Fire Trump

I dislike Donald Trump on a visceral level. He is bringing reality TV to politics and coarsening debate. I could accept his boorishness if I thought the guy could do the job. But his claim to fame is being rich. He got rich by inheriting lots of money; going bankrupt four times and sticking others with his failures & using the power of crony capitalism to get government to pay his bills and coerce people to sell their property.

Trump is a survivor. The problem is that he survives at the expense of others. He sees the world in a win-lose paradigm. He wins; we lose. I do not admire such people. A good leader makes it possible for his whole team to win. A good politician finds ways even for opponents to get something they want. They make the pie bigger.

I never liked Trump. Chrissy liked "The Apprentice," so I had to watch it. MOST of what they did was the antithesis of good business. It was interesting TV when contestants put short term wins above long term relationships. It was satisfying to see them fight it out in an Hobbesian world of all against all. It is not the way a good team runs and not the way I want my country to run.

Trump may win. Trump is a winner. We all would be the losers.

I appeal to my fellow Americans and conservatives. Do not let your anger influence you to vote for a rich and angry fool. Do you really want this guy as your president?

Posted by Christine & John at September 12, 2015 11:57 AM
Comments
Comment #398387

C&J,
We agree about this. Trump is bad for conservatism, bad for the GOP, and bad for the country. He debases our politics and our culture by appealing to the lowest parts of our nature. It is all bombast, braggadocio, and egomania run amok on the national stage. I never saw “The Apprentice.” I can appreciate that Trump is very comfortable in front of the camera and knows how to be entertaining. However, the things he says are terrible. He throws out insults with abandon, encourages nativism and hatefulness, and as often as not, just makes things up. There are no realistic policies, no agenda- what he says really doesn’t amount to much more than notions.

It’s not just Trump. The only other candidate in double digits is Carson. He is a doctor who does not believe in evolution or the science behind Global Warming. His policies are… undeveloped… and that is putting it charitably. He has no experience whatsoever- none- that would suggest he has the potential to make a good executive.

Between Trump, Carson, and Cruz, over 50% of GOP voters have gone completely off the rails. It seems the talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck are driving the show by appealing to fear and anger and an ‘US’ versus ‘THEM’ agenda, or, as you put it, a win/lose scenario, and the candidates that reflect that approach are benefiting. These people who are succeeding with the GOP show no interest or ability to run a tow-party government and appeal to anyone outside a rabid fringe element. But the fringe has grown large enough that these kind of people are leading the polls.

This is a terrible mindset for the country and conservatives. I find it hard to believe that Trump and Carson and Cruz can continue to lead the polls, yet by any reasonable standard they should have collapsed a long time ago, or never have taken hold in the first place.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2015 1:01 PM
Comment #398389

Carson is inexperienced. I would put him in the Obama 2008 level. I fear having another amateur in office, but I do not see Carson as pernicious as Trump.

Posted by: C&J at September 12, 2015 1:19 PM
Comment #398391

Jack,

I have said this before.

Carson couldn’t be circumspect if his life depended on it. This does seem to be a problem with all of the GOP pretenders since Trump showed up to rattle their cages.

Carson may be a bright man, and a brilliant surgeon but I think that a bit of humility and a self-awareness of what is coming out of his mouth might be in order.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 12, 2015 1:54 PM
Comment #398392

Both of you could have saved yourself a lot of time and words if you would have just said, “I think everything should stay the same.”

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2015 1:58 PM
Comment #398393

Ever since 1968, the GOP has relied on the politics of identity for electoral success. That was the secret behind the erosion of the New Deal Coalition and the realignment of the “Solid South”. After years of harshly demeaning the polite decorum behind “political correctness”, Trump’s brash and demeaning language was inevitable. The GOP has made their bed and now they must lie in it. The fact that Trump so blatantly violates conservative principles elevates the irony even further.

In 2009, Republicans reached a crossroads. After 8 years of failed conservative policies, Americans had just handed the Presidency to a man who was unabashedly representative of the urban intelligentsia. Obama was not indebted to the interests of White Southerners like previous Democrats had been. The change in demographics meant he did not need to temper his rhetoric to avoid offending them. The GOP smelled blood and instead of taking the time to reform itself to appeal to Americans, it decided to go on the attack. Although Obama advanced many Republican ideas into law, he ended up facing an opposition with ferocity unprecedented in living memory. The most resonant criticism of Obama among the right has nothing to do with his policies, it is the simple remark, “He isn’t like us”. Divorcing Obama from the nation he represents was gold for the Republican Party. Unfortunately, it was obtained in exchange for the soul of Constitutional Conservatism.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 12, 2015 2:02 PM
Comment #398394

The Obama of 2008 actually had more political experience than many of the current GOP presidential candidates. Obama served 8 years in the IL legislature and 4 years in the US Senate. By any objective, statistical measure Obama has been one of the most successful presidents in American history.

That is part of the reason Trump is appealing to conservatives. It is often an appeal to bigotry and hatred and resentment, because it is impossible for conservatives to say anything substantive about the economy or foreign policy. The only way they can criticize Obama is through conspiracy theory, fake scandals, claims statistics are fixed and polls are skewed, that Global Warming is a hoax and evolution is “just a theory,” and through relentless fear mongering about ISIS, Ebola, illegal immigrants, and more.

And that explains in part how conservatives got in this situation today. Now Trump is leading and Carson is second, and the majority of GOP voters are fine with bashing illegal immigrants, women, Mexicans, and so on. The urge to deny and denigrate Obama at every turn has directly resulted in what we are seeing right now, and it is very, very ugly.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2015 2:25 PM
Comment #398395

Identity politics is a GOP fault now? Holy Denial, Batman!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2015 2:39 PM
Comment #398396

I never said identity politics did not plague the Democrats at time as well.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 12, 2015 2:47 PM
Comment #398398

Warren

The GOP was and is much less dependent on identity politics. You can argue that there was an appeal to race in the old south, although we do not see an immediate shift. But recall that Nixon and Reagan were reelected by vary large majorities. If you get big majorities of Americans, maybe the identity is only American.

I do fear the idea of a “white identity.” If whites voted as much a group as blacks, they could control the vote completely. It would not be a good thing.

The constant refrain of racism pisses me off. I admit that I will never vote for anybody who tries to lay the “guilt” thing on me or tells me that black lives matter is not simply a subset of all lives matter. That is why I wish they would stop before they provoke that reaction more generally.

America is not a racist country and the GOP is not a racist party. Consider the success of Ben Carson. I know that some liberals say that he “is not like a real black.” How much more racist can you get than that. Actually, it is like your “he is not like us” but with malicious intent.

Posted by: C&J at September 12, 2015 3:23 PM
Comment #398399

The Democratics invented identity politics.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2015 3:25 PM
Comment #398400

Nixon & Reagan were successful in places as diverse as California, Illinois & Vermont. The same cannot be said of any GOP candidate in my memory. Consider this: Romney won an even higher percentage of the White vote than even Reagan, yet he still lost in a landslide.

Identity politics is far from the same thing as racism. Democrats have utilized identity politics to court the votes of Blacks and Hispanics for ages. I’ve always been a bit uncomfortable with those appeals to identity rather than policy. However, I feel that nowadays, the GOP is the party that is much more reliant on appeals to identity rather than ideology.

Instead of advancing new ideas for solving the nation’s issues, all I hear from Republicans is a blanket opposition to Obama and hysteria regarding a new era of political correctness. Ultimately, the party is being transformed into just a representative of older, rural voters. There is room for someone like Ben Carson or Bill Clinton in that identity, but there is no room for Obama or even John Kerry in that identity.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 12, 2015 4:38 PM
Comment #398403

Trump is giving the money men controlling the GOP fits, I say go Trump. Seems he has captured the grassroots (isn’t that what Tea Party types call themselves as they accept corporate funds) from the GOP and the GOP doesn’t like it to much. After all they put all the time and effort into the message he seems to have taken control.

The things you say about Trump describe the other candidates trying to be the GOP nomination for president. Christie the bully, Paul the fake, Jindal the village idiot, Cruz the pathological liar, Jeb the silver spoon, Walker the Koch bros bi**h, Fiorina the failure, Huckabee the Ayatollah , Carson the Alfred E Newman of politics all of them are boorish to a degree and most inherited money or started way up on the ladder. All of them have benefited from the crony capitalism you mention C&J without talking a stand against it. Most of them are controlled by money men with their own political agenda.

Trump shows them up,exposes them for what they are, he is the caricature of all these people and the message they have been sending to the voters for quite some time. He is the result of the conservatives words and deeds the past decade. The problem the red team seems to have is he appears out of control, he just wont stay on script he wants to tell the people the message in his own way.

The other candidates don’t have a different message, Trump has exposed this “making the pie bigger” thing you mentioned but he did so by saying only those at the top get any pie. He does this in the reality TV way of course by blaming the Mexicans while bragging about buying influence. If these other candidates had something other than their failed economic ideology they could respond but…. they can’t because they don’t.

