Trump Throws Down the Gauntlet in Phoenix

Saying he doubled down in Phoenix just doesn’t do it. Does it? How to describe Trump’s fiery policy speech on immigration? All in with every chip? And how is Mexican President Peña Nieto feeling after their meeting mere hours before? A little remorseful?

Trump delivered his 10 point plan with all the diplomacy of General Patton. Others will use different comparisons no doubt, but this was a clear return to his slash and burn style, with one important difference. He got down in the policy weeds naming specific laws or policies that he would change on day one.

Not that the specificity of his speech will convince his critics. In fact, they will feed on it's substance and use it to denounce his hardline stance on immigration. But no one can deny that he has laid out a plan. Will it work?

While the focus of the speech was on immediate action to deport illegals with a criminal record of any kind, the tone was as uncompromising as any of his previous statements back a few months - or even weeks - ago. But it was backed up with some detail and statistics. Which will surely be fact-checked mercilessly and immediately. But who was the intended audience? Aside from the rowdy angry and restless crowd in Phoenix.

After appearing presidential like in Mexico City in his press conference with Nieto, Trump seemed to turn his back on the independents and moderate GOP voters who are uncomfortable with his post-convention scandals. He had been softening some of his stances on immigration and dialing back the language a little. And most have felt it was to win them back. and not the putative targets of Hispanic and African American voters.

But Wednesday night in Phoenix Trump seemed to throw down a gauntlet, signaling to those independents and moderates, including many female voters who haven't chosen Hillary yet: you have a choice it's Hillary or me, and here's what I'm doing on immigration. Whether you're comfortable or not with that.

Again, will it work? Trump has been closing the gap with Hillary, but he's not yet got there, and in many key states, he's not even close yet. There's plenty of work to do, and he's decided to be who he's been most of this campaign. What will Kellyanne Conway have to say about the speech? Has her approach been shunted aside? Labor day is a week away, and Trump's campaign has changed course yet again. By bringing the Angel Moms onstage to tell their stories, he has also thrown a gauntlet down at the media and accused them of corrupt bias. Will it work?

One thing for sure, the first debate is going to be a spectacle. Maybe Hillary should convince Nigel Farage to stand in for Trump in her debate prep. And even then, would it help? Maybe she feels she doesn't have to. That Trump has handed back the momentum to her with this speech. Trump certainly has separated his immigration policy violently from any comparison with Obama's administration - something that was being given increasing chatter lately. Will it work? Will the gauntlet be taken up? Most important of all, by undecided voters?

Posted by Keeley at September 1, 2016 4:16 PM
Comments
Comment #407083

The president of Mexico and Trump and feuding on Twitter. Trump claims they did not discuss the Wall. The president said they did, and Mexico would not pay. Gee. Wonder who is telling the truth? Nearly every day for over a year Trump said we’re going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it, and when he meets the Mexican leader, they do not discuss it? Really?

Anyone who believes Trump will spending hundreds of billions on a wall, and hundreds of billions more to deport 11 million people, has to be g** d***** stupid.

That speech by Trump last night in AZ was absolutely horrendous.

“Tonight he was not a Republican but a populist ,modern day Father Coughlin who demonized immigrants.”
Jacob Monty, a Hispanic advisor to Trump on withdrawing his support.

The speech was dark and hateful. It characterized illegal immigrants as murderers and worse, again and again and again. It demonized them. It blamed America’s problems on illegal immigrants, a group among the least able to defend themselves. They are guilty of the crime of wanting to be Americans. Yet Trump said terrible things, he called for walls, and the crowd cheered.

Other Hispanic Republicans are bailing too.

Mike Fernandez, an influential billionaire Republican Hispanic in Florida, called the Trump campaign “a never-ending spiral of vulgarity, intellectual dishonesty, invective, abuse, misogyny, racism, intolerance, bullying, ignorance and downright cruelty. The fact that the person unleashing these forces, reflecting beliefs and biases that we had long ago identified as at odds with the Founding Fathers’ principle of ordered liberty was a member of my party, was at first cause for irritation evolving into alarm and frustration and finally arriving at a sobering moment of embarrassment for my party, and beyond that, of profound concern for my beloved country.”

Trump is stoking the dark side of the American character. He is a demagogic populist stoking the fires of hatred. I never thought I would see such a thing in this country, pure, hateful nativism. He painted immigrants, both legal and illegal, as a threat- potential terrorists, murderers, welfare seekers, and job stealers. Trump brought people onto the stage who had seen loved ones killed by illegal immigrants, as if that situation represented the rule, rather than the rare exception. It was absolutely horrific. He could have brought people on stage whose loved ones were saved by illegal immigrants in the same numbers, yet he chose to demonize and incite hatred.

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2016 4:42 PM
Comment #407086
They are guilty of the crime of wanting to be Americans. Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2016 4:42 PM

They’re guilty of working hard, contributing to the economy, and sometimes having darker skin tones, which I’m guessing is the only thing that matters to the people Drumpf wants to vote for him. He doesn’t seem to care that he’s actually turning more people against him. Maybe it is all a big conspiracy, and WJC42 got him to run to make sure HRC45 gets elected. He was a BIG contributor to the Clinton Foundation after all.

Posted by: oraoghaile at September 1, 2016 5:04 PM
Comment #407087

Trump really gets under the thin skin of my Liberal/Socialist pals on WatchBlog.

His greatest sin appears to be calling for enforcement of our immigration laws…considered a despicable action by the Left.

phx8 has his shorts in a twist because Trump dared to showcase those grieving over loved ones murdered by assholes who shouldn’t be in our country.

Those politicians who allow these degenerate criminal thugs to be here should be brought to justice themselves. Instead, we find our Libbie pals celebrating an administration and candidate that fosters the murder and mayhem.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2016 5:40 PM
Comment #407089

Bill Clinton, in 1995 gave a speech similar to Trumps yet Bill Clinton gets a standing ovation from the joint secession of congress and the libs of W.B. chastise Trump for the same thing. SMH!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 1, 2016 7:23 PM
Comment #407093

KAP,
No. Clinton did NOT say the same thing as Trump. Here is a link to his speech in 1995:

http://millercenter.org/president/clinton/speeches/speech-3440

He did NOT call for a wall. He did NOT call for deporting 11 million illegal immigrants. He did NOT characterize illegal immigrants as murderers and rapists, and bring people on stage to testify about how their loved ones were killed by illegal immigrants. His policy was very similar to the one promoted by the Obama administration, namely, to prioritize deportation of violent criminals.

RF
Trump enjoys the full fledged support of David Duke, a former Grand Wizard for the KKK, as well as the KKK, The Daily Stormer, and American Renaissance. These are white supremacist groups, white nationalists, racists, racialists, the Alt Right.

Do you really want to make common cause with these people in the name of law and order? Do you really want to march shoulder to shoulder with them?

“The alt-right is a movement that represents the hopes and dreams and rights and aspirations of the white people of this country the same way that these black organizations and Mexican organizations represent the interests of Mexicans in this country. White people have to have an advocacy organization and that’s what is at the core of the alt-right. The alt-right is at core a movement for the preservation of the people whose forefathers created the united states of America, our constitution, and the nation that we revere and we love.”
David Duke, 8/25/16

“Hillary Clinton and her pals are afraid of us because we are reaching more and more white people. If whites really understood the racial implications of what she stands for, they wouldn’t vote for her as dog catcher.”
Chris Roberts, American Renaissance, 8/25/16

There’s more- from Breitbart and InfoWars and elsewhere. It is evil, hateful stuff. This is the Alt Right. This is Trump.

