A Pox On Both Their Houses

One constant consistently rings clear in this election cycle, whatever happens that appears newsworthy, nobody will a) take the high road, or b) will look good in the process. The latest example Trump vs. Khan cage match, a whole lot of nothing with both parties (and Clinton by proxy) ending up smelling like 3 day old fish.

First off a disclaimer, I watched none of DNC convention, like you really thought I would. The riots outside, the miles and miles of fencing to keep the animals away, the predominant barrier wall around the podium, the unruly agitators of the Bernie brigade, all made for fun reading after the fact. The only real interest I had would be to see if Hillary collapsed while walking up the 5 steps to the podium and what god awful couch like dead animal imitation pantsuit she would wear.

I read about the Khizr Khan speech, or course I smelled a rat. Knowing that Muslim deaths account for something like .02 percent of all military fatalities, it was crystal clear the angle those DNCer’s were going for, more nonsense about Trump’s anti-Muslim bigotry, yawn. Nice touch him waving his pocket Constitution around, too bad he does not believe a word of it, more on that in a bit. But this was clearly theater, and on a better more disciplined candidate, it would have been water off a duck’s back. But when you are Trump, anything can send you into anger induced twitter war.

The DNC threw out some junk, Trump bit on it, and they both suck for it.

Further review of this Khan guy revealed much;

Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation.

Not a big problem, many folks are beholding to the Clintons, deeply mired in their pay of play games. Naturally Khan likes his rice bowl, and does not want it messed with, which is exactly what would happen if Trump is to be believed with his stance on overhauling immigration standards. OK, so Khan is a Hillary cheerleader as well, nothing wrong with that. But that whole Constitution waiving thing, what was up with that? Turns out it was just a prop. According to him, the Constitution is for suckers;

“The Shari’ah-was completed during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed, in the Quran and Sunnah. This brings up an important fact which is generally overlooked, that the invariable and basic rules of Islamic Law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah (Quran and Sunnah), which are few and limited,” Khan continues to write. “All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.”

Oh, and this gem;

“to Muslims, the Quran being the very word of God, it is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation.”

Clearly a plant and a dupe, all this could have been ignored, dismissed for what it was, but nope, The Donald is not that smart. Never one to allow a perceived insult to go unpunished he has to marginalize their suffering and even go after the wife, will he ever learn?

This even reflects poorly on Manafort. Khan’s speech got huge reviews, Trump has handlers for this.In a matter of minutes a Lexus-Nexus search could have provided enough ammo to counter, that is what he is for, to keep his boss out of trouble. Is there a more impossible thankless job out there than trying to keep Trump out of trouble?

80 comments:

  1. richtaylor365 *

    Ah, reading problems again, Hal?

    Where did I say this guy was a Muslim Brotherhood operative?

    Put down the bottle.

    If you have a quibble with my links, by all means, expound on that, and prove them wrong. But don’t use some bullshit site (Snoopes, really?) to discount an assertion that I never made. Crap like this (I thought) was beneath you.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Hal_10000

    Oh no, you never said he was Muslim Brotherhood (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). You just said he wanted to replace the Constitution with Sharia Law based on a 30-year old article he wrote for law journal on how Sharia Law works in fundamentalist Islamic countries. And then slagged a reputable site when it pointed this out.

    I would say I thought crap like this was beneath you, but I’m increasingly seeing that it’s not.

    Thumb up 3

  3. richtaylor365 *

    Here is a helpful hint for you, instead of winking or nudging, how about you read what I friggin write, then comment on just that? Not only did I not say he was a Muslim Brotherhood operative (never heard of that rumor before but way to attribute me to that rumor) but I did not say he wanted to supplant The Constitution with Sharia Law. And instead of whining that my source is 30 years old, provide something more recent where he recanted. Did he say it or didn’t he? That is what you should be concerned about. Now if he had a come to Jesus moment and now thinks differently, by all means, share it with the class.

    And as far as me slagging Snopes, your go to Bible, some do not think it as sacrosanct like you;

    What is behind Snopes’ selfish motivation? A simple review of their “fact-checking” reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the “main-stream” media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.

    But you go on believing everything they say. Besides, this was false narrative to begin with since I never said anything about him being an operative. “Hands up, don’t shoot”  all over again with you. When in doubt, just make shit up.

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    But how is his holding up the US Constitution last week relevant to a 30 old article he wrote for law journal on how Sharia Law works in fundamentalist Islamic countries? How writing that piece mean that he doesn’t believe a word of the US Constitution, and considers that it’s just for suckers?

    He used to work at the law firm Hthat has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States for years? What is that meant to imply?

    Even if Snopes.com does pick on the right-wing more than the left, how does that mean it’s inaccurate in what it actually says in a specific case?

    More and more you seem to be relying on partisan junk sites to get your opinions.

    Thumb up 2

  5. Hal_10000

    I did not say he wanted to supplant The Constitution with Sharia Law. 

    What you said:

    But that whole Constitution waiving thing, what was up with that? Turns out it was just a prop. According to him, the Constitution is for suckers;

    Yeah, I’m totally putting words in your mouth.

    Thumb up 2

  6. Hal_10000

    The one thing I will say: I am getting more uncomfortable with the media openly taking sides in this. It’s one thing for people to be angered the latest Trumpism or for the Democrats to denounce whatever lunacy Trump has said lately. But you now have the media openly going after Trump, writing multiple pieces a day about how wrong his latest utterance is.  I’d prefer they avoid that kind of editorializing.

    Thumb up 1

  7. richtaylor365 *

    Yeah, I’m totally putting words in your mouth.

    That, and you just aren’t listening [intentionally?]

    In the U.S. there is only one document that is preeminent, only one document that we give our allegiance, only one document that is our go to for all things legal.

    Khan thinks differently. Even though he is an American citizen he believes (as his writings attest) that the only preeminent document and the absolute authority for all things legal is the Quran, all other documents was subservient, he said so himself. He was an American citizen when he said these things, so yes, he does not believe in The Constitution and waiving it around on stage was just theater because to him it is just a piece of paper, not any real authority on anything.

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  8. richtaylor365 *

    I would say I thought crap like this was beneath you, but I’m increasingly seeing that it’s not.

    But here is the difference (so tedious that I have to explain the obvious to you) here you are just making shit up. Nowhere did I say he was some operative and nowhere did I say he wants to supplant The Constitution for Sharia Law, you made it up. Yes, he does place his allegiance in the Quran and not The Constitution, but I did not say anywhere that he wants to do away with The Constitution altogether and replace it with Sharia here in America.

    I expect that kind of nonsense from your thumbs up butt buddy, but you I always held to a higher standard, my bad.

    Thumb up 0

  9. repmom

    Clearly a plant and a dupe, all this could have been ignored, dismissed for what it was, but nope, The Donald is not that smart. Never one to allow a perceived insult to go unpunished he has to marginalize their suffering and even go after the wife, will he ever learn?

    No, he will never learn, because he’s an idiot who can’t keep his mouth shut, no matter what, and anyone who thinks he will is an even bigger idiot.

    Thumb up 1

  10. Iconoclast

    Trump is an idiot, and electing him is playing Russian Roulette, but electing Hillary is playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded revolver.

    Thumb up 2

  11. blameme

    Hal – you’re really getting pedantic with Rich after the whole “he wants Russia to hack the DNC, but it was more off the cuff remark” half ass comment the other day?

    I mean, really?

    Thumb up 0

  12. AlexInCT

    First off, let me point out that I feel sorry for the dead soldier. I want to remind people that he didn’t die representing Islam, but fighting the virulent disease it has become in US uniform. The media and the left keep misrepresenting a valid concern: that many of us now see that the people that promised to fundamentally change America are not vetting whom they are letting in, and that there will be consequences from that action. Immigration to this country has broken down. The people trying to do it legally are basically told to fuck off, while a slew of law breakers, a good number of them criminals, and a bunch of people fleeing the evil of Islam – not because they see the evil, but more likely than not because they happen to be on the losing side – are given carte blanch by those that think this shift will cement their hold on power and allow them to push an agenda that will override even more of our freedoms (but especially the second amendment which they despise).

