Trump had to debate the moderators. Anderson Cooper couldn’t even pretend to be impartial.
I think Trump made and error by saying that he would have a special prosecutor go after Hillary. Although I would love to see the whole Clinton family in jail, that’s banana republic speak.
I’m to the point where I think this Trump cult needs to be defeated with enough humiliation to make the history books. They aren’t given to self reflection or critical analysis, so they need to hope their noses rubbed in it like a puppy that won’tr stop crapping on the rug.
FBH, the moderators are there to attempt to control the event, so since Trump is the one who insists on interrupting, then of course it will be him the moderator is forced to interact with more. Trump’s constant whining during the debate most likely plays well with his core base, but to some it only reinforces the view he is just a spoiled rich kid not getting his way.
He did and said nothing that will add to his support, he continues to pander to the fringe. He is guaranteeing a Clinton victory.
I just am unable to decide which is worse.
Of all the former presidents, who does Hilary Clinton, a career liar, compare herself to? Abraham Lincoln. Democrats have absolutely no sense for recognizing self-parody.
So Trump is morally repugnant to Socialist-Democrats. Unlike Hillary’s husband, he didn’t rape anyone, or use his office to induce sexual favors from an intern. JFK slept with movie stars, showgirls, prostitutes and Mafia girls- while living in the White House. While married. Was that “morally repugnant?” His brother Teddy ran off a bridge in a drunken stupor, and left his girlfriend to drown. Was that “morally repugnant?” And Sen. Robert Byrd was a Grand Wizard of the KKK. The KKK Was that “morally repugnant?”
No, no double-standard there, right Socialist-Democrats?
Robert Byrd would agree with you that the KKK was morally repugnant. He said so many times.
I really can’t believe you guys harp on his early life, which he was upfront about and repudiated so many times, so it is perhaps best to quote from the NAACP when he died:
——
The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from [West Virginia] in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.
“Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation,” stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. “Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.
“Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation,” stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. “Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed.”
——-
I don’t know why you guys are going to harp on about Robert Byrd – who spoke and wrote extensively about his racist past and his moving beyond it for decades – until the end of time. Do you think you are fooling anyone about him and the story of his life?
So, yeah Rick, the NAACP eulogized a KKK Grand Wizard. I guess they just hate black folk. Is that it?
And, absolutely, you are 100% correct that the behavior of the Kennedys reflects how our society has changed in a span of decades. In the 1960’s women did not pursue professional careers without exceptional talent, courage, and ability to put up with things that are simply not tolerated at all in workplaces today.
Robert Byrd, JFK and Teddy Kennedy are all dead, and none of them is running for president. At various points in their lives they certainly did repugnant things. They also did a lot of good for a lot of people. Donald Trump has never done anything for anyone other than Donald Trump.
And on to Bill Clinton, who is also not running for president. I suppose the idea here is that Hillary Clinton, when her husband was accused of things or was fooling around consensually, should have invited these women over for high tea and crumpets. But that is not how ANY woman reacts to that sort of thing, and she is no exception. If you do not understand it, then have a woman explain it to you.
The only time Broaddrick, for example, was under oath on her accusations – she denied them. All of these accusations were investigated by Ken Starr, and he was certainly not engaged in any sort of coverup. But, certainly, as a political spouse, when one’s opponents are slinging mud about unproven allegations, the reaction on Mrs. Clinton’s part is not going to be kindly to people making those accusations. I’ll bet Ivana Trump just LOVED Marla Maples.
What angers conservatives and those beholders of “traditional values” is that the Clintons kept their marriage together, unlike Trump who marries vacuous beauty queens and dumps them like used playthings when he is tired of them.
But I imagine you are unfamiliar with the current sexual assault civil case against Trump, and the one that he settled in 1997. You have your parade of “victims” of someone who is NOT running for president, but I am willing to bet you never heard the following names:
JILL HARTH HOURANEY
KATIE JOHNSON
Go ahead and Google those names along with “Trump”, Rick, and explain to me why you are so selective. And, again, Trump is the candidate for president. Bill Clinton is not a candidate for president.
But another stark difference emerges from say, Robert Byrd, who not only repudiated his racist past but LIVED and ACTED consistent with that repudiation for decades. We have the spectacle of Trump going off on an early-morning rant about how a 1995 winner of his own pageant, is a person of low character and really was a fattie anyway. We have his comments about Carly Fiorina’s face, Megan Kelly’s “whatever”, and so on. This is not the story of a “changed man from years ago”, this is what he’s been doing, consistently, for months.
Did you ever read what his own wife Ivana had to say during their divorce, and before receiving a deal well in excess of their pre-nup? Under oath, she said he raped her. After the settlement, all was well and we do not hear a peep out of her do we? I think we all understand why that is.
But, go ahead Rick, convince women voters that Hillary is a misogynist pig and that Trump is a champion of women. It’s Not. Going. To Work. And it’s not going to work no matter how many dead senators you want to bring up.
Trump: 40 minutes and 10 seconds
Clinton: 39 minutes and 5 seconds
He got 1:05 more speaking time than she did, and still cried like a baby about it being “unfair”, because that is precisely the sort of juvenile bully he is.
An inept former Secy. of State who recommended deposing Mubarak and Gaddafi which resulted in the rise to power of ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and Egypt. She funnelled uranium to Putin and had a hand in an atrocious deal with Iran. She jeopardized state secrets and US operatives because of her callous disregard for even minimal security protocols. She has the backing of Wall Street (and the donations to prove it), yet professes a contempt for Wall Street when patronizing her “working family” constituency. It was Hillary and her cadre of apparatchiks who created the “birther” movement during her ’08 primary against BO. Of course, she “doesn’t recall” that, either.
So, Rick, instead of responding to anything I wrote, which was a response to what you wrote, you are instead going to change the topic – or rather offer up a bouquet of topics in what is called a “Gish Gallop”. The Gish Gallop is a debate technique used by creationist Duane Gish. When cornered on a specific subject, he would not address the point, but throw out a series of disconnected statements running off in different directions.
You threw out the Robert Byrd canard. You’ve done it before, and you’ve been called on it before. It is an untruth by using a half-truth. You want to suggest that the Democrats are somehow hospitable to the KKK because he was – by his own admission – deeply engaged in the KKK for an early period of his life.
Look, it is no secret that the Democratic party was the home of southern racists for quite a long time, while the Republican party was dominated by Northeastern liberals. That’s a fact. It is a fact that changed – dramatically – when the Civil Rights Act was passed (and yes, needing those northern Republican liberal votes). it is also a fact that, since then, the Democratic party has had no success on a presidential level in the south UNLESS they were running a southerner (Carter, Clinton).