The problem here is Trump is a conservative who has the “grassroots” Americans in a tizzy because he doesn’t back down when he bellars the very same things the other candidates say in a bit more of a sophist way. But he doesn’t play with the message any more than any of these others. He doesn’t use myth or misinformation and more than these candidates. Why else would these Tea Party types, these grass roots Americans want Trump in office, you don’t think he is original by any stretch do you?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 12, 2015 5:54 PM
Comment #398404

“Trump shows them up, exposes them for what they are, he is the caricature of all these people and the message they have been sending to the voters…”

That about sums it up. It is not really identity politics. There is a generous helping of racism behind Trump, starting with his Birtherism in 2012. He was prominent in an effort to delegitimize Obama’s presidency and cast him as the Other. The emotions behind illegal immigration come from the same dark place. Same goes for the hatred and bigotry towards the LGBT community. Virtually anyone outside Netanyahu’s Israel either doesn’t matter or is a subject for hatred. ‘They’ are all wicked smart and duplicitous, while the leaders who are not a part of ‘We’ are “stupid.”

Like I said, they reap what they have sown. It took years of encouraging this. Now a rooster with $9 billion has come home to roost.

Earlier I saw something funny while flipping channels. Rove was on FOX telling everyone how popular Bush #43 was, and how much the base wanted to see real conservative principles in action.

When it comes to the GOP and conservatism’s problem, that is a good example of the other side of the coin. It is not just reflexive opposition to Obama and Democrats. It is the refusal to come to terms with what actually happened when Bush and conservatives were in power. How can they ever correct course when they refuse to acknowledge they ever went off course in the first place? Tax cuts failed. Neocon foreign policy failed. The social fundamentalist agenda failed. Yet they refuse to ever perceive those failures occurred, never mind make changes.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2015 6:25 PM
Comment #398409
Carson is inexperienced. I would put him in the Obama 2008 level.

You would but you would be wrong. Your lack of respect for what Obama accomplished prior to running for the office of president is remarkable as it shows us why this comment is mere gibberish C&J. Wishful thinking, hoping and dreaming and praying that Carson could hold a candle to Obama of 2008. This isn’t even the usual apples and oranges comparison we have come to expect from you, It is apples and Alfred E Neuman, and your boy is Alfred.


I fear having another amateur in office, but I do not see Carson as pernicious as Trump.

You should fear something much worse C&J, Carson is no Obama, he has zero experience in politics he is the joke the GOP money men are playing on you and you don’t even realize it. Your leaders have insulted you with his participation in the top tier of repub candidates, yet all you can do is wonder about “another amateur” when your last amateur was GWB, who as it turns out is the smarter Bush son!

Carson is much worse for this country than Trump. He is perhaps better for those in the upper echelon of the GOP who would gain from his presence, but like Trump he also exposes the GOP for their ideology. Your team has a guy with no leadership experience, no political experience spouting nonsense and he is leading your best politicians in the polls as your team tries to define a candidate to nominate for the highest office on the country.

What do you think that says about your other candidates? Wanna know what I think it says about your ideology and your other candidates? Well… for starters… you are debating whether the top two candidates in your party are even capable of anything other than a reality TV show.

Your team has done a major disservice to this country the past 40 years C&J, from the deification of the corrupt Reagan administration to the thought that the top two candidates for a major political party in this country, the party that controls the house and Senate, is none other than a real estate developer with no experience as a statesman, politician or administrator and a surgeon with zero political leadership. That is what the base in your party believe are the best choices for the office of president in your party!

What on earth does that say about the actual politicians running for office in the repub party?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2015 12:45 AM
Comment #398410

It sounds like your scared of Trump. He’s the last person you’d want to see up against Hillbilly. You’re afraid he can stop illegal immigration. You’re mortified he will get this economy thriving again. The last thing your party wants is someone to come into office and show an immediate difference. A difference your god keeps claiming he’s making, but somehow can’t get it to materialize.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2015 1:16 AM
Comment #398412

“Scared” of Trump? Mmm. No. More like appalled. It would be truly appalling if our political process had become so degraded that a Donald Trump or Ben Carson could be considered a serious candidate. And right up to the last minute, I would keep wondering whether if this whole thing is some sort of elaborate prank.

The latest GDP revision for the 2nd quarter was up to 3.7%. That number means we are booming. The idea that Trump would get the economy thriving again presumes the economy is not already thriving, but 3.7% growth is huge, and combined with an unemployment number of 5.1%, this is about as good as it gets. Unless, of course, you are neck deep in conspiracy theories about the economy.

Trump will stop illegal immigration? Really? How? Does anyone actually believe that we will construct a 2,000 mile wall with Mexico and have them pay for it? Really? Does anyone believe we will deport @ 11 million people? The expense would be extraordinary. The morality of such a thing would be highly questionable. And the idea that people would live in fear of a midnight knock on the door is so contrary to what it means to live here, I don’t even know where to start.

Well, if you really believe we are going to use troops or law enforcement officials to detain and deport 11 million people, you might want to invest in Jackboot futures. Just one question: brown or black?

Oh. One last thing. Polls show Hillary, Biden, and Sanders all handily defeating Trump. But it is a terrible commentary on the state of this country that Trump (or Carson) should even be considered a contender.

Posted by: phx8 at September 13, 2015 2:56 AM
Comment #398414

Sometimes you’re funny, phx8. What’s appalling is thinking our election process isn’t degraded. All Democratics have to do is lie continuously to get elected. They lie continuously to get laws passed. Only a Democratic would think that’s not degraded.

For instance, Democratics claim a 3% GDP is thriving, but that ‘s when a Democratic is in office. When a Republican is in office a 4.5% gdp and a 4% unemployment rate is worse than the great depression.

It’s really going to be hard for Democratics to go back to criticizing a thriving economy after the Obama performance. Without something like that to complain about Democratics will have nothing to run on.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2015 10:01 AM
Comment #398420
When a Republican is in office a 4.5% gdp and a 4% unemployment rate is worse than the great depression.

When did a Republican in office achieve a 4.5% quarterly gdp growth and a 4% unemployment rate simultaneously? In 2005, gep growth was over 3% and the unemployment rate was below 5%, but no one of consequence said either was worse than the great depression.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 13, 2015 12:59 PM
Comment #398421

Trump inherited a pile of money. He held and increased his wealth by manipulating bankruptcy laws and by using the coercive power of government to force others to support his enterprises. He is unlike most Americans, unlike even most rich Americans, most of whom have had a greater role in the creation of their own wealth. Trump is a caricature of a successful business leader. He represents successful Americans the way a plastic Barbie dolls represents American women.

The Democrats are no better, however. We have a woman who got ahead the old fashioned way - by having a successful husband. We have an old socialist who taps into the anger of the left the same way Trump taps into the anger on the right. We have a former governor who nobody notices and a reasonably good tough guy, who perhaps would have a better chance as a Republican.

With these choices, I fear for my country.

But we have some hope. I still think Trump will explode like the Hindenburg. When all the flash and bang is gone, maybe we will get a reasonable president like John Kasich. I have also been very much impressed with Carly Fiorina. It would be nice to have a Kasich-Fiorina ticket, that would combine political experience, executive experience in both government and the private sector - energy of the new combined with wisdom of experience. This will “save” our country again.

Our country requires saving every twenty years or so, BTW. We are always going off the cliff, but we never go.

So that is what I want. What I don’t want -
A rich blowhard
An inexperienced doctor
The truth-challenged wife of an ex-president
An old socialist whose ideas peaked in 1965

So we are left with Kasich-Fiorina as an ideal ticket.

Posted by: C&J at September 13, 2015 1:01 PM
Comment #398422

GHWBush has a thriving economy. The Democratic’s luxury tax affected a very small part of the economy, but to hear the Democratics talk, it was taking the food out of the mouths every baby and senior citizen in the country.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2015 1:11 PM
Comment #398423

It took the Democratics almost 4 years to convince the country he had a bad economy. That, and along with “THE WAR IS LOST!”.

It took Obama to finally make that one happen.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2015 1:13 PM
Comment #398424

I’m talking GWBush there.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2015 1:14 PM
Comment #398426
So we are left with Kasich-Fiorina as an ideal ticket.

I’m still rooting for Martin O’Malley. He hasn’t dropped out yet and there still has not even been a single debate.


GWBush has a thriving economy.

Uh? GW Bush never had both a 4.5% quarterly gdp growth and a 4% unemployment rate simultaneously.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 13, 2015 1:25 PM
Comment #398427

Warren

The Bush times were pretty good until the last year. He inherited a downturn and then 9/11 and still did okay. In the long run, we will view his times with greater understanding. I am not saying it was a great time, but overall 2002-2007 were more successful than the 2009-2015. We leave the first year as leftover from the last administration.

Posted by: C&J at September 13, 2015 1:39 PM
Comment #398428

You need to quit rewriting my quotes, Warren Porter.

Cut and paste works fine.

Bush 41 had a good economy and the Democratics beat him up over a compromise he made with them. They blamed him afterwards for destroying an economy that was chugging along at 4% or better. It was all lies and they knew they could get away with it using the lapdog compliant media.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2015 1:48 PM
Comment #398429

Then what was this?

