselves."

Who are all these anti-war war mongering republicans?

The Republican Nominating Convention First Night: How did it go?

I just watched all the clips from last evening's coverage, mainly on MSNBC. Here is what happened.

Bla bla bla BENGHAZI! Bla bla bla bla bla BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. Bla Bla Benghazi BlaH! Bla bla bla bla bla BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. Bla bla bla BENGHAZI! Bla bla bla bla bla BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. Bla Bla Benghazi BlaH! Bla bla bla bla bla BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. Bla bla bla. BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. Bla bla bla. Bla Bla. Bla Bla Benghazi BlaH! Bla bla bla bla bla BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. Bla bla bla BENGHAZI! Bla bla bla bla bla BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. Bla Bla Benghazi BlaH! Bla bla bla bla bla BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. BENGHAZI!!! Bla Bla. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama.

Then, this morning, I watched and listened to news and social media to see what impacts the RNC had. And this is what we have:

Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama. Melania Trump Plagiarizes Michele Obama.

So, that's how it went!

Here is the moment on MSNBC when Melania Trumped Benghazi:

Wow.

And, continuing:

Public Service Announcement:

How to not get caught plagiarizing!

gregladen Sun, 07/17/2016 - 07:40

Tags

Politics

Republicans

Donald Trump

Republican National Convention

RNC

Speakers

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.

Yeah, that's the tricky part. I assume anyone with a fire arm in a public place is there to murder people; it is the default--- the null hypothesis.

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..

Douglas C Alder: 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..

All delegates will have to rush out and buy guns from the NRA's owners--- it's the only way everyone will be 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.

ron: Everyone should have the freedom to choose what works for themselves. That’s all anyone has ever asked

Over 430 anti-girl and anti-woman laws passed in the USA just in year 2015, regulating their vaginas and uteruses.

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

No.

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.

What concern do you have for the females that are dismembered and sold before birth?

As soon as you see that happening, do complain to someone, m'kay? Thanks.

#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.

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

I suspect they might be the majority at the convention.

#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?

This behavior does not surprise you, of course; you have been paying attention. Everyone paying attention knew it would be this bad. Listen to Dan Carlon's HARDCORE HISTORY podcast regarding the rise of Nazi Germany, then compare it to tonight's "GOP" convention. Or perhaps the analogy is closer to Austria near-miss with fascism until it was "liberated" by Germany.

My question remains: WHERE THE BLOODY HELL ARE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'S CONSERVATIVES?!

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...

Mighty presumptuous of you to assume that they’ll even leave a future for anyone…

At least they were kind enough to tell everyone whom their The Designated Enemy are so we don't have to guess. Girls and women; Mexicans; homosexuals; Muslims (which is a "race"); police killers (young black men); liberal Democrats (all dozen of them); Syrian refugees; Russia. Greg L was right--- I thought he was kidding, but these insane shits really do want to shoot down Russian bombers.

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.

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.

Ingersoll would be horrified.

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

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/melania-trump-michelle-obama-spe…

#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

the willingness to vote for a publicly known criminal

the willingness to vote for a publicly known criminal

What crimes has Senator Sanders committed?

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.

Gotta admit the Trumpholes were eating it up, though. America may never fully recover from this.

One other question, before who sabotaged Ms Trump, is: 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?

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.

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

... and most other planets, I suspect. Donald Trump must know who sabotaged his spouse. According to day-time soap operas, part of the joy in humiliating people is letting the victims know (subtly) who did it but in a way that doesn't expose the joker to legal actions.

As for the convention's "messages" being sabotaged, the only message was "fear these people!" and that message suffered no damage.

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.

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.

The "debates" were the same way--- Republican Party speakers acted like drunken clowns telling penis jokes that even an 8-year-old would have found stupid.

@#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).

".... I would vote against HC, because she’s a criminal (past, present, future)...."

You "know" that how, exactly?

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.

The New York Times has stated several "facts" that it cannot possibly know; it states Ms Trump did the plagiary, changing the text given to her. How do they know that? If the cult told them that is what happened, why did the Times not state "so-and-so stated that such-and-such happened."

I suspect the cult thinks it is better to have Ms Trump steal from Ms Obama than to admit Ms Trump lied about "writing my own speech."

@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).

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

So perhaps you could answer the question. What crime(s) is Ms Clinton guilty of?

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??

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

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.

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.