Is this you?

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2016 11:49 PM
Comment #407096

Phx8 Clinton did call for deportation and hiring of more border guards and ENFORCEMENT OF OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS. Maybe not building a physical wall but a WALL no less of strict enforcement of our LAWS.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 2, 2016 8:41 AM
Comment #407099

Everyone wants our immigration laws to be enforced, except for Drumpf, who employed illegals as models, but it doesn’t matter at all when they are white Europeans. The argument is over deportation of American citizens and their family members that aren’t citizens. The wall/fence that already exists is idiotic, since they had to build it on US territory, and it cuts through private property at many points.

Posted by: oraoghaile at September 2, 2016 12:01 PM
Comment #407102

Is this you?
Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2016 11:49 PM

I believe our laws should be enforced. Do you?

The liberal position on a wall to protect our border is difficult to understand. They love walls…especially the imaginary wall between religion and government.

By objecting to a barrier on our Southern border the Left is sending a clear signal that anyone who wishes should simply come in and stay. The Left doesn’t value our country, our values, our citizenship and demonstrate how worthless they consider each is by not protecting them.

If I had to make a guess I would guess that both phx8 and orao have a fenced back yard. If so…why?

A nation that will not protect its borders and control who becomes a citizen is not a nation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 2, 2016 2:22 PM
Comment #407103

I do not have a fenced back yard. A paved path runs next to my property and people walk past all the time.

The Trump speech was hate speech directed at illegal immigrants. It demonized them. Look at that speech and substitute Jews or Blacks for illegal immigrants, and no one would have a problem recognizing the hateful nature of it. That was one of the ugliest things I have ever seen, and it is shocking that it is happening in America.

Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2016 2:44 PM
Comment #407104

I believe our laws should be enforced. Do you?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 2, 2016 2:49 PM
Comment #407105

Many laws exist. Many are not enforced. There are entire books filled with laws that are not enforced. For example, in Oregon it is against the law to eat ice cream on Sunday. It is also illegal to bathe without wearing suitable clothing.

Let’s see. What did the Founding Fathers say about illegal immigration. Oh yeah. There were no immigration laws. The first immigration law was the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Nice one, that.

Sometimes laws are wrong. Sometimes laws can be used for hateful purposes. Sometimes they are simply impractical, and require prosecutorial discretion.

None of this changes the fact that Trump is giving hate-filled speeches, and he is targeting illegal immigrants. He is demonizing them. It is evil.

If the target was Jews or Mormons- after all, some believe this is a Christian nation- no one would have a problem recognizing the hate speech spouted and yelled by Trump for what it is.

Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2016 3:19 PM
Comment #407106

phx8 is embarrassed to answer my question which “obviously” relates to illegal immigration. One would almost think he was dancing the way he avoids the issue.

Notice how unskillfully he rephrases the issue to encourage the reader to conclude that our immigration laws are race based and hatefully directed to only some countries and peoples.

Let’s conclude that phx8 doesn’t agree that congress has the power to enact immigration laws, that the nation doesn’t require immigration laws, and we don’t have any right to determine who enters our country.

Let us also conclude that phx8 believes individuals, cities, law enforcement, and courts may choose which laws, if any, to obey or enforce.

ICE Boasts About Arresting Only 101 of 172K Criminal Aliens

“ICE Director Sarah Saldaña recently testified before Congress that she doesn’t know how many illegal aliens with criminal records are currently living in American communities. However, she did confess ICE had released nearly 20,000 criminal aliens back into American communities last year alone, on top of more than 30,000 released the year before.”

But ICE data published by the Center for Immigration Studies show there are more than 172,000 convicted criminal aliens with final orders of removal still loose in the United States.”

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/ice-boasts-about-arresting-00006-criminal-aliens

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 2, 2016 3:51 PM
Comment #407107

Numerous people, besides the next POTUS, have been the objects of the hatred being publicized and attempting to be legitimized by the noxious Drumpf campaign and the Drumpfite cult of personality. He had better watch out, in case the hatred that he wants to use as a shock technique gets turned against him when he disappoints his followers, or somebody that wants to free Melania from him might do him harm. Pretending to be Mussolini could be costly.

Posted by: oraoghaile at September 2, 2016 5:09 PM
Comment #407108

oraoghaile
No doubt, Trump is playing a dangerous game by stirring up such hatred. The crowds are truly scary. It is hard to believe those people actually live in the United States in 2016. They want the government to round up millions of people.

Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2016 5:21 PM
Comment #407109

The United States is my home. Unlike phx8 and orao I won’t allow home invaders into my home.

While he was on vacation three people entered phx8’s home and began living there. Upon his return, phx8 welcomed the invaders and suggested they invite relatives to come and enjoy his munificence.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 2, 2016 5:37 PM
Comment #407110
They want the government to round up millions of people. Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2016 5:21 PM

And they’re going to be very disappointed when that doesn’t happen, and HRC45 will have to deal with the fallout from all that hatred. The GOP can’t claim to have clean hands, even disavowing Drumpf, because they want that hatred to be directed at the woman that they actually believe will be the next POTUS, to use against her.

Posted by: oraoghaile at September 2, 2016 5:38 PM
Comment #407111

Hillary should, and probably will be prosecuted at some point in the near future.

We can’t allow people to be above the law because of wealth and/or position. She and several others have to go. Congress should see that she is denied access to classified information immediately.

Posted by: roy ellis at September 2, 2016 10:00 PM
Comment #407112

Roy,
Don’t be silly. To be prosecuted, a person needs to commit a crime and be indicted. That has not happened; in fact, the FBI already said there would be no indictments. That was the unanimous decision of the analysts who investigated issue. But like I said at the time, fake scandals die hard, and this one will die harder than most. FOX spent a year hammering this without any real evidence and we are seeing the results.

However, Trump’s first trial for fraud starts November 28th in CA. About the same time he will come up on racketeering charges in CA. The NY AG’s prosecution has not announced a date yet.

Trump already paid the IRS $2,500 for a campaign violation. His Trump Foundation paid AG Pam Bondi’s campaign $25,000 for not investigating Trump University in Florida.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/01/trump-pays-irs-a-penalty-for-his-foundation-violating-rules-with-gift-to-florida-attorney-general/

Do you see the difference, Roy? What you are saying about HRC is what you would like to happen, but is not happening. What I am saying about Trump is actually happening. It is real.

Big difference.

Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2016 11:06 PM
Comment #407114
What you are saying about HRC is what you would like to happen, but is not happening. What I am saying about Trump is actually happening. It is real.

Big difference.
Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2016 11:06 PM

Credulous people are not persuadable. I don’t know what they are going to do after election day when they realize that hatred doesn’t win elections.

Posted by: oraoghaile at September 3, 2016 11:28 AM
Comment #407115

Hatred doesn’t win elections? I’m not so sure about that. The fundamental strategy of the Trump campaign seems to be enraging white males with high school educations so that they turn out in record numbers. The target of the rage is illegal immigrants, immigrants, Muslims, feminists in particular and women in general, and foreigners. It also includes the elites, the experts, and anyone with an education beyond the high school level. The lead Trump cheerleaders are Hannity, Limbaugh, and the Alt Right.

There are a lot of them. But I am pretty sure there are not enough.

Trump has already claimed the election is rigged. Part of that is sheer narcissism. He can not conceive of the idea that people will not vote for him in a fair election. Another part is to set up opposition for future.