I’m talking GWBush there.
Posted by: Warren Porter at September 13, 2015 2:02 PM
Comment #398430
Bush 41 had a good economy and the Democratics beat him up over a compromise he made with them. They blamed him afterwards for destroying an economy that was chugging along at 4% or better. It was all lies and they knew they could get away with it using the lapdog compliant media.

Bush41 inherited an unemployment rate of 5% and 3.5 years later had increased it to 7.8%; when election day came the unemployment rate was still above 6.5%. I’m not sure how this is a “Good Economy”.

I am not saying it was a great time, but overall 2002-2007 were more successful than the 2009-2015. We leave the first year as leftover from the last administration.
I guess you only disregard leftovers when it favors your side. If we compare apples to apples, then we compare 2002-2007 with 2010-2015 and I do not see the case that the former was necessarily any batter that the latter. Sure, things were worse in 2010 than in 2002, but 2015 is many times better than 2007.
The Bush times were pretty good until the last year.
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Posted by: Warren Porter at September 13, 2015 2:24 PM
Comment #398431

Comment #398423
It took the Democratics almost 4 years to convince the country he had a bad economy. That, and along with “THE WAR IS LOST!”.

It took Obama to finally make that one happen.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2015 1:13 PM

“He” is Bush 43.


Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2015 2:32 PM
Comment #398432

… and sure, you can say Bush 41 had a recession if you only count the north atlantic region. The rest of the country was doing fine.

That’s where the lapdog media came in.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2015 2:39 PM
Comment #398433

My mistake regarding the confusion between the two Bushes.

That said. Both Bushes administrations witnessed the ends of bull economies. Thus far, Obama’s administration has witnessed the 3rd longest bull economy of the postwar era.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 13, 2015 2:42 PM
Comment #398434

Warren

The economy mostly moves in longer term cycles. Clinton was very lucky in that the economy started to move up just before he took office (so he got credit) and started to move down just before he left (market started to decline in March 2000), so he avoided blame. Clinton did some good things and did not mess up. He was helped immensely by the Republican congress, that helped him balance the budget and keep him on the strait and narrow.

Obama lacked Clinton’s wisdom. When he got the same message from the American people, he doubled down on his own policies. That is one reason why we did not achieve the usual growth six years after the end of the recession.

2010 should have been the summer of recovery. Instead we got that anemic thing. Maybe it is not Obama’s fault, but it is also clear that he did nothing to be helpful.

The very biggest stimulus and most important economic fact of recent years has been the American energy boom and fracking.

Posted by: C&J at September 13, 2015 2:44 PM
Comment #398435
Our country requires saving every twenty years or so, BTW. We are always going off the cliff, but we never go.

Well the saving has been done for this 20 years C&J. It seems you have forgotten where we were at when the people rejected the repubs and voted Obama into office. The rest of the world sure did to the tune of awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize just for getting the war mongers out of office. That was 2008 and the saving this country needed was saving from your team. By your own reckoning I would suggest you save the “we need saving” meme until 2028 on account of the last time your team tried to save us it ran the bus off the road and down the hill and to the cliff.

So we are left with Kasich-Fiorina as an ideal ticket.

But your team has stirred up the grassroots to the point of no return C&J, these RINO’s will only serve to continue the fleecing of America by the cronies that but their ticket to the bus. How can you consider a guy who as governor of a state made peace with Obamacare? Speaking of saving the country why on earth would you think the same executive who cost the country 30k jobs be the one to save anything but her cronies? I would suggest she would be the one with her finger on the trigger turning the country into a third world nation so she can reap the rewards. Can’t wait to hear Trump tear into her on that. Importing Mexicans and cutting jobs, the grass roots will string her up not vote for her.

The last time we had a “business executive” as president and vice president,2000/2008, they drove us to the cliff C&J, have you seriously forgotten the last time your team “saved” us?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2015 2:48 PM
Comment #398436

j2t2

It is typical of the Obama presidency that he was awarded a prize before having actually done anything. I think the Green Bay Packers should be awarded the Superbowl Trophy for 2016. Are you with me?

Re the 2008 recession - lots of people have now studied the causes of this. Serious scholarship does not take the simplistic view that Bush did it. Recall that the first problems appeared not in the U.S. but in places like Spain and Ireland.

Presidents do not control the economy and certainly not in short terms. Their influence is mostly negative, i.e. they can screw things up easier than help them along. Obama’s activities were not as pernicious as they could have been, but consider what “saved” the economy this time.

The first heroes are the Federal Reserve. They were helped by TARP. Both these things were in process before Obama took office. The major stimulus, the one that worked, was the American energy boom and fracking. That is still paying dividends, while the Obama stimulus is gone like the snows of last winter.

What Obama has given us is the potential to do much better. The next president can capitalize on pent up energy. It will make President Kasich look better and you can claim with some justification that he didn’t do it all himself.

Posted by: C&J at September 13, 2015 3:00 PM
Comment #398437

Why does everyone forget, or ignore, the Federal Reserve’s role in these cycles? These cycles remind me of the artificial waves at amusement parks.

What used to happen in regions due to weather now happens regularly across the entire country. I don’t think the fed is responding to crisis, I think they are causing it. Everyone ignores the courts and the bank and blames it on the other party.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2015 3:07 PM
Comment #398441

Talking about how the American economy did all right between the First Bush Recession and the Second Bush Recession- better known as The Great Recession- reminds me of the old line: “Apart from that, what did you think of the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”

The Bush economy took a budget surplus and turned it into a record breaking trillion dollar deficit. Remember, when Clinton left office, the 2009 budget was projected to become a $800 billion surplus. Bush turned it into a trillion dollar deficit.

The real estate market formed a bubble which began its decline in 2006. Thanks to the Bush policy of deregulation, the financial sector created trillions of dollars of financial derivatives linked to mortgages. When the real estate decline affected the derivatives and spread into the financial sector, Bear Stearns was bailed out, but the decision by the Bush administration to let Lehman Brothers fail resulted in a stock market crash and a credit crunch.

Meanwhile, the Bush era policy of offshoring manufacturing decimated the job base. Job creation in the Bush era depended on government jobs, especially in the military and the TSA.

Meanwhile, health care costs increased 110% in eight years under Bush.

It was a catastrophic performance by any measure. Only Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression rivaled it, and although the Great Recession actually was worse in some regards (according to testimony by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve), good monetary and fiscal policy decisions kept it from becoming a long-term depression.

Conservatives OPPOSED those monetary and fiscal policy decisions. When Republicans in the House voted against a stimulus package, the stock market suffered its biggest one day loss in history.

This is all a matter of record.

And everyone of us should thank our lucky stars the Democrats and Obama saved this economy. It was not a sure thing at the time. No one knew if the various policies and decisions would work. Romney, for example, wanted to let GM fail. But Obama and the Democrats made the right choices, and every single day we should be thankful they did.

There is a very good reason the GOP presidential candidates will not talk about the economy. Their ideas failed and they have no new ones to replace the failed ones.

Posted by: phx8 at September 13, 2015 4:45 PM
Comment #398443
It is typical of the Obama presidency that he was awarded a prize before having actually done anything.

Umm but he did something C&J, if he did nothing else he got elected. He brought a bit of sanity to the world, relief from the neocons and their nation building schemes that caused unneeded wars and killings. See your team was the problem he saved the world from. So when you talk about your team saving the world most of the world cringes and askes to not be saved like your guys saved the Iraqi people from Saddam.

Serious scholarship does not take the simplistic view that Bush did it.

C&J GWB drove the bus to the cliff. Pass the buck all you want but your team was who we needed saving from. The financialization of the economy, the deregulation craze, starting with Reagan and the S&L crisis, that made the banks to big to fail were factors but instead of reversing course under GWB we continued towards the cliff at full speed, foot on the gas pedal and hands on the wheel. These scholars you speak of are, for the most part, paid conservative lackeys whose mission it is to obfuscate the issue so your team can point the finger and take credit for the recovery.

The major stimulus, the one that worked, was the American energy boom and fracking. That is still paying dividends,

You must be out of the country or have lost touch in your ivory tower, C&J. The fracking boom was years later and busted as fast as it boomed. The past year 80k have been laid off, energy stocks are in the toilet, rigs are shut down all over and for those still working the hours and wages are cut. Oh and dividends have been cut dramatically if not eliminated entirely on many companies in the oil and gas industry.

It will make President Kasich look better and you can claim with some justification that he didn’t do it all himself.

Mr 4% is gonna rock the house in Cleveland and take the nomination from the front runners! Is this a “to hell with the primaries and voters” thing we will run who we want?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2015 5:10 PM
Comment #398448

j2t2

Fracking started to make a difference in the energy markets in 2007, almost exactly on cue. It make its big impacts a few years later and is still responsible to holding down prices. If not for fracking, the Middle East would be even more dangerous than it is and our economy would be growing even slower.

Re Iraq - in 2008 Anbar province, the former center of AQI and the current center of ISIS, was peaceful with the promise of prosperity. Things fell apart after 2011, provoked mostly by events in Syria, not Iraq.

Re the crash - it did not originate in the U.S. and in the U.S. it started with subprime loans. The economy has cycles. We were unlucky in that a couple of cycles coincided. If you go back to Reagan, how do you want to explain the roughly quarter century of prosperity? Nothing lasts forever; twenty-five years is very good.