"Reagan also began gun control (http://tinyurl.com/h9zyssg) and no-fault ...."

What crimes did Ms Clinton commit?

"What crime(s) Is Ms Clinton guilty of?"

*CRICKETS*

Judging only by Ms Clinton's self-reported behavior regarding providing weapons to the USA's enemies, and based on her self-reported "donations" from her corporate sponsors (who have also often been the USA's enemies), and based upon my observation of her speech patterns, facial expressions, and body movement, I have tentatively concluded that Ms Clinton is a fully evil monster, bereft of all human decency and empathy; completely lacking in all socially redeeming traits; a sociopath interested only in power and wealth, regardless of the misery and destruction her acquisition of these things costs others. I suspect she is even more of a danger to the USA and the rest of the world than Trump is.

However, I see no evidence she is "a criminal" in the sense that she committed crimes that anyone could legitimately prosecute her for. Her evil behavior has been and is sanctioned by the USA government. The terrorists she armed with bombs and rockets were sanctioned by the USA government, and the extra dead humans in Honduras because of her (for one example) was also USA-sanctioned--- which she explained away in the First Edition version of her book HARD CHOICES as "legal."

So, Ron, what specifically was/were her crime(s)? The people she helped kill and maim were killed and maimed according to USA law, and therefore "justified" and not crimes. What did she do that is against the law in the USA?

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!

"I’m glad you agree that there should be indictments and due process rights ...."

What crime(s) did Ms Clinton commit? How do you know?

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

"Agree on the injustice of not jailing Colin, Condi and Clinton…see…we can ...."

What crime(s) Is Ms Clinton guilty of?

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."

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

Yeah, you are 100% except for the "people left" part. Progressives and liberals overwhelmingly approve of a woman president--- look at their candidate (Jill Stein).

#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".

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

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

State law-makers these days appear to be, on the whole, lawless sociopaths. Demanding zygotes be buried with funerals.... utter insanity.

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.

"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"

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

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?

For example, Ms Clinton said she wants to stop being bribed by corporations by passing a Constitution amendment "within the first 30 days." She wants to prevent her future campaigns from receiving tens of millions of dollars from special (corporate) interest, and end the bribery of Congress. She knows damn well that she cannot pass such an amendment; she is also free to stop taking bribes immediately.

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

#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.

Keeping Hillary off the Half Dollar

milhayser — Mon, 04 Apr 2016 18:31:20 +0000

Keeping Hillary off the Half Dollar

In January, Hillary Clinton still possessed the benefit of the doubt. Memories of her and Bill snarling at Barack Obama in 2008 had faded, and despite her long and dreadful record, it's always possible to turn over a new leaf. But Clinton's ongoing response to Bernie Sanders shows why she is unfit for the presidency. Even as the frontrunner, Hillary shows no leadership ability; she, too, follows Sanders, trailing him to the left as he takes meaningful positions on issues like income inequality and campaign finance reform. Her saccharine smile says "I can do that too!" but truly she should be inspired by competition, not forced to shift uncomfortably because of it. Her recent anger at being asked about money from the fossil fuel industry illustrates her shortcomings perfectly. Confronted with a fair election, faced with her own record, she becomes defensive instead of inspired. She says something that isn't true to blunt the inappropriateness of her rage. She enjoys the benefits of Citizens United just as they were meant to be enjoyed: as a carte blanche that allows her and other mainstream candidates to deny the corrupting influence of big money even as millions of industry dollars are spent on her behalf.

But Clinton has never shown interest in a fair contest; she moved to New York in 2000 because it was the only state in the union that might elect her to the Senate. In her 2008 bid for the White House she carried herself as though presidential candidates are anointed by the Democratic National Committee, a private organization having no constitutional roots. She dismissed the possibility of nominating Obama just as she has dismissed Sanders. She and her jolly encampment harp on her inevitability; one of their favorite terms for her is "our next president." Having every superdelegate in your pantsuit pocket is one thing, but insulting Americans by saying they have no choice is just asking to get burned.