    What I find despicable in this whole affair with this family being used by democrats for political gain is how the media is giving them air time, while ignoring the families of the people Hillary killed in Benghazi. Yes, I said Hillary killed them. It was her decisions, her mission to sell ISIS arms in Libya, her connections that were making money from the move to get rid of Qaddafi, and her complicity with this administration to hide the fact they let this go down by throwing a movie maker in jail.

    Trump is an idiot and a buffoon. Clinton is a fucking criminal and evil person that makes most movie villains look tame. And yet, there are assholes here making like Trump is a far bigger problem than Clinton. In CM’s case it is obvious that he is a tribal ideologue, and in an attempt to pretend he actually has something to contribute other than he wants to keep the collectivists in charge, has put up this Kabuki show about how dangerous Trump is while saying he isn’t in the bag for the criminal. What is your excuse Hal?

    Again, I think Trump is not really qualified to be president and an asshole, but anyone pretending Hillary is a better choice, by default or otherwise, is a fucking idiot or believes the rest of us are and they can sell us a real dangerous pathological liar with both anger management and mental issues, because she would be what? Less prone to outdo Obama in the use of government to pursue her personal enemies? Less likely to use the office to enrich her self, and not bat an eye that she has put others at risk, or even caused their death, doing that? That she has not already have a track record of selling people and thjs country down the shitter for personal profit? That she wouldn’t piss all over the constitution (name me one out of the first 5 amendments you think she wouldn’t trample all over)? Maybe your concern is that Hillary is far better at controlling what she says and her emotions, so she is less prone to doing rash and dangerous things? I guess if she can avoid giving an interview for this long, she should just keep doing more of the same while she is in office, and use the laws around espionage against anyone that dares to rock her mellow.

    Sorry but if you have a problem with Trump, like you should, but not a bigger problem with Hillary, and an understanding that the only uniform this vampire is qualified to wear is an orange or pin striped suit, you are a fucking moron or a lying scumbag. Who the fuck would accept the defense that she was not a criminal, but an incompetent boob, as qualifications to make her better than Trump, for all his faults, anyway?

    Thumb up 0

  13. Hal_10000

    Again, I think Trump is not really qualified to be president and an asshole, but anyone pretending Hillary is a better choice, by default or otherwise, is a fucking idiot or believes the rest of us are and they can sell us a real dangerous pathological liar with both anger management and mental issues, because she would be what?

    I intend to vote for Johnson but, to spoil my possible series on why to vote/not vote for the candidates (assuming I find time for it), here you go:

    Everything you say about Clinton is true. She’s a corrupt, power-hungry leftist who could do immense damage to the country, especially if she has a Democratic Congress.  She is on the verge of achieving her lifetime ambition and will no doubt use her power to go after all those she thinks have “wronged” her over the years. The thought of hearing her voice for 4-8 years is enough to make one hope the Independence Day aliens arrive.

    But … Trump is increasingly acting like a lunatic, a dangerously unstable narcissist who has no loyalty to anyone, no principles beyond self-aggrandizement and no inkling of how our Constitution works or any notion to learn. This incident is a perfect illustration of Trump’s problem. He can not let things go. He can not let anyone have the last word. He can not empathize with anyone who is not him. He has to believe that anyone who slights him is a vile enemy and must be destroyed.  Look at how Bush responded to the Code Pink jackasses and contrast it. Bush made it clear he thought they were wrong, but he was also sympathetic, even to a certifiable loon like Sheehan. What’s going to happen when his runaway mouth is guiding foreign policy?

    The best case scenario is that he finds his power constrained and gives up after six months, letting Pence run the country.  The worst is that he just decides to do shit anyway and Congress and the Courts are too feckless to stop him.  That’s called dictatorship.  And God knows what he could do.

    Hillary would certainly bungle the War on Terror. Trump might start World War III by accident. Hillary would be bad for the economy.  Trump might completely wreck it. A Clinton II Admin will be rife with corruption; Trump IS corruption.

    Policy-wise, there really is little difference. Trump won’t reform entitlements, is in favor of raising the minimum wage and is against free trade. He’s in favor of more bank regulation and universal healthcare and more wars. He’s against free speech. Name me an issue where he’s better?  Immigration?  We’ll never see a brick of that wall. The only real argument is SCOTUS but that assumes Trump appoints conservative justices, which is by no means guaranteed.

    The best case scenario in this election is that Johnson wins. But that’s not going to happen.  The least bad alternative may be Clinton with a GOP Congress watching her every move. Actually, no.  The least bad alternative may be Clinton wins and then gets impeached when it’s discovered that she put her liberal buddy Trump up to this. And then the GOP keeps an eye on Kaine.

    I have despised Hillary Clinton for 25 years. But in Trump we are seeing someone possibly even more dangerous and unstable. I will not vote for her. But I can understand those who would.

    Thumb up 4

  14. Hal_10000

    (Cue comments from the usual suspects about how that comment means I’m “secretly” going to vote for Hillary as if I give a shit about concealing my electoral intentions.)

    Thumb up 3

  15. RonK

    The least bad alternative may be Clinton wins and then gets impeached when it’s discovered that she put her liberal buddy Trump up to this. And then the GOP keeps an eye on Kaine.

    do you actually think this will happen, it would be the same as Il Duce, no one wanted to impeach him given all that was done, now on the other hand, if Trump were president and he did what the current prez did no one would think twice about impeaching him

    Thumb up 0

  16. Hal_10000

    do you actually think this will happen,

    No, not really. Hillary could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and the media would still insist it was the Paul Ryan’s fault.

    Thumb up 1

  17. richtaylor365 *

     But in Trump we are seeing someone possibly even more dangerous and unstable

    Normally I would not bother even trying to defend Trump, but your totally dishonest Snopes stunt got me in a feisty mood.

    Trump is not insane or a lunatic, and many of the negatives you placed on him, narcissistic, petty, an inclination to speak before engaging brain, vindictive, our current president has all those in spades.

    Trump is not going to start WW3, he was the most vocal opponent of military adventurism during the debates, remember what he thought about the Iraq war?

    He is not going to start a trade war, he understands that the Chinese need us more than we need them. And wouldn’t be nice to finally have someone looking out for our interests and not donors who gave the most money to our corrupt foundation?

    I can think of many areas where Trump would be much better. First off, he would not bow down to your folk heroes over at BLM (incidentally, you see their latest demands? Marx would be proud).

    He would be a lot more circumspect re: unvetted refugees (with a sprinkling of radical jihadism mixed in) flooding our shores.

    He would not be susceptible to Russian blackmail, they have not hacked into his ramshackle bathroom server as yet. Hillary would be all kinds of vulnerable.

    He would clean up Washington, and would prosecute Hillary with a passion. He would certainly make government officials accountable for  any negligence or corruption. You think Lerner or Koskinen would still be around in a Trump presidency? Firing folks, he is not shy about.

    The big one (not the biggest, that comes later) is SCOTUS appointees.How cool would it be to have Andrew Napolitano replacing Scalia? Trump has bandied about a few names of judges he has admired, all would be miles apart better than the lib crew we have now. Hillary would put up younger versions of Ginsburg. Civil liberties in the form of the 2nd Amendment, free speech, religious freedom, all in peril with a Hillary presidency. It is said that the next president will shape the court (SCOTUS and federal bench where 95% of the decisions are made) and our lives for the next 40 years.

    We would not have a criminal running the country, nuff said.

    But the biggest reason for my money would be to irritate and constipate the progressives, the media, and Hollywood. He drives them nuts, a feather in his cap in my book.

    To have a real populist president, not bought and paid for by lobbyists and donors, a guy that Putin and Xi Jinping would not want to cross, a guy that really would put America first and is not some stary eyed adherent to the new world order, that understands American exceptionalism, a guy that is not in the pocket of Wall Street. Yeah, I can dream.