But you know full well that the balance of Robert Byrd’s life had nothing to do with the KKK, yet you continue – knowing that full well – to periodically throw out this “the Democrats had a KKK Grand Wizard in the Senate” thing.
I’d like to know what traction you think that gets with ANYONE other than angry white men who think it is some kind of justification for their own racism. Quite obviously, the NAACP recognized that he was a man who had transformed, as shown by both his deeds and words.
So, again, Bill Clinton is not running for president. What is your answer to the two women – thus far – who have sued Donald Trump over alleged inappropriate sexual advances? If you are going to say, “well one is a settled case and the other is an unproven allegation in a lawsuit”, then you are going to have to explain why the answer is not the same as to Willey, Broaddrick, and let’s not forget that Jones’ suit was eventually thrown out for lack of proof. The penalties that Bill Clinton got – the loss of his license et al. – was over his gyrations to keep the Monica Lewinski thing from blowing up.
But, no, Hillary Clinton was not enamored of any of these women, nor should she have been. So, instead she is tagged an “enabler” for wanting to keep her marriage together, and having done so successfully.
But I really want to know – are you going to keep on with the Robert Byrd thing and, if so, what do you think Robert Byrd’s life story demonstrates?
What is the date of your source that it came from “Hillary”?
Mind you, Donald Trump made it the primary focus of his pretend run for president in 2012. He was on about it constantly and became practically identified with the issue. Even after the long form birth certificate was produced, he had “investigators in Hawaii” hot on the trail of it being a forgery. And then, when the Health Director of the State of Hawaii died in a tragic plane crash, he tweeting a musing as to whether it was a “coincidence”. That’s just sick stuff right there. We are not talking about some associate of Donald Trump or some un-named person in his campaign – he personally made it the focus of his political being. Hillary Clinton never once questioned where the president was born. Not once.
Thanks to “Bites” for calling out Rick… I wish there was a way we could sew an intake and outtake hose to Brezhnev Rick’e ears and divert the entire Niagara River through it to clean out some of those stale thought processes he has…
But since that is just wishful thinking, let me do it the old fashioned way, through exquisite argument.
Here are several common threads among this site’s Donald supporters, including Brezhnev Rick..
One: they dismiss everyone else but themselves has having any worth.
Two: they are incapable of any emotion other than hate.
Three: facts mean nothing to them. Their arguments are nothing but strings of hate, often tied together having no connections to each other other than their random proximity..
Four: they think more is better than quality. If they say things enough times they think it will magically become true.
Five: Everything is stupid unless it benefits them directly.. People benefiting themselves to their own betterment, must be stupid in their eyes because people like Brezhnev Rick, are not getting a benefit.
Six: They want free stuff; They don’t want to work for a living. As in: cut taxes too low we don’t have to work to make a living but live off our investments. As in: cut regulations too much so we don’t have to take out our trash. As in: cut unions so we don’t have to pay anything other than slave wages.
Seven: Rules and Regulations are always stupid unless THEY can use them to gain benefit from them. As in, “You should go to jail because you didn’t see a little “c” on one of your 60,000 emails”.
The best way to handle these people is not to argue, for they don’t listen, but to expose their inadequacies for all to see
Ironically “Deplorable” it turns out, is the perfect word to describe them… .
Rick states: “A serial liar, according to FBI head Comey.”
Can you provide a link to that claim, Rick?
And since it seems Rick (and others) didn’t read the Wikileaks material (I know, I’m shocked too), here is the Lincoln quote:
You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, “balance” — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think — I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it’s like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13
“Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email. Was that true?”
“Our investigation found that there was classified information” discovered,” Comey replied.
Gowdy followed up, “Secretary Clinton said there was not anything marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. Was that true?”
That’s not true,” Comey replied. “There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”
Secretary Clinton said, I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material,” Gowdy said. “Was that was true?”
“There was classified material emailed,” Comey responded.
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device,” Gowdy said. “Was that true?
According to Comey, Clinton “used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
“Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department,” Gowdy said. “Was that true?”
“No. We found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned,” Comey said.
“Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account,” Gowdy said. “Was that true?”
“That’s a harder one to answer,” Comey answered. “We found traces of work-related emails on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or a server was changed out something happened to them. There’s no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.”
“Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive,” Gowdy said. “Did her lawyers read the email content individually?”
When someone claims something to be true , and it is proven to be “not true”, that could be interpreted as a lie, right?
And when someone does this multiple times, it could described as “serial”, right?
And I don’t buy the claim that she didn’t know either. The left is always touting Hillary as the smartest woman in the world…. except when she plays dumb.
You guys can call her whatever you want. It would be amazing if you could stop pretending other people said things. And since you guys are so big on honesty, you might want to give it a try sometime.
And FBH, while I realize that the impeccably high standards of noted truth-teller Donald J. Trump are what attracts so many voters to him, the definition of “lying” seems to be pretty flexible in the context of what you do when you receive a subpoena.
Let’s take one of these as an example:
——–
“Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive,” Gowdy said. “Did her lawyers read the email content individually?”
“No,” Comey replied.
——-
Now, if my business were to receive a broad subpoena for “files related to X”, what I would do, and what any sane person would do is to go to my counsel, give them all the files I had, and have them sort through it to respond to the subpoena. If my counsel then responded to the subpoena and told me, “we went through it all and turned over the responsive materials”, then if asked I would certainly say that my lawyers went through it all and turned over the responsive material.
In other words, Secretary Clinton is unlikely to have sat looking over her lawyers’ shoulders while they read every email, in order to be able to state with absolute accuracy whether they did or did not read every email. If her lawyers did not “read every email”, that’s not even going to be a fact within her personal knowledge that she could “lie” about.
There is a world of difference between being wrong and lying. And what you can do, when you ask someone the same question differently phrased dozens of times, is tease out inconsistencies until the cows come home.
Was it well-handled? No.
But what I would really like to know is how you or anyone believes there is a pot of votes at the end of the email rainbow. Whatever you might think of the email thing, and whatever I might think of the email thing, the email thing is already “factored in” to the decided vote thus far. There is not a voter with any functioning eyes and ears who has not heard the various accusations that Clinton has been either evasive or careless on the entire “email thing”. Whatever conclusion one reaches in terms of deciding to vote for Clinton or Trump, it is one consideration among many, and you are not going to find an undecided voter who is thinking, “Well, I haven’t made up my mind yet, so I want to hear more about the email thing.”
That voter just does not exist. There are people whose primary concerns are their jobs, their health care, their kids’ education, and so on, who DO NOT GIVE A CRAP about how Clinton handled her email arrangements when she was Secretary of State. You can be angry at her, at them, or whomever, but if you think this is a winning issue, then you have to wake up to the reality that your candidate is running around with a distraction about Bill Clinton’s behavior from 30 years ago and he’s not even on the ballot.