Posted by: C&J at September 13, 2015 6:08 PM
Comment #398451

Why don’t you like Jesus, j2t2? He did the same thing you say Obama did.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2015 6:41 PM
Comment #398461
Fracking started to make a difference in the energy markets in 2007, almost exactly on cue.

C&J how can that be when gas prices were less than $2.00/gal as the economy imploded and today at $2,50/gal we are seeing a bust in fracking activities. I would suggest it is wishful thinking on your part that fracking made a positive financial impact on the economy while the economy imploded and millions of jobs were lost.

It make its big impacts a few years later and is still responsible to holding down prices.

Only because it fooled us into believing we were becoming energy independent. Once the Saudi’s got pissed and lowered the prices of oil the boom turned to bust. Prices are down because the Saudi’s said so. Frackers are going under because they cannot produce the oil at the lower costs. So yeah it is a dual edged sword and that doesn’t even take the environmental costs into consideration.


If not for fracking, the Middle East would be even more dangerous than it is and our economy would be growing even slower.

Every little bit does help the economy but once again the bust in oil hasn’t helped the economy this year in fact it has hindered the economy. We would be doing much better had the Saudi’s allowed it but hey they want market share and the frackers cannot compete at the lower prices. It is that simple.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2015 10:39 PM
Comment #398463

This is the weirdest post I have ever read. We have a RINO writing the post and spending his time bashing the outright leader of the republican primary, and the we have the left claiming that Trump will hurt the conservative movement. The rest of the comments bash Trump and the rest of the republicans.

The truth is, the voters are fed up with liars. We are watching the republican establishment (Boehner and McConnell) in action this week by giving the idiot child everything he wants to destroy the U.S. and Israel. The RINOS have been playing conservatives for years, and the voters are fed up. Second truth, Hillary is in big trouble. Sanders is rising and Hillary is in dead fall. Biden doesn’t know if he wants to run or not, Sanders is an independent socialist, who is running as a democratic, and doesn’t stand a chance of winning. The Democratic Party has gone so far as to try to draw Gore out of the nut house to run again. Talk about a clown show. The Democratics are certainly putting on a good one.

It doesn’t really matter what the left has to say about the Republican candidates; they really have no dog in the fight. Furthermore, anything they say is a lie. But, I find C&J’s comments about Trump right in line with establishment republicans. The left loves to criticize Fox News; I wonder how they feel about Fox’s anti-Trump reporting?

Tell me C&J, which of the republican candidates can be trusted to do what they say? I have told you on several occasions; you have no idea how upset the conservative voters are. Conservative voters have been voting in conservatives for years, to replace the RINOs, only to watch establishment types try to destroy them.

All of this is happening and to top it off, Obama is singlehandedly driving independent and democratic voters into the arms of republican candidates by trying to create a legacy through executive order. Obama’s legacy; obamacare and now the Iran debacle; both of which passed on a party line vote, with ballroom deals.

I don’t know if Trump can win the nomination or not, but he can certainly do no worse than what we have now, or what the RINOs would like to see elected.

Posted by: Blaine at September 13, 2015 11:50 PM
Comment #398464
Things fell apart after 2011, provoked mostly by events in Syria, not Iraq.

Really! Things fell apart when we occupied the country of Iraq IMHO. When we ran Saddam out we bought ourselves a financial and political boat anchor tied it around our necks and threw it into the water. Your team and it’s nation building while charging the costs on the grandkids credit card was a problem C&J. We disrupted a balance in Iraq that we were unable to replace. Before we ousted Saddam we didn’t have half the problems we have today in that area of the middle east.

Re the crash - it did not originate in the U.S. and in the U.S. it started with subprime loans. The economy has cycles. We were unlucky in that a couple of cycles coincided.

The crash originated here C&J it went farther but Leyman Bros was an American company. Other nations were involved mostly through their banks some a wee bit farther but

These must be some mysterious 80 year cycles only conservatives desperate for a way out know about C&J. The problem was solved by FDR during the last “cycle” and then over time starting in the Reagan era we decided to, what do you say, “recycle” as the deregulation took place over several administrations and many years but eventually with the financialization of our economy, which is a “cycle” that seems doomed to repeat itself when countries last long enough, we went bust.


If you go back to Reagan, how do you want to explain the roughly quarter century of prosperity? Nothing lasts forever; twenty-five years is very good.

Reagan and the concept of deregulation C&J. A bit here and a bit there and soon we were back to the roaring 20’s. But the roaring 20’s didn’t happen over night and we had the complex financial securities that ran amok. We also had a small community of companies greasing each others palms because of the to big to fail banks becoming an all in one business. The greed is good meme the Reagan era is famous for allowed the banks to grow to the size they did. Remember C&J the roaring 20’s weren’t called the roaring 20’s because everything happened in 1929 it took time.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 14, 2015 12:04 AM
Comment #398465

I saw a poll today that showed you were far more likely to think President Obama is a Muslim if you are a Trump supporter than if you aren’t a Trump supporter. That should tell us a lot about Trump supporters. Yes, they’re just angry at the world and they don’t know who to blame but they have folks like Trump filling their heads with nonsense. He’ll flame out. The biggest money isn’t even being spent just yet.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 14, 2015 12:05 AM
Comment #398466

I read the same CNN poll and saw nothing about Trump supporters.

Posted by: Blaine at September 14, 2015 12:34 AM
Comment #398467

Latest polls from RCP:

Trump and Carson combined control 53% of the vote; that’s more than all other candidates combined.

In the general election, Trump and Clinton in a virtual dead heat.

Sanders up on Clinton by 10 points in Iowa, and up 22 point in NH.

The Sept. 11th CNN/ORC poll has Clinton in dead tie with Trump, Bush up 2 points on Clinton, and Carson up 5 points on Clinton in the general election.


Amidst all the problems with Clinton’s drop in the polls and her lack of trustworthiness, the left is consumed with telling us who is right for the Republican Party.

Posted by: Blaine at September 14, 2015 8:34 AM
Comment #398468

“We have a RINO writing the post and spending his time bashing the outright leader of the republican primary…”

And I hear the tea party members eat their young…

There was a time when the GOP actually accepted folks other than “hair on fire” conservatives.

Yo Blaine, if you have any complaints step up to the plate and write your own damn post instead of merely bitching from up there in the cheap seats.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 14, 2015 9:27 AM
Comment #398478

Fire is not the four letter ‘F’ word I have for Trump.

Posted by: kctim at September 14, 2015 12:18 PM
Comment #398482
It doesn’t really matter what the left has to say about the Republican candidates; they really have no dog in the fight. Furthermore, anything they say is a lie. But, I find C&J’s comments about Trump right in line with establishment republicans. The left loves to criticize Fox News; I wonder how they feel about Fox’s anti-Trump reporting?

Really Blaine the left has no dog in the fight yet you value their opinion on what Fox says about Trump! Well first of all we do have a dog in the fight. This election is about who best to continue on with the work of Obama and his administration the past few years. You seem to have forgotten what your team left us when they held control of both houses and the administration.

Blaine you have already proved to us you wouldn’t know a lie if it came up and bit you on the a**. You repeat to many lies to be considered able to do anything but nod your head and repeat the lie as if it were knowledge.

I happen to share your excitement about Trump. I hope he makes it to the nomination and is the guy running for president. It should provide this country with a change we sorely need. He is honest and while I don’t think him capable of really running the country his honesty will play a big part in keeping the other candidate honest. Keep plugging away Trump supporters you have a formidable task ahead of you. You will help to settle what kind of party the repubs will be for the next couple of decades.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 14, 2015 12:57 PM
Comment #398486
you have no idea how upset the conservative voters are. Conservative voters have been voting in conservatives for years, to replace the RINOs, only to watch establishment types try to destroy them.

Yet Blaine you blame Obama for all that is wrong. Tell me, speaking of Fox, why are conservatives voters angry, is it because their guys shut down the government and failed to accomplish anything by doing so or is it because these Tea Party congressmen haven’t really done anything that has helped to solve any problems?

You guys have replaced the RINO’s but your agenda has failed unless you count traitor Tom the Israeli congressman a success. Or are these voters so proud that their guys failed, despite 40 attempts, to abolish Obamacare and it turns out to not have destroyed the country as they thought?

Why aren’t these angry voters angry at the people they voted for? After all they haven’t built a wall between us and the Mexicans. They haven’t stopped the queers from getting married, hell all they have done besides shut down the government and costing us money is accept money from Israel for interfering with the president and his nuclear policies.

Oh and blame the “RINO’s” that don’t exist for not doing more to return this country to the 1800’s and everything else they have failed at. Extreme conservatives beating up on less extreme conservatives, seem like to me. But of course you guys always use the well they aren’t real conservatives whine to justify the outcomes.

Perhaps it is time for the voter, the angry voters to insist upon their guys not accepting bribes er…umm… campaign contributions to do the bidding of those that paid for their ticket to the show.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 14, 2015 1:36 PM
Comment #398491

Blane, Have you noticed j2t2 has completely lost it? He’s in a tizzy, flailing about, contradicting himself, at points literally not making sense.