    Now before you go off half cocked, like you have been doing lately, this is not a Trump endorsement, just a counter to your post.

     

    Thumb up 4

  18. repmom

    Good, well-thought out comments, Hal, addressing the possible case scenarios of both Trump and Clinton presidencies.

    It’s a shitty election year, with shitty choices either way, no denying that. It makes me sick at my stomach.

    We all have our opinions, our concerns. Doesn’t make one right, and the other wrong, no matter how much Alex insists he’s the only one that is right and the rest of us are morons.

    Thumb up 2

  19. AlexInCT

    Everything you say about Clinton is true. She’s a corrupt, power-hungry leftist who could do immense damage to the country, especially if she has a Democratic Congress.

    I disagree. There is no could. She already has and you just don’t hear enough about it, and if she is elected it will be even worse. And she doesn’t need a democrat controlled congress to do this: all she needs is more establishment republicans to help her like they did Obama while posturing. She is so incompetent and nasty that her campaign has actually consisted of avoiding the press. You claim Trump acts like a lunatic, but all I hear and wee when you say that is that you have a conclusion you want validated and are looking for excuses to claim it is so. The reason you don’t see this is obvious to me. You might delude yourself otherwise, but you are no libertarian, your claim to be voting for Johnson, notwithstanding.

    Thumb up 0

  20. AlexInCT

    We all have our opinions, our concerns. Doesn’t make one right, and the other wrong, no matter how much Alex insists he’s the only one that is right and the rest of us are morons.

    You can have your opinions, but in my experience most of them are like assholes: they stink, and in this case I am right. Hal’s scenarios fall under that category to me because they are plain bullshit that people with built in bias already want to believe.

    Trump is crass. He cares little for political correctness or for kowtowing to a corrupt establishment. I have heard people say he is unqualified for office even. Whatever ill you see in Trump the fact is that Hillary is worse. By orders of magnitude. She can’t tell the truth when that helps her. She is a vindictive and stupid person. She is incompetent and the worse example that you can pick from the establishment types.

    You are correct that it is a shitty election year, but there are consequences to voting, not voting, or casting protest votes. Anyone that pretends Hillary will not double down on the corruption and abuses of the Obama administration and brings a dangerous persona to the office, while complaining that Trump is a wild card, is a moron. Wait until Clinton is elected and goes off the reservation. If it wasn’t that I would also have to suffer from that disaster I would actually welcome her presidency with glee so I could smack the idiots that made excuses for her with the “I told you so”.

    Thumb up 0

  21. ilovecress

    Aside from the man himself – What about the mistakes the Trump campaign is making – doesn’t that worry you? I mean the rookie mistakes that his campaign is making? Whatever you think about the Khan thing, the fact that he did it helps Hillary and has absolutely no upside for him. He got Hillary’s running mate wrong. The Purple Heart thing from today – not a big deal, but shouldn’t someone be making sure that stuff doesn’t happen? The convention had a negative effect. He didn’t campaign after the convention…

    In terms of simple campaigning, Trump seems to be doing his best to ensure the Hillary nightmare you’re afraid of…

    Thumb up 1

  22. blameme

    My concern about his campaign pales in comparison about my concern that Hillary asked, and actually got the state department to agree, to turn off spam filtering so her emails from her personal server would go through.

    How is a poor campaign even comparable to someone who feels that security of classified information is such a low priority?

    Thumb up 0

  23. Hal_10000

    It’s not just a poor campaign or political incorrectness (although those show a lack of organizational skill and an inability to work with others). And riling the establishment means little to me.  Trump has shown an ignorance of even basic Constitutional issues. He’s cozying up to Putin, giving away the Ukraine, ceding all the liberal economic issues and threatening a trade war. He’s not going to stand up to special interests; he IS a special interest, a man who has spent his entire life benefiting from corporate subsidies, tax loopholes and eminent domain and specifically said he thinks those things are “wonderful”. He would reverse what little progress we’ve made on criminal justice issues. He wants to make it easier for rich shitheels like him to sue critics into oblivion. The idea that he would “stand up to special interests” or “prosecute” his friend Hillary is laughable.

    This isn’t someone fighting the establishment. This is two parts of the establishment fighting each other.

    Really, the only point in Trump’s favor that seems born out by his campaign is that he would piss a lot of liberals off.  I’m sorry, “pissing liberals off” is not a priority with me.  And it pales in comparison to the other stuff. I don’t want someone who’s just going to give a middle finger to whatever group I don’t like. I want someone who can actually get shit done. Reagan got shit done. Eisenhower got shit done. Obama, even though I don’t like what he did, got shit done. Johnson and Weld can get shit done. Trump couldn’t even run a casino without going bankrupt. He can’t run a campaign without pissing half the country off and bungling the ground game. Running government isn’t like running a business. There are rules and constraints and an opposition party and co-equal branches of government. You have to work within those confines. Trump has shown that he can’t.

    Thumb up 4

  24. Iconoclast

     I want someone who can actually get shit done. Reagan got shit done. Eisenhower got shit done. Obama, even though I don’t like what he did, got shit done.

    I’m sure Hillary would “get shit done”.   Sometimes, “getting shit done” should be seen as a thing to be avoided.

    Now you can go where people are oneNow you can go where THEY GET THINGS DONEWhat you need, my son:. Is a holiday in CambodiaWhere people dress in blackA holiday in CambodiaWhere you’ll kiss ass or crack 

    Thumb up 0

  25. Hal_10000

    I’m sure Hillary would “get shit done”.   Sometimes, “getting shit done” should be seen as a thing to be avoided.

    This is why we need a Republican Congress.  The most important electoral fight this year is to keep the Republicans in control of Congress. I shudder to think of what Clinton OR Trump would do with a Democratic Congress.

    Thumb up 2

  26. blameme

    Another point that tends to get me riled up – the GOP is looked to as looney for getting Trump the nomination (most people had to vote for him in the primaries for this to happen – so like it or not, most of the GOP wants him) – but look at what the other side offered….

    A committed socialist and a career criminal. Both parties are looney. And don’t get me started on the libertarian party. GJ is a nut just like the rest.

    The electorate in this country has lost hope I believe. One side wants to burn everything to the ground (GOP) and the other side does too (“change America” etc).

    There are no Reagans, JFKs etc. None. If there were I highly doubt either side would really consider them.

    But neither party has a monopoly on lunacy. To paint the GOP as this nutso group when the other side consistently looks over criminal issues as if they don’t exist is hypocritical at best.

    Sorry that I am rambling – but this election sucks. I’d actually vote for a decent democrat with a GOP House and Senate. But there isn’t a decent democrat.

    Thumb up 0

  27. richtaylor365 *

     Trump has shown an ignorance of even basic Constitutional issues.

    As opposed to that pretend Constitutional scholar who now sits in the WH and abuses The Constitution at every chance with his executive order overreaches. You think any of this is lost on Hillary? Trump will get an education real fast on what he can and can not do as president once in office. All megalomaniacs are not created equal, whether he will, like Obama, go full on dictator remains to be scene.

     He’s not going to stand up to special interests; he IS a special interest

    Nice sound bite, but there is no  evidence to support that.You may be right but instead of assuming what he will do, how about giving him the chance first to prove you wrong.

     He would reverse what little progress we’ve made on criminal justice issues

    Where is your evidence of that? If you are saying that his refusal to bow down to those clowns at BLM is evidence that he is against criminal justice reform, I would say try again.

    The idea that he would “stand up to special interests” or “prosecute” his friend Hillary is laughable

    Not so laughable as you think. Assuming he is not in collusion with Hillary to throw the election her way (a possibility, to be sure) why would you think he is not vindictive enough to go after her? Past history has shown us he is not one to let old wounds die, and he certainly has the law on his side.

    Really, the only point in Trump’s favor that seems born out by his campaign is that he would piss a lot of liberals off

    Really, I gave you half a dozen reasons, so this is the one you want to hang your hat on?