Do you think Trump hasn’t shouted “Crooked Hillary” loudly enough or long enough? Is that what the problem is? Has Trump adequately failed to communicate to his “lock her up” chanting crowds that he believes Hillary is dishonest in some profound way that will affect their lives? Do you think stitching “Crooked Hillary” onto baseball caps is going to do the trick?
Frank: You said “He did and said nothing that will add to his support, he continues to pander to the fringe. He is guaranteeing a Clinton victory”
I agree with you completely except for your characterization of who he is pandering to as “fringe” He is pandering to a large (but not large enough for victory) segment of voters for whom this is a one issue election: keep Hillary out of the White House.
With that one clarification, I completely agree with your assessment. He did nothing to add to his support, nor did she. The math at this point indicates he is the one needing addition, she simply needs to maintain. Many others appear to have reached the same conclusion and have turned attention to holding onto Congress.
Well, with another day counting toward Election Day, the super-smart winning guy has decided he knows where the votes are:
—-
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 12m12 minutes ago
The very foul mouthed Sen. John McCain begged for my support during his primary (I gave, he won), then dropped me over locker room remarks!
——
Ahh, but the strawberries that’s… that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers…
Mike, the fringe I referenced is the fringe of ideology, which allowed Trump to win the primary. And yes the number is growing within the GOP, and at a somewhat slower pace in mainstream America. But it is still fringe ideology, based on hate and nothing else. We need only look at the fact Trump’s percentages have never been above low forties for the general election.
You’re right, Fish Bites. No one is going to change their mind about a candidate at this point , but they may change their mind about whether they will actually go out and vote.
saltyindependent ….”the gop has nobody to blame but themselves. any other candidate who started this primary process would be poised to win. such a lost opportunity.”
The fact is that any candidate that the GOP puts out is demonized in the same fashion…. Hell, John McCain was a right wing mean spirited racist , homophobe, islamophobe, adulterer who was too old and sick to be president….It’s just standard procedure, and with pretty much all forms of media, all of the time to back them up, it’s not a hard task.
“No one is going to change their mind about a candidate at this point , but they may change their mind about whether they will actually go out and vote.”
There may be a significant chunk of the electorate that doesn’t obsess over politics and sort of “tune in” during the last few weeks to make up their mind. I would guess they want to hear about “bread and butter” issues that affect them. This election has been curiously devoid of any real discussion of things like education, social security, and a roster of normal, simple things that people who expect the government to do its job actually care about on a personal level. Trump has, at times, practically endorsed national health care, but lately I think it is “get rid of Obamacare and replace it with something that’s going to be so wonderful, you’ll love it, believe me.” I’d bet that half the TV audience had no idea who Sean Hannity is, and got to see this guy ranting, “Call Sean Hannity! Nobody wants to call Sean Hannity!” over an issue that is, at this point, not really all that interesting anyway.
But, yeah, it’s more than trying to depress your opponent’s turnout, but you have to turn out your voters with a real ground game – phone bankers, transportation providers… real boots on the ground. As it stands right now, there’s a serious question whether, come what may in the next weeks, the GOP party apparatus is going to be working for Trump. There are people who are viscerally revulsed by Trump, and people who think Clinton is the embodiment of Satan – all of them are going to vote, because they aren’t voting “for” a candidate in the first place. But, my goodness, Hillary has not gone after the GOP as a party as energetically as he has.
But it could be that Trump has decided that he’s going to churn out Alex Jones stuff (note how he called Clinton “the devil” during the town hall, about two days after Jones went on a “Clinton is the devil” rant, if you don’t keep tabs on that nut), and make sure he’s got enthusiastic voters, but a very narrow band.
Can’t anyone in the Trump camp sit down and say, “Hey, how could we do better with women voters?” beyond vague “oh, we’ll have maternity leave” (already mandated by law to the extent Congress could agree) and “I’ll be so good for women, you’ll love it, believe me.”
And if they think Hillary is doing better among women because she is a woman, that’s an error. Women, in that regard, are not as dumb as men. Mcain lost women in 2008 WITH a woman on the ticket.
It just so frequently seems that he’s TRYING to lose.
I don’t question the sincerity and resolve of his enthusiastic supporters and Hillary-haters, but I sure hope we have enough national wildlife refuges for them all to keep themselves busy in, on the remarkably small off-chance he doesn’t win…. or, oh, excuse me… I mean, if the election is rigged.
Its a shame that the Republicans could have chosen just about any available candidate but Trump and they would have won the election. Hilary was just that easy to beat. After all, every major liberal paper (NYT, WP and LAT) all openly hoped for someone else. Now it seems like it will take a WikiLeaks Hail Mary to pull this one out.
But todays News Journal article quoting Billy Carroll and Duke Brooks shows the depth of the problem in Sussex County and the country as a whole. There is an insistence on being right, even to the point of putting forward and supporting an unelectable candidate, that is self defeating. They would rather have no loaf as opposed to half a loaf. What they seem to miss is that politics is about the ability to influence the outcome, not control it, and to do that you need to have a seat at the legislative table, not Jimmy’s in Bridgeville.
Like Christine O’Donnell, Trump is going down in flames and will take others with him. The O’Donnell candidacy destroyed any hope to influence the national debate on Obamacare. As Hilary starts to name Supreme Court justices Trump’s candidacy will have done the same. Carroll and Brooks and their ilk elsewhere should hang their heads in shame. We will live with their obstinence for decades.
“The fact is that any candidate that the GOP puts out is demonized in the same fashion…. Hell, John McCain was a right wing mean spirited racist , homophobe, islamophobe, adulterer who was too old and sick to be president….It’s just standard procedure, and with pretty much all forms of media, all of the time to back them up, it’s not a hard task.”
none of the past candidates have run against hillary. she was easily beatable.
You sure about that? Those words were said when she ran for senate. Both times. Once Hillary wins, or is appointed Secretary of State, her approval numbers soar. (Same with Elizabeth Warren, btw.)
And the idea that the GOP primary candidates could beat Hillary when they couldn’t put away Trump is laughable. The problems facing the GOP are the GOP’s alone. It’s past time to look in a mirror… and see the real problem. The main problem facing Republicans is themselves. Blaming others, or participating in an “if only” game won’t solve it. The GOP is woefully out of touch with the American citizens. That’s the problem.
Trump has laid waste to the “family values matter” crowd. He is the Republican Party. The first step in changing that is acknowledging it… and him.
And despite what you may think (or what Rick or FBH make up) I think our country is stronger with two viable – sane – parties. Republicans need to get their act together. If they don’t, they’ll go the way of the Whigs. Your guys call.
Here is what hard data tells us. This is from across the nation, so you can assume there are pockets that differ…
17% of possible voters will vote For Trump
17% of voters will probably vote Republican if they sure he won’t win.