If the polls hold true- and I suspect they will- HRC will win by about six points. That makes total sense in historical terms. Obama won by a little over four points in 2012. If every one voted the same way in 2016 as in 2012 as a matter of demographics, the electorate has become 1.5% more Democratic. 75% of voter deaths have been Republican over the past four years, while Hispanic voters have increased. Six points is reasonable.

That would not be enough to turn the House. A Democratic Senate will give HRC the SCOTUS, but the House will probably continue its usual fecklessness, opposing everything just for the sake of stopping anything good from happening. Oh well. There will be a lot of resentment and hatred from the right for HRC, but what else is new?

Posted by: phx8 at September 3, 2016 4:09 PM
Comment #407116

I wonder why phx8 continues to write his nonsense about Trump. Does he believe he will change the mind of anyone on WB?

All the scandals are about Hillary and her lying incompetence, grossly negligent handling of the nations secrets, and her understandable reluctance to hold a press conference in nearly a year.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 3, 2016 4:30 PM
Comment #407117

How can anyone with an ounce of intelligence and integrity vote for Hillary after reading the outrageous statements she made in her FBI interview?

“1. She cited her 2012 concussion as the reason that she cannot remember details of briefings during her “transition out of office.”

2. She said she never even thought whether emails she exchanged on a future U.S. drone attack should be classified.

3. She said she thought the “C” before a paragraph indicated alphabetical order. The C actually stands for “classified.”

4. She said no one ever raised concerns to her about her use of a private email server.

5. She said she could not recall any training on how to handle classified information.

Clinton aides told the FBI that the Secretary of State frequently replaced her Blackberry phone and the whereabouts of her old device would become “unknown.” The FBI report suggests there were at least 13 different devices used.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/5-most-outrageous-things-hillary-191229840.html

This women is a disaster. She should retire immediately and never be seen or heard from again. It is demeaning that anyone should have to breath the same air she does.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 3, 2016 5:52 PM
Comment #407118


Democratics seem to think the American people as a whole have the same standards they do, which is none.

Their support for Hillbilly proves how low they will go.

It use to be we considered the health of a candidate important. Now it’s sexist. It used to be we considered the truthfulness of a candidate important. Now the lies are ignored. It used to be a candidates competence was paramount. Now the messenger is at fault.


Why do Democratics think there is only one woman competent enough to be president? If this is their honest opinion of women then women should be exiting the Democratic party in droves. If Hillbilly is their example of the best of women, a truer insult could never be.

If Democratics are willing to put aside competence, integrity, honesty, just to elect a woman… Now we know who the true sexists are.

They voted for the empty suit because he is black. They vote for the prevaricator because she’s a woman. They have embraced all that they publicly despise.

Why should we believe anything they say?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 3, 2016 6:38 PM
Comment #407119

RF,
Hillary has already been exonerated by the FBI. There was nothing illegal, and there will be no indictments. I know, I know, conspiracy theories dies hard, but it is time to move on to the stage of acceptance.

WW,
In a worldwide poll by Gallup, Hillary Clinton was named the Most Admired Woman in the World for 2015. That was her 20th time, a record.

Posted by: phx8 at September 3, 2016 6:56 PM
Comment #407120

My pal phx8 apparently can’t read. Can anyone believe he finds no problem with this woman’s answers to the FBI as quoted above?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 3, 2016 7:01 PM
Comment #407121

He’s ignoring them. It’s a Democratic flaw in their character. They can’t see anything wrong with themselves.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 3, 2016 7:36 PM
Comment #407122

I find no problem whatsoever with HRC’s answers. She did nothing illegal.

I have no idea of the context, but in general, when a person is giving that kind of interview, they are not supposed to guess. If they are sure, the answer is ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ If they are not certain, then they should answer that they do not know or do not recall.

And remember, the legal question is whether HRC had any intent to do something wrong. Obviously, she did not. Why would she? It doesn’t even make sense.

“That said, this report is pretty much an almost complete exoneration of Hillary Clinton. She wasn’t prohibited from using a personal device or a personal email account, and others at state did it routinely. She’s told the truth all along about why she did it. Colin Powell did indeed advise her about using personal email shortly after she took office, but she chose to follow the rules rather than skirt them, as Powell did. She didn’t take her BlackBerry into her office. She communicated with only a very select group of 13 people. She took no part in deciding which emails were personal before handing them over to State. She had nothing to do with erasing information on the PRN server. That was a screw-up on PRN’s end. She and her staff all believed at the time that they were careful not to conduct sensitive conversations over unclassified email systems. And there’s no evidence that her server was ever hacked.”
From Mother Jones

Seriously. It is time to move on through the stages of grief. It is time for acceptance. This fake scandal failed. So did Benghazi. Conspiracy theories die hard. Let it go. Accept it and move on.

Posted by: phx8 at September 3, 2016 9:09 PM
Comment #407123

Yawn.

She took no part in deciding which emails were personal before handing them over to State.

Really?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 4, 2016 12:34 AM
Comment #407129

“She did nothing illegal.”

Transferring classified information to an unsecured email account is a crime. Intent is not a required condition for it to be prosecutable. Hilary had signed off that she understood how to properly handle classified information. Now she can’t recall having done that, except information has now come forth disproving that claim. The DOJ, FBI, IRS, and other agencies under Obama have become corrupt to their cores, and anyone in his circle is now above the law.

Posted by: dbs at September 4, 2016 11:19 AM
Comment #407131

“Trump enjoys the full fledged support of David Duke, a former Grand Wizard for the KKK, as well as the KKK,”

That dog won’t hunt. Notice these are the tactics our friends on the left have resorted to, because they can’t stand on the issues most Americans actually care about.

Posted by: dbs at September 4, 2016 11:24 AM
Comment #407132
Transferring classified information to an unsecured email account is a crime. Intent is not a required condition for it to be prosecutable.

Repeating “Intent is not a required condition” over and over doesn’t make it true.

Hilary had signed off that she understood how to properly handle classified information. Now she can’t recall having done that, except information has now come forth disproving that claim.

Embarrassingly enough, recent revelations indicate that Hillary Clinton never understood even the basics of proper handling of classified information. While this is an example of egregious incompetence, spinning it as somehow criminal is beyond the pale.

Hillary Clinton deserves a retirement home. Not a prison cell.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 4, 2016 2:15 PM
Comment #407133
There are a lot of them. But I am pretty sure there are not enough…. There will be a lot of resentment and hatred from the right for HRC, but what else is new? Posted by: phx8 at September 3, 2016 4:09 PM

It occurred to me after reading the comments on last month’s AARP magazine in this month’s, that the wingnuts are acting like HRC45 is Jane Fonda, or someone else other than herself. I don’t think there are enough low information misinformed white male

Thirty-year Republican House of Representatives and Senate staffer Mike Lofgren, in a 2011 article titled “Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult”, characterized low-information voters as anti-intellectual and hostile-to-science “religious cranks”, and claimed Republicans are deliberately manipulating LIVs to undermine their confidence in American democratic institutions.
Posted by: oraoghaile at September 4, 2016 2:44 PM
Comment #407134
The United States is my home. Unlike phx8 and orao I won’t allow home invaders into my home.

Well…. yes…. your home and home to 324 million more people. Some here illegally. It seems a double standard is determining your logic on this issue. Many of these “home invaders” were driven from their homes by globalization and “free trade”.