     I don’t want someone who’s just going to give a middle finger to whatever group I don’t like

    It’s not “just”, actions will go with that middle finger, but it is icing on the cake.

    I want someone who can actually get shit done.

    As Icon pointed out, getting the wrong things done is not constructive, and am impediment to real progress.

     He can’t run a campaign without pissing half the country off

    Hillary is doing just that, hasn’t slowed her down.

     Running government isn’t like running a business.

    Of course, and Trump will learn this, as I mentioned in an earlier post. He will find out fast that all those promises he made need congressional backing.

    There are rules and constraints and an opposition party and co-equal branches of government. You have to work within those confines. 

    And when is Obama going to figure out these constraints and confines? 7 1/2 years in and these are still a mystery to him.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  28. Hal_10000

    Of course, and Trump will learn this, as I mentioned in an earlier post. He will find out fast that all those promises he made need congressional backing.

    Expecting Trump to learn this after he’s elected is like expecting your bum of a husband to get a job once the children are born. He’s had over a year to learn even the basics.

    Somewhere, in an alternative dimension, the Republican front-runner is polling ahead of Clinton by twenty points.

    Thumb up 3

  29. CM

    Not so laughable as you think. Assuming he is not in collusion with Hillary to throw the election her way (a possibility, to be sure) why would you think he is not vindictive enough to go after her? Past history has shown us he is not one to let old wounds die, and he certainly has the law on his side.

    Also, jailing political opponents is on the first page of the dictator playbook. Which is why Dubya is in jail.

    Thumb up 0

  30. AlexInCT

    Also, jailing political opponents is on the first page of the dictator playbook. Which is why Dubya is in jail.

    WTF are you babbling about? Lay off the stupid, man.

    Thumb up 0

  31. AlexInCT

    Aside from the man himself – What about the mistakes the Trump campaign is making – doesn’t that worry you? I mean the rookie mistakes that his campaign is making?

    What mistakes? Telling me there are 57 states? Telling people that if Trump had a son he would be Trayvon Martin? Not being coherent even with a teleprompter? Ruining the Middle East? Losing both Iraq and Afghanistan, after all that blood and money? Maybe you are talking about the horrible economic situation the world finds itself in? Or is it about the failed immigration situation? Obamacare? Benghazi? The Russian reset? The Iranian nuke? A SecState that broke the most basic of security protocols and laws because they had a private server, in a bathroom closet, so they could try and hide the illegal crap they were doing for a criminal organization masquerading as a non-profit getting hacked? The great division we have now as special interest tribe after tribe tear down society?

    That sort of mistakes ilovecress?

    I am sorry, but whatever you can find wrong with Trump, and believe me there is a lot, I can show you the current resident of 1600 Penn Ave or the one that wants to move in after him, based on the argument that since she needs to sit down to pee she now deserves it, having done, and likely doing much, much worse. So, you will have to forgive me for not taking the people that seem to be doing all this hand wringing about the deficiencies Trump supposedly has seriously, when the current rep and the future rep of the democrat party have already done much worse.

    I was not kidding when I made the point that I firmly believe Charles Manson would be less destructive and dangerous than Hillary, and thus, more likely to get my vote. The facts back me up, but the Trump is bad people seem to not be able to deal with the real facts, and are obsessed with their pretend ones and the made up crisis created by the virtue signaling crowd.

    Do I wish I had a choice other than Trump? Abso-freaking-lutely. But I disqualify Hillary first on her track record and that of her predecessor.

    Thumb up 0

  32. AlexInCT

    This is why we need a Republican Congress.  The most important electoral fight this year is to keep the Republicans in control of Congress.

    So they can rubber stamp President Hillary like they did Obama? Or do you actually think they would really be able to stop her when she does go off her rockers? You think they will override her SCOTUS picks that allows the credentialed elite members of the establishment to do away with the 2nd amendment except for their body guards?

    I think I see the problem: for some reason i can’t fathom you seem to still have faith in the utterly failed system and the disingenuous and corrupt establishment, while I have seen through the charade and want nothing but to see it torn down. he, you are a dreamer. No wonder you buy the giant shit sandwich sold by the left.

    Thumb up 0

  33. CM

    WTF are you babbling about?

    Obama is a dictator apparently, even though he refused to hold people to account re Iraq (despite pressure on him to do so). He chose not to. I don’t expect you to understand though.

    Thumb up 0

  34. CM

    What mistakes? Telling me there are 57 states? Telling people that if Trump had a son he would be Trayvon Martin? Not being coherent even with a teleprompter? Ruining the Middle East? Losing both Iraq and Afghanistan, after all that blood and money? 

    Says the guy that mocks people for making any sort of comparisons between Obama and the guy that went before him. Even though it was that guy who invaded Iraq FFS. You really are deranged.

    Thumb up 0

  35. AlexInCT

    Obama is a dictator apparently, even though he refused to hold people to account re Iraq (despite pressure on him to do so). He chose not to. I don’t expect you to understand though.

    The fact that you are an idiot doesn’t make it so. Obama didn’t hold anyone accountable for Iraq, because despite the rhetoric and pile of SJW bullshit, there was nothing to hold them accountable for. Even though he is a hyper partisan hack, and he and likely shares the same idiotic delusional and wrong views of reality of the laws and history as you do, he also knew that he couldn’t do something like that without throwing the democrats – whom were practically all for it before they suddenly were all against it – in jail as well. Who was he going to appeal to? The UN? They would also be complicit and in trouble, because of their chicanery and the fact that they shared the same intel everyone else shared that showed Iraq had WMDs (which I will not be surprised is why we are in Syria today). Besides, it will be Hillary that goes full Chavez/Castro/Stalin/Pol Pot if she gets the reigns of power.

    But keep beating up the dead Iraq horse, bro. It makes for great humor (at your expense). The fact remains that Obama is the president that abrogated the most power to the office and used government the most to go after his enemies.

    Thumb up 0

  36. AlexInCT

    Says the guy that mocks people for making any sort of comparisons between Obama and the guy that went before him. 

    What comparison? That Obama got us in more wars than Boosh? Or that Obama took anything you might have had a legitimate gripe with Boosh on – too much spending, the Patriot Act, the nanny state, the growth of the welfare state – and doubled down on that?

    No argument from me.

    Thumb up 0

  37. CM

    As I said, I don’t expect you to understand.

    What comparison?

    Any comparison that isn’t favourable to Bush gets mocked, but any comparison that is favourable is apparently automatically fine. And now you’re continuing the “hyper partisan” derangement when it comes to comparing Obama and Trump. Do you not realise how you fall into line 100% of the time, no matter how much gymnastics it takes and how much of a hypocrite you will appear to be?

    Again though, I don’t expect you to understand.

    Thumb up 0

  38. ilovecress

    Trump is not going to start WW3, he was the most vocal opponent of military adventurism during the debates, remember what he thought about the Iraq war?

    I think the worry isn’t that he’d randomly send troops into another country – more that a 2am tweet will start an international incident or that his thin skin will be unable to de-escalate a dangerous situation.

    He is not going to start a trade war,

    He absolutely is – it’s in his platform. (In his platform is deploying the military to the East and South China Seas as a ‘clear signal’) I guess the question is whether or not he’ll win. He’s admitted that US exports would be hit due to his plan, but claims as China has more to lose, so in the end would capitulate.

    He would be a lot more circumspect re: unvetted refugees

    He hasn’t said exactly how he’d do this. He says he’d decrease the number of low wage entrants, but I guess if you want to get into the country you just pretend you aren’t Muslim and have a high paying job? (A lot of his immigration platform focuses on economics – and I’m not sure why he’s not leading with that. When that discussion comes to the table, I think he’ll gain a whole lot more support, especially from the inner cities)

    He would not be susceptible to Russian blackmail

    Are you sure about that? The GOP position on Ukraine U-turned kinda quickly. Manafort has deep ties to Putin. Heaps of his (business) funding over the years has come from Russian sources.