43% of voters are Democratic and can probably be counted on not to vote for Trump.
23% of voters are Independent and make up their minds one month before the election.
Not accounting for the two fringe candidates, one can see that to win, all Republicans plus almost half of the independents need to vote for Trump.
This is why Trump’s attempt to double down and appeal only to his core of 17% dooms his campaign a failure. No one sane thinks he’s running for President anymore. He is running to have a rabid following of 34 (17% of 200 million) million people continue to buy his stuff and/or follow him after the election…
“It’s just standard procedure, and with pretty much all forms of media, all of the time to back them up, it’s not a hard task.”
Then why didn’t it work when W was elected twice?
I mean, come on, the score so far this century is Dem 2 / GOP 2, when it comes to presidential elections.
And I don’t recall any serious suggestions in the major media that John McCain was racist, islamophobic, and certainly not sexist. He shut down that crazy lady going off about “he’s an Arab”, and conducted himself with dignity throughout his campaign.
McCain had an uphill battle of sorts from the start, but he really wanted to be running against Hillary anyway. Where he shot himself in the foot was by deciding that Sarah Palin was the best qualified person to replace him. Palin was the one who got the ball rolling on motivating elements of the base which are now eating the GOP alive.
But the alt right is very fickle. I mean, have the “9/12 Patriots” – the mousekeeter club of the Glenn Beck show – disowned him now or what? The nascent Tea Partiers came out in an impressive bunch to his rally in DC. What’s gone wrong with him? Has he gone all “Lonesome Rhodes”?
And, by the way, whatever your political persuasion – if you have not seen Andy Griffith’s debut role in the 1957 film “A Face in the Crowd”, please do. It’s a great film and really shows a broader swath of Andy Griffith’s talent than you would pick up from the TV series.
But that’s always the way this sort of populism runs its course. It never ends well.
I guess what surprises me is that people who seem to otherwise have a lot of common sense don’t recognize this sort of thing when it is staring them in the face. As far as qualifications to hold any sort of elected office, you cannot make any comparison between John McCain and Donald Trump. McCain has a lifetime of service to this country, and while I certainly don’t always agree with his political positions, he was unquestionably qualified to be president. Again, I may not have agreed with him, but I also knew that if he had won, then he could at least be trusted to (a) know how the government and that office works, and (b) not do insane stuff.
In what election have you ever heard a politician say that one of his top priorities would be to have his opponent locked up?
And I’m not talking about nutty zealous supporters, which each side always has in at least a minor extent – I’m talking about the candidate himself.
But the guys like John McCain who would shut down the “Crazy Hair Ladies” on these things are routinely viewed as RINO’s, for exercising basic decency. The signature moment of the successful promotion of Chris Coons to the Senate is that video of Crazy Eileen yelling at Mike Castle about her birth certificate.
But, honestly, you can’t just say “they did that to John Mccain” when they most certainly did not do that to John McCain, and you certainly cannot believe that in terms of manifest fitness for office and civil decency, that there is any comparison between McCain and Trump. I could be wrong, but in an effort to understand the thinking of others, do you really not see that McCain and Trump are dramatically leagues apart in terms of relevant experience, qualification, and psychological fitness? I’d really like to know.
Rick attributed words to Comey he never said. That matters.
Really? Let me bring you up to speed, in case you missed Comey’s testimony. Questions from Trey Gowdy….
OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
There. Several times Comey testified that Clinton lied. And that matters.
What also matters is that Pandora- and the rest of the hate-America left- incessantly defends a career, habitual liar with an almost incomprehensible record of “public service” ineptitude.
Actually when it comes to lying, Trump is first, followed by in order, Bachmann, Cruz, Gingrich, Palin and Santorium…. These are the biggest liars.
When it comes to honesty, Obama is first, Clinton second, Jeb Bush the third, Bernie Sanders the fourth, and Kasich the fifth…
There appears to be less respect for the truth the further right one goes. and more respect for truth the further left one goes…
Which many regulars here would attest to why Rick never says anything truthful… He’s to the right of even Trump….
If God has a hand in this race and is basing His decision on exhibiting Christian behavior, one being and including truthfulness, one can conclude within those parameters, He is pulling for Clinton. The Devil, of course, is trying very hard to make Mr. Trump carry him into office.
Don’t take my word for it. Read the New Testament.
(This was just too good to pass up coming off Rick’s diatribe about Hillary lying, and Trump always telling the truth..).
From last Sunday’s debate:
“You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?” Cooper asked.
Trump insisted that wasn’t the case. Cooper asked three times whether Trump denied that he had ever done such a thing. Finally, Trump replied, “No, I have not,” and quickly changed the subject.
Five women have come forward since then to say that Trump sexually assaulted them..
Less than a month to go until the election and woman who never reported anything to the authorities are coming fourth to declare that Trump sexually assaulted them.
I don’t think people are as stupid as the Democrat machine is counting on them being.
Kavips, mouse, Fish Bites,pandora et al.
I’m curious if you believe the claims that the overwhelming majority of the media is politically biased for the Democratic Party and it’s candidates.
Wait… for weeks you guys have been saying we need to believe accusers – and how they should never be personally attacked. Guess that bit of insincerity is over. Are you still wondering why you’re losing the women’s vote?
(And before you go “there” I have never defended Bill Clinton’s sleazy, awful behavior. Not once.)
No, in fact I believe the media is owned by people who aren’t democrats. The media shines the light on the sensational and at time on reality. Reality and science tend to trend liberal
“I’m curious if you believe the claims that the overwhelming majority of the media is politically biased for the Democratic Party and it’s candidates.”
“The media” is quite a collection. The #1 cable news network is Fox.
The media are primarily interested in whatever drives ratings. If you look at, say, the GOP primary, the media gave so much free air time to Trump that other GOP primary candidates could not get the same traction. I don’t think it was because they liked his “politics” – since he doesn’t have any principled opinions on anything. It seems to me like he was a “bright shiny object” that drove ratings.
Have at it!
Did either candidate say anything that would convince me not to vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party ? I didn’t think so.
Trump had to debate the moderators. Anderson Cooper couldn’t even pretend to be impartial.
I think Trump made and error by saying that he would have a special prosecutor go after Hillary. Although I would love to see the whole Clinton family in jail, that’s banana republic speak.
I’m to the point where I think this Trump cult needs to be defeated with enough humiliation to make the history books. They aren’t given to self reflection or critical analysis, so they need to hope their noses rubbed in it like a puppy that won’tr stop crapping on the rug.
FBH, the moderators are there to attempt to control the event, so since Trump is the one who insists on interrupting, then of course it will be him the moderator is forced to interact with more. Trump’s constant whining during the debate most likely plays well with his core base, but to some it only reinforces the view he is just a spoiled rich kid not getting his way.