“NAFTA also encourages more immigration from Mexico to the US. Since small businesses can no longer be protected by tariffs, many small business owners in Mexico cannot compete with the prices of subsidized products from the US and therefore many of them have gone under. As a result, many Mexicans have gone to the US looking for work.”

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement


If Democratics are willing to put aside competence, integrity, honesty, just to elect a woman… Now we know who the true sexists are.

Weary I just have to ask how can you use the words competence, integrity and honesty as a means to judge which candidate is beat to lead the country? IMHO Trump would be the one legged man in this a** kicking contest. What is your thinking when you insinuate Trump is more competent? At what? Governing? Really! He can’t even run a business unless it is into the ground. Integrity! What moral highground does your candidate have? Honesty… well… Trump may be honest when speaking his opinions but is very disingenuous when it comes to his campaign promises, he has no plan just a “trust me” on many issues.

So Weary, perhaps you are suggesting some one other than Trump yet what other candidate is more competent than Hillary? Who else has a track record that would indicate integrity and honesty? It seems to me you have fallen victim to the propaganda of the right wing when it comes to Clinton.

Notice these are the tactics our friends on the left have resorted to, because they can’t stand on the issues most Americans actually care about.

DBS, I don’t understand why you would call this statement “tactics” when it is a simple statement of fact? What issues do you consider “issues most Americans actually care about” when it comes to vetting the different candidates? Trump did call Clinton a bigot recently, which is a mainstay of the KKK and David Duke.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2016 2:45 PM
Comment #407136
IMHO Trump would be the one legged man in this a** kicking contest. Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2016 2:45 PM

John Oliver described the Drumpf campaign as “The political equivalent of a bigoted clown’s blazing funeral pyre”. Oliver is considered a news source now, because his staff actually does research, while the real news outlets are getting worse and worse and even using him as a source.

Posted by: oraoghaile at September 4, 2016 3:06 PM
Comment #407137

“I find no problem whatsoever with HRC’s answers. She did nothing illegal.”

Well, there you have it folks. phx8 has revealed his criteria for the highest office in the land. Do nothing illegal.

Never mind that Mrs. Clinton must be an ignorant boob and the most careless of any high government official ever for her public actions to be excused. It doesn’t matter.

Once she becomes president she will miraculously become totally cognizant, achieve an unfailing memory, understand and protect classified material, and allow all her official actions to be recorded as provided by law.

Those who defend Mrs. Clinton are enabling malfeasance of high office.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2016 3:22 PM
Comment #407138

I wrote; “The United States is my home. Unlike phx8 and orao I won’t allow home invaders into my home.”

j2t2 agrees and then excuses the home evaders by writing they were driven here; “…by globalization and “free trade”.

There are millions of people around the world that would emigrate to the United States if they could merely walk across a line on a map rather than cross oceans or mountain ranges.

Blame God for topography, not me.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2016 3:36 PM
Comment #407139

“There are millions of people around the world that would emigrate to the United States if they could…”

We would be better off if they did.
Right now, net migration with Mexico is negative.
There is a weird attitude about immigrants, as if it were easy to simply walk away from family, friends, culture, and country, and start a new life in a new place. It is not easy. It takes courage. It requires a desire and a drive to seek an opportunity. These are precisely we need. These are precisely the people who make this country great.

There is a blindness among Trump supporters, who are almost all racists and bigots. They go along with Trump and the Alt Right, and they demonize immigrants, both legal and illegal. If we were going to deport people, we probably should start with all the old white males with high school educations who so freely advocate bigotry, hatred, and racism.

And just in case anyone is not sure about that hatred, bigotry, and racism, how about some Trump quotes? Who wants some Trump quotes?!

Posted by: phx8 at September 4, 2016 5:27 PM
Comment #407140

phx8 writes; “There is a weird attitude about immigrants…”

I don’t know of any candidate for any office in the US who is anti-immigrant. I know of many however, unlike my Leftie Pals, who are against anyone breaking and/or defying our immigration laws.

Does phx8 advocate breaking our immigration laws? Shall we reward lawbreakers? Should lawbreakers be immune from punishment?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2016 5:42 PM
Comment #407141

I just have to ask how can you use the words competence, integrity and honesty as a means to judge which candidate is beat to lead the country?

j2t2,
You must believe integrity, honest and competence are no longer needed to run this country. You must believe it’s more important the president has a pussy.

Do you continue to believe you’re not a sexist?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 4, 2016 5:48 PM
Comment #407146


“You must believe integrity, honest and competence are no longer needed to run this country.”

And if you’re pulling for Donald Trump you apparently don’t think these traits are needed either. It would seem that all you think is needed is arrogance.
Well excuse me for saying it, but IMHO, arrogance is, and always has been, a flaw not a virtue.

“Notice these are the tactics our friends on the left have resorted to, because they can’t stand on the issues most Americans actually care about.”

Just what are the issues that “most Americans care about”, because Trump isn’t actually speaking to them. Of all the people in the race for president in the last year, the least favorable candidate, even after Clinton, is Donald Trump.
And if you think this all about “rigged” polls you’re even more delusional than I thought you guys were.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 4, 2016 6:46 PM
Comment #407147
You must believe integrity, honest and competence are no longer needed to run this country. You must believe it’s more important the president has a pussy.

Weary, we have seen what a lack of competence honesty and integrity did to the country during the administrations of Reagan and GWB. But you seem to think Clinton has none of these qualities. That is why your false equivalence logical fallacy is your dilemma not mine. But then would you be able to identify these qualities in a candidate if they come up and bit you on the a**? I would suggest your vote for GWB and Reagan would tell us you wouldn’t be able to identify said qualities.

You seem to have fallen for the conservative movement attacks on Clinton. The problem with this mistake is exactly what your leaders want, to obfuscate the issue. They must be proud of you for believing in the smoke and mirrors faux scandals they continue to wave around as if they have merit. You must have a problem with the quality of intelligence in our elected representatives IMHO.

I wonder why you wouldn’t want the most intelligent person in the history of the world to lead the country. The most political adept person to ever walk the face of the earth to be president. Certainly that must be the case if the one with the pussy outsmarted the conservative movement leaders each and every time this past 20 plus years. Why would you listen to a bunch of twits that cannot even frame the women despite so many attempts?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2016 7:08 PM
Comment #407148

Ah, Yes…the “smoke and mirrors faux scandals” perpetrated by the FBI and our State Department releases.

Mrs. Clinton would have served as a minor council person in some mid size Eastern city or been an ambulance chaser if she had not married Billy. She would not have married and would today, if still alive, be a spinster woman serving on the board of her local library.

The Left theorizes that her intelligence and political ability supposedly came from the osmosis from sleeping in the same house (not bedroom) as her husband.

It takes absolutely no “political adept”ness to find it necessary to be constantly defending ones public actions.

The “inept” politicians are those who must constantly lie, deny, and obfuscate.

Mrs. Clinton should resign from the (presidential and human) race and retire from public view as she becomes more and more embarrassing to our political system each day. She is a perversion upon society.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2016 7:22 PM
Comment #407150
It takes courage. It requires a desire and a drive to seek an opportunity. These are precisely we need. These are precisely the people who make this country great. Posted by: phx8 at September 4, 2016 5:27 PM

Plus, their backs are to the ocean or the wall, so they have more incentive to succeed than someone who has stayed in the same place for their whole life.

Well excuse me for saying it, but IMHO, arrogance is, and always has been, a flaw not a virtue. Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 4, 2016 6:46 PM

Many people believe that Drumpf does not even want to be POTUS. 20% of his campaign expenditures go directly back to himself and his immediate family through companies he owns.

Posted by: oraoghaile at September 4, 2016 7:34 PM
Comment #407159
She would not have married and would today, if still alive, be a spinster woman serving on the board of her local library.

What exactly is the point of this abusive language? Absent Bill, Hillary would probably have continued working with the Children’s Defense Fund. The same qualities that originally seduced Bill would easy have attracted another man. I’m no defender of her, but these sort of ad hominen attacks really don’t make any sense.

Long before she met Bill, Hillary Clinton was an accomplished student at Wellesley and Yale. A few years later, she passed the Arkansas bar exam. I think she was a smart person at one time. However the years have taken their toll and her mind is not quite as sharp as it once was. Ronald Reagan experienced a similar decline, suffering from dementia that contributed to the Iran-Contra scandal. Fortunately, it was not until his second term that the consequences of his age came to bear. Unfortunately, Hillary seems to be suffering much the same even before taking the oath of office.

against anyone breaking and/or defying our immigration laws
If it was merely this, wouldn’t they adopt the far simpler position of changing the law so people won’t break it anymore? It’s not like the limits we place on immigration are doing us any good. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 4, 2016 8:36 PM
Comment #407160

WP,
I watched much of her testimony during the Benghazi Committee hearing. It was an 11 hour hearing. She testified for over 8 hours. Flawlessly. In addition, she regularly conducts interviews- 350 in the past year- and as far as I know, she has never shown any sign of forgetfulness.

I’m sorry to say I know more about dementia than I ever wanted to know, up close and personal. I’ve seen it. She does NOT have any mental impairment.

And as you noted, Hillary Clinton graduated from an Ivy League school with a law degree. She worked on the Children’s Defense Fund and worked undercover to help prosecute segregationists. She would have been successful in any field of endeavor.

Posted by: phx8 at September 4, 2016 8:46 PM
Comment #407162
What exactly is the point of this abusive language? Posted by: Warren Porter at September 4, 2016 8:36 PM

It sounds like the poster is clearly trying to tell you not to bother reading what they write unless you like to read that sort of thing.

I know or knew three people who went to high school with HRC45. One passed away in Bonita Springs, FL last year. One recently moved into assisted living in order to be close to his woman friend who is a cancer survivor. I saw them at a funeral a few months ago and they are both doing fine. The third is well and living in Woodstock,IL. They described Hillary as a nerd and overachiever. I also went to grade school, high school, and college with someone who worked for her. I think she is at the upper age for an incoming POTUS, and probably should only serve one term. I’m glad she got the nomination, and I’m glad her opponent is an insane megalomaniac who is never going to be elected. Since some people believe she has no right to privacy, whatever is going on with her as she continues to age, will be easily visible to all, even more so than with Reagan. pdx8 said the rest.

Posted by: oraoghaile at September 4, 2016 9:13 PM
Comment #407164
Ah, Yes…the “smoke and mirrors faux scandals” perpetrated by the FBI and our State Department releases.

Royal such a narrow perspective from you, I’m not surprised in the least. You point to one incident in the 20 plus year span to debunk my comment and fail miserably. What charges did the FBI bring, none! You prove my point.

What exactly is the point of this abusive language?

Warren, the point is this is all they have. The hatred built up in Royal and Weary over the years, they have drank the cool aid from the conservative propagandist. Unable to discern truth from the myths and misinformation these unfortunates have fallen victim to the weak mind that is conservatism.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 5, 2016 12:49 AM
Comment #407166

An interesting read for all those Hillary bashers-

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules?yptr=yahoo

Posted by: j2t2 at September 5, 2016 1:04 AM
Comment #407169
she has never shown any sign of forgetfulness.

Except when she is being interviewed by the FBI, apparently. How convenient.

You do realize that Ronald Reagan, from all public appearances, seemed mentally fit for office throughout his second term. It wasn’t until later that we learned how bad his condition was.

I think she is at the upper age for an incoming POTUS, and probably should only serve one term.

The problem is that she’s going to run for reelection in 2020 and the GOP is so dysfunctional that they won’t be able to stop her. Wouldn’t it be much better to elect someone who is younger and without the bunker mentality discussed in the Jonathan Allen piece j2t2 shared? It’s not like HRC brings anything unique or special to the table that a successful blue state governor like Deval Patrick, Andrew Cuomo couldn’t have done as well.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 5, 2016 10:31 AM
Comment #407171
An interesting read for all those Hillary bashers- Posted by: j2t2 at September 5, 2016 1:04 AM

I didn’t link to that before since it provides better arguments than the right wingers ever use here.

You do realize that Ronald Reagan, from all public appearances, seemed mentally fit for office. It wasn’t until later that we learned how bad his condition was. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 5, 2016 10:31 AM

You must be too young to remember him being prompted by Nancy, and the Iran-Contra address where he was saying contradictory things that made it sound like nonsense.

I don’t actually think HRC45 will get a second term. I don’t expect the economy to continue to do as well for that many more years. We’re going to hear the wingnuts hollering I HATE YOU a thousand times a day, like the petulant brats they are. Also, WJC42 will have to behave himself, possibly walking around with blinders, or not being allowed in a room with any other women than Hillary and Chelsea.

She can’t possibly even appease all the parts of the Democratic coalition, which might be a bigger problem if they get majorities in both houses of Congress, and want new leadership. I actually liked the third guy in the Democratic debates, but he didn’t get much support against the two older candidates, and I would have to look up his name because I keep forgetting him.

HRC is from Park Ridge, IL. She sounds exactly like many of my relations. She’s a well respected person everywhere that people don’t fall for Rupert Murdoch’s croaking toads and their ilk. So I’m with her. I do also think it’s important that she would set a precedent as a woman, and open doors for many more women in the future. The era of drunken jerk good old boys will be over.

Posted by: oraoghaile at September 5, 2016 3:12 PM
Comment #407174

“What exactly is the point of this abusive language?”

I don’t consider my language abusive.

What I write is to counter the Left’s abusive praise.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2016 4:05 PM
Comment #407175

Warren writes; “If it was merely this, wouldn’t they adopt the far simpler position of changing the law so people won’t break it anymore?”

Who is “they”?

Are laws merely an expression of popular opinion?

Are public entities (cities) and individuals law abiding when they break the law? What shall we call them…?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2016 4:17 PM
Comment #407176

My Leftie Pals are so politically invested in Liberalism and Socialism they are willing to ignore the paramount reason for Mrs. Clinton to retire from public life.

FBI director Comey said that of Clinton’s State Department emails, “…110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. “

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2016 5:41 PM
Comment #407177

CNN Stunned When Fact Checkers Confirm Clinton Phones Destroyed With Hammers

http://www.westernjournalism.com/cnn-stunned-fact-checkers-confirm-clinton-phones-destroyed-hammers/

The smartest woman in the world doing the dumbest thing ever.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2016 6:22 PM
Comment #407178

And the beat goes on…

“Probably the worst example of gross negligence comes from Clinton’s staff’s mishandling of a laptop and thumb drive that each included copies of Clinton’s entire email archive, presumably including all the classified information that had ever gone through Clinton’s homebrew server.

So between the lost smartphones, iPads, laptop and thumb drive, that’s at least 15 Clinton devices containing classified information that are floating around “somewhere.”

At this point, the FBI might want to check for them on eBay.”

http://constitution.com/even-clinton-classified-devices-lost/

Perhaps one of the debate moderators will ask questions about the missing devices…one can hope.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2016 6:50 PM
Comment #407179

Following is a link to twenty videos of Mrs. Clinton decrying illegal immigration. Now, of course, she has changed her mind. Ever wonder why? Flop, flip, flop, flip…etc

http://search.aol.com/aol/video?q=hillary+clinton+against+illegal+immigration&s_chn=prt_bcontrol-min-g-news&v_t=comsearch-b

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2016 7:20 PM
Comment #407193

Why respond to these leftist blowhards, Royal Flush?

They can’t even keep their drivel in their own column. They have to infect the entire site with their lies and obfuscation and fabrication and ignorance.

We should insist they stay in their Hillbilly pep rally column so Independents and Republicans can have an intelligent conversation without them injecting their conservative bashing into every conversation.

Even Warren Porter can’t keep his zombies in line. He puts up a third party post and his dolts-in-waiting immediately talk about Trump and Hillbilly.

Screw these partisan bullies. Let them pat themselves on their own backs in the blue column. Tell them to quit infecting the rest of the site with their sexist, racist, belligerence.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 6, 2016 9:37 AM
Comment #407195
We should insist they stay in their Hillbilly pep rally column so Independents and Republicans can have an intelligent conversation without them injecting their conservative bashing into every conversation.

Wow Weary you must be having a bad day. Sorry to see you so down over political opinions here on WB. You are acting like a whipped puppy this election cycle, full of anger and resentment at the way things are going.

So anyway I am going to say something nice about conservatives in an attempt to cheer you up. But first IMHO you should let go this hatred and disdain for the Clintons. I mean I could tell you conservatives have brought this mess upon themselves but as long as you have this loathing for Hillary what good would it do?

Anyway, I want you to know I personally know many conservatives that are good people…. OH crap… many may be an exaggeration but some certainly are good people. Anyway it isn’t the people it is conservatism and the results of conservative ideology that is the problem. SO be a bit more positive my friend, every dog has his day.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 6, 2016 12:47 PM
Comment #407196

Don’t patronize me, j2t2. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
It’s not Hillbilly I’m against. I’m like you. I love pussy. It’s her ideology I’m against.

And as long as you need to monopolize all conversation, you should do it in your own column. Do us all a favor and leave the conservative column void of leftist drivel. Let us have a conversation without your leftist pessimism mucking it up for the rest of us.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 6, 2016 1:14 PM
Comment #407197

Weary my choice was to patronize, as you say, or respond to your insults with insults. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt.

As far as you wanting some echo chamber where you only hear conservative thought… well good luck with that here on WB. Myself I prefer to learn from you and others with differing political opinions which has been the norm here on WB. Why would you want to silence the rest of us? Why not put forth a counterpoint or respond with facts instead of this appeal to silence those you disagree with?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 6, 2016 1:38 PM
Comment #407198

I don’t want an echo chamber. Your side does. Your side refuses to entertain any position other than your own. You can do that in the blue column. You don’t have to monopolize all three positions with your leftist pap.

I’m not trying to silence your point of view. I’m trying to get mine in without it being smothered with leftist ignorance. The left’s position is falling apart and it doubles down by blatant displays of ignorance and hypocrisy. One minute it’s “Hillbilly is the greatest thing since sliced bread” then it’s “Hillbilly didn’t understand the question.” First it’s “She’s the most qualified” then it’s she didn’t know what C stands for.

Why does your side insist on insulting conservatives with this mumbo jumbo?

I’ll tell you why. It’s because if you can’t monopolize the conversation you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 6, 2016 1:47 PM
Comment #407199

Weary asks; “Why does your side insist on insulting conservatives with this mumbo jumbo?”

Actually, j2t2 answered this question quite well by writing; “Anyway it isn’t the people it is conservatism and the results of conservative ideology that is the problem.”

What is conservatism in politics? I like this simple explanation from Wikipedia.

“In the United States, conservatism is rooted in the American Revolution and its commitment to republicanism, sovereignty of the people, and the rights and liberties of Englishmen while expelling the king and his supporters.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

If one respects, honors, and follows our Constitution and its original meaning as explained in the papers of our founders; if one believes government serves the people rather than itself; if one believes individual freedom and liberty trumps every other consideration; then…ONE IS A CONSERVATIVE as I understand and promote the term.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 6, 2016 2:14 PM
Comment #407204

Yes, and the left disagrees with that ideology, fine. I couldn’t care less. They should be able to accept that and keep their holier than thou attitude in the blue column. They’re not always right and they need to quit with the monopolizing by insisting conservatism is some kind of plague.

How can any conservative or independent have an intelligent and meaningful conversation when a few on the left insist on monopolizing every conversation, on every post, on every column? They are denying our freedom of speech with their never ending lies, obfuscation, hypocrisy and meaningless blather.

They’ve ruined WatchBlog with their stubborn insistence to never yield and never acknowledge anything worthwhile from anyone but themselves. I’m sick of it. There used to be thousands of people that came to this site. The ignorant few have run them off. Why bother when you can’t get a word in edgewise?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 6, 2016 4:23 PM
Comment #407206

Why bother when you can’t get a word in edgewise?
Posted by: Weary Willie at September 6, 2016 4:23 PM

I will share with you Weary why I continue to visit and write comments on WatchBlog.

I certainly do not expect to change any Liberal, Socialist or worse into a Conservative or even a Republican.

I certainly hope that none of the Lefties believe they can bring me over to the “dark” side.

Why then do I bother.

To promote my political and moral beliefs I sometimes find it necessary to do some research which enforces, enhances and broadens my knowledge.

And, I do research to possibly educate; but certainly confuse and confound, my political adversaries which yields me great satisfaction.

Finally Weary, one never knows how a single thought put to paper can influence another in a positive way.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 6, 2016 4:40 PM
Comment #407207

I also come to WatchBlog for the challenge of writing well and educating myself. God forbid I make a mistake.

What’s frustrating to me is how a simple, correct observation or suggestion is met with outlandish excuses for why it shouldn’t and won’t be considered. We’re always countered with stupid claims of “wanting to bring back slavery” and “return to living in the stone age” and “denying women the right to vote”. All worthless arguments that do nothing but stifle the current conversation, whatever the subject may be.

It needs to stop. The left needs to consider the fact that conservatism is a legitimate ideology, not one that needs irradication. Individuals should be given some consideration. They should have the opportunity to express their ideas without the meaningless counter arguments from the left that constantly, inevitably badger them into submission.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 6, 2016 4:56 PM
Comment #407208

Weary, I am sure you understand that weak minds promote weak ideas, false comparisons, illogical arguments and “outlandish excuses and “stupid claims”.

What one can not defend rationally must be attacked irrationally Weary. Thus the failing Liberal philosophy attempts to eradicate the succeeding Conservative philosophy.

For example, lowing taxes and reducing government regulations by both Democrat and Republican administrations has worked well to improve our economy in the past. It would be rare to find a Liberal to agree with that today.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 6, 2016 5:12 PM
Comment #407210

When GWB introduced his idea to give people more control of their Social Security the left put a stop to it and it was never brought up again.

When gun control went down in flames, did the left let it die like Republicans did with the SS? No, it’s like gun control is a permanent fixture in politics. Even when they get their way it’s never over, just a goal post moves.

Now they fill all three columns with outright lies and complete and willful ignorance to protect their female.

And we’re supposed to just sit here and take it? Our WatchBlog experience is to constantly be shut down by an obstinate lack of logic and willful ignorance?

They’re saying the same things they’ve said for years! Over and over again. How many times have you heard on this blog the economy is going great? We’re constantly hit over the head with the same dull fiction day after day, post after post in every column.

You can’t learn anything of value from a partisan parrot. If the WatchBlog experience is supposed to be reacting to denial and delusion, what value has it?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 6, 2016 6:22 PM
Comment #407212

I understand Weary. Don’t leave, you add a little class to the discussion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 6, 2016 6:59 PM
Comment #407213

WW & RF,

I write here not because I like to challenge myself, but because I enjoy learning from other people’s opinions and beliefs. It is very refreshing to have a forum where people don’t necessarily agree.

Now, if you are interested in cutting back on the partisan bickering, I suggest we agree to higher standards in the outside media we cite. All too often, I see lazy linking to secondary sources when primary ones ought to be used instead. Royal Flush has a particular habit of linking to opinion essays written by conservatives and relying on an argument from authority fallacy. We sometimes call him out on it and he always reacts by claiming we are attacking the source, but what else can one do?

RF,

If one respects, honors, and follows our Constitution and its original meaning as explained in the papers of our founders; if one believes government serves the people rather than itself; if one believes individual freedom and liberty trumps every other consideration

These are all tenets of liberalism, not conservatism. In my experience, conservatism all about establishing and maintaining hierarchies in life. Either you play by the rules established by conservative elites or you have no chance of being a successful citizen. In other words, I see conservatism squelching my ability to choose how to live my own life. With liberalism, maybe taxes are higher and maybe some tax money gets spent on things it shouldn’t, but at least there isn’t anyone telling me I can’t do something with the limited exception when I may want to do something but that something infringes upon another’s rights.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 6, 2016 7:01 PM
Comment #407215

Warren is incorrect regarding the validity of the sources I link to. We almost always are discussing opinion…and very rarely…facts.

When Mr. Daugherty and I were discussing issues he would often claim something was “fact” when it was merely opinion.

Now Warren comes along and tells us, in his limited life experience, that I have co-opted his Liberal values and call them Conservative.

Warren, you are “Conservative” only if you agree with my definition and you definitely do not.

Do you believe the Constitution is a “living” document and support views contrary to what the Founders wrote?

Do you call for more government to control and regulate more of our individual lives?

Do you maintain that the Federal Government should take powers granted to the individual states?

Do you believe in group rights over individual rights?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 6, 2016 7:17 PM
Comment #407216

If Warren Porter actually believed in what our founding fathers believed in he would be vehemently opposed to our federal government in it’s current state.

If he believed in what the constitution says and how it is organized he would be against the 17th amendment and call for it’s repeal. If he believed in true liberalism he would also be demanding the repeal of the 16th amendment.

His founding fathers are the Roosevelts, and W.Wilson. They put in place the current state of our federal government. A state that is far from historical liberalism.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 6, 2016 7:43 PM
Comment #407218
incorrect regarding the validity of the sources I link to. We almost always are discussing opinion…and very rarely…facts.

Maybe to the warped brain of a conservative there’s no such thing as a fact, but that simply isn’t so.

When Mr. Daugherty and I were discussing issues he would often claim something was “fact” when it was merely opinion.

That doesn’t give you the excuse to do the same.

Do you believe the Constitution is a “living” document and support views contrary to what the Founders wrote?

The phrase you wrote before was “If one respects, honors, and follows our Constitution and its original meaning as explained in the papers of our founders”.

I think adherence to a “living Constitution” philosophy is the best way to respect, honor and follow our Constitution and its original meaning as explained in the papers of our founders. That you don’t support a “living Constitution” is for me prima facie evidence that you oppose the Constitution as it was intended to be interpreted by our founders. A “living Constitution” is another way of describing “loose constructionist” judicial philosophy, which originated well over 200 years ago.

Do you call for more government to control and regulate more of our individual lives?
No, I call for the government to exercise its power to defend individual rights’ but otherwise to stay the hell out of my business.
Do you maintain that the Federal Government should take powers granted to the individual states?
In most cases, no. In a few cases, I would support a Constitutional amendment authorizing such. I support using conditional spending to nudge states in one direction or another as this was the intent of our founders.
Do you believe in group rights over individual rights?
Groups only have rights insomuch as they constitute groups of individuals and each individual has his or her own rights. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 7, 2016 8:55 AM
Comment #407219
If he believed in what the constitution says and how it is organized he would be against the 17th amendment and call for it’s repeal. If he believed in true liberalism he would also be demanding the repeal of the 16th amendment.

So, if I believed in the Constitution, I would oppose what the Constitution says. Huh? I don’t know how you wrap your brain around that nugget.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 7, 2016 9:11 AM
Comment #407221

If the federal government stayed within the bounds defined by the constitution the 16th amendment would not be needed.

Ignoring the constitution by saying it is a “living” document is just that, ignoring the constitution.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 7, 2016 9:51 AM
Comment #407226

Except I don’t ignore the Constitution when I say it is a living document.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 7, 2016 1:16 PM
Comment #407229

No, you just ignore what’s in it. Judges have interpreted it’s content to far exceed what the framers intended. That, in and of itself, is ignoring the constitution and the separation of powers that has been defined in it.

You can’t say the 10th amendment is in force when the 17th amendment has taken the state’s representation away from it.
You can’t say the 5th amendment is in force when every citizen is expected to file a tax return.
You can’t say the 1st amendment is in force when people are punished for expressing their opinion on social media.
You can’t say the 9th amendment is in force when the federal government is punishing people for their choice of bathroom accommodations.
The list goes on and on.

The federal government has usurped it’s power from the states and the citizen. Conservatives only want to return to the original intent of the constitution, a collaboration between states and the federal government as equals. Liberals and Progressives are resisting that and they are ignoring the constitution to do so. There is a defined way the constitution should behave as a living document. It is defined in Article 5.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 7, 2016 1:35 PM
Comment #407231

Just because you disagree with certain judicial decisions doesn’t mean those decisions ignored the Constitution when they were made. It could very well be that you have decided to ignore the Constitution in order to advance your particular brand of politics.

In fact, you have done exactly that as you ignore the 17th amendment, which is as integral to the Constitution as the text adopted in 1789.

As for your other points:
Filing a tax return isn’t self-incriminating because there is no law against earning an income. Thus, it is meaningless to invoke a protection against self-incrimination.

No one has ever faced criminal prosecution for anything expressed on social media except perhaps a few child pornographers.

No one has ever been punished by the Federal government for their decision to use one bathroom accommodation or another. To the contrary, the Federal government has sanctioned individuals or states who have attempted to deny certain minorities the right to choose the bathroom that suits them best.

Despite its imperfections the Federal Government is by and large within the limits established by the Constitution. Conservatives want to increase those limits beyond what the Constitution says in order to advance their political goals. Liberals and Progressives are resisting that as they seek to best honor the Constitution and its ideals.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 7, 2016 2:02 PM
Comment #407235

LOL…Warren writes; “A “living Constitution” is another way of describing “loose constructionist” judicial philosophy, which originated well over 200 years ago.”

There is nothing conservative about not following the Constitution as written and interpreted by our Founders.

Warren claims…”I call for the government to exercise its power to defend individual rights…”

Yet, he denies the public bathroom gender privacy. He defends union work discrimination and is against right to work and much more.