    He would clean up Washington, and would prosecute Hillary with a passion. He would certainly make government officials accountable for  any negligence or corruption.

    Can’t find much stuff on this. He did say that he’d ‘look into’ prosecuting Clinton. And he’s said the words ‘clean up Washington’ but it’s not in his platform, and he’s not made any mention (that I can find) of specifically what he’d clean up or what he’d do. Most of his platform involves hiring more federal workers.

    Here’s the thing. I think that against Cruz or Rubio – or even Jeb, Hillary loses. Trump is the single biggest reason for voters to ignore the bad side of Hillary. By giving the Democrats someone to vote against, Hillary only has to run on not being Trump. In addition to that Trump is damaging the GOP down-ticket all over the place. Again, he could have not mentioned the Khan thing and it would be all over now. Instead he’s causing headaches all over the party simply because he made a silly mistake.

    Thumb up 3

  39. repmom

    Here’s the thing. I think that against Cruz or Rubio – or even Jeb, Hillary loses. Trump is the single biggest reason for voters to ignore the bad side of Hillary. By giving the Democrats someone to vote against, Hillary only has to run on not being Trump. In addition to that Trump is damaging the GOP down-ticket all over the place. Again, he could have not mentioned the Khan thing and it would be all over now. Instead he’s causing headaches all over the party simply because he made a silly mistake.

    Yep. Because he just can’t let “it” go, regardless of what “it” is. That is what makes him scary/dangerous.

     

    Thumb up 1

  40. AlexInCT

    I think the worry isn’t that he’d randomly send troops into another country – more that a 2am tweet will start an international incident or that his thin skin will be unable to de-escalate a dangerous situation.

    I am sorry Cress, but that you believe this from Trump, but are unaware that Hillary has a worse temper and holds grudges, or worse, know and don’t care, reflects badly on your argument.

    Trump is an asshole, but whatever bullshit the dnc operatives with bylines have projected upon him can be found already done by Obama or Clinton, and yet, nobody seem to care when they did it.

    Thumb up 0

  41. Hal_10000

    So they can rubber stamp President Hillary like they did Obama?

    This is a definition of rubber stamp with which I am not previously familiar. The GOP Congress blocked trillions in new spending, almost stopped Obamacare, did keep a public option out of it, got rid of the subsidies for it, blocked card check, blocked his tax hikes, blocked gun control, blocked an assault weapons ban, blocked cap-and-trade, blocked “free college”, blocked amnesty and kept the RFRA in place.

    Here’s one thing that’s grinding my gears right now.  The press is filled with anti-Trump stories right now.  Absolutely glutted.  But all of these, almost every single one, is stuff Trump opponents tried to raise during primary season. The press weren’t interested.  For example, they’re jumping all over Trump’s talk about how he might use nuclear weapons.  This is a very valid concern.  It’s such a valid concern conservatives were talking about it in DECEMBER.  Trump was called out on stage for not understanding the nuclear triad.  But no one in the media cared.  Now they do.  Funny that.

    Thumb up 2

  42. RonK

    Here’s the thing. I think that against Cruz or Rubio – or even Jeb, Hillary loses. Trump is the single biggest reason for voters to ignore the bad side of Hillary. By giving the Democrats someone to vote against, Hillary only has to run on not being Trump. In addition to that Trump is damaging the GOP down-ticket all over the place. Again, he could have not mentioned the Khan thing and it would be all over now. Instead he’s causing headaches all over the party simply because he made a silly mistake.

    it didn’t matter who the Reps nominated they would do the same thing, remember the 47% for Romney, it doesn’t have to factual, they just have to say it and repeat, repeat until it become the truth.  I think if you look they had already sent up trial balloon for Rubio, and Bush, I;m sure they wanted Cruz, it would have been the easiest to stop, not born in the US, would just be a matter of finding the right judge, just like the voter ID laws that conveniently got shot down, wonder how they will go after Indiana’s.

    Thumb up 0

  43. repmom

    Wasn’t all this expected, Hal? They wanted Trump, because he could be beat by Hillary. Others, including/especially Rubio, were more of a threat to her.

    And he just keeps giving them ammo, daily.

    Thumb up 0

  44. AlexInCT

    As I said, I don’t expect you to understand.

    Yeah, I have trouble accepting bullshit, but especially made up lefty bullshit, as facts. I guess that is why I don’t understand.

    Any comparison that isn’t favourable to Bush gets mocked, but any comparison that is favourable is apparently automatically fine. 

    Except that is only in your head. I have been harsh on Boosh myself, for the real shit he did. Repeatedly. You have conflated my having been forced to defend him when you and the other guy with a boner for him here have tried to spread bullshit talking points, with something else.

    Want to see me talk bad about Boosh? Bring up the expansion of the welfare system and the nanny state. Or bring up the fact that he was another  establishment stooge. We can even discuss the spending that went on during his presidency as long as we keep perspective of who did worse. What I will not let you get away with is rewriting history to suit a narrative. In particular around this nonsense that Boosh somehow unilateral invaded Iraq, for some secret but obviously nefarious reason only collectivist cunts like you know, while you ignore that Obama has done even more and worse, without even bothering to kow-tow to either the US congress or the international crime syndicate in NYC your kind worships. That despicable lie you leftist are desperate to spread, has somehow translated into me not allowing “unfavorable talk” to you.

    And now you’re continuing the “hyper partisan” derangement when it comes to comparing Obama and Trump.

    You mean every time I point out that whatever bullshit the anti-Trump crowd peddles as to why you think he would be a terrible president, I show you Obama has done it already, or something far worse? Sucks when facts get in the way of the narrative, right?

    Do you not realise how you fall into line 100% of the time, no matter how much gymnastics it takes and how much of a hypocrite you will appear to be?

    Except for the fact that this only happens in your head. I have repatedly pointed out both Boosh and Trump had issues. What pisses you off is that I am also dead right that Obama is far worse than either, and I am right that Hillary will make Obama look good. I have repeatedly asked you to point out to me what makes a lying, murdering, and despicable criminal like Hillary better qualified to be president, but you have avoided that topic like vampires avoid holy water, holy symbols, or sunlight.

    Thumb up 0

  45. richtaylor365 *

    I think the worry isn’t that he’d randomly send troops into another country – more that a 2am tweet will start an international incident or that his thin skin will be unable to de-escalate a dangerous situation.

    I will grant that his temperament is not conducive to “hugging it out”, but I think it is a pretty big leap to equate thin skin  with military intervention.

    He absolutely is – it’s in his platform. (In his platform is deploying the military to the East and South China Seas as a ‘clear signal’) 

    How does deploying the military to the South China sea start a trade war? Doesn’t a trade war have to have something to do with, I don’t know, trade?

    Besides, I am looking at his actual positions, the only mention is that he is willing to deploy the military appropriately when needed, talk  about wiggle room.

    He hasn’t said exactly how he’d do this

    As with most things that come out of his mouth, the details are always fuzzy. But what we do know is that he will not allow refugees from war torn nations to flood in with the kind of numbers that both Obama and Hillary want, its a start.

    Are you sure about that?

    Yeah, pretty sure. Trump’s business deals with Russia are minimal. But we are talking about blackmail, the kind that Hillary is very susceptible to since we know the Russians have hacked the DNC, the Clinton Foundation, and most probably Hillary’s State Dept. bathroom server. What we want to avoid is this from Putin ,” Madame President, lately I have developed an affinity for Latvian cheese and Estonian beer, I have decided to annex both. Not only will you not do anything, but you will steer those saber rattlers over at NATO to a more Obama like approach, you know, do nothing, lead from behind, do not enforce red lines, that kind of stuff. I am confident you will play ball since we have access to the paper trail of all of your foundation dealings, wouldn’t want those to get out, would we?”

    Can’t find much stuff on this.

    I was going for the “does not suffer fools easily” angle, meaning that if a government official gets caught pulling a Lois Lerner, he would be more apt to fire her. He has spoken about needless regulation, getting rid of some dead wood departments or throwing out some already mentioned legislation would go a long way towards cleaning up Washington.