He did and said nothing that will add to his support, he continues to pander to the fringe. He is guaranteeing a Clinton victory.
I just am unable to decide which is worse.
“he continues to pander to the fringe.” – Frank
He wouldn’t have gotten as far as he has if he were a fringe candidate.
Go Trump!!!
Go Eagles! Same mentality..
Of all the former presidents, who does Hilary Clinton, a career liar, compare herself to? Abraham Lincoln. Democrats have absolutely no sense for recognizing self-parody.
So Trump is morally repugnant to Socialist-Democrats. Unlike Hillary’s husband, he didn’t rape anyone, or use his office to induce sexual favors from an intern. JFK slept with movie stars, showgirls, prostitutes and Mafia girls- while living in the White House. While married. Was that “morally repugnant?” His brother Teddy ran off a bridge in a drunken stupor, and left his girlfriend to drown. Was that “morally repugnant?” And Sen. Robert Byrd was a Grand Wizard of the KKK. The KKK Was that “morally repugnant?”
No, no double-standard there, right Socialist-Democrats?
Robert Byrd would agree with you that the KKK was morally repugnant. He said so many times.
I really can’t believe you guys harp on his early life, which he was upfront about and repudiated so many times, so it is perhaps best to quote from the NAACP when he died:
——
The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from [West Virginia] in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.
“Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation,” stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. “Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.
“Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation,” stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. “Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed.”
——-
I don’t know why you guys are going to harp on about Robert Byrd – who spoke and wrote extensively about his racist past and his moving beyond it for decades – until the end of time. Do you think you are fooling anyone about him and the story of his life?
So, yeah Rick, the NAACP eulogized a KKK Grand Wizard. I guess they just hate black folk. Is that it?
And, absolutely, you are 100% correct that the behavior of the Kennedys reflects how our society has changed in a span of decades. In the 1960’s women did not pursue professional careers without exceptional talent, courage, and ability to put up with things that are simply not tolerated at all in workplaces today.
Robert Byrd, JFK and Teddy Kennedy are all dead, and none of them is running for president. At various points in their lives they certainly did repugnant things. They also did a lot of good for a lot of people. Donald Trump has never done anything for anyone other than Donald Trump.
And on to Bill Clinton, who is also not running for president. I suppose the idea here is that Hillary Clinton, when her husband was accused of things or was fooling around consensually, should have invited these women over for high tea and crumpets. But that is not how ANY woman reacts to that sort of thing, and she is no exception. If you do not understand it, then have a woman explain it to you.
The only time Broaddrick, for example, was under oath on her accusations – she denied them. All of these accusations were investigated by Ken Starr, and he was certainly not engaged in any sort of coverup. But, certainly, as a political spouse, when one’s opponents are slinging mud about unproven allegations, the reaction on Mrs. Clinton’s part is not going to be kindly to people making those accusations. I’ll bet Ivana Trump just LOVED Marla Maples.
What angers conservatives and those beholders of “traditional values” is that the Clintons kept their marriage together, unlike Trump who marries vacuous beauty queens and dumps them like used playthings when he is tired of them.
But I imagine you are unfamiliar with the current sexual assault civil case against Trump, and the one that he settled in 1997. You have your parade of “victims” of someone who is NOT running for president, but I am willing to bet you never heard the following names:
JILL HARTH HOURANEY
KATIE JOHNSON
Go ahead and Google those names along with “Trump”, Rick, and explain to me why you are so selective. And, again, Trump is the candidate for president. Bill Clinton is not a candidate for president.
But another stark difference emerges from say, Robert Byrd, who not only repudiated his racist past but LIVED and ACTED consistent with that repudiation for decades. We have the spectacle of Trump going off on an early-morning rant about how a 1995 winner of his own pageant, is a person of low character and really was a fattie anyway. We have his comments about Carly Fiorina’s face, Megan Kelly’s “whatever”, and so on. This is not the story of a “changed man from years ago”, this is what he’s been doing, consistently, for months.
Did you ever read what his own wife Ivana had to say during their divorce, and before receiving a deal well in excess of their pre-nup? Under oath, she said he raped her. After the settlement, all was well and we do not hear a peep out of her do we? I think we all understand why that is.
But, go ahead Rick, convince women voters that Hillary is a misogynist pig and that Trump is a champion of women. It’s Not. Going. To Work. And it’s not going to work no matter how many dead senators you want to bring up.
By the way, on the moderators:
Speaking time:
Trump: 40 minutes and 10 seconds
Clinton: 39 minutes and 5 seconds
He got 1:05 more speaking time than she did, and still cried like a baby about it being “unfair”, because that is precisely the sort of juvenile bully he is.
But you know who is a candidate for president?
A serial liar, according to FBI head Comey.
An inept former Secy. of State who recommended deposing Mubarak and Gaddafi which resulted in the rise to power of ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and Egypt. She funnelled uranium to Putin and had a hand in an atrocious deal with Iran. She jeopardized state secrets and US operatives because of her callous disregard for even minimal security protocols. She has the backing of Wall Street (and the donations to prove it), yet professes a contempt for Wall Street when patronizing her “working family” constituency. It was Hillary and her cadre of apparatchiks who created the “birther” movement during her ’08 primary against BO. Of course, she “doesn’t recall” that, either.
Lies piled upon lies, ineptitude upon ineptitude.
So, Rick, instead of responding to anything I wrote, which was a response to what you wrote, you are instead going to change the topic – or rather offer up a bouquet of topics in what is called a “Gish Gallop”. The Gish Gallop is a debate technique used by creationist Duane Gish. When cornered on a specific subject, he would not address the point, but throw out a series of disconnected statements running off in different directions.
You threw out the Robert Byrd canard. You’ve done it before, and you’ve been called on it before. It is an untruth by using a half-truth. You want to suggest that the Democrats are somehow hospitable to the KKK because he was – by his own admission – deeply engaged in the KKK for an early period of his life.
Look, it is no secret that the Democratic party was the home of southern racists for quite a long time, while the Republican party was dominated by Northeastern liberals. That’s a fact. It is a fact that changed – dramatically – when the Civil Rights Act was passed (and yes, needing those northern Republican liberal votes). it is also a fact that, since then, the Democratic party has had no success on a presidential level in the south UNLESS they were running a southerner (Carter, Clinton).
But you know full well that the balance of Robert Byrd’s life had nothing to do with the KKK, yet you continue – knowing that full well – to periodically throw out this “the Democrats had a KKK Grand Wizard in the Senate” thing.
I’d like to know what traction you think that gets with ANYONE other than angry white men who think it is some kind of justification for their own racism. Quite obviously, the NAACP recognized that he was a man who had transformed, as shown by both his deeds and words.