I guess he conveniently forgot Harry Reid standing up in front of reporters and telling them he’s not going to fund cancer research for children because he doesn’t want Republicans given credit for it.

He doesn’t know the difference between doing what conservatives were elected to do, repeal the ACA, and lying to the entire country to get elected the way Democratics do.

He can’t even admit it was Democratics who voted for sealing the border and then renieged on that promise for years.

He doesn’t even see the difference between the 30 states and DOMA, who have stopped queers from defiling traditional marriage, and the nine gods who stand in their way.

It remains to be seen what happens with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but if N. Korea is an indicator of Democratic’s ability to negotiate these types of deals perhaps Israel should be afraid, be very afraid!

It seems like whenever Democratics disagree with each other it’s politics, but according to j2t2 whenever Republicans disagree with each other it’s cavemen beating each other with clubs to get into the cave. Any change is reverting back to ancient history, yet weren’t Democratics using ancient history just recently to make their point about something? I can’t remember what it was. My bad.

Bribes. j2t2 has the audacity to bring up bribes! That takes some balls there. Such a selective memory j2t2 has. Senility must be a torturous thing.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 2:54 PM
Comment #398492

OOps, sorry for misspelling your moniker, Blaine.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 2:56 PM
Comment #398494

In case anyone is wondering about this quote: ” he conveniently forgot Harry Reid standing up in front of reporters and telling them he’s not going to fund cancer research for children because he doesn’t want Republicans given credit for it.”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/02/conservatives-made-it-up-harry-reid-didnt-dismi/196234

And that is a pretty good example of how we come to see Trump and Carson at the top of the polls. Two candidates with no political or legislative experience whatsoever, a reality show star and carnival barker, and a doctor who doesn’t believe in evolution, are the best conservatives have to offer. That is how we come to see a party full of people who believe Obama is a Muslim and was not born in this country. Global Warming is a hoax, unemployment numbers are fixed, Harry Reid didn’t want to fund cancer research for children because he didn’t want the GOP to get credit, the economy was good under Bush and bad under Obama, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a RINO or a lying liberal.

What the heck. Go for it. Make Trump or Carson the nominee and standard bearer for conservatism. Sure. Why not.

Posted by: phx8 at September 14, 2015 3:10 PM
Comment #398495

I think we’re ready for President Camacho:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA

Posted by: phx8 at September 14, 2015 3:13 PM
Comment #398496

Trump is the Teapartyics wet dream come true and he is a Republican party member’s nightmare. I am having a really hard time believing that he is something other than a plant destined to wreak havoc on the Republican Party by some nefarious group of people. But I believe several people have it right on this blog. He is the culmination of their angry rhetoric and hair brained schemes to prove President Obama as a usurper of power. Now that we have seen President Obama well into his second term they are besides themselves with the failures that they have become and are unable to think clearly about what a good candidate for President represents. Trump would be a disastrous general election candidate for the Republican Party but he will be their nominee, if the early polls can be taken as any indicator. It is still very early in the 2016 campaign for Presidency but if he doesn’t start losing some steam among the Teapartyics, it will be a rough Republican Party convention.

A Noun. An Adjective.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 14, 2015 3:13 PM
Comment #398497

phx8, I watched it happen. There was no second hand interpretation involved. Nothing like your and mediamatter’s interpretation.

Thank God for alternate media, otherwise we wouldn’t have seen the truth.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 3:20 PM
Comment #398498

Speak4all, I think what Obama has done is A)show the country what wimps Republican presidents and leadership are, and B) show the rest of us what a lawless bunch of criminals and lowlifes Democratics are.

That’s a good thing. There! See! I can recognize Obama when he accomplishes something!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 3:24 PM
Comment #398500

Carnival Barker? phx8, I hope you don’t get a brain tumor. I hate to see your liberal friends carry you off to the bearded lady’s tent for treatment.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 3:28 PM
Comment #398502

Presidential candidate and conservative Republican Governor Bobby Jindal called Trump a “carnival act.” Governor Perry called him a “barking carnival,” which is pretty funny.

I’m all in for President Camacho. As a country, we’re ready for him. It’s time.

Posted by: phx8 at September 14, 2015 3:38 PM
Comment #398504

That’s funny, phx8, but term limits affect the presidency.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 3:56 PM
Comment #398511


“I guess he conveniently forgot Harry Reid standing up in front of reporters and telling them he’s not going to fund cancer research for children because he doesn’t want Republicans given credit for it.”

“…I watched it happen. There was no second hand interpretation involved.”

Willie, if you weren’t in the room when the question was asked and answered, then you didn’t “Watch it happen”.

“Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.”

Ben Franklin


Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 14, 2015 4:25 PM
Comment #398513

Obviously you refuse to watch the presser Reid had. I did. When he was asked, he immediately replied to the reporter, “Why would we do that?” He didn’t turn to his fellow conspirator and acknowledge a comment from him. He talked straight to the reporter.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 4:39 PM
Comment #398514

Speak4all, read phx8’s comment. That’s spin!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 4:40 PM
Comment #398522

Who cut off funding for cancer research for children?

Ah.

After the GOP cut off funding for cancer research for children by shutting down the federal government, they offered to fund the federal government again piecemeal. The idea was to eventually fund everything except Obamacare (and possibly other portions, like the EPA- we’ll never know). The Democrats did not shut down the government, and they rightly refused to give in to extortion and fund it piecemeal. The GOP effort to achieve through shutdown what they could not achieve through the legislative process failed.

Although McConnell and Boehner are dead set against it, another government shutdown is possible. Cruz and the House crazies are desperate to satisfy the baying braying base over yet another fake scandal, this one surrounding edited tapes that made PP look like it was doing something illegal, when in fact, it was not.

Posted by: phx8 at September 14, 2015 5:47 PM
Comment #398523

phx8, I remember that like it was yesterday. I suspect that some Republicans do also. There are probably some among them that wonder why that ploy didn’t work but I am hoping that there are many more that understand why that ploy didn’t work. We shall see.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 14, 2015 5:55 PM
Comment #398527

“Although McConnell and Boehner are dead set against it, another government shutdown is possible.”

Perhaps this writer would care to expound on exactly which parts of government might be shut down.

Does he mean;

No military

No law enforcement

No Social Security checks

No Medicare or Medicaid

No funding of education or highways

No Supreme Court

No Congress

No executive

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 14, 2015 6:14 PM
Comment #398529

Power of the Purse

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7

Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry said at the Federal Constitutional Convention that the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”

Do my liberal friends disagree with the power of the House regarding national spending? Should that power rest with the chief executive instead of the House?

Please tell us why it is so harmful for the House to exercise the power given to it by American citizens.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 14, 2015 6:27 PM
Comment #398531

Just because the Constitution gives the House the power to fuck up the nation’s economy doesn’t mean that is what they should be doing.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 14, 2015 6:59 PM
Comment #398534

“Just because” Warren.

Surely you jest. Would you care to share why you believe our Founders did such a thing?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 14, 2015 7:09 PM
Comment #398535

Royal,

The problem with the Cruz led strategy to shut the government down over funding of PP is that it cannot succeed. Period. It is a childish exercise that the Republican leadership, to their credit, does not want to repeat.

Conservatives may applaud the move as one of standing on principal but the rest of the public sees it as a petulant effort to “fuck up the nation’s economy,” as Warren so delicately put it, in retribution for not getting their way.

Posted by: Rich at September 14, 2015 7:33 PM
Comment #398536

Since you seem to have studied government shutdowns Rich, please tell us exactly what that means to me and you.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 14, 2015 7:40 PM
Comment #398538

!!! Reality Check !!!
Government shutdowns are just another Democratic’s I’LL HOLD MY BREATH! moment.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 9:15 PM
Comment #398539

In a practical sense, probably not much, Royal. The markets will get a bit jittery and the media will have something to talk about for a few days. Then the rebels will relent and life will go on.

However, it reinforces the idea that our legislators waste a lot of time and energy pursuing fruitless goals and don’t get things done. In fact, some of them are actually willing to shut the government down in order to give the proverbial finger at the opposition. Juvenile. No wonder that Congress is held is such low esteem.

Posted by: Rich at September 14, 2015 9:25 PM
Comment #398540

Who was it? Who told me I should pay attention to “tense”?

Here I took a plural and compared it to a singular.

At least I’m able to admit I made a mistake.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 9:27 PM
Comment #398547

Government shutdowns are the Democratic’s

I’LL HOLD MY BREATH!

moments.

There, fixed it for me.


Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 10:02 PM
Comment #398556

Weary, I was gonna try to respond to your comment regarding my discourse with Blaine so I tried to find the most intelligent part of your statement but I looked and I looked and no matter how hard I tried there just wasn’t anything intelligent to find. So could you help me out and say something intelligent so I can respond?

That is asking a lot it appears but look at this from my point of view,

I said “is it because their guys shut down the government and failed to accomplish anything by doing so” and your response was “I guess he conveniently forgot Harry Reid standing up in front of reporters and telling them he’s not going to fund cancer research for children because he doesn’t want Republicans given credit for it.” DO you realize how foolish it makes you look when you compare this molehill to the mountain I was talking about? You had to take things out of context and twist thing s around and still it was one bitty little piece of the politics that resulted from your team shutting the government down. Really Weary the conservatives shut down the entire government then wanted to take bits and pieces of it and you make it sound as if Reid did something wrong! And you had to resort to misinformation to do it!

But look rather than going through the rest of this gibberish in this comment of yours why not start over with an intelligent comment, please.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 15, 2015 1:46 AM
Comment #398557
Would you care to share why you believe our Founders did such a thing?

Royal are you suggesting that the founding fathers thought a small portion of the people’s representatives should have the right to stop the government from functioning, lowering the credit rating of the nation and generally make a**es of themselves? I didn’t read that part in the constitutional passages you put in your comment.

IMHO the founding fathers would tell your representatives and other like minded conservatives to pound sand up your a** were you to suggest that your ideology is more important that your oppositions principles. You see the founding fathers worked under the articles of confederation and saw the problems with this states right set up. They were able to compromise with those that had different principles to found the nation and work out some of the kinks in the process.

Of course that in entirely out of sync with the Tea Party of today who think they have all the answers and when in the minority they childishly work to shut down the government instead of reaching a compromise. They tell us it is for all Americans when in fact it is for the few at the expense of the many.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 15, 2015 4:27 AM
Comment #398561

I am not sure how Trump is reacting to a possible government shutdown, perhaps someone could provide that. His business background would suggest that he understands you don’t slam the door shut but you work with what you have to position yourself and the country where you want them to be. The shutdown seems to be predicated on not giving in to PP funding which seems kind of strange to me. I know his stances in the past have been somewhat liberal when it comes to abortion but he has to dance to a different piper now. I still can’t see his professionalism reckoning that a government shutdown is necessary when it does nothing to the bottom line and only provides a temporary delay. I believe he has much more fundamental differences with the budget and would like to see them implemented rather than a lot of sound and fury that signifies nothing. He is a businessman.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 15, 2015 10:35 AM
Comment #398615

j2t2; “…the conservatives shut down the entire government…”

Really? The “entire” government?

j2t2; “Royal are you suggesting that the founding fathers thought a small portion of the people’s representatives should have the right…”

Yes, they gave the power to spend to the House, not the Senate and not the Executive.

Since the entire membership in the House must stand for election every two years, they are the closest to the voters on current issues.

Once again I ask my leftie friends; “Please tell us why it is so harmful for the House to exercise the power given to it by American citizens.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 15, 2015 4:31 PM
Comment #398635

My schedule does not allow spend a lot of time debating with people who make no sense or have no desire to change their views; but I will try to respond to a few things.

And I hear the tea party members eat their young…

Yo Blaine, if you have any complaints step up to the plate and write your own damn post instead of merely bitching from up there in the cheap seats.

Rocky

I barely have time to respond to other posts, and certainly have no time to create posts. But, Rocky, I am assuming you are saying I have no right to complain about C&J’s remarks. If so, I will say what many on your side have said before, “when you comment on WB, don’t expect all people to agree with you, and don’t be upset when other people have different views”. It just so happens, I do not agree with C&J,; and this is not to be confused with “eating their young”.


Really Blaine the left has no dog in the fight yet you value their opinion on what Fox says about Trump! Well first of all we do have a dog in the fight. This election is about who best to continue on with the work of Obama and his administration the past few years. You seem to have forgotten what your team left us when they held control of both houses and the administration.


Blaine you have already proved to us you wouldn’t know a lie if it came up and bit you on the a**. You repeat to many lies to be considered able to do anything but nod your head and repeat the lie as if it were knowledge.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 14, 2015 12:57 PM

J2t2, unless you are planning to vote for a Republican, you have no dog in the fight. I’m quite sure you don’t plan on voting for Trump or any other Republican candidate. Just as I have no dog in the Democrat primary fight. I don’t really care who runs on the Democrat side because I would not vote for any of them. The election is not about who best can continue the Obama legacy; the election is about undoing the damage Obama has done. Regarding my ability to know a lie, I recon I have as much ability to know a lie as you have to tell one. Regarding Trump, I don’t know if he will become the nominee or not. I have stated before that I haven’t made a decision to support him, but I do believe he has controlled the narrative.

Yet Blaine you blame Obama for all that is wrong…

Why aren’t these angry voters angry at the people they voted for?

Obama is the president and has been for almost 7 years, who do you think we should blame? Obama and the left spent his first term plus blaming Bush for all the ills of the world. Regarding anger; I think more Americans than just Tea Party type conservatives are angry. Who are the majorities supporting Sanders over Clinton mad at? If the Sanders supporters weren’t mad at the Democratic Party, wouldn’t they be supporting Hillary? There is anger on all fronts.

Trump is the Teapartyics wet dream come true and he is a Republican party member’s nightmare. I am having a really hard time believing that he is something other than a plant destined to wreak havoc on the Republican Party by some nefarious group of people.

Speaks, Trump is not just getting the support of the Republican Party; he is also doing well with women, blacks, and Hispanics. I would venture to say that given the choice of voting for Trump or Hillary (a liar and not to be trusted), many Democrats will vote for Trump. He resonates with union workers and legal immigrants.


Speak4all, I think what Obama has done is A)show the country what wimps Republican presidents and leadership are, and B) show the rest of us what a lawless bunch of criminals and lowlifes Democratics are.
That’s a good thing. There! See! I can recognize Obama when he accomplishes something!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 3:24 PM

Correct…

Regarding the Congress’ power of the purse; the founders gave them that power, with the ability to use it.

Posted by: Blaine at September 15, 2015 6:10 PM
Comment #398640

I have noticed very little out of the left. There have been 2 posts in the blue column in the past 2 months. The left is in a state of panic; Hillary is dropping like a rock in the polls and they have no one to run in her place. The Democratic Party has lost all identity with the younger people. What do they have to offer; a shrill old woman that can’t be believed or trusted; and old socialist of whom the democratic Party knows he has absolutely no chance of winning, and possibly an old white man (Biden) who is more closely identified as the “crazy old uncle” than presidential. So, I can understand why the deafening sound of silence from the left. That is…until someone writes in the red column; in a fight of which the left has no dog (Republican primary). Then it’s a free for all from the left, telling us who is the best republican candidate and who is the worse. Funny…

Posted by: Blaine at September 15, 2015 6:24 PM
Comment #398644

Then it’s a free for all from the left, telling us who is the best republican candidate and who is the worse. Funny…
Posted by: Blaine at September 15, 2015 6:24 PM

Thanks Blaine. I have written numerous times of the great laughter my leftie friends shower upon me.

It is hilarious to read their “tea leaf” prognostications. I recall how many libbies shared their wisdom about nominating McCain. One would have thought they might consider voting for the old horse. Hell, they even urged dems to crossover and vote in Republican primaries to get the “right” candidate.

I do understand how boring it must be for a lib dem today.

When obama’s teleprompter goes blank it will be a dark day for them. The yearning for another “savior” is apparent.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 15, 2015 6:34 PM
Comment #398648

I just find amusing the left is completely silent on Hillary’s demise. In fact, the left only comments on the republican candidates. Who honestly believes they are concerned about who runs as the republican candidate? I once heard, the left will always let you know what they fear the most, by who they attack the most.

One thing can be said for Trump, he has certainly controlled the conversation.

Posted by: Blaine at September 15, 2015 8:05 PM
Comment #398652

I have followed political campaigns since before I could vote. I have always had an interest in any Presidential candidate. I don’t need anyone’s invitation or approval to have that interest and think it silly that someone would want to chastise another person’s interest in that.

Without any citations it is difficult to believe that Trump is “doing well” with women, blacks and Hispanics. For those of us not in the bubble of right wing nonsense you might want to back that claim up with something.

Hillary Clinton is obviously forceful enough of a Presidential candidate for you to tremble in fear of her candidacy. How about we all just let this play out and see what happens. Your prescience regarding politics although limited due to your very brief time here is not something that could be referred to as astute.

C&J and I have had disagreements on this blog. I consider his/her/their conservative bonafides as unapproachable and yet able to be discussed, even if I disagree. For you to be here on this blog for a very short period of time and try to denigrate a long time contributor is laughable and stupid. Your displays of conservative right wing drivel can’t hold a candle to their reasoned discussions.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 16, 2015 9:36 AM
Comment #398656
j2t2; “Royal are you suggesting that the founding fathers thought a small portion of the people’s representatives should have the right…”

Yes, they gave the power to spend to the House, not the Senate and not the Executive.

Yes they did Royal but the question refers to a small portion of the HoR, the tea party driven conservatives,holding the rest of the HoR hostage instead of doing their job. It is the job of all members of the HoR representing all the people of this country to appropriate monies. Not a few members to hold out and to cause the countries credit status to be lowered.

Once again I ask my leftie friends; “Please tell us why it is so harmful for the House to exercise the power given to it by American citizens.”

It isn’t harmful Royal in fact it works well. But you seem to have a misguided view on the HoR. The Tea Party Caucus refused to negotiate and settle with the other members whilst meeting a deadline. They refused as they thought theur views, ideology and/or principals were superior to all others. As it turns out they only made fools of themselves and caused some of those they represent to question theiur abilities to govern.

You see the task of funding the operations of the government is not meant as a hammer to derail other legislation, a hammer used by a certain portion of the HoR not all the members. The job of each of the individuals given the responsibility to represent the people of their gerrymandered districts is to work with others in the HoR with the same responsibilities.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 16, 2015 1:50 PM
Comment #398657

j2t2; “Yes they did Royal but the question refers to a small portion of the HoR…”

A small portion of votes does not rule.

In order for “all members” to appropriate spending would require 100% yea votes.

“They refused as they thought theur views, ideology and/or principals were…” the right thing to do.

j2 talks about a “hammer” being used by some members of the house to derail legislation. I suggest that they play by the rules as do the dems.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 16, 2015 2:22 PM
Comment #398661

Speaks, let me get this straight, I am commenting in the conservative/republican column, on a post written by a conservative; and I’m not allowed to disagree/have my own opinion because I haven’t been on the site long enough? Is that in the WB rules, or is it just something you made up?

There is a difference between “being interested in politics ” and having a “dog in the fight “. Having a dog in the fight means you are concerned about which candidate wins the primary, due to supporting his/her stand on issues. But if you have no intention of voting for one of the candidates, then how do you have a dog in the fight???

Regarding Hillary, I don’t think anyone fears her. She is toast.

Posted by: Blaine at September 16, 2015 4:08 PM
Comment #398663

You can disagree with whomever you wish to. You can have your own opinion. Your credibility however is another thing entirely. I didn’t say you couldn’t, I just said I disagreed.

Your differences are noted but that still doesn’t stop me and anyone else from being interested in, supporting or not supporting any Presidential candidate that they wish to. I have a “dog in the fight” because I am an American citizen and choose to.

As I said, how about we just let this nomination and election process play out and see what happens. It is noted that you do not like Hillary Clinton but it would seem you fear her.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 16, 2015 4:14 PM
Comment #398666

Trust me when I say, I have no fear of Hillary. She is nothing to me; I don’t like or dislike her. She is a corrupt politician who has ridden on the coat tails of her corrupt husband, who has managed to wiggle or talk his way out of every situation. Hillary, on the other hand does not have that finesse or oratory skills. Bill Clinton is a likable good ol boy, but Hillary is not likable.

You can continue to claim a dog in the fight of the Republican primary, but you and I both know you don’t. You want to act like you are open or interested in the primary, but your not. Your a liberal and you will vote straight democrat

Posted by: Blaine at September 16, 2015 6:08 PM
Comment #398706

You can continue to say you have no fear of Hillary but I won’t trust you on that since you always seem to want to bring it up.

Still trying to tell me how I will vote? You want to act like you know me, you don’t. From the brief amount of time you have spent here I find it amusing that you presume to tell me how partisan I am and yet your rabid right wing statements prove how utterly partisan and close minded you appear.

After the town hall debacle that Trump had last night regarding a statement from the audience that President Obama is a Muslim and not even an American without any comment on the stupidity of that statement I can only agree with C&J “Fire Trump”. Better still never, ever let a man of that caliber in an elected office of any kind.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 18, 2015 10:02 AM
Comment #398731

Obama spent over 20 years under the tutelage of the Rev. Wright, who was an anti-Israel, anti-white, anti-American racist; and when Obama was asked about Wright’s comments, Obama said he could not condemn Wright because he was like family. In the 2008 primary, when Hillary was asked if she thought Obama was a Muslim, she said we must take him at his word and then she said “as far as I know “. In fact, it was the Clinton machine who first suggested Obama was not born in America. So if your going base the qualifications of the president on what they said or didn’t say; then Obama is not qualified and neither is Hillary. What we are seeing is the Democrats attempt to trap Trump. If he apologizes to Obama, he loses his base. My guess is Trump will double down and his support will continue to grow.

I fear Hillary, because I bring her up??? Kind of odd comment, since politians are brought up by everyone. I don’t have to be here very long to know which of the writers are die hard Democrats. It’s not like it’s a big secret who you vote for. When Chris Matthews said he got a tingle up his leg when he thinks of Obama, it doesn’t take rocket science to know he’s a “rabid left winger”. The same can be said for the Obama/Clinton apologists on WB.

Posted by: Blaine at September 19, 2015 1:22 AM
Comment #398733

From the above link, just in case you don’t want to look up the truth:

Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there?

The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama. …

The original smear against Obama was that he was a crypto-Muslim, floated in 2004 by perennial Illinois political candidate and serial litigant Andy Martin. Other related versions of this theory alleged that Obama was educated in an Indonesian “madrassa” or steeped in Islamist ideology from a young age, and the theories began to spread virally after Obama appeared on the national stage – to the casual observer, from nowhere – with his early 2007 presidential campaign. …

Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve.

That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.

“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.

Posted by: Blaine at September 19, 2015 1:51 AM
Comment #398822

OK, but it is the fault of the right that these rumors did not die 7 years ago with HRC’s campaign.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 19, 2015 7:46 AM
Comment #398823

Warren Porter, since you agree the birther/Muslin situation started with the Clintons, doesn’t Hillary owe Obama an apology. In fact, she has owed the apology since 2008. For her to have a press conference yesterday, demanding Trump apologize was a joke. Hillary is still dropping in the polls and would do anything to change the narrative or the focus. Hillary owes the American people an apology for 4 Americans being killed under her leadership in Bhengazi. Obama owes the American people an apology for the racist comments of his preacher (Wright) but he refused to throw Wright under the bus. In fact, to the contrary, we find Obama has continued the same rhetoric in word and deed.

And lastly, I would ask why the left considers being a Muslim such a bad thing? If Obama is a Muslim, does it change anything? It is only the left who seems to be outraged.

Posted by: Blaine at September 19, 2015 9:25 AM
Comment #398824

“From the above link, just in case you don’t want to look up the truth:”

So what you’re saying is that you actually don’t know what the truth is.
You don’t know if Hillary started the rumor as you stated because your source for the “truth” doesn’t know either as they stated in this quote;

“That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.”

All we know for sure is that “anonymous” may have started the rumor, and the right ran with it, and is still running with it.

Apparently there is still no bullshit like old bullshit.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 19, 2015 9:26 AM
Comment #398825

RM, it doesn’t matter if it was the Clinton people circulated their own anonymous email, or if the email had an anonymous author; when Hillary was asked about the comments circulated, she first said we must take Obama at his word, and when pressed further she said “as far as I know”, he’s not a Muslim. If Trump is expected to answer for the comments of his followers, shouldn’t Clinton be required to do the same? Her comment “as far as I know” shows skepticism as to whether Obama was telling the truth or not.

Here are some of the Clinton supporters who promoted the birther/Muslim belief; attorney Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J. who filed a SC lawsuit; Philip Berg, a self-described “moderate to liberal” Democrat who supported Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, alleged Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency.

FactCheck.org wrote on Nov. 8, 2008 in quoting Politico (a lefwing news outlet): “This claim was first advanced by diehard Hillary Clinton supporters as her campaign for the party’s nomination faded, and has enjoyed a revival among John McCain’s partisans as he fell substantially behind Obama in public opinion polls.”

But none of this means anything; if Trump is required to apologize; Hillary was first required to apologize.

Posted by: Blaine at September 19, 2015 10:39 AM
Comment #398826
since you agree the birther/Muslin situation started with the Clintons

Don’t put words in my mouth. As Rocky points out, the rumor is believed to have originated with Clinton supporters unaffiliated with main campaign. My guess is that it is the same people who created the Party Unity, My Ass (PUMA) PAC long after HRC had endorsed Obama for President.

doesn’t Hillary owe Obama an apology
There’s no evidence that Hillary or any of her staff had any involvement with this.
For her to have a press conference yesterday, demanding Trump apologize was a joke.
No, this is a serious matter. A man who is obviously brainwashed in far right-winged conspiracy posed a ridiculous question to Trump and Trump indicated, “We’ll look into it”. That is not Presidential behavior. Contrast Trump with how John McCain responded to similar hysteria.
Hillary is still dropping in the polls and would do anything to change the narrative or the focus.
Do you really expect her to focus on her candidacies shortcomings? Of course HRC’s going to attack when she can. The fewer days her email is headline news the better she will be.
Hillary owes the American people an apology for 4 Americans being killed under her leadership in Benghazi.
Americans fought valiantly and tragically some perished, which is the unfortunately consequence of war. FDR never apologized for the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor, GWB never apologized for the intelligence failure that led to 9/11/01 and BHO/HRC will never apologize for their leadership on 9/11/12.
Obama owes the American people an apology for the racist comments of his preacher (Wright) but he refused to throw Wright under the bus.
Reverend Wright’s comments are no different than Donald Trump’s remarks. Personally, I regard these people as simply panders of identity politics rather than racists, but feel free to disagree with me.
why the left considers being a Muslim such a bad thing
Did anyone on the Left say being Muslim was a bad thing? Or are they merely upset that some people continue to misidentify Obama as one? Presumably, this identification is partly due to Obama’s unique personal. He is nonwhite, had a Muslim stepfather and spent part of his childhood in Indonesia. Despite his far left screeches, nobody would ever level the same accusation at Bernie Sanders or other White Democrats. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 19, 2015 10:46 AM
Comment #398827

Blaine,

“Her comment “as far as I know” shows skepticism as to whether Obama was telling the truth or not.”