    Hillary only has to run on not being Trump

    Which is what I have been saying all along and why millions of Republicans are so pissed at him. All the stars aligned, he finds himself running against an unpopular dishonest avaricious substandard candidate who would be nothing without the coattails of her husband, yet, he can’t manage to act presidential, just for a moment. And he is going to lose because of it.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  46. AlexInCT

    I will grant that his temperament is not conducive to “hugging it out”, but I think it is a pretty big leap to equate thin skin  with military intervention.

    Rich I have read numerous credible sources that have pointed out Hillary has a temper that would frighten the Olympic gods, throws shit and swings fists, and is about the most vindictive person you can think of. We have seen numerous examples of this (remember the WH travel agent scandal or her treatment of the evil skanks that she pretended had falsely accused Bill of being a rapist?). And yet, everyone assumes nothing bad will come from someone with a real track record of doing the very things (and some even worse) they claim are what makes Trump a problem, based on an orchestrated dnc operative with bylines campaign to make Trump the next Hitler to boot. It is people with a conclusion looking for something to validate it, reality and the fact that the other candidate has done worse, not intruding. It is why CM is now pissed and desperate to paint me as the one being partisan. I torpedoes the whole “what if” narrative by pointing out Clinton has already done worse, and after her recent victory against the People of the United States, is likely to feel she is invulnerable to the law or consequences.

    The other day we had people arguing that Trump was a buffoon for saying democrats could rig an election right as we were finding out she had rigged the democratic party candidate elections. This woman has sold out this country for private gain, and continues to do so. But because Trump isn’t beholden to PC bullshit and is crass about topics that deserve the crassness in the current PC bullshit climate, they want you to accept their belief that he is going to start WW3 or act like a petty cunt, as fact.

    Again: Trump is an asshole. A dick. But Obama and Clinton have done the very things they tell us Trump will do in the dark of the night, or worse, and Clinton will sure take it to new levels. And yet to them, the one disqualified is Trump. Yeah, right, they are arguing in good faith. Trump’s temperament is precisely what appeals to me me about him: he pisses off the globalist marxist machine, and that to me trumps (pun intended)) all the other shit. There is nothing that can trump the criminal behavior of Obama or Clinton except for the even more criminal behavior I expect from Clinton.

    Thumb up 0

  47. ilovecress

    How does deploying the military to the South China sea start a trade war? Doesn’t a trade war have to have something to do with, I don’t know, trade?

    That promise is point three of his trade plan (I also read his actual positions)

    3. Strengthen the U.S. military and deploying it appropriately in the East and South China Seas. These actions will discourage Chinese adventurism that imperils American interests in Asia and shows our strength as we begin renegotiating our trading relationship with China. A strong military presence will be a clear signal to China and other nations in Asia and around the world that America is back in the global leadership business.

    But what we do know is that he will not allow refugees from war torn nations to flood in with the kind of numbers that both Obama and Hillary want, its a start.

    No we don’t. Unless he can say how he’s going to do it, then he can’t do it. Or do you think that he’s being ‘fuzzy’ on the details to create suspense?

    On Russia

    “Dear GOP, lately I have developed an affinity for Ukrainian things, and I would like you to publicly declare that if I were to annex it, then you won’t do anything. I know that now you pledge support to Ukraine, I’d like you to reverse that position.”

    Sounds like Putin has something on someone….

    Thumb up 1

  48. richtaylor365 *

    That promise is point three of his trade plan

     

    But again, trade wars involve things like tariffs, import restrictions, things like that, not bullets and shit getting blown up, that was what we were talking about.

     

    No we don’t.

     

    I guess you don’t know how things work re: refugee immigration, do you?

    U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, who is bracing for an election rematch with Democratic challenger Russ Feingold, was asked at a public forum how concerned he is about the government’s plans to accept 10,000 refugees from Syria — a move that stoked fears about terrorism in the U.S.

     

    In his response, the Wisconsin Republican made a claim that suggests President Barack Obama has unilateral powers when it comes to resettlement.

     

    “President Obama has the legal authority to let in really however many refugees he wants, from whatever country,” Johnson said Feb. 5, 2016 at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee. “That’s his legal authority.”

    By law, the president sets the framework for accepting refugees — setting an annual ceiling on the number and setting priorities on which countries are included.

    So there you have it. Obama and Hillary wants 10.000 Syrian refugees to be allowed to immigrate, Trump is pretty clear on his aversion for such policies.

    On Russia

     

     But you left out the most salient point, we know Russia has dirt on Hillary due to their hacking, no such claim can be made for Trump, so your example of them plying leverage against Trump is worthless.

    Thumb up 1

  49. Iconoclast

    I think Trump might actually be deliberately tanking this now. No way he wants to actually get the job.

    Hmm…..    We keep hearing day after day, week after week, month after month, how much of an egotist Trump is.  It’s pretty much all we hear about, and now we are to believe that he wants to go down in History as the guy who lost to Hillary?   We are to believe that he wants to go down in History as a Loser?

    And he just keeps giving them ammo, daily.

    And this is something else we’ve been told day after day, week after week, month after month, and yet he secured the nomination, knocking out 14 seasoned political veterans in the process.

    As the late Yogi Berra once said, it ain’t over ’til it’s over.

     

    Thumb up 1

  50. RonK

    I think Trump might actually be deliberately tanking this now. No way he wants to actually get the job.

    he was never meant to win the election in the first place, he is the ultimate Christine O’Donnell candidate no chance of winning.  I plan on voting for him just, hopefully he will win pretty much to see what he does then, will he serve?

    Thumb up 0

  51. RonK

    one more thing, any registered Republican that votes for Hillary because “she is the better candidate” needs to change their registering to the ‘know nothing’ party, better yet they need to check themselves into psych  ward they are very delusional.

    Thumb up 1

  52. AlexInCT

    The people that think Trump pointing out the ideocracy of political correctness and the dangers and problems the policies it advances has caused is going to be his undoing, only to end up disappointed time after time that it has not destroyed him, are in for a rude surprise, I suspect. In the face of an orchestrated campaign by the dnc operatives with bylines to cover for Clinton’s criminal activity, despicable behavior, and constant lying, and the media’s outright campaign to twist anything Trump says or does into something vile, this cabal has managed to have a lot of people that had otherwise tuned out to do a double take. Unfortunately for them, I think the strategy is backfiring, because the only people feigning disgust tend to be the establishment types and the people already willing to cast their vote for a criminal, lying skank. Others are wising up that this is all another rigged attempt to create a crisis, through lies, and reacting accordingly.

    I myself went from holding my nose and voting against Hillary, to actually thinking a Trump win will be good for the world as it drives a stake into the heart of the marxist-globalist cabal and their idiotic agenda. Something that should be seen as a boon by every person that is concerned by the erosion of our individual rights. Yes, even if Trump turns out to be a nanny stater to some degree or another, as I suspect will be the case, the end of the destructive PC bullshit movement, and the fact that he will never be able to reach the levels of tyrannical behavior that Obama has and Hillary will double down on, will be a boon for those of us concerned with the direction things have been taken in by the marxist-globalist cabal.

    Thumb up 0

  53. richtaylor365 *

    Cress, you might find this clip interesting in that it speaks directly to the relationships between Hillary, Putin, and Trump. I found this today, and it bolsters what I said in past comments about the dangers of blackmail in a Hillary presidency, and the nonsense today about Trump being somehow vulnerable to Putin demands.

    Thumb up 0

  54. CM

    Hmm…..    We keep hearing day after day, week after week, month after month, how much of an egotist Trump is.  It’s pretty much all we hear about, and now we are to believe that he wants to go down in History as the guy who lost to Hillary?   We are to believe that he wants to go down in History as a Loser?

    He’s far too much of a narcissist to think of it like that (the system is rigged remember etc etc). He’ll use it to pivot into new business ventures, go on the speaking circuit, write garbage books etc. He’s created a huge market for himself through this process.