Clinton seems to think her sex, along with her inimitable résumé, is a golden halo; although she is a lackluster feminist, she yearns to set a historical precedent as the first female president, and casts aspersions on anyone who would deny her the opportunity. Look at her inane campaign slogan: "I'm With Her." But do you remember Gloria Steinem, advocating for Hillary, saying girls who support Bernie are only doing it to impress the boys? Do you remember the Clintons throwing Monica Lewinsky under the bus after Bill had thoroughly exploited her in the Oval Office? According to CNN, Hillary called Lewinsky a "narcissistic loony toon," which is at least somewhat ironic. And do you remember Hillary deliberately praising Nancy Reagan for her crusade against AIDS last month, either out of sheer ignorance or else to saint the memory of an arch-conservative? Do you remember how until 2013 she advocated against gay marriage and now she thinks it's great? Hillary Clinton is not a feminist, she's simply a woman, and if that's her strongest claim to the White House, it's not enough. Her posturing is sexist in and of itself.

Meanwhile Clinton and her handlers and her campaign staff and the last godforsaken newspapers in this country have worked tirelessly to influence public perception with rhetoric and omission rather than take a stand on important issues. Outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times have seriously undermined their credibility by covering this race not as a democratic contest, but as a victory march beset by ungrateful and even dangerous support for Bernie Sanders. First they say "Sanders can't win" and then they say "Unite! Or Trump will take over in November" and now they say "Bernie is fighting dirty!"

But let's think about Donald Trump for a minute. Like Hillary, Trump has a long public record, and along with the fact that he used to be very liberal, we all know he's a world-class hustler and con artist. One thing Trump repeats throughout his fascist babblings is true: he's a really smart guy. He knows exactly what he's doing. But do we? Even if he becomes more centrist and "presidential" in the coming months he'll never win back women and minority voters. But everything he says riles up the GOP's most steadfast supporters, which is why he can't be denied their nomination without the whole party going down in flames. Trump's campaign has been carefully calculated to disrupt and even destroy the GOP. Should he win their nomination, he should be an easy target for the democratic coalition and sensible independents and Republicans.

There are two things that matter to the future of the United States in 2016: income inequality and climate change. Not surprisingly, they are directly related. They both result from an economic system that gives corporations free rein. Like King George III in the colonial era, corporations exploit us with no intent of letting us gain independence. They are designed to pay laborers as little as possible, tell sell the fruits of labor for as much as possible, and to keep all the profit for themselves. As a result the middle class becomes steadily less rich and more people slip into poverty, where some resort to crime. The U.S. compensates for the criminality it engenders by imprisoning more people than any other nation on Earth, and the truly sickening part of it is, many U.S. prisons are now privately owned and for-profit. They want more human beings within their walls, for longer periods of time. Corporations control the media through advertising dollars, and control the government through campaign contributions and even "speaking fees." They control you and me. This is not how America is supposed to work.

The image at the top of this post shows two cents: the so-called Indian Head and the Lincoln. The Native American figure is not just anyone; she's a woman, she's a symbol, and she has a name: Columbia. She appeared on the cent for 116 years; Lincoln has been on it for 107. While the tradition of a noble women conferring respectability on a country's coinage predates the United States, Columbia once provided to us a beautiful symbol of ourselves, long before she briefly appropriated the ceremonial headdress. In 1909, Abraham Lincoln was the first historical figure to appear on a United States coin, and now our pockets and purses are full of mens' heads. Even the heraldic eagle has been removed from the quarter in favor of honorary dioramas. This is the best ideal we aspire to now: fame, or at least enough influence to leave a mark and thus be remembered. We used to aspire to something greater: justice for all. Despite the fact that he's a democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders offers a return to our foundational roots, the chance to re-assert our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rather than the right to liberalism, and the pursuit of security. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, probably wants her profile on the half dollar.

The global ecosystems that nurtured us as a species are withering all around us; climate change is not only raising sea levels, it's precipitating mass extinction that will likely lead to our own. Even if some of us survive, we won't be human anymore, we will evolve into something else—hopefully something that can metabolize ash and plastic. Our pollinators are dying, the last big animals on Earth will no longer be wild, and ocean acidification may wipe out the food chain. There will be so many of us and our new smartphones that we will starve, or else live on bread and jellyfish and soylent whatever. Capitalism has played a valuable role in the development of our economies; but the hard truth is that our economies must not be developed any more, they must be stabilized, streamlined, and even diminished. Democratic socialism is the future, and it is also the present, as some European countries exemplify. Personally I like being human, and I think every human being has the right to be grateful for their existence, and that is why I will vote for Bernie Sanders. I encourage everyone who still has a say in this primary to do the same. It is time to demand that our policies are determined by science and not by for-profit interests.

I understand that you make think of Hillary as your ally, I understand that many in Congress and the executive branch have worked with her and respect her, I understand that she herself is friends with many on Wall Street and around New York; she and her family have made connections everywhere. I don't think Clinton is a bad person. But I know she has never been a leader.

This election is the opportunity of a lifetime. It's about more than personal loyalty. Bernie Sanders has offered America the possibility of a political revolution. Without it, we will run the risk of a real one. That's my two cents.

milhayser Mon, 04/04/2016 - 14:31

Republican Donors Might Run A Third Party Candidate

gregladen — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 06:07:53 +0000

Republican Donors Might Run A Third Party Candidate

They even have a short list of candidates. Unfortunately, the only available copy of the secret internal report on running a third party candidate has the list blacked out (see above).

According to Scott Bland at Politico:

Conservative donors have engaged a major GOP consulting firm in Florida to research the feasibility of mounting a late, independent run for president amid growing fears that Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination.

...

“All this research has to happen before March 16, when inevitably Trump is the nominee, so that we have a plan in place," a source familiar with the discussions said. March 16 is the day after the GOP primary in Florida...

The document, stamped “confidential,” was authored by staff at Data Targeting, a Republican firm based in Gainesville, Fla. The memo notes that “it is possible to mount an independent candidacy but [it] will require immediate action on the part of this core of key funding and strategic players.”

This, of course, would guarantee that both the Republican candidate, probably Trump, and the independent candidate, would lose. So, it is a kind of apoptosis.

Here's the thing. Why would they do this? Why would the Republican Party build up a power base linked to a philosophy, then, when the ultimate candidate emerges, who represents that philosophy of hate and fascism comes to fore, bail?

One possibility is that the importance of corporate control of the President is the central guiding force for strategy. After all, we are talking about unspecified "donors." Those donors are not concerned with the political philosophy of the candidate, just that the candidate be controlled.

It is interesting to compare this effect across the two parties. One could say that Clinton is more the corporate candidate and Sanders is not. But, Democrats are not actually (despite pernicious rumors the contrary) destroying sanders or planning to put him down. A lot of Democrats, including many in power, like Sanders. But when an insurgency candidate (which, it seems, is defined as not, or less, bought and paid for) comes along in the Republican party, the Programmed Party Death Button is seriously considered. The parties really are not the same.

I wouldn't expect anything to come to this if it is a real effort to get a particular candidate to win. But if this really is an effort by the Republicans to put themselves down, then the chances of a third party run may be much higher, because it doesn't have to work. It just has to break everything.

gregladen Mon, 02/29/2016 - 01:07

Tags

Third Party Candidate

Could it just be another "super PAC" con to get donations to fund non-presidential candidates under the pretense of funding an independent presidential candidate?

apoptosis; heh.

"
Here’s the thing. Why would they do this? Why would the Republican Party build up a power base linked to a philosophy, then, when the ultimate candidate emerges, who represents that philosophy of hate and fascism comes to fore, bail? "

Here's the thing, Trump does not represent Republican ideals. As bad as Hillary is, I can not see myself voting for Trump over her - not that I'd vote for her either.

"In recent years, after two humiliations at the hands of Barack Obama, some Republican leaders had begun to understand that the scorched earth approach that had begun with Nixon’s Southern Strategy and culminated in the know-nothing frenzy of the Tea Party was a long-term loser. In a country with rapidly changing demographics and an increasingly liberal populace, a fresh start was needed. Poor Jeb Bush, bless his heart, tried half-heartedly to suggest this by equating immigration with “an act of love”. Then Donald Trump slapped him a few times hard across the face, and that was that. What Trump has unleashed is the monster created by the Republican Party for its own purposes. As always, when the monster gets free, it goes for the nearest prey first – and therein lies a lesson for Democrats."
http://barbarikon.blogspot.it/2016/02/what-donald-trump-is-doing-to.html

If Trump is the nominee and loses as badly as anticipated, then the future of the GOP as a functioning national party able to field successful candidates is at risk.

People who do not want that to happen might decide the best, if not good, option is try to destroy Trump's identity and legitimacy as a GOP candidate by nominating someone else. In effect, they'd be seen and heard to 'fess up" to the sins that led the GOP to Trump, declare he was not a true Republican, and that their candidate, their money and their organization were the real GOP.

Sounds flimsy on its face, but Republicans are pretty good at eating their own spin.

joncr: "[....] If Trump is the nominee and loses as badly as anticipated...."

Looking at the bookies and the prediction markets, the orange fascist will receive the Republican Party nomination by about 81% followed by the Cuban at 14%: that is enough to frighten the shit out of any and every sane human being.

At the moment Secretary Clinton leads Trump 59% to 37% for becoming USA president in one predictions market (Sanders: 8%). I consider the 18% difference utterly terrifying, considering what Trump has said, and considering his anti-social behavior.

Looking at the numbers in predictit for people who have placed money on Trump being president, $14,017 has been offered on the "yes" proposition but not yet accepted, with $1,603,502 being traded; about $288,000 on "yes" so far. These are people who may or may not want Trump to be president--- and that reflects the "wisdom of the crowd" which one would hope is more accurate than polling.

The Tea Party is, in my estimation, a reiteration and doubling down on the Nixonian Southern Strategy. Play on the rubes existing biases and bigotry, blame their discomfort on the other side and the 'others' and feed them a steady, but limited, diet of outrage and confirmation to reinforce their bias and keep them emotionally involved enough to guarantee that they will show up at the polls.

It is a system that works until a carnival barker comes along and blows the diet by providing all the red meat they can handle. But it isn't just quantity. The GOP controllers were careful to limit criticism of GOP candidates and party control. Trump is saying those things which the Tea Party core was thinking, but the GOP affiliated controllers were careful to avoid. Things like 9/11 happening on W's watch, failed wars, lies about WMDs.

Worrying for the GOP, there are now occasional mentions of how the GOP isn't helping the Tea Party demographic with the things closer to hand. Like VA benefits, how their children, home from W's wars, are treated for the damages of those wars. But also dealing with banks, insurance and mortgage companies.

It is one thing for a monster you created to break free. It is quite another if the monster critiques its former owner and finds it has more in common with the people it was trained to hate.

The GOP can survive as a rump without the buba vote. But it can't survive if it loses the election, and loses the white middle class and its most militant members as represented by the Tea Party.

Cruz is the only clear choice to defeat Hillary. There are still more people that hate him than like him. Some, like me, will NEVER vote Trump no matter what. Not even for dogcatcher! If
Trump is the nominee, I predict a repeat of the 3,000,000 staying home for Moderate Mitt, thus assuring a Hillary win.

I assume people recall that the Tea Party is a creation of the Koch brothers, with help from Big Tobacco. and for more, read Jane Mayer's Dark Money.

This is really quite well documented, i.e., this was not really an organic inside-GOP thing, and neither Kochs nor Big Tobacco have much muse for the Federal government. so making it not work is almost as good as controlling it...

Trump does not represent Republican ideals.

The Republican establishment are telling themselves this, and maybe they even believe it. But the base voters disagree. Denial, as they say, isn't just a river in Africa.

On most issues, the difference between Trump on the one hand, and Cruz or Rubio on the other, is that Trump isn't hiding behind coded language. It reminds me of the Looney Tunes short in which Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam are running for some political office. During a debate Bugs quotes Teddy Roosevelt's line about speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Yosemite Sam, whom Trump often seems to be channeling, replies: "OH YEAH? Well I speak LOUDLY and I carry a BIGGER stick, and I use it too [hitting Bugs on the head as he says the last]" The Republican candidates' discussion of immigration policy feels particularly like this--Rubio and Cruz are saying essentially the same things Trump is, but the former two are using dog-whistle code speech while Trump is saying it openly. But there are other issues where the Republican debate has this sort of feel.

The Republican party has a "philosophy of hate and fascism"? It's good to know that overblown rhetoric isn't a failing limited to one side.

If the Democrats aren't actively trying to destroy Sanders, perhaps it is because there is a big difference in that Sanders isn't winning. Or perhaps it is because the Democrats' system of super-delegates means the Democratic leadership is confident it can control the outcome of the primaries to get the result it wants regardless of how Sanders does.

Or maybe, just maybe, Trump is a special case, someone so repugnant that the Republican leadership is willing to take steps it normally would not to keep him from being the voice of their party.

One thing is certain, though, it isn't because of any great difference between the parties, since there isn't one. Trump was a declared Democrat a decade or two ago, remember; how would the Democratic party have reacted to his gargantuan, orange-stained hat being thrown into their ring?

Dan: Women's rights. Health care. Abortion. Civil rights. Immigration. Science. Religion in schools. Foreign aid. Foreign policy. Governing style. Yeah, no difference.

John, excellent recommendation. Here's my review of the book: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/01/22/dark-money-by-jane-mayer/

Eric: "The Republican establishment are telling themselves this, and maybe they even believe it. But the base voters disagree. Denial, as they say, isn’t just a river in Africa."

Basically true, to the extent that Trump's current trumpeting is taken as what he represents.

He is making it all up, of course.

I suspect this is being driven by the dark money economy. The Kochs have not dumped a lot of money (a lot for them) into the election so far. There are people who want to get that money and to get it, they need to provide a plausible path that makes their use of the money, not an empty sink-hole (like Jeb was). Jeb spent $150 million and got nothing.

The problem is that the kinds of money that are being talked about are enough for people to kill and be killed over. If Trump gets assassinated, that is who did it.

Without (essentially) buying the media and blocking Trump from getting coverage or ad time, I don't see how a "conservative" can get ahead of him in votes. Maybe the recent shift in MSNBC coverage (Melissa Harris-Perry) is a sign of this starting.

I think there are only two "successful" paths to a non-Trump conservative winning if Trump gets the GOP nomination; assassination of Trump, or giving Trump an "offer he can't refuse" so that he quits. The price of Trump quitting is likely more than a billion. Cheap compared to what the GOP Donor class will lose in higher taxes and forgone government subsidies for the military industrial complex.

Assassinating Trump would be a very high stakes gamble. The GOP base would very likely believe it was a conspiracy. It would be very difficult to keep all of the details quiet. With Obama still president, the NSA, CIA and FBI (and foreign intelligence agencies) can't be relied on to keep quiet about it. That sort of thing happening could really undo a GOP House and Senate.

That kind of interference in elections could compel the kind of voting rights reform that would make the kinds of gerrymandering, voter ID, voter registration barriers that Red states are implementing impossible

This reminds me that in 1994, Oliver North (remember Ollie North?) ran for U.S. Senate in Virginia as a Republican against Chuck Robb as the Democrat and Marshal Coleman as an independent. Coleman had been Attorney General of VIrginia and had run for Govenor (but lost) as a Republican.

It was widely believed that John Warner, Virginia's other (Republican) Senator convinced Coleman to run in order to deny Oliver North the victory. Coleman's 12% showing did allow Chuck Rob to win. At any rate, Warnet campaigned for Colman and against North.

This put John Warner on the outs with the Virginia Republican Party, but he used a quirk in the Virginia law to avoid a convention (in which he would have lost) but instead face a primary, which he won by large numbers of Democrats crossing over (VIrginia allows anyone to vote in a primary; registration is not by party) to thank him for his role in defeating North.

On the one hand Trump has taken positions that appeal to the base (throw out illegal aliens, build a wall, keep Muslims out, use torture, kill the terrorists' families, eliminate trade treaties). In an attempt to curry favor with the base, other candidates have found it in their interest to adopt some of these policies, even though they're not in the interest of the Republican oligarchy. On the other hand Trump has taken positions that threaten the legitimacy of the Republican project (9/11, the basis for the war in Iraq, Planned Parenthood, Social Security, healthcare), and that have been rejected by the other candidates. Trump is not simply the embodiment of Republican values. The way he embodies those values is a threat. And the way he doesn't embody those values is also a threat.

Now that the "Super" Tuesday results are in:

For Democrats, this is a normal primary season. It appears Hillary is almost certain to get the nomination, nudged a bit further to the left by Bernie during the primaries, and likely to run more toward the center during the general. No major surprises here.

For Republicans there are basically three options:

1) Rally around Trump, try to get him a more moderate running-mate, hope for the best, and likely face a crushing defeat in November as everyone to the left of Mussolini votes for Hillary (including a lot of Republicans). This is the most probable scenario, and the one I predict will occur.

2) Stage a "brokered" convention to nominate someone else, and offer Trump something "yuge" to get him to endorse that candidate. This will royally tick off the base, and likely face a crushing defeat in November as the Tea Party crowd react to their "betrayal" by staying home in large numbers. This is a less probable scenario.

3) Let Trump have the Republican nomination, and then Establishment Republicans run an independent candidate who they can claim is a "centrist" between Trump and Hillary. This would cause much damage to the GOP. There's a reasonable chance that a three-way race could end up getting thrown to the House, and however it comes out, the resulting President would be seen by 2/3 of the voters as illegitimate. But this is the least-probable scenario because it could spell the end of the GOP as such.