Actually the comment could be taken in the context it was given, that being Hillary didn’t know differently.

You fringers are so willing to spin anything to what you might perceive to your advantage, yet, hypocritically, eviscerate anyone that disagrees with your spin.

Obama is not responsible for Rev Wright, Rev Wright is. And, Oh BTW, you can’t have it both ways.
Why would a “Muslim” spend 20 years listening to a Christian preacher?

That make even less sense than blaming Hillary for an anonymous e-mail.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 19, 2015 11:14 AM
Comment #398828

You guys are hilarious; you accuse me of spinning “anything to what you might perceive to your advantage, yet, hypocritically, eviscerate anyone that disagrees with your spin.”

RM says, “Actually the comment could be taken in the context it was given, that being Hillary didn’t know differently.”

Yet you demand that Trump should know differently. This is a hypocritical comment and not requiring the same standards for both people. Who is doing the spinning?

WP’s original response to my comment that it was the Clinton people who circulated the birther info, was:

OK, but it is the fault of the right that these rumors did not die 7 years ago with HRC’s campaign. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 19, 2015 7:46 AM

OK, sounds like a concession that my point was correct, and now you say I am putting words in your mouth. Please tell me what you meant by “OK”?

So, to both of you, Obama is not responsible for what Wright said and Hillary is not responsible for what her supporters said; but Trump is responsible for what some yahoo (whether a plant or not) says in a question and answer forum? Again, hypocrisy and double standards.

The left MUST consider being a Muslim is a terrible thing; it is the left who is constantly defending Obama, whether he is one or not. Since you defend Hillary’s right to not know whether Obama is a Muslim or not, then you must not know either.

By the way, Bush or FDR cannot be compared to Hillary’s involvement in Benghazi. In case you didn’t know, there is still an ongoing investigation into her involvement in Benghazi. In fact, she still has to testify, LOL and can you honestly tell us the outcome of the inquiry; especially since she is in such trouble over her emails? You can spin this all you want, but the American people don’t believe or trust her. In fact, you WP, have already stated you would not vote for her. You either believe her, or you don’t.

Posted by: Blaine at September 19, 2015 11:42 AM
Comment #398830

Blaine,

I could give a rat’s ass about Obama’s or anyone’s religion for that matter. Trump brought up Obama’s birth and religion in 2011, again in 2013, and then sidestepped the comment at his “town hall” the other night.

Do I care about apologies?

Nope.

Do I think Trump’s an ass for playing these games?

Abso-freaking-lutely.

Trump is all too willing to continue to throw out red meat for the rubes who actually believe his shtick.

Hillary has yet to be convicted of anything.

Sorry, I may not vote for her but she’s still innocent until proven guilty.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 19, 2015 12:29 PM
Comment #398831

And Hillary’s people brought it up in 08. Did you think she was an “ass” in 08? The only reason your side is trying to make a big deal out of Trump is because he leads. Hillary don’t have to be convicted for the American people to find her a liar and untrustworthy.

I love the way liberals use the term “innocent until proven guilty “, it’s a shame you don’t really believe it. How many times in the past 6 1/2 years has Obama made an ass out of himself convicting cops/whites , as his minions parrot him, only to find out he was wrong.

Posted by: Blaine at September 19, 2015 1:36 PM
Comment #398832

Blaine,

“And Hillary’s people brought it up in 08. Did you think she was an “ass” in 08?”

Oh my God, Hillary’s people brought it up and I should think Hillary is an ass because of that?

“I love the way liberals use the term “innocent until proven guilty “, it’s a shame you don’t really believe it.”

Really, and I love the way the right touts the Constitution as the be all and end all, but doesn’t truly believe in it.

You really do need a life pal.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 19, 2015 1:44 PM
Comment #398833
Yet you demand that Trump should know differently.

Excuse me? Did Trump say that Obama is not a Muslim as far as he knew or did he say “we’ll look into it”. Did Trump make his remarks 7 years ago when Obama was still an outsider or did he make them last week when Obama is ingrained in the establishment?

The two situations are different. Only a spinster would equivocate them.

Please tell me what you meant by “OK”?
“OK” was an acknowledgement of what your shared in your Breitbart link: “That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.”

Only a spinster would conflate that with a concession that HRC was personally responsible for those rumors.

So, to both of you, Obama is not responsible for what Wright said and Hillary is not responsible for what her supporters said; but Trump is responsible for what some yahoo (whether a plant or not) says in a question and answer forum? Again, hypocrisy and double standards.

Obama and Reverend Wright had a decades long relationship. There was much more to Wright than a few politically incorrect remarks that were broadcast on TV. I grant Obama lenience for evaluating a close friend as a whole person rather than by a few inconvenient soundbites. The speech Obama delivered after the broadcast of a few fragments Wright’s sermon illustrated this particularly well.

Also, recall that Wright is a religions figure and religion is fundamentally concerned with fantasy, not reality. Much of preaching is more spectacle than it is anything else.

Hillary is not responsible for what her supporters said
And Trump is not responsible for what his supporters might say online or other media. However, when confronted in person with slanderous lies and conspiracy both Trump and HRC and any other candidate for President have an obligation to not endorse the conspiracy. HRC acted the manner in which a candidate should. Watch the original exchange in context. Observe HRC’s body language including how quickly she shakes her head and her repeated statement that there is no basis for the rumor that Obama is Muslim. Did we get anything like this from Trump? No, we got body language that affirmed what the supported asked and words that suggested the questioner had suggested a worthy use of a Trump administration’s resources.
Bush or FDR cannot be compared to Hillary’s involvement in Benghazi.
Why not? Both were attacks on American property by our enemies that resulted in the loss of human lives.
In case you didn’t know, there is still an ongoing investigation into her involvement in Benghazi.
In case you didn’t know, there were official investigations into the the failures that led to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 as well. Both of those investigations were still ongoing 3 years after both of those incidents.
In fact, she still has to testify, LOL and can you honestly tell us the outcome of the inquiry.
The Benghazi inquiry will find nothing of importance relating to HRC. It has been nothing but a spectacle up to this point and I see no indication that Gowdy, Issa or any of their peers are actually interested learning how to prevent a similar event from happening in the future. Key point, there has been little to no investigation into what exactly the CIA was doing in Benghazi. Of course, HRC’s credibility is shot so no one on the Right will believe her testimony, but until I see hard evidence that contradicts her, I will take her at her word.
the American people don’t believe or trust her
Absolutely. It would take a miracle for someone known to be such a pathological liar to win the Presidency. Fortunately for HRC, a dozen such miracles are vying for the Republican nomination as we speak. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 19, 2015 2:08 PM
Comment #398834
How many times in the past 6 1/2 years has Obama made an ass out of himself convicting cops/whites

Try zero times. Expressing a personal opinion that someone else acted “stupidly” or acknowledging that race plays a role in policing behavior is far from the same as “convicting”.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 19, 2015 2:23 PM
Comment #398835

So what all boils down to, is two liberals who have no intention on voting for Hillary because the conservatives are evil people and have prejudged her. Trump, on the other hand, is ahead in the republican primary and therefore must be brought down. He might make it, or he might not; but it will be based on what conservatives think of him and not the spin of the left. The presumed outrage of the left is simply based on the fact he is ahead. The liberal media, including Fox, has determined Fiorina is the one to unseat Trump, but if her or any other republican moved to the lead; they would become the targets of the left’s wrath.

Posted by: Blaine at September 19, 2015 3:22 PM
Comment #398837
therefore must be brought down.

Must be brought down? Personally, I would look forward to Trump as the GOP nominee. If he can somehow get past the bully rhetoric, I may even vote for him. He has a long track record of supporting left-wing causes and I think he would have much better time compromising with Congressional Democrats than Cruz, Carson or Walker would.

because the conservatives are evil people and have prejudged her

Who said that conservatives were evil people?

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 19, 2015 3:35 PM
Comment #398838

Blaine,

I’ve got to hand it to you, your posts are at very least consistently incoherent.

One wonders what color the sky is on your planet.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 19, 2015 3:46 PM
Comment #398851

Is that you, jane doe?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 20, 2015 11:52 AM
Comment #398861

There is not a lot of concern over who said what back in 2007-08. There is more concern about what is being said now. If a questioner at a Democratic debate were to ask Hillary “Our country was sold out by Bush and Cheney when they aided the attack on 9/11. Are you going to heed the warnings if you see them?” Would you give her a pass if she just said “I will watch for the warnings” or would you expect her to admonish the questioner for suggesting that Bush and Cheney were complicit in the attack on 9/11?

Seems a certain individual here wants to turn any posting into an attack on Hillary Clinton. But he’s not afraid of her, sure.

Trump was wrong for not admonishing the nut job questioner just as Hillary would be wrong for not addressing it if it happened to her.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 21, 2015 3:17 PM
Post a comment