    Thumb up 0

  55. ilovecress

    It’s almost like if Trump could have kept his mouth shut then it wouldn’t have been such a news story.

    In a normal campaign, this shit is planned. I’ve had that job, of being in charge of what a politician says or doesn’t say, and how they say it. The Khan speech was great TV, and great narrative – and I would bet my bottom dollar, put up on the stage specifically to goad trump into reacting. Trump (or his advisors) should have seen that coming a mile away.

    Especially because they set the exact same trap for Hillary 7 days earlier, and Hillary didn’t get sucked into it. She dodged the question as pretty much any politician would.

    ps – Rich thanks for the vid – I’ll watch it later.

    Thumb up 1

  56. Hal_10000

    Good point Cress.  Another good counterpoint, as I mentioned above, was Bush’s reaction to Cindy Sheehan, where he expressed his sadness for her loss, said he took her objections to the war seriously and refused to criticize her.

    Thumb up 2

  57. richtaylor365 *

    Let’s see, Cindy Sheehan, a grieving mother over the loss of her son, having no political background prior, blaming the man (Bush) who some could say was directly responsible for her son’s death.

    Now we have Kzir Khan, another parent grieving the loss of his son in combat, attacking a man who had nothing to do with that death, who was even against the very war that caused his son’s death, factor in Khan’s past political ties to the Clintons and that he earns his living providing visas for countries Trump wants to target to limit immigration, and we see that this entire attack was political. Given his feelings towards The Constitution, I suspect some DNC operative loaned him a copy for him to parade around on stage, it sure did look pristine and unused.

    So, no, the two situations are not at all similar.

     

    Thumb up 0

  58. AlexInCT

    It’s almost like if Trump could have kept his mouth shut then it wouldn’t have been such a news story.

    Really? The dnc operatives with bylines would have made some other shit up. Trump could say that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and the LSM would find some fault or hidden agenda there. Hillary is a hard core crook, a despicable liar that keeps lying, hides from the media, and yet, nothing.

    There is no planning for this. What we have is a fourth estate basically working for their candidate under the guise of doing news. And a lot of people seem unable to admit that bias exists, because it is reinforcing their own biases and helped them argue their dislike as if that wasn’t the case.

    Thumb up 0

  59. AlexInCT

    Good point Cress.  Another good counterpoint, as I mentioned above, was Bush’s reaction to Cindy Sheehan, where he expressed his sadness for her loss, said he took her objections to the war seriously and refused to criticize her.

    You mean like Clinton did with the mothers of the victims she killed in Benghazi?

    Thumb up 0

  60. ilovecress

    You mean like Clinton did with the mothers of the victims she killed in Benghazi?

    Yes exactly like how Hillary handled the mothers of the victims she killed in Benghazi. She didn’t take the bait.

    Thumb up 1

  61. AlexInCT

    Yes exactly like how Hillary handled the mothers of the victims she killed in Benghazi. She didn’t take the bait.

    Actually she lied about what she said, accused the woman that pointed out Hillary had lied to her about the culprit being a video, multiple times, including just recently, and yet, it was not news. But you can pretend Hillary took the high road and that is why she got a pass from the press, if it makes you feel safer about your choices Cress.

    The fact is that the media treats these 2 candidates very differently. I suspect that if they caught Hillary eating a baby they would try to ignore or hide it, and otherwise, make excuses for her. Trump on the other hand, like they did with Boosh, will always presented in the most negative light possible. That is by design. If there is nothing bad to say, they will make it up. From the start the agenda has been to cow whomever rn against Hillary into being a fucking pussy like McCain and Romney, which then lose because they never called out Obama for the scumbag he is.

    Thumb up 0

  62. ilovecress

    Dude, it’s not about taking the high road. It’s about not saying anything that leads to a headline. In media, it;s not what yo say it’s how you say it. Had Trump used the exact same words, the Khan thing wouldn’t have been a thing.

    I’ve worked on both sides of this – there is a huge amount of strategy and deal making on both sides of it. Which seems to be absent from the Trump side. If the media is giving Hillary an easier ride (which they are) it’s because they’re playing the media way better than the Republicans.

    Think of it like lobbying. When I worked in public affairs, it was my job to know the exact angle any journalist would take on anything my client said. It was to feed the press with angles that we wanted and to run interference if it wasn’t going our way. If a politician gets bad press, it’s completely because it was managed badly. If the media treats both sides differently, it’s not because ‘the media’ is a sentient being, or that there are morning meetings panning out how to rig the election. It’s because one side knows to get the story to the Journalist before the kids soccer game, or that Journalist A is after Journalist B’s job and will write favourably for a scoop.

     

    Thumb up 1

  63. richtaylor365 *

    Cress, I agree with everything said here, except;

     If the media is giving Hillary an easier ride (which they are) it’s because they’re playing the media way better than the Republicans.

    It is far easier to play an ally than an adversary. Knowing that the media will always back your play, will always have your back, will always put a happy face on everything you do, how hard is to “play” the media?

    It’s not like one side plays the game so much better, it’s that one side is allowed extra moves, is held to a different set of rules, and given extra help with the spot of the ball.

    Trump knows he will never get a fair shake with the press so he gives them the middle finger, a strategy that worked in the primaries. Now that we are in the general, does he need to modify his disdain for the press? No,  he needs to quit stepping on his dick.

    Thumb up 0

  64. ilovecress

    We’re kind of saying the same thing. Part of the media strategy is to turn the media into an ally, which the GOP haven’t been able to do. I guess the difference is that I don’t believe that any bias comes from a political strategy, rather a strategy to present as many stories for as many clicks, views or reads as possible.

    Thumb up 0

  65. AlexInCT

    We’re kind of saying the same thing. Part of the media strategy is to turn the media into an ally, 

    Can’t disagree with you more. I don’t refer to the media as dnc operatives with bylines for the fun of it. They are totally in the bag for the democrats. In fact, the only time they will ever treat a republican right is when he turns on another republican or helps a democrat. Otherwise they get fucked over period. Ask McCain, whom thought he had a good rapore with the media because they so loved him for constantly throwing other republicans under the bus, how much that helped him when they decided they wanted Obama to win.

    Republicans should consider the media hostile. That’s because it is. They are partisan hacks. They will always choose to help the democrat, no matter what. And they will make up shit to hurt a republican. You do remember that Dan Rather made up shit to hurt Boosh. They have no need to make up anything to get Hillary or Obama and make themselves legends for bringing down corrupt presidents/politicians. And yet, they keep covering for both.

    Trump, and for that matter every republican out there, is damned if they say something, and damned if they don’t. Trumps appeal is that he has basically told the democrats and the media to fuck off and refuses to play by their rules. I hope he doesn’t forget that the only thing that works and why he is where he is, is that he refused to play their game. He needs to keep calling them out for being crooks and hypocrites. Don’t play nice. Nice gets us president Hillary. If he tries to woo the media they will fuck him up anyway. The media is the enemy too. Trump is not just running against Hillary and the democratic party, but against the media. And if he loses sight of that he will be the one that will get fucked.

    And don’t look at any of these polls. I bet like the dnc race, they are rigged. Come the debates Hillary will fuck up royally, the media will try to protect her and accuse Trump of being a mean masochist for calling her a failure and a crook, more people will wise up, and she will end up sucking dick in November. That is, if they don’t steal that election for her too. And I expect if that happens the republican establishment will go right along with it, which is why I hope someone nukes DC. It will be the best thing that can happen to this country at this point.

    Thumb up 0

  66. ilovecress

    They are totally in the bag for the democrats

    Ok I’ll bite. Why? What is the root of the grand conspiracy that all the thousands of Journalists, TV shows, websites and radio shows have all decided, en-masse to support the democrats? And how do they pull it off? Is there a weekly meeting? And email distribution list? Facebook group?

    And don’t look at any of these polls. I bet like the dnc race, they are rigged

    Skewed, maybe?