The Constitution gives to states all powers not specifically defined as belonging to the Federal government. Yet Warren writes; “I support using conditional spending to nudge states in one direction or another as this was the intent of our founders.”

“Nudge(ing) states” according to Warren is the Federal government threatening to deny money to states for education, roads, law enforcement and much more unless strict federal rules and regulations are followed according to the whims of un-elected regulatory agencies. This is a liberal position which defies the position of our Founders.

I am delighted that Warren wrote the following comment which qualifies as the most tortured piece of writing award.

“Groups only have rights insomuch as they constitute groups of individuals and each individual has his or her own rights.

Let’s begin a new group to qualify for special treatment by our government. I can word the qualifications so that only me and my five individual buddies qualify.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2016 3:05 PM
Comment #407241

My perspective on the 17th amendment is based on the thought its ratification was a mistake. It destroyed the influence the many states had over the federal government. With an unchecked federal government, funded by a gun to the head and a hand in the pocket of every breadwinner, that mistake has put us in the position we are in now.

I know of only ten laws that are written in stone. The 16th, 17th, and the Federal Reserve Act are laws that can be changed.

There is no law against earning income and you know I did not say that. However, there are laws against not telling the government you earned that income. You are being compelled to give information that can be used against you. You open yourself up to a myriad of laws you may not even know about, and must hire someone to defend you against. The 16th amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the 5th amendment. The way it is now being enforced violates the 4th amendment.

There is a fine line between civil prosecution and criminal prosecution. Civil convictions destroy families, whole businesses, and effects entire communities. It even writes law for the entire country. All of that is done by the government. To minimize the damage done to the 1st amendment by limiting it to criminal prosecutions is splitting hairs. The damage done to the 1st amendment by our judicial system is enormous and devastating.

I find very little of what the federal government is doing now within the bounds of the constitution. We have allowed the federal government to perform tasks that were not thought out to this length. Why must an 80 year old program be considered untouchable, a third rail? I’ll give you a hint. It gives the federal government power over the individual. The federal government is tasked to provide for the general welfare, not the individual’s welfare. What progressives have been asking of the federal government is outside the scope of the constitution.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 7, 2016 7:32 PM
Comment #407242

The federal government is tasked to provide for the general welfare, not the individual’s welfare. What progressives have been asking of the federal government is outside the scope of the constitution.
Posted by: Weary Willie at September 7, 2016 7:32 PM

Excellent…well said Weary.

The fundamental difference between liberalism and conservationism is a hand out versus a helping hand up.

The liberal hand out is designed to be perpetual and come from the pocket of others at gunpoint; while the conservative helping hand up is temporary, comes from the pocket of the one who earned it and is freely given asking nothing in return.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2016 7:43 PM
Comment #407243

Think of all the problems that would be solved if our children and their children were raised to think this:

while the conservative helping hand up is temporary, comes from the pocket of the one who earned it and is freely given asking nothing in return
Posted by: Weary Willie at September 7, 2016 8:07 PM
Comment #407244

Why don’t I ever get a statement from my Social Security Administration? Why do I have to pay them for each year I want a report for? If I asked for a full accounting of what I’ve paid into Social Security I would have to pay many hundreds of dollars. My banks, my credit cards, all send me a balance sheet every month. Why doesn’t the Social Security Administration afford me the same courtesy?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 7, 2016 8:21 PM
Comment #407245
In fact, you have done exactly that as you ignore the 17th amendment, which is as integral to the Constitution as the text adopted in 1789.

There is a fundamental mistake in this statement.

The 17th amendment changed the original structure of the constitution. It added nothing. It changed everything. It removed the checks and balances originally designed to separate powers.

The repeal of the 17th amendment would automatically return to the original design of the constitution where the state legislatures elected senators. The 17th amendment is not an integral part of the original document.

Your statement is untrue.

The 17th amendment shifts representation away from the state governments and gives the advantage to the people (a vague concept at best). When you consider the popular vote method of electing the president, we now have both branches of our federal government elected and beholden to the people. The judiciary is beholden to both Congress and the President.

It’s no wonder the people who call our government a democracy are also calling for the abolition of the electoral college. The electoral college is the last remaining residue of the founder’s concept of electing and managing a democratic-republic form of government at the federal level.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 7, 2016 11:03 PM
Comment #407246

The original ballot for an average citizen ended at the House of Representatives. The average citizen voted for their Sheriff, their councilman, and their mayor. They voted for their state legislature and governor, and for their one representative to the federal government.

The legislatures of each state elected senators to the federal government.
The House of Representatives elected an electoral college. The Electoral College elected the President of the federal government.

The people never voted for a president before the 17th amendment was ratified. There was no need.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 7, 2016 11:21 PM
Comment #407247

To be factual, the people still do not vote for president. As per the 2004 election, the electoral college elected the president.

The way the U.S. conducts it’s election of it’s president is a fraud.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 7, 2016 11:27 PM
Comment #407254
There is nothing conservative about not following the Constitution as written and interpreted by our Founders.

Then why do conservatives keep on calling upon the government to regulate what goes on in my own bedroom? Where in the Constitution is the government authorized to define marriage as between a man and a woman? Where in the Constitution is the government authorized to grant personhood to nonpersons? Where in the Constitution does it grant people the right to discriminate against another citizen on the basis of race/sex/orientation/etc?

Clearly, something other than the founders’ writing is at work here.

denies the public bathroom gender privacy
Sorry, but nobody’s rights are violated because they happen to be 10 feet away from another person just because the other person has different genitalia.
This is a liberal position which defies the position of our Founders.
Wrong. Show me something from the founders’ writings that indicates that any funding grant from Congress to a State Government needs to be without condition.
I am delighted that Warren wrote the following comment which qualifies as the most tortured piece of writing award.
Obviously, you are vying for an award for worst reading comprehension. I clearly state that groups do *not* have rights apart from the rights borne by the individuals composing that group.
My perspective on the 17th amendment is based on the thought its ratification was a mistake
So you think the Constitution contains a mistake. That is fine, but it means you can’t get all holier than thou about your fealty to the Constitution. In fact, it means the exact opposite. You just said you think the Constitution was a mistake.
However, there are laws against not telling the government you earned that income. You are being compelled to give information that can be used against you.
Read almost any article about Garner v. US for more details, but tax returns are not self-incriminating because they do not require anyone to report the commission of a crime. Income from illegal sources can be written as “other income” and that’s that.
You open yourself up to a myriad of laws you may not even know about, and must hire someone to defend you against.
Strangely enough, I have never hired anyone to defend me against any laws I do not even know about surrounding my tax return. I always do my returns by myself, I list the income as reported on my W2, take my standard deduction and pay the requisite tax. There’s not much else for me to do.
There is a fine line between civil prosecution and criminal prosecution. Civil convictions destroy families, whole businesses, and effects entire communities. It even writes law for the entire country. All of that is done by the government. To minimize the damage done to the 1st amendment by limiting it to criminal prosecutions is splitting hairs. The damage done to the 1st amendment by our judicial system is enormous and devastating.
There have been laws against libel for over 200 years. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 8, 2016 9:12 AM
Comment #410574

Data about particular online moneylenders can for the most part be found on their site, in order to make the way toward looking into the loan specialist much simpler… what’s more, by contrasting on the web moneylenders and customary banks and fund organizations, you ought to have the capacity to settle on the choice that is best for your necessities and discover the credit that is ideal for you.

Posted by: payday loans at November 28, 2016 12:43 AM
Post a comment