So, again, Bill Clinton is not running for president. What is your answer to the two women – thus far – who have sued Donald Trump over alleged inappropriate sexual advances? If you are going to say, “well one is a settled case and the other is an unproven allegation in a lawsuit”, then you are going to have to explain why the answer is not the same as to Willey, Broaddrick, and let’s not forget that Jones’ suit was eventually thrown out for lack of proof. The penalties that Bill Clinton got – the loss of his license et al. – was over his gyrations to keep the Monica Lewinski thing from blowing up.
But, no, Hillary Clinton was not enamored of any of these women, nor should she have been. So, instead she is tagged an “enabler” for wanting to keep her marriage together, and having done so successfully.
But I really want to know – are you going to keep on with the Robert Byrd thing and, if so, what do you think Robert Byrd’s life story demonstrates?
But, Rick, if you want to do the “birther origin” thing, then have a look at this posting from March 1, 2008 at Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1978110/posts?page=391#391
What is the date of your source that it came from “Hillary”?
Mind you, Donald Trump made it the primary focus of his pretend run for president in 2012. He was on about it constantly and became practically identified with the issue. Even after the long form birth certificate was produced, he had “investigators in Hawaii” hot on the trail of it being a forgery. And then, when the Health Director of the State of Hawaii died in a tragic plane crash, he tweeting a musing as to whether it was a “coincidence”. That’s just sick stuff right there. We are not talking about some associate of Donald Trump or some un-named person in his campaign – he personally made it the focus of his political being. Hillary Clinton never once questioned where the president was born. Not once.
Thanks to “Bites” for calling out Rick… I wish there was a way we could sew an intake and outtake hose to Brezhnev Rick’e ears and divert the entire Niagara River through it to clean out some of those stale thought processes he has…
But since that is just wishful thinking, let me do it the old fashioned way, through exquisite argument.
Here are several common threads among this site’s Donald supporters, including Brezhnev Rick..
One: they dismiss everyone else but themselves has having any worth.
Two: they are incapable of any emotion other than hate.
Three: facts mean nothing to them. Their arguments are nothing but strings of hate, often tied together having no connections to each other other than their random proximity..
Four: they think more is better than quality. If they say things enough times they think it will magically become true.
Five: Everything is stupid unless it benefits them directly.. People benefiting themselves to their own betterment, must be stupid in their eyes because people like Brezhnev Rick, are not getting a benefit.
Six: They want free stuff; They don’t want to work for a living. As in: cut taxes too low we don’t have to work to make a living but live off our investments. As in: cut regulations too much so we don’t have to take out our trash. As in: cut unions so we don’t have to pay anything other than slave wages.
Seven: Rules and Regulations are always stupid unless THEY can use them to gain benefit from them. As in, “You should go to jail because you didn’t see a little “c” on one of your 60,000 emails”.
The best way to handle these people is not to argue, for they don’t listen, but to expose their inadequacies for all to see
Ironically “Deplorable” it turns out, is the perfect word to describe them… .
Rick states: “A serial liar, according to FBI head Comey.”
Can you provide a link to that claim, Rick?
And since it seems Rick (and others) didn’t read the Wikileaks material (I know, I’m shocked too), here is the Lincoln quote:
“Delaware Right” is no longer an accurate name for this blog site.
“Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email. Was that true?”
“Our investigation found that there was classified information” discovered,” Comey replied.
Gowdy followed up, “Secretary Clinton said there was not anything marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. Was that true?”
That’s not true,” Comey replied. “There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”
Secretary Clinton said, I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material,” Gowdy said. “Was that was true?”
“There was classified material emailed,” Comey responded.
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device,” Gowdy said. “Was that true?
According to Comey, Clinton “used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
“Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department,” Gowdy said. “Was that true?”
“No. We found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned,” Comey said.
“Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account,” Gowdy said. “Was that true?”
“That’s a harder one to answer,” Comey answered. “We found traces of work-related emails on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or a server was changed out something happened to them. There’s no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.”
“Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive,” Gowdy said. “Did her lawyers read the email content individually?”
“No,” Comey replied.
Did I miss the part where Comey called her a “serial liar”? Because that was the claim.
When someone claims something to be true , and it is proven to be “not true”, that could be interpreted as a lie, right?
And when someone does this multiple times, it could described as “serial”, right?
And I don’t buy the claim that she didn’t know either. The left is always touting Hillary as the smartest woman in the world…. except when she plays dumb.
You guys can call her whatever you want. It would be amazing if you could stop pretending other people said things. And since you guys are so big on honesty, you might want to give it a try sometime.
Come on pandora, you know the difference between inference and quotation, don’t you? This is silly.
It’s not silly. Rick attributed words to Comey he never said. That matters.
And FBH, while I realize that the impeccably high standards of noted truth-teller Donald J. Trump are what attracts so many voters to him, the definition of “lying” seems to be pretty flexible in the context of what you do when you receive a subpoena.
Let’s take one of these as an example:
——–
“Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive,” Gowdy said. “Did her lawyers read the email content individually?”
“No,” Comey replied.
——-
Now, if my business were to receive a broad subpoena for “files related to X”, what I would do, and what any sane person would do is to go to my counsel, give them all the files I had, and have them sort through it to respond to the subpoena. If my counsel then responded to the subpoena and told me, “we went through it all and turned over the responsive materials”, then if asked I would certainly say that my lawyers went through it all and turned over the responsive material.
In other words, Secretary Clinton is unlikely to have sat looking over her lawyers’ shoulders while they read every email, in order to be able to state with absolute accuracy whether they did or did not read every email. If her lawyers did not “read every email”, that’s not even going to be a fact within her personal knowledge that she could “lie” about.
There is a world of difference between being wrong and lying. And what you can do, when you ask someone the same question differently phrased dozens of times, is tease out inconsistencies until the cows come home.
Was it well-handled? No.
But what I would really like to know is how you or anyone believes there is a pot of votes at the end of the email rainbow. Whatever you might think of the email thing, and whatever I might think of the email thing, the email thing is already “factored in” to the decided vote thus far. There is not a voter with any functioning eyes and ears who has not heard the various accusations that Clinton has been either evasive or careless on the entire “email thing”. Whatever conclusion one reaches in terms of deciding to vote for Clinton or Trump, it is one consideration among many, and you are not going to find an undecided voter who is thinking, “Well, I haven’t made up my mind yet, so I want to hear more about the email thing.”
That voter just does not exist. There are people whose primary concerns are their jobs, their health care, their kids’ education, and so on, who DO NOT GIVE A CRAP about how Clinton handled her email arrangements when she was Secretary of State. You can be angry at her, at them, or whomever, but if you think this is a winning issue, then you have to wake up to the reality that your candidate is running around with a distraction about Bill Clinton’s behavior from 30 years ago and he’s not even on the ballot.
Do you think Trump hasn’t shouted “Crooked Hillary” loudly enough or long enough? Is that what the problem is? Has Trump adequately failed to communicate to his “lock her up” chanting crowds that he believes Hillary is dishonest in some profound way that will affect their lives? Do you think stitching “Crooked Hillary” onto baseball caps is going to do the trick?
Frank: You said “He did and said nothing that will add to his support, he continues to pander to the fringe. He is guaranteeing a Clinton victory”
I agree with you completely except for your characterization of who he is pandering to as “fringe” He is pandering to a large (but not large enough for victory) segment of voters for whom this is a one issue election: keep Hillary out of the White House.
With that one clarification, I completely agree with your assessment. He did nothing to add to his support, nor did she. The math at this point indicates he is the one needing addition, she simply needs to maintain. Many others appear to have reached the same conclusion and have turned attention to holding onto Congress.
the gop has nobody to blame but themselves. any other candidate who started this primary process would be poised to win. such a lost opportunity.
Well, with another day counting toward Election Day, the super-smart winning guy has decided he knows where the votes are:
—-
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 12m12 minutes ago
The very foul mouthed Sen. John McCain begged for my support during his primary (I gave, he won), then dropped me over locker room remarks!
——
Ahh, but the strawberries that’s… that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers…
Mike, the fringe I referenced is the fringe of ideology, which allowed Trump to win the primary. And yes the number is growing within the GOP, and at a somewhat slower pace in mainstream America. But it is still fringe ideology, based on hate and nothing else. We need only look at the fact Trump’s percentages have never been above low forties for the general election.
You’re right, Fish Bites. No one is going to change their mind about a candidate at this point , but they may change their mind about whether they will actually go out and vote.
saltyindependent ….”the gop has nobody to blame but themselves. any other candidate who started this primary process would be poised to win. such a lost opportunity.”
The fact is that any candidate that the GOP puts out is demonized in the same fashion…. Hell, John McCain was a right wing mean spirited racist , homophobe, islamophobe, adulterer who was too old and sick to be president….It’s just standard procedure, and with pretty much all forms of media, all of the time to back them up, it’s not a hard task.
“No one is going to change their mind about a candidate at this point , but they may change their mind about whether they will actually go out and vote.”
There may be a significant chunk of the electorate that doesn’t obsess over politics and sort of “tune in” during the last few weeks to make up their mind. I would guess they want to hear about “bread and butter” issues that affect them. This election has been curiously devoid of any real discussion of things like education, social security, and a roster of normal, simple things that people who expect the government to do its job actually care about on a personal level. Trump has, at times, practically endorsed national health care, but lately I think it is “get rid of Obamacare and replace it with something that’s going to be so wonderful, you’ll love it, believe me.” I’d bet that half the TV audience had no idea who Sean Hannity is, and got to see this guy ranting, “Call Sean Hannity! Nobody wants to call Sean Hannity!” over an issue that is, at this point, not really all that interesting anyway.
But, yeah, it’s more than trying to depress your opponent’s turnout, but you have to turn out your voters with a real ground game – phone bankers, transportation providers… real boots on the ground. As it stands right now, there’s a serious question whether, come what may in the next weeks, the GOP party apparatus is going to be working for Trump. There are people who are viscerally revulsed by Trump, and people who think Clinton is the embodiment of Satan – all of them are going to vote, because they aren’t voting “for” a candidate in the first place. But, my goodness, Hillary has not gone after the GOP as a party as energetically as he has.
But it could be that Trump has decided that he’s going to churn out Alex Jones stuff (note how he called Clinton “the devil” during the town hall, about two days after Jones went on a “Clinton is the devil” rant, if you don’t keep tabs on that nut), and make sure he’s got enthusiastic voters, but a very narrow band.
Can’t anyone in the Trump camp sit down and say, “Hey, how could we do better with women voters?” beyond vague “oh, we’ll have maternity leave” (already mandated by law to the extent Congress could agree) and “I’ll be so good for women, you’ll love it, believe me.”
And if they think Hillary is doing better among women because she is a woman, that’s an error. Women, in that regard, are not as dumb as men. Mcain lost women in 2008 WITH a woman on the ticket.
It just so frequently seems that he’s TRYING to lose.
I don’t question the sincerity and resolve of his enthusiastic supporters and Hillary-haters, but I sure hope we have enough national wildlife refuges for them all to keep themselves busy in, on the remarkably small off-chance he doesn’t win…. or, oh, excuse me… I mean, if the election is rigged.
Its a shame that the Republicans could have chosen just about any available candidate but Trump and they would have won the election. Hilary was just that easy to beat. After all, every major liberal paper (NYT, WP and LAT) all openly hoped for someone else. Now it seems like it will take a WikiLeaks Hail Mary to pull this one out.
But todays News Journal article quoting Billy Carroll and Duke Brooks shows the depth of the problem in Sussex County and the country as a whole. There is an insistence on being right, even to the point of putting forward and supporting an unelectable candidate, that is self defeating. They would rather have no loaf as opposed to half a loaf. What they seem to miss is that politics is about the ability to influence the outcome, not control it, and to do that you need to have a seat at the legislative table, not Jimmy’s in Bridgeville.
Like Christine O’Donnell, Trump is going down in flames and will take others with him. The O’Donnell candidacy destroyed any hope to influence the national debate on Obamacare. As Hilary starts to name Supreme Court justices Trump’s candidacy will have done the same. Carroll and Brooks and their ilk elsewhere should hang their heads in shame. We will live with their obstinence for decades.
“The fact is that any candidate that the GOP puts out is demonized in the same fashion…. Hell, John McCain was a right wing mean spirited racist , homophobe, islamophobe, adulterer who was too old and sick to be president….It’s just standard procedure, and with pretty much all forms of media, all of the time to back them up, it’s not a hard task.”
none of the past candidates have run against hillary. she was easily beatable.
You sure about that? Those words were said when she ran for senate. Both times. Once Hillary wins, or is appointed Secretary of State, her approval numbers soar. (Same with Elizabeth Warren, btw.)
And the idea that the GOP primary candidates could beat Hillary when they couldn’t put away Trump is laughable. The problems facing the GOP are the GOP’s alone. It’s past time to look in a mirror… and see the real problem. The main problem facing Republicans is themselves. Blaming others, or participating in an “if only” game won’t solve it. The GOP is woefully out of touch with the American citizens. That’s the problem.
Trump has laid waste to the “family values matter” crowd. He is the Republican Party. The first step in changing that is acknowledging it… and him.
And despite what you may think (or what Rick or FBH make up) I think our country is stronger with two viable – sane – parties. Republicans need to get their act together. If they don’t, they’ll go the way of the Whigs. Your guys call.
Vampires have no reflection..
Here is what hard data tells us. This is from across the nation, so you can assume there are pockets that differ…
17% of possible voters will vote For Trump
17% of voters will probably vote Republican if they sure he won’t win.
43% of voters are Democratic and can probably be counted on not to vote for Trump.
23% of voters are Independent and make up their minds one month before the election.
Not accounting for the two fringe candidates, one can see that to win, all Republicans plus almost half of the independents need to vote for Trump.
This is why Trump’s attempt to double down and appeal only to his core of 17% dooms his campaign a failure. No one sane thinks he’s running for President anymore. He is running to have a rabid following of 34 (17% of 200 million) million people continue to buy his stuff and/or follow him after the election…
“It’s just standard procedure, and with pretty much all forms of media, all of the time to back them up, it’s not a hard task.”
Then why didn’t it work when W was elected twice?
I mean, come on, the score so far this century is Dem 2 / GOP 2, when it comes to presidential elections.
And I don’t recall any serious suggestions in the major media that John McCain was racist, islamophobic, and certainly not sexist. He shut down that crazy lady going off about “he’s an Arab”, and conducted himself with dignity throughout his campaign.
McCain had an uphill battle of sorts from the start, but he really wanted to be running against Hillary anyway. Where he shot himself in the foot was by deciding that Sarah Palin was the best qualified person to replace him. Palin was the one who got the ball rolling on motivating elements of the base which are now eating the GOP alive.
But the alt right is very fickle. I mean, have the “9/12 Patriots” – the mousekeeter club of the Glenn Beck show – disowned him now or what? The nascent Tea Partiers came out in an impressive bunch to his rally in DC. What’s gone wrong with him? Has he gone all “Lonesome Rhodes”?
And, by the way, whatever your political persuasion – if you have not seen Andy Griffith’s debut role in the 1957 film “A Face in the Crowd”, please do. It’s a great film and really shows a broader swath of Andy Griffith’s talent than you would pick up from the TV series.
But that’s always the way this sort of populism runs its course. It never ends well.
I guess what surprises me is that people who seem to otherwise have a lot of common sense don’t recognize this sort of thing when it is staring them in the face. As far as qualifications to hold any sort of elected office, you cannot make any comparison between John McCain and Donald Trump. McCain has a lifetime of service to this country, and while I certainly don’t always agree with his political positions, he was unquestionably qualified to be president. Again, I may not have agreed with him, but I also knew that if he had won, then he could at least be trusted to (a) know how the government and that office works, and (b) not do insane stuff.
In what election have you ever heard a politician say that one of his top priorities would be to have his opponent locked up?
And I’m not talking about nutty zealous supporters, which each side always has in at least a minor extent – I’m talking about the candidate himself.
But the guys like John McCain who would shut down the “Crazy Hair Ladies” on these things are routinely viewed as RINO’s, for exercising basic decency. The signature moment of the successful promotion of Chris Coons to the Senate is that video of Crazy Eileen yelling at Mike Castle about her birth certificate.
But, honestly, you can’t just say “they did that to John Mccain” when they most certainly did not do that to John McCain, and you certainly cannot believe that in terms of manifest fitness for office and civil decency, that there is any comparison between McCain and Trump. I could be wrong, but in an effort to understand the thinking of others, do you really not see that McCain and Trump are dramatically leagues apart in terms of relevant experience, qualification, and psychological fitness? I’d really like to know.
Rick attributed words to Comey he never said. That matters.
Really? Let me bring you up to speed, in case you missed Comey’s testimony. Questions from Trey Gowdy….
OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
There. Several times Comey testified that Clinton lied. And that matters.
What also matters is that Pandora- and the rest of the hate-America left- incessantly defends a career, habitual liar with an almost incomprehensible record of “public service” ineptitude.
Actually when it comes to lying, Trump is first, followed by in order, Bachmann, Cruz, Gingrich, Palin and Santorium…. These are the biggest liars.
When it comes to honesty, Obama is first, Clinton second, Jeb Bush the third, Bernie Sanders the fourth, and Kasich the fifth…
There appears to be less respect for the truth the further right one goes. and more respect for truth the further left one goes…
Which many regulars here would attest to why Rick never says anything truthful… He’s to the right of even Trump….
If God has a hand in this race and is basing His decision on exhibiting Christian behavior, one being and including truthfulness, one can conclude within those parameters, He is pulling for Clinton. The Devil, of course, is trying very hard to make Mr. Trump carry him into office.
Don’t take my word for it. Read the New Testament.
(This was just too good to pass up coming off Rick’s diatribe about Hillary lying, and Trump always telling the truth..).
From last Sunday’s debate:
“You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?” Cooper asked.
Trump insisted that wasn’t the case. Cooper asked three times whether Trump denied that he had ever done such a thing. Finally, Trump replied, “No, I have not,” and quickly changed the subject.
Five women have come forward since then to say that Trump sexually assaulted them..
Nah ha lol
Less than a month to go until the election and woman who never reported anything to the authorities are coming fourth to declare that Trump sexually assaulted them.
I don’t think people are as stupid as the Democrat machine is counting on them being.
Kavips, mouse, Fish Bites,pandora et al.
I’m curious if you believe the claims that the overwhelming majority of the media is politically biased for the Democratic Party and it’s candidates.
Wait… for weeks you guys have been saying we need to believe accusers – and how they should never be personally attacked. Guess that bit of insincerity is over. Are you still wondering why you’re losing the women’s vote?
(And before you go “there” I have never defended Bill Clinton’s sleazy, awful behavior. Not once.)
No, in fact I believe the media is owned by people who aren’t democrats. The media shines the light on the sensational and at time on reality. Reality and science tend to trend liberal
“I’m curious if you believe the claims that the overwhelming majority of the media is politically biased for the Democratic Party and it’s candidates.”
“The media” is quite a collection. The #1 cable news network is Fox.
The media are primarily interested in whatever drives ratings. If you look at, say, the GOP primary, the media gave so much free air time to Trump that other GOP primary candidates could not get the same traction. I don’t think it was because they liked his “politics” – since he doesn’t have any principled opinions on anything. It seems to me like he was a “bright shiny object” that drove ratings.
I just love how Pandora, mouse and others come on here and blab. But, if you go onto DL, they cut you off, so you can’t post.
I’ve never been cut off in DL and I’ve said some unpopular things
Yea, if you go up against Jason, you’ll get tossed!
“I’ve never been cut off in DL and I’ve said some unpopular things” – mouse
mouse,
If they’ve never cut you off, you’re probably not trying hard enough.
I’ve had some stern talking to though
All kinds of liberals out there lol