    Thumb up 0

  67. AlexInCT

    Ok I’ll bite. Why? What is the root of the grand conspiracy that all the thousands of Journalists, TV shows, websites and radio shows have all decided, en-masse to support the democrats? 

    Wow, really Cress? You don’t see the double standard when they report stuff? Do you think a republican would have gotten away with what Obama has over the last 7 years? Do you think the media would have let a republican president sick the IRS on their political enemies and not crucified them, for example? Nixon was forced to resign for asking. Do you not see how any republican that had said the dumb shit Obama has would have been crucified (Palin and Trump for example), while they not only provided cover from Obama, but made excuses for why people calling this out are racist? Do you think a republican president would have gotten a pass when Snowden revealed that the intelligence agencies of the US where spending more time spying on Americans than the enemy? If Obama had been a republican, he would have been impeached by now.

    Also, do you think a republican would have gotten away with breaking the law like Hillary did with that server, or with whole sordid affair in the middle east, for personal profit off all reasons, that resulted in the death of people in Benghazi? What about the constant lying? A republican that claimed to have been shot at by snipers only to be caught lying would no longer have a career in politics. Neither would one that sold favors like the Clintons do. But the media can’t be bothered.

    I guess you may lack context because of where you are, but even when you do, it should be blatantly obvious that the media is in the bag for the democrats based on what stories are not told and how the ones that are told, are told. Those of us that get our news from alternative places see this clearly.

    Skewed, maybe?

    I wouldn’t be surprised they are made up whole cloth. These people are all about the ends justifying the means, and they don’t even bother to hide it anymore.

    Thumb up 0

  68. JimK

    Ok I’ll bite. Why? What is the root of the grand conspiracy that all the thousands of Journalists, TV shows, websites and radio shows have all decided, en-masse to support the democrats?

    It’s actually simple, and goes back about 50 years or more. Leftists went into teaching journalism, and simply passed on their beliefs to each successive generation of journalism students, and of course the students are at the exact right age to create lasting lifetime patterns of belief. It wasn’t a conspiracy, really. It was an abandonment of journalism (and  other things with social impact, like entertainment, etc.) by anyone with a right or conservative bent, while at the same time key influencers on the left pushed people with similar beliefs into the field. If right-leaners hadn’t bailed out of journalism and media starting in the 60s, and left-leaners hadn’t at the same time realized what a key tool media influence was…we wouldn’t be where we are.

    And how do they pull it off? Is there a weekly meeting? And email distribution list? Facebook group?

    I know you’re trying to be funny, but kind of, yes. Journolist was one of the groups that got caught. They literally colluded to decide the news, the tone and even how to describe people in the news. There’s a shitload of data out there about the shit they pulled. Google is your friend.

    So, yes. There are actually groups out there trying to craft reality to fit a political agenda. It literally happens every day, and they use the same means of communication as everyone else. It would not surprise me to learn that journalism conventions are a way to have actual IRL meetings, but who knows. We do know that there are groups of journalists that collude to push a left wing agenda. That isn’t an assumption. They got caught. If you think they stopped after getting caught, well…I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

    Thumb up 0

  69. AlexInCT

    We do know that there are groups of journalists that collude to push a left wing agenda. That isn’t an assumption. They got caught. If you think they stopped after getting caught, well…I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

    That’s the sad part of this all to me. You would figure this would discredit anyone that pretends to be unbiased when it blatantly is otherwise. Fox News had great success for a while because they admitted to having a right wing slant. ABC, NBC, See BS (CBS), the Clinton News Network (CNN), and especially PMS NBC which is so far out there it is a parody, all still want pretend that they are unbiased when it is blatantly obvious. They think their beliefs, far left beliefs, are centrist beliefs, and they are not, and thus, they see anyone that doesn’t think like them as crazy people. Unfortunately even Fox News has become just as bad as the rest of them, even if they claim to still have a right wing slant.

    The news cycle is coordinated and manipulated. These organizations, and practically everyone in what passes for the intelligentsia press – NYT, LAT, WaPo, AP, Time, and so on – all get their marching orders from from some special unit in the democrat party. They collude to present a unified front, which is why you never hear bad stories about the left en masse, but constantly have made up good ones, and of course bad ones for the other side, including those that have fallen out of favor with the left’s establishment. Ask Bernie Sanders if that is not the case.

    Thumb up 0

  70. Iconoclast

    Ok I’ll bite. Why? What is the root of the grand conspiracy that all the thousands of Journalists, TV shows, websites and radio shoAws have all decided, en-masse to support the democrats?

    I realize I am just sort of piling on at this point, but as JimK says, it isn’t a conspiracy, but simply a historical reality.   There is at least one book on the subject, written by a journalist.

    Bias, by Bernie Goldberg

     

    Thumb up 1

  71. ilovecress

    I got battered! :-)

    I’ve worked in and with the media for 15 years, (some in the US) with my job most often being to shape the news cycle to the advantage of my client (although I have worked for a couple of news organisations). Times were it would have been much easier to tap into the conspiracy! The only pressure I’ve ever felt were from a corporate angle (advertisers asking for angle changes and the such). The only time I ever had anything that came near to a conspiracy was actually getting an anti Bush/Blair story pulled (years ago).

    But I guess I prove your point – I’m a big ol Lib, and I work in and with the media. My point isn’t that something happens and the media report on it. It’s that there are huge teams of players on each side that work on strategies to get the best outcomes for both sides. If I can sell in a story that’s going to get more eyeballs than someone from the other side, then that’s what happens. It’s all about CPM.

    Even if I take it for read that the media is liberally biased, looking at the positioning that GOP candidates often take is a complete facepalm. Take the Trump/Khan thing. Even if the media is totally in the tank for Hillary – he didn’t have to give them more ammunition. The language he used can be seen as disrespectful, and he didn’t gain anything from saying it. He gave the media something more clickable and easier to get viewers heads round than the Hillary email Comey comments – so not only did he create a completely unavoidable media story for himself, he let Hillary out of the news cycle, which he’s constantly doing.

     

    Trump…. is damned if they say something, and damned if they don’t.

     

    He should try saying nothing – I think it would work out well for him. Stop giving the media something to talk about other than emails, DNC Hacks, Wall Street Speeches and bernie.

    Thumb up 1

  72. AlexInCT

    But I guess I prove your point – I’m a big ol Lib, and I work in and with the media. 

    Cress, your profession suffers from the same institutional bias as academia, where recent surveys and the actual contributions as well as voting patterns show 92% plus of the participants not only identify as liberals but are hard core liberals, the media suffers from the same blinders. In academia at least there are disciplines that simply are anathema to liberalism. They tend to be fields like accounting/economics (applied and less theoretical), the hard sciences, engineering, and medicine. Finding a liberal arts educator that isn’t a liberal is as hard as looking for the holy grail.

    Self selection in those professions have created a situation where the people there can’t even see the bias. I bet the majority of the people in either academia or the media don’t identify as hard core leftists, their bias and constant interaction with others that think like them or are even more hardcore leftists, leaves them thinking they are centrists or the norm. But they are not. When your bias is leftward, you are going to not see that bias reflected in the things you find are important. Me, I trust someone that admits their bias freely and then holds a discussion far more than those that pretend to remain objective despite their bias, or worse, by making the claim there is no bias. Exceptions exist of course. Some people act as if they come from good will and want to have a discussion, but nothing could be further from the truth.

    Have no doubt that the common people are rebelling against this. The only people that still think this crap works are these elites, and the fact that they show resentment that the peons won’t just shut up and listen to their betters , is driving a lot of anger and dissatisfaction. The rest of us are noticing that the new aristocracy can’t deliver. Ever. That the don’t even bother to hide that their primary goal is to help themselves and those like the, and that they would prefer the people just shut up and went along with that. I am not saying you or every liberal is like that: some people have just not grown up or been hit by harsh truths of reality yet. Some are just too big a bunch of dreamers. But there are too many bad apples out there now. Our political class certainly is 90% plus there.

    Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply