How I See Things

Caitlyn Jenner is working on Kim Kardashian to get her on the Trump Train because 2016 is just like that.

In a more serious vein, Father Frank Pavone – head of Priests for Life – has had plenty of kind words to say about Donald Trump and, from what I heard on Catholic radio this morning, is actually working in some sort of advisory capacity to Team Trump on pro-life issues. In fact, I’ve found that some pretty serious heavy-hitters in Conservatism are getting on the Trump Ranch – very likely in a naked bid to have some control over policy in any Trump Administration. This is smart – always wise to have your finger in the pie when policy is being determined – but it also shows that there is something going on out there.

Ted Cruz gave his semi-endorsement to Trump on Friday, much to the pain of some people…but not that many people, it would seem. I think that in large measure the GOP part of the population is starting to make full peace with the reality of Donald Trump. No matter how you slice it, he is carrying the GOP banner into November and I, for the first time, actually think he’s got a slight edge to win this thing. To be sure, by my calculation using RCP’s polls, if the election were held today Hillary would get 273 electoral votes and thus the Presidency…but that is a razor thing margin; and it presumes a Clinton victory in VA, CO and PA. That is Hillary winning the 2004 GW States of VA, CO and NM…those States voted GOP just 12 years ago; one of them flips red, she’s done. She’s been forced right back against her electoral “fire wall”. Now, to be sure, there’s a lot of campaign left to go and Trump could step in it, again…but the trajectory, at the moment, is all going Trump’s way (and I suspect he won’t step in it again because that is no longer part of his plan – but, we’ll see).

I’ve heard the rumors that Bush 41 might endorse Hillary. Could be true. The Bushes and the Clintons have become friends over the years and Bush family pride is still probably smarting from Jeb’s shellacking by Trump. On the other hand, the future of the Bush family currently resides in George P. Bush, Texas’ Land Commissioner…endorsing Hillary, even by HW, might make the Bush name toxic in Texas. If they want George P. to be Senator, governor or President one day, turning on Trump, especially this late in the game, might be deadly. On the other hand, I don’t think it would help Hillary – it would just be more evidence that the Establishment is against Trump; this would likely help Trump in the long term (as well as harming Hillary among dyed-in-the-wool pinkos who think that the Bush family is the personification of all evil).

As for me, I went on a Twitter rant last night and I’ve decided that I’m rather done with partisan politics. In this sense: I refuse to accept the neat and ready divisions which have been used to divide us one from the other for the past few decades. I’m Conservative because I’m Catholic and I’ll never be anything but Conservative because to be Catholic means to be all about preserving things, refurbishing them, bringing the eternal truths from the past to the present and into the future. But I’ve found that I have little really in common with many who call themselves Conservative…a lot of them seem to be so stuck on themselves and their little worlds that they don’t appear to give a damn what is happening…they only care that they are highly esteemed and respected (and they don’t care by whom they are esteemed…just call ’em brilliant and they’ll be your friend). It is true that I’ve seen some astonishingly vulgar and hate-filled things emanating from some Trumpsters (my Twitter block list is stuffed quite full with them), but I’ve seen the exact same sort of vulgar and hate-filled things emanating from some NeverTrumpers. To me, to be a Conservative also means to be a gentleman – hurling insults even at people who hurl them first is not what a gentleman does, at least in my understanding. Yes, in my life I have hurled many an insult – but I pray God I’ll never do it again. I’m done with all that. This isn’t a game of one-upsmanship. This is the life of our nation at stake – and too many people are playing around with hatred and division.

I suspect we’ll see Trump sworn in come January – but whether it is Trump or Hillary, it will be time to rebuild Conservatism. But it will have to be a Conservatism which is quite different from what we’ve had. It will have to be a ground-up, people-centered movement designed to restore decency in American life. It will have to be about fighting for justice tempered with mercy. It will have to be about protecting people from government on all levels. It will have to be about the poor and the working people far more than about the rich, who can look after themselves quite well. It will have to be about an America no one dares assail, but which does not go looking for foreign monsters to destroy; but which will destroy any foreign monster which dares to cross our path. It will have to be a movement which listens more than it talks, and which acts with determination regardless of how well it polls.

I’m actually in a pretty good mood. First off, because if Trump does win, the people who are likely to be most annoyed are precisely the people who need to be most annoyed. Secondly, because the Obama Era is coming to a close – even if Hillary wins, his ability to simply usurp power goes with him. He was a unique person in a bizarre set of circumstances which won’t be replicated…Hillary might try, but everyone dislikes her and so the rock-ribbed loyalty of the left won’t be there, nor the trembling fear on the right. Hillary’s Nemesis might be Trump in November…but if its not, then it will be her utter failure in office starting on January 20th. She’s one term, if she gets one to begin with.

And, so, off we go into November. We’ll see how it comes out. Just about any scenario you can draw is plausible to at least some degree. But fear not and fret not – things will be as they will. After that, it is up to us to just do the best we can.

109 thoughts on “How I See Things

  1. Cluster September 24, 2016 / 9:29 am

    Well, the President lied again and as usual it’s non story at least in MSM. Equally troubling is the fact that we learn about this at 5:30p on a Friday thanks to the now completely politicized FBI:

    FBI files released on Friday indicate that President Obama used a pseudonym in at least some of his email exchanges with Hillary Clinton.

    Remember in 2015 the President told Americans that he first learned of Hillary’s private server “in the news” when the story broke and I am sure that at that time not many people believed him and why should they? Wasn’t this suppose to be the most transparent administration in history?

    • Amazona September 24, 2016 / 9:41 am

      I don’t know why Trump is not pushing the pledge from Obama and Hillary that she would continue what he started, she would be picking up the baton, and so on. They held hands up high in a victory salute when they both promised that a President Clinton would just be more of the same we have been getting from a President Obama, and I haven’t seen this played up at all.

      I’d also like him to push the fact that Obama basically just told black voters “I understand why you don’t want to vote for Hillary, so just pull that lever for her and pretend you are really voting for me”.

      • Retired Spook September 24, 2016 / 10:30 am

        I’m just guessing, but I suspect the reason the Trump campaign isn’t pushing the hands-held-up-high-victory-salute is that Obama’s personal approval rating is at it’s highest level since early in his first term. And, as Rush has pointed out on numerous occasions, one of Obama’s greatest skills has been to disassociate himself with the results of his policies.

      • Amazona September 24, 2016 / 11:08 am

        It would be tricky, and would require associating Hillary’s continuation of Obama policies with the 74% or so who think the country is going in the wrong direction, and asking why anyone would want to continue going in that direction, and not so much tying in with Obama the person.

      • Amazona September 24, 2016 / 11:50 am

        So I would only tie Hillary to Obama through what his policies have led to, when discussing specific things that people don’t like, or that concern them—-tolerance of Islamic terrorist activities, for example. Hillary hasn’t staked out a super-tolerant position on Islam, trying to play both sides, but the statement that she will continue the work started by Obama means she can legitimately be tarred with the brush of protecting Muslim violence. She can legitimately be accused of planning to continue Executive Orders overriding legitimate legislation regarding treatment of illegal immigration, and especially now to unvetted Syrian “refugees”. Make her defend her position. Better yet, make her denounce or reject Obama’s prior policies, to avoid being dragged down by them.

        Look at the things that have happened under Obama that she can be tied to, at the very least sucking up her time and energy trying to dispute:

        Expansion of agencies into a de facto fourth branch of government, staffed by political appointees who can’t be fired. I think this is a big deal, and it is ignored. Aside from the Judicial Branch, which at least has token standards such a an oath of office, bureaucrats represent the only unelected branch of government and once appointed can seldom be replaced no matter what they do, and this should be played up. It blew up under Obama, and she is pledged to continue what he started.

        In a similar vein, the massive purchases of ammunition and arms by these agencies. Does she want to be tied to this and promise to continue it? I think only a few political junkies who follow blogs even know about this. I’d drag it out and make her take a stand.

        The problems with Obamacare. She is tied to that in so many ways, starting with her own efforts at Hillarycare and now pledged to pick up the baton from Barry on this as well as everything else he has done.

        There is also the problem, for this administration and for Hillary, of having an FBI that is corrupt and impotent and now wholly politicized, and the observation that under Hillary this will never be changed, because it has already benefited her so much. Having a private branch of law enforcement devoted to protecting an administration doesn’t sound like a good thing to most people.

        Ditto for problems with the IRS, guaranteed to continue under Clinton, based on the promise by her and Obama in their little lovefest that she will pick up where he leaves off.

        The whole men-in-women’s-bathrooms thing is a hot topic that bothers a lot of people. I would go into a short review of its insanity—lesbians don’t want to use men’s bathrooms, gay men don’t want to use women’s bathrooms, bisexuals don’t have a reason to care as their identity is only related to their sexual partners, and transgendered people are already dressing and looking like the gender of choice so no one would know, meaning that the law only applies to men who dress like men and claim at any given moment that they feel like women. Does Hillary plan to continue this line of legislation, which of course is not legitimate legislation, coming as it does via edict from the Oval Office?

        And so on. There could be as much benefit in making her reject Obama as in pointing out she is promised to be Obama Two.

    • Bob Eisenhower September 25, 2016 / 1:16 am

      Ooh, ooh, new party game. Guess the pseudonym Obama used. What was his “Carlos Danger?”

      I’m going with “The Real Dim Shady.”

      • Retired Spook September 25, 2016 / 7:38 am

        How about Slim Weedman?

      • Amazona September 25, 2016 / 9:34 am

        Spook, great one!

  2. Cluster September 24, 2016 / 9:36 am

    And here’s a story that demands attention:

    “This is not Charlotte that’s out here. These are outside entities that are coming in and causing these problems. These are not protestors, these are criminals.”

    “We’ve got the instigators that are coming in from the outside. They were coming in on buses from out of state. If you go back and look at some of the arrests that were made last night. I can about say probably 70% of those had out-of-state IDs. They’re not coming from Charlotte.”

    The City of Charlotte was targeted for destruction by who? Who bussed these people in to loot, burn, and destroy the city and ruin the lives of many small business owners? All of these protestors did not just decide to spend their own money to get on a bus and go to Charlotte to wreak havoc. THIS WAS COORDINATED. In my opinion, George Soros or some other entrenched progressive Democrat was behind this and their actions resulted not only in the destruction of property, but the loss of life of one of the protestors and nobody seems to care.

    • Amazona September 24, 2016 / 9:45 am

      Of course it is necessary to keep the black plantations stirred up, angry and violent, and this is just priming the pump. First you get blacks insanely outraged, you get some mindless puppets like Kaepernick and Brandon Marshall to drag football fans into it, you pay some professional agitators to come in and make trouble, all feeding the braindead frenzy of fantasy oppression against blacks, and then you come out and tell those black people they can still vote for you, Savior Obama, even if it is only a grand farewell gift to tell him how much you love him.

      • Retired Spook September 24, 2016 / 10:17 am

        you get some mindless puppets like Kaepernick and Brandon Marshall to drag football fans into it

        Yeah, but you gotta love the free market response.

      • Amazona September 24, 2016 / 11:15 am

        As I said in an earlier post, poor befuddled Brandon Marshall, trying to explain his position, could just babble about how people just don’t understand how hard it is to be a minority. ?????? So what does sitting down with a sour face do to change that, and how are you ever going to change the fact that at any given time someone is going to be in a minority? It was one of the stupidest comments I have ever heard.

        Maybe if people would stop obsessing about skin color, and stop depending on this victimhood perception of life, and start just being people who may or may not look a little different on the outside, these perceived “oppressions” would go away.

        One of the smallest minorities in this country, population-wise, is that of Oriental descent. So how many Japanese or Chinese immigrants are out there looting and burning, how many are pulling guns on police officers, and how many are tipping the demographics of prison populations toward their own identities? This “minority” is seen differently than many if not most blacks are seen, for one simple reason—-THE WAY THEY ACT.

      • Cluster September 24, 2016 / 11:43 am

        I have also wondered why the Asian community is always overlooked in terms of minorities and why we never hear about their grievances. The reason is that their commitment to family and work is far superior to even the anglo community.

        Here’s an anecdotal story and the reason why I take such exception to being labeled a racist, homophobic, xenophobe. My sphere of friends and family begins with my Native American wife and also includes many Hispanic friends, a few black friends one of whom I am very close with, and a couple of a good friends who happen to be gay. I live in a largely Hispanic town and my business partner is married to a very nice Hispanic lady who comes from a very large and prominent Hispanic family in our area and of whom are all YUGE Trump supporters. The political establishment wants us all to believe that this election is still about R vs D and that racism is alive and well. They could not be more wrong. This election is all about the American people vs a corrupt political 1% who are trying everything they can to hold onto power and evidently willing to ruin peoples lives in the process. And Watson, this is what I mean by rigid stupidity.

      • Amazona September 24, 2016 / 12:01 pm

        I agree. I have a cousin who lives in L.A., with a black man, who refused to attend a recent family reunion “because they are all racist rednecks”. Well, at that gathering, which had about 80 people, there were Latinos from Portugal, Puerto Rico and Mexico, and a black cousin by marriage and several half-black children from that marriage. Most were Catholic but there were two Jews I knew of (no one cared enough to count) and several who, if not atheists, do not practice any religion.

        It was a happy, loving group of people, without a thought to skin color, ethic background or any other demographic identity. We were just people.

        As for the bigoted Left Coast cousin, anyone who looks as hard as she does for signs of racism will undoubtedly find it. And any negativity she encounters HAS to be related to her choice of boyfriend, and not that she is loud, profane, and confrontational.

      • M. Noonan September 24, 2016 / 11:48 pm

        My family becomes increasingly diverse, as well – to the already strong mix of Irish and Scottish and Jewish and German now comes Native American and Latino; and, by marriage, African-American, as well. I don’t think most people care about race except for race-baiters on the left and the Alt Right nitwits.

  3. Retired Spook September 24, 2016 / 10:09 am

    Maybe I’m just mellowing in my old age, but I could have written this post — well, except for the Catholic and Twitter parts. I’m finding myself considerably less confrontational than I was a couple years ago. Admittedly, part of that has to do with flushing Leftists out of my life, so maybe I’m just avoiding confrontation rather than eliminating it, although the end result is pretty much the same. I just sleep better at night comfortable in the fact that I’m not actively engaged in a hatefest with anyone.

    I’ve been mentally preparing myself for a Hillary presidency since last fall — even the Supreme Court aspect, although I think if she doesn’t win it will likely be because too many people are scared to death of the radical change that a 6/3 or 7/2 Liberal Court could inflict on our society. . But, bottom line, if she wins it will likely usher in a pretty dark period, at least from a conservative viewpoint, but it won’t be the end of the world. Americans are pretty resilient at adapting to change, and pretty good at resisting change that goes too far. I read an interesting oped in the NYT yesterday that gave me a glimmer of hope that we’re on the cusp of some major push back from our side. It reflects, to some extent, Rusty’s transformation.

    As a lifelong Democratic voter, I’m dismayed by the radical left’s ever-growing list of dos and don’ts — by its impulse to control, to instill self-censorship as well as to promote real censorship, and to deploy sensitivity as an excuse to be brutally insensitive to any perceived enemy. There are many people who see these frenzies about cultural appropriation, trigger warnings, micro-aggressions and safe spaces as overtly crazy. The shrill tyranny of the left helps to push them toward Donald Trump.

    • Retired Spook September 24, 2016 / 10:54 am

      My bad. No wonder this oped reflects Rusty’s transformation. He originally posted the link to it at the end of the “Sneering Contempt for the People” thread.

    • Amazona September 24, 2016 / 11:21 am

      For some bizarre reason I simply do not understand, Obama seems to appeal to people on a personal level, even when those people don’t like the outcome of his policies. I think it was uber-Liberal Pat Schroeder from Denver who said Reagan was the “Teflon president” because nothing ever stuck to him, or I would use that to describe Obama. He is amazingly slippery, and gets away with a lot because he has, at least to some people, a nice pleasant persona.

      One thing about a Hillary presidency—she would not have that cover. Even if she is elected, she would be going into office as the least admired, least respected, least trusted, and most hated of any person elected to that office, elected only because her opponent is such a polarizing personality. So the cumulative disasters of the Obama years will rest firmly on her shoulders, without the mitigating aspect of likability, and who knows, she might be the person most directly responsible for future mass migrations to the Right.

      (Which is pretty much what you said—just agreeing.)

      • Retired Spook September 24, 2016 / 12:17 pm

        For some bizarre reason I simply do not understand, Obama seems to appeal to people on a personal level, even when those people don’t like the outcome of his policies.

        The way Rush has explained this (and I tend to agree with him), Obama has managed to stay above the fray when it comes to owning the results of his policies. Some of this comes directly from him, but a lot from his acolytes in the media. So the perception has been created that, even though his policies have been colossal failures, he gets credit for actually “trying” to make things better. It’s the uber-emotional “well at least we tried” aspect of Liberalism writ large.

      • Amazona September 24, 2016 / 1:26 pm

        And the corollary to this is that the reason his efforts didn’t turn out well is because of the obstructionism of those bad old Republicans, who just wouldn’t give him a break and made him–MADE him, I tell you!—-resort to Executive Orders to get anything done at all, poor baby.

        If the GOP Congress would just have rubber-stamped everything he wanted, well gee he would have had the longest string of stunning successes of any president, ever, in the history of the world! (Let’s just ignore the two years he had a Dem Congress that could have rubber-stamped everything but only rammed Obamacare down our throats.)

  4. Cluster September 25, 2016 / 9:30 am

    So I just finished watching Hillary’s spokes child Robbie Mook on CNN state that Hillary has a “comprehensive” plan to deal with illegal immigration and this time the Democrats really mean it. I mean they really really mean it. Despite doing nothing on the issue over the last 8 years with the exception of issuing illegal executive orders and blaming Republicans, this time the Democrats will get serious about the issue and will bring people “out of the shadows”. Oh and in addition to that, Hillary really does care for children and has been “fighting” for children her entire life. Unfortunately by most measures, children are worse off today after all those years of Hillary helping them.

    • Amazona September 25, 2016 / 9:41 am

      First, we have to remember that Hillary is only “helping” the children who have survived her efforts to not only enable but encourage killing them before they are born. Second, Liberal passion for the rights of parents to use their welfare money to buy drugs, alcohol, cell phones, tattoos, etc. instead of feeding and caring for their children is directly responsible for the shrill appeals to us citing the vast numbers of “children who go to bed hungry”, etc. Third, it is a Liberal policy that not only allows but encourages schools to tell children to come to them, to teachers or counselors, with problems, and even allows these people to take girls as young as 12 in for abortions, warning them that their parents will not understand, will not love them any more, etc. if they go to their families with their problems. I don’t see how alienating children from their parents is in their best interests.

      There is literally not a single aspect of Liberalism that is beneficial to children.

      • Cluster September 25, 2016 / 9:56 am

        By all accounts, progressivism is a catastrophic failure on every issue domestic and foreign and the last 8 years have proven that. And now, without any record to run on, progressive Democrats have become more smug and condescending than usual and are just hoping that there are enough stupid people in this country to fall for the distractions they throw out everyday like racism, xenophobia, etc. My hope is that this country is not so far gone, that we actually see the though the thinly veiled lies and incompetence and rebuke this progressive cancer that inflicts this country and the parasites that enable it.

      • Amazona September 25, 2016 / 10:55 am

        Yet we still don’t have a leader who will point out that resorting to name calling and slander is a de facto admission that they don’t have anything to run on.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 25, 2016 / 4:02 pm

        Are you talking about Hillary? I ask because name-calling and slander are two of the (many) reasons Trump scares me.

      • Amazona September 25, 2016 / 5:11 pm

        This post has been removed because Bob objected to it. //Moderator

      • Bob Eisenhower September 25, 2016 / 6:57 pm

        You are back to your name calling and efforts to pick fights. If you have something new to say please feel free to do so. //Moderator

      • Bob Eisenhower September 25, 2016 / 7:27 pm

        Your posts have become very belligerent and abusive and over-reaction to what is said and it looks like what you really want to do is fight with Amazona. This blog is not a place for people to act out personal grievances. We all manage to disagree with each other without resorting to insults and name calling and you are asked to do the same. //Moderator

      • Bob Eisenhower September 25, 2016 / 8:26 pm

        Fair enough. Back to the original question.

        Amazona, how can you be surprised at Hillary’s use of name calling and slander when Trump has said far worse names and slander?

    • Amazona September 25, 2016 / 10:58 am

      “Out of the shadows”. Is there a cliche the Dems have not dragged out and recycled?

      I guess “Hope” would be too laughable, and “Change” would be an admission that the country needs a different direction from the disaster of the Obama years. Trump’s got “Make America Great Again” with the message that to do that we have to turn our back on Liberalism.

      It looks like all they have left is “for the children” and “out of the shadows”.

  5. Cluster September 25, 2016 / 10:05 am

    Re: the debate, I would not only invite Gennifer Flowers, I would invite Juanita Broaderick, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky and I would give them each a small red strobe light

  6. Cluster September 25, 2016 / 10:38 am

    I also have to laugh at all the elite pundits including conservative pundits who question Trump’s ability to be “presidential”. The obvious response is that the Democrats have set the bar so low, anyone can be presidential. Is repeatedly lying to the American people “presidential”? Is lying to gold star families “presidential”? Is stoking racial divisions “presidential”? Is compromising national security “presidential”? Is giving $1.7 billion to the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism “presidential”?

    • Amazona September 25, 2016 / 10:54 am

      Cluster, this is one of many ideas for Trump speeches I have seen. I think a major weakness in his organization is the inability for people like us to have any input into his campaign. I think we see things that aren’t readily visible to those on the inside, or have different insights. I think a good campaign for a populist would be to have a clearing house for ideas from the public.

      I think what you just wrote would be an ideal segment of a Trump speech. I’d add some things, such as “Is enabling the shipment of millions of dollars in weaponry to Al Queda, to be used against us, “presidential”? Is lying to Congress to avoid prosecution for various crimes “presidential”? Is calling more than 25% of Americans “deplorable” “presidential”?

      • Cluster September 25, 2016 / 12:04 pm

        Two HUGE issues that the media is completely ignoring. Why did 5 of Hillary’s close aides receive partial immunity from the FBI? And who paid the way for the criminals to be bussed into Charlotte to riot and destroy personal property?

      • Amazona September 25, 2016 / 1:05 pm

        Why does someone receive immunity? Isn’t it to encourage someone to reveal information about a criminal action without risking prosecution for his or her involvement in that action? I guess the question is, immunity from what?

        So, following this line of thought, if X gets immunity for his testimony about an action in which both he and Y were involved, that usually means that X is given a legally binding promise that he will not be prosecuted for his part in this action. But it also has to mean that Y is involved.

        If you have five Xs being given immunity for testimony regarding the actions of only one Y, that Y being Hillary Clinton, why isn’t Hillary Clinton being named as the party to these criminal action(s)?

        Theoretically, it might be possible for all five Xs to fear testifying because the actions in question MIGHT have been criminal, and therefore they MIGHT have been culpable, so they are all told that no matter what they testify they will not be prosecuted—-and then their testimony shows that the actions in question were not criminal after all, so the promised immunity was not needed.


        The only way to know would be to know how these Xs testified, and to what.

        We already know that the computer tech in Denver had full access to all information on all of the emails on the server he helped set up. (Which leads me to another question I haven’t heard asked, though it may have been—-why go all the way to Denver to find a tech to set this up? In the heart of government, there wasn’t a single company or person who could do this? Going a step further, I happen to know of two very highly regarded computer tech companies in Denver which handle a lot of sensitive information and which would probably have been a better choice, though they do have strict legal requirements for what they do and how they do it, allowing them to be called as experts in the field in all sorts of legal actions.)

        Anyway, merely being able to access sensitive information isn’t, in and of itself, a crime, as far as I know. Having a key is not the same as using it. And even if some of this data were seen by the tech, if he didn’t make it available in the first place and just saw it as part of his job of maintaining the server I don’t see how that could be prosecuted.

        So why did he get immunity? And again—for what? What did they think he did that was illegal? And if it was illegal, didn’t the illegality start with the person who put that data out there in the first place?

      • Amazona September 25, 2016 / 1:07 pm

        Wouldn’t you think that a real reporter could find out the names of those bus companies and track them back at least to their points of origin if not to who paid for them?

        If not a reporter, some element of law enforcement. DOJ? (Pause for hysterical laughter and wiping of eyes afterward…)

        If somebody’s getting immunity, how about offering it to some of these hired thugs in exchange for information?

      • Cluster September 25, 2016 / 1:27 pm

        If somebody’s getting immunity, how about offering it to some of these hired thugs in exchange for information?

        Great idea. When was the ticket purchased? Who paid for it? Where did you stay while in Charlotte? Where did you eat? Who paid for your lodging and meals? How did you return back home?

        There are a few small private business owners in Charlotte whose businesses were destroyed for the sole purpose of advancing a left wing agenda and the criminals who perpetrated the crime were subsidized either directly or indirectly by the Democrat party. You would think some reporter, or as you said the DOJ (waiting for laughter to subside), would want to find out the answers to these questions.

      • Amazona September 25, 2016 / 6:13 pm

        I just sent the following letter to my Republican Senator. (I didn’t even bother with Michael Bennett.) I suggest that we all send similar letters to our own Congresscritters.

        Senator Gardner, as it is clear that the laughably named Department of “Justice” is going to ignore the claims by Charlotte law enforcement that something like 70% of the recent rioters were bused in from other states, will you please head up a Congressional investigation into this? I don’t know the precise law, but I am sure there are laws regarding solicitation of criminal activity, particularly across state lines.

        As we are handing out immunity to Hillary Clinton’s cohorts, maybe we should offer immunity to a couple of the out of state rioters in exchange for information on who recruited them, if they were paid to travel to North Carolina and if so by whom, who bought the bus tickets or chartered the buses, etc.

  7. Amazona September 25, 2016 / 5:51 pm

    “Ted Cruz gave his semi-endorsement to Trump on Friday…” Semi-endorsement? I thought it was pretty strong. He admitted to earlier reservations and then laid out, in detail, the things that addressed those reservations and made him change his mind about voting for Trump. I thought it was a lot stronger than most endorsements, which seem to be pretty much along the lines of “He tells it like it is” or “He’s not afraid to take on the sacred cows” or whatever.

    • M. Noonan September 26, 2016 / 2:38 am

      It wasn’t Cruz getting on stage with Trump…though that might come later. It certainly wasn’t much weaker than McCain’s endorsement of Bush in 2000.

      I said a couple weeks ago that I suspected most GOPers would get on board with Trump, and most are…those GOPers who still refuse will probably never come back to the GOP…and will, in my view, mostly switch over to being what they always have been, anyways: Progressives in favor of a lower tax rate and bombing stuff overseas.

      One thing which has occurred is that it is getting abundantly clear that Hillary has abandoned Iowa and Ohio – two Battleground States Obama won, twice. Now, they do have much larger rural populations than other Battlegrounds, but it is still astonishing that as of late September, she has essentially ceded those States to Trump. I suspect she’s also at least partially written off Florida…though she’ll keep up pretenses there as long as possible…first in the hope that she can win it, secondly because even a quiet abandonment of Florida would raise alarm bells all over the Democrat party.

      Of course, she wins if she keeps her firewall – which, right now, is VA, CO and PA. She keeps that, and she’s at 273. One of them slips, and she’s done. Some recent polling in Colorado shows her only slightly ahead – and more shockingly, a recent Senate poll for CO showed the supposedly lost-cause GOP candidate neck and neck. One might recall that with much fanfare Team Hillary shut down advertising in both CO and VA a couple weeks ago…I bet they quietly go back up on the air very soon.

      • Amazona September 26, 2016 / 10:40 am

        Last week Trump and Clinton were tied in Colorado in a head-to-head match, and in a 4-way poll she was ahead by 2 points, well within the margin of error.

        As I said weeks ago, I think she has a ceiling, of hard-core who-cares-if-she-has-to-serve-out-her-term-in-prison supporters, but hasn’t had anything to bring in new support. I’ve seen a couple of Hillary ads but not as many as before the convention, and I don’t think they will make any difference.

        I’m happy to see Bennett in trouble. I donated quite a chunk of money to the GOP candidate, and will do some more in a week or so, hitting my limit, and I would love to see him take over that seat.

      • M. Noonan September 27, 2016 / 12:05 am

        Given that neither Trump nor Hillary stepped in it during the Debate, I suspect there will be no change in general trajectory for the next week – though, of course, I could have missed some turning point which will either rocket one or the other to a comfortable lead in short order. We’ll have to see – but Hillary’s back is against the wall at the moment and everything has to go her way for the next 6 weeks.

  8. Amazona September 26, 2016 / 12:01 am

    Rusty, do you still want to talk about the Chicago Bears instead of the Broncos? I’ll give you a do-over, but you’ll have to acknowledge the brilliance of the secret strategy of the Broncos in culling players who didn’t do well on the STEP—Strong Thumb Evaluation Protocol. It’s why Jay Cutler and Danny Trevathan aren’t Broncos any more, but keep that under your hat.

    This was a big hit when Fox was in Denver—-do Bears fans like it?

    Both of them? 😉

    • rustybrown2014 September 27, 2016 / 9:32 pm


      I think you’ll recall I said I wasn’t too enthused about Bronco OR Bear talk this year because despite my dreams and wishes it’s a rebuilding year for the Bears, meaning I’m not expecting them to do very well. Yet, as low as my expectations are, they’re outdoing themselves in they’re bid to be worst in the NFL this year (the majority of prominent starters out with injuries doesn’t help).

      But what did you mean by “both of them”, a slight on the number of Bear’s fans? Because if so you’re way off base there. The Bears are the oldest team in the league with a venerable history and an incredibly loyal fan base even after so many years of mediocrities.

      • rustybrown2014 September 27, 2016 / 9:33 pm

        Ahem, “their bid”

      • Amazona September 27, 2016 / 11:38 pm

        Uh-oh. Me being a gurrell and all, I guess I didn’t realize that it is a major no-no to rag a guy about his team. Mea culpa.

        But seriously, we were never too thrilled with Cutler.

        And I do understand blind fan loyalty. Remember, I am a Broncos fan, and it hasn’t always been easy. But this year it is fun to talk about the team. And it was a real thrill to see Von Miller in his Prince Charming getup on DWTS, which makes it even more fun to watch him devastate the opposition.

      • rustybrown2014 September 28, 2016 / 12:51 am

        No problem, I really didn’t think you meant much of a slight. If you’re talking about Cutler specifically, yeah, obviously a really smooth trade there by Denver. I’ve been back and forth on the guy (Chicago is starving for QB talent) but never really trusted him. There seems to be some kind of fatal defect with him. You were wise to pass him off.

  9. Retired Spook September 26, 2016 / 9:12 am

    I knew most of the facts in this article because I read a lot, but I’ve never seen so much depressing data in one article before. Kind of puts the last decade in perspective.

  10. Cluster September 26, 2016 / 6:33 pm

    The dishonorable Harry Reid called Trump a racist on the Senate floor today. Harry Reid is the most vile, miserable, disgraceful, and unworthy human being I have ever known. If I were ever given 6 months to live, I can guarantee you one thing I would do.

    You know in fact, Harry Reid is THE PRIMARY REASON why Trumps needs to win, so that the American body politic and shed itself of parasites like Reid. He represents America’s very worst.

    • Amazona September 26, 2016 / 8:25 pm

      And Dems love him.

  11. Amazona September 26, 2016 / 9:12 pm

    DEBATE: Ten minutes in, and I’m out. Leftist shill Lester Holt starts off with speech about six straight years of job growth, rising incomes, but what can we do about that big bad Income Inequality and I’ll just read about the “debate”. What a whore.

    • Retired Spook September 26, 2016 / 10:54 pm

      It was hard to watch — two hours of my life I’ll never get back. I kept thinking it would get better……..but it didn’t. One of Trump’s spokespeople said before the debate that he hadn’t prepared in the traditional sense, something that was obvious throughout the debate. Hillary came across as the rational adult in the room. Someone who was watching her for the first time had to be impressed with her composure. The one great point that Trump made that seemed to resonate with the audience was when he said the Clinton campaign has spent over $200 million for negative ads against him while he’s spent next to nothing — and he’s still tied or even ahead in several key states.

      • M. Noonan September 27, 2016 / 12:02 am

        I was (and remain) in a bit of a fog because of a dental procedure earlier today and so I couldn’t pay close attention…what I gathered is that Trump seemed reasonable, which was the one certain bar he had to pass tonight. For Hillary, per the 100% correct Mrs, she sounded like the teacher from Peanuts.

        We’ll know in about 5-7 days if this changed the dynamic.

  12. Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 1:04 am

    Guys, c’mon. Really? This is the horse we Conservatives want to saddle up?

    • M. Noonan September 27, 2016 / 4:13 am

      We Conservatives are rather irrelevant – the Progressives are, too, but they realize it even less than Conservatives. It is not Left vs Right any more. It is Rulers vs Ruled…the people with the Credentials and the cush jobs and the long-term security are set against people without credentials, who have hard jobs and no long-term security. Break out of the bounds which holds to Left vs Right…the people who are rising up and deciding to back Trump come from both Progressive and Conservative circles. By far, mostly Conservative…but the number of Progressives jumping on the train is not negligible. Not, of course, among the credentialed leaders of the Progressive movement…those with Credentials are tending to close ranks around Hillary, who is just like they are. You think that only a Hillary Clinton could set up a slush fund like that? Most of the leaders of the Conservative side haven’t set that up because they simply didn’t think of it, first. Former Speaker Boehner – a man I admired and defended – is to become a lobbyists…taking the pay of various entities who will try to twist US law to suit a small, well-heeled group of people. He’s only one of thousands. What the F was I ever doing supporting him? If this was even remotely in the back of his mind, then at no time in office was he not betraying me.

      And now we know why he never really fought for smaller government – that would be killing his own post-government paycheck.

      Enough of that. Time for a change. Trump isn’t what we want or need, but at least he isn’t one of them.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 9:44 am

        I agree that a fight between the GOP and Hillary is not Conservative v. Liberal. It is a fait accompli for Liberals. Hillary will be elected, it is more clear now than ever.

        Will Conservatives ride this mess of a candidate, hoping to rein him in (as his “handler so reined him for debate prep)? It seems so, judging by this site.

        There is another way. Rather than be pushed into the wilderness by this election, we should boldly MARCH into that wilderness, to return whole and again strong in a few election cycles.

      • Cluster September 27, 2016 / 10:07 am

        Bob, I am convinced now more than ever that you are nothing more than a progressive shill playing the role of a concerned conservative. So you want to voluntarily “march into the wilderness” to regroup and return “whole and strong in a FEW election cycles”, is that it? How many election cycles would that be Bob? And what pray tell is this new conservative platform you envision that will suddenly hold sway with tens of millions of Americans? Will you champion a smaller federal government? Will you stand on the hill of states rights? Will you fight for tax and entitlement reform? Are those the new bold ideas you will come back with in a FEW years? I am just curious as to why you think anyone will believe you in a few election cycles when you choose to voluntarily abandon the battlefield at a critical point. No one likes a coward Bob.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 11:48 am

        After the election we will be in the wilderness. I’d rather march into that wilderness and take action towards the future than be dumped there by the GOP and simply deal with the future.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 11:50 am

        Moderator, I believe Cluster just called me a coward. So far, not a negative aspersion made by myself.

        This is not a request for removal but please note the thread as it deteriorates.

        Bob, you seem to be very sensitive and eager to find insults and attacks where no one else finds them. I have gone back and looked at your posts. You seem to be looking for something to fight about or complain about and have created alot of arguments by claiming people said things they did not say. This has done more to contribute to deterioration of the blog as you put it than anything. You state your case. Other people say what they think about what you say. This is the way the blog works. This is the second time you have complained to Moderation about being called a coward. You might be too sensitive to participate on this blog but from now on you will either have to deal with how people respond to you or have your complaints deleted depending on the Moderator who is looking at the blog. //Moderator

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 12:29 pm


        My complaint is not to being called a coward so much as being called any negative name at all in a civil discussion. And I only point it out now because the last two times my posts were removed for “wanting to pick a fight” they were only in response to several names/insults.

        I am not here to pick fights, I am hoping to convince other Conservatives they are on the wrong path. We can debate that sort of thing, right? Isn’t that what this forum is about, debating conservative topics?

        So, yes, I will continue to point out when people use insults rather than arguments. You will never see me be the first to insult in a debate, or even the second.

      • Cluster September 27, 2016 / 12:53 pm

        So the millions of people who voted for Trump in the primary, who are the same people who elected Tea Partiers in 2010 and 2012 are on the wrong path? And only you know the way forward? I think I will take my chances with the plumbers, coal miners, and small business owners in fly over country.

      • Amazona September 27, 2016 / 1:15 pm

        As I have plenty of Bob-sperience, let me provide my statements and his inevitable responses.

        I see Bob is once again espousing an idea no one else finds even remotely reasonable, intelligent, or acceptable. (Amazona is insulting me insulting me calling me names she is so abusive she abuses everyone she is attacking me she is calling me unreasonable and stupid stupid stupid..)

        His dislike and fear of Trump seem to be the only thing that he can write about. ( Amazona is picking on me picking on me being mean and abusive I never said I fear Trump I said he scares me everyone who knows anything about the English language knows that you can be scared of someone without fearing him I never said I fear him that is a lie I never said I don’t like Trump just because I constantly talk about all the things I don’t like about him doesn’t mean I dislike him anyone who understands anything about the English language can see that…)

        I simply do not agree that giving up without a fight and ceding control of the nation to the Left for “..a few election cycles…” is the right way to address the fact that Trump is not an ideal choice for conservatives (See Amazona is calling me a coward a coward I tell you what else can you say about someone who gives up without a fight that is an insult she is so abusive she is abusing me …)

        …and so on, sliding down the slope toward Bickerstown led by Mr. Bickerson (See she is abusing me abusing me calling me names she is so mean I am not bickering I am only defending myself …)

        I find it very tiresome.

        Bob has one idea and that is that we do not vote for Trump and instead vote for someone else, pretty much anyone else as far as I can see, in the hope that somehow this will lead to the establishment, in a few election cycles, of a political movement and candidate he will like. (See there she goes again anyone who understands the English language knows I have other ideas that is just abusive and insulting I want the Moderator to know I did not insult her she insulted me and I never said a new movement had to have someone I like I never used the word like that is a lie a big fat lie I don’t demand to like someone new and she says I am tiresome isn’t that an insult just more abuse…)

        Bob says “I am hoping to convince other Conservatives they are on the wrong path. We can debate that sort of thing, right? Isn’t that what this forum is about, debating conservative topics?” but whenever anyone points out the weaknesses of his position he gets irate and claims he is being insulted and attacked. (She just called me weak you all saw it everyone who understands the English language knows if you say someone is weak that is an insult she just called me weak she is so abusive I never get irate I just point out every single time I come under attack and am insulted it happens all the time anyone who understands English usage can see that…”

        It seems to me that if someone has presented every single argument for a position, particularly if there is only a single argument for that position, and this has not swayed anyone, and has instead been met with several compelling arguments against it, it is no longer “debate” but merely haranguing.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 1:16 pm


        Yes, I do , indeed, believe the millions who voted in the Primaries are on the wrong path, just as I believe the millions that voted for Hillar are on the wrong path, if that path is the path of Constitutionalism and Conservatism.

        The thing is, if Trump stood a chance to win I’d probably be with you guys, taking my medicine and voting to try to build from within. As it becomes more and more clear Trump cannot win, I hope more and more Conservatives see that taking that medicine will not stop the disease of a Hillary Presidency.

        I know you believe Trump will win and you may well be right, but I strongly disagree and I am more likely to be right.

      • Amazona September 27, 2016 / 1:18 pm

        Maybe we should all chip in and buy Bob a WayBack Machine, so he can go back and un-nominate Trump. Until then we play the cards we’re dealt and this hand is Trump or Hillary and those are the two choices.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 1:37 pm

        It would be wonderful to go into the Wayback Machine to DURING the Primaries when you and I agreed that Trump is the opposite of everything you’ve stood for over the last few years. We used to agree, Amazona. My view did not change but now we are at odds.

        And, for the record, Moderator, calling me childish names like “Mr. Bickerson” seems much akin to me calling her a made-up name that got a post deleted. Good fun and all but not a civil discussion that susses out ideas. Just sayin’.

      • Amazona September 27, 2016 / 1:48 pm

        Don’t like it, stop bickering.

      • Amazona September 27, 2016 / 1:49 pm

        …we play the cards we’re dealt (even if we aren’t thrilled with them) and this hand is Trump or Hillary and those are the two choices.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 1:59 pm

        The hand we are dealt is Hillary being President. Winter is coming.

      • Cluster September 27, 2016 / 3:46 pm

        It’s odd that you are so convinced of a Hillary victory when the polls show a dead heat, and Trump winning in many swing states along with being in the margin of error in other states.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 3:58 pm

        I am convinced because the Press will never go after Hillary on Begazi and email and etc., and they will always go after Trump. If he would stop feeding the Press, he could win but I don’t believe he can maintain himself that long. Last night showed why.

      • Cluster September 27, 2016 / 4:23 pm

        So you’re putting more faith in the press than you are the millions of people in fly over country, who I am guessing you consider to be too stupid to come to their own conclusions. That line of thinking is antithetical to conservatism.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 4:52 pm

        Where on Earth are you getting this “dismissal of flyover country” thing you attribute to me? It seem more of a “go-to” comment aplicable anywhere than a rebuttal of my belief Trump will lose in large part due to the Press. For what it is worth, I and my family (and my wife’s, too) are from flyover country.

        It is not my faith in the Press at issue, it is my faith in the POWER of the Press to shape the national dialog. One need not come fom a flyover state to be swayed by the Press. Everyone feels and react’s to its drumbeat.

      • Cluster September 27, 2016 / 5:31 pm

        And that is why those in fly over country chose Trump in the primary, because they “react to the press drumbeat”. Trump was widely regarded as a joke by all of the press drumbeats at the time yet millions of people ignored what the Clerisy was trying to sell them and chose Trump. Also in a recent poll, the press had less favorable ratings than Congress and that’s not easy to do

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 5:36 pm

        So, the fact the debates started with a nakedly partisan question has no impact? We’ll see an endless parade of such setups from here in,

      • Cluster September 27, 2016 / 5:43 pm

        Trump and his advisors should have expected those questions and be ready for them, they weren’t but hopefully will be in second debate

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 5:52 pm

        The Press has more opportunities to assail Trump, and to beatify Clinton, in the future.

      • rustybrown2014 September 28, 2016 / 1:14 am

        I agree with Cluster here, Bob’s stance seems strangely nihilistic considering the current polls. Sure, there are plenty of entrenched power dynamics that work against Trump and will until the election, but there always have been and he’s come this far, very far, to be neck and neck. I would think now is the time for optimism not “oh well, it won’t last”.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 28, 2016 / 1:33 am

        I did not say “it won’t last.” My opinion is “it never was and will not.” We all agree polls are meaningless.

        We’ll see in November, I guess.

    • Cluster September 27, 2016 / 8:04 am

      Mark is right Bob, this election has nothing to do with the staid old paradigm of liberal vs conservative. This is the entrenched, incompetent, and corrupt establishment vs everyday Americans and for all of his bluster and lack of polish, at least Trump is one of us. Someone who is just completely fed up with the lack of accountability our career politicians get away with time after time after time.

      This was not a great Trump performance but he held his own and one thing I have learned through this campaign is that Trump is a quick student and I suspect we will see a better Trump performance in the next debate.

      • Amazona September 27, 2016 / 9:37 am

        As the great philosopher LL Cool J once said, “Only a fool trips over what is behind him”. Everyone knew six months ago that the crap Hillary dished out was exactly what Hillary would be able to dish out. There was not a surprise in any of her nagging. My only surprise was that it seemed to take Trump by surprise.

        I confess, I had to go back after an hour or so to see how it was going.

        Hillary: Nagging shrew with an ever-present smirk, and odd eye makeup designed to hide or distract from her wandering eye problem, which still showed up but was hard to see because her thick black eyeliner in that harsh squared-off block outline blended in so well with her pupils. What some saw as “composure” I saw as smugness, smug in the control of the many things she could hurl against Trump. She came across as a very unpleasant person who would like to pull the wings off flies.

        Trump: On defense for nearly the whole thing, so much so that even his good points sounded defensive. Even one of his strongest points, her email issues, came out as a defensive bleat in response to her tax questions. I found the things she brought up less damning than his failure to be fully prepared for them.

        Lester Holt: A credit to his race and his party. A blatantly partisan hack. A whore. Should be Crowleyed for the rest of his career.

        I agree, I think Trump will learn from this. My takeaway: At this point I don’t think it changed any minds. Hillary voters will say she “looked presidential” and she did, if “presidential” means smiling while smearing someone on trivialities while ducking what matters. Trump voters will say they already knew the bad stuff she brought up or implied and never did find it significant. Some Trump people might be wavering a little, because he seemed so flustered and on defense, especially about things he HAD to know were coming, but at this point I think everyone is either right where he or she was at noon yesterday or wanting to see more before making a decision.

      • Amazona September 27, 2016 / 9:59 am

        Trump needs to dismiss her attacks, not take them seriously, and bounce them back more smoothly.

        “Tax returns? This is what you do, Hillary—-try to smear people by hinting that there is something wrong, when you know you can’t prove a thing. This is what you do. But I have a question for you: Even if there IS something in my taxes I don’t want people to see, would that mean I would handle things like Benghazi as badly as you did? How would that affect my judgment when it came to decisions like sneaking weapons into Libya to try to overthrow its leader, who everyone knew was fighting al Queda, and actually letting those weapons fall into the hands of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11? You seemed perfectly happy with a man who had PROVEN tax problems being the Secretary of the Treasury, so it seems pretty funny that now all of a sudden all you can focus on is the POSSIBILITY that you might find something you don’t like in my tax returns. If you weren’t a hypocrite you would have making the same kind of fuss when it came out that Timothy Geithner hadn’t been paying HIS taxes, when your boss put him in charge of the whole treasury.”

        “Racism? Making a comment to an INDIVIDUAL that you can twist into sounding race-based isn’t the same thing as attacking a whole race. That’s another difference between you and me, Hillary—-I see people as individuals and I treat them as individuals. while you just see big faceless groups, demographics you can try to manipulate with innuendo and lies.”

        “Sexist? That’s pretty funny coming from a woman who sets herself up as the ultimate feminist while viciously attacking every woman who slept with her husband, or accused him of rape. That’s pretty funny coming from the woman who called her husband’s affairs “Bimbo Eruptions”. I did use some harsh language about a very few individual women, but you called dozens if not hundreds of women “bimbos”. I didn’t see you rushing out to defend Paula Jones when one of your lackeys said she was “too ugly to rape”. I saw you attack and smear a young woman, about the same age as your daughter, when she got seduced by your husband, her boss, in the Oval Office of the White House, and you were brutal to her. Sorry, Hillary, but when you have attacked many more women than I have, in far uglier ways, you have no standing to accuse me of sexism.”

        “birther” That’s another thing about you, Hillary. I happen to think it is my duty as an American to make sure that anyone who is running for the presidency is legally qualified. It doesn’t have a thing to do with race, or religion, or anything else. It is just being the kind of American who thinks we have to follow the law, and the kind of American who understands that if I have a question or concern I have every right to talk about it. You are saying that no one should ever question whether or not someone is eligible to be president, and that no one has the right to talk about something that concerns him. You want to silence people. You want to use the power of the government to do it, and you want to do it yourself with intimidation and name calling.”

        And so on. When you start defending yourself you are on your back foot all the way. He knows this, but he let her get under his skin and got more focused on making himself look better than on using what she said against her.

        I hope he does learn from this.

      • Cluster September 27, 2016 / 10:20 am

        He will learn from this. This is the first time he has done anything like this whereas Hillary has been through a one on one debate numerous times. And you are right, I hope Trump advisors convince him that he doesn’t have to answer every question. He needs to do what Reagan did and blow off the agenda driven questions and speak directly to the American people. I thought Trump;s best lines were pointing out that Hillary has been around for 30 years and hasn’t resolved any problems, and in fact have made them worse, and when he stated that her private server was not a “mistake” but deliberate. Hillary resorted to nothing more than tired old talking points that any career politician would have said, and could have simply put a tape recorder on the podium. Hillary’s economic message of growing the economy from the “middle out” is a good example of the mindless pap spewed by Democrats for years. How is that working? And how does anyone believe that the federal government taking money via regulation and taxation and investing in the economy is a better model than allowing the private sector to keep their own money and do the same? Does anyone really believe that Hillary is a better steward of the economy than the many successful CEO’s out there?

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 11:53 am

        Trump did very well at moments. I’m sure he’ll be more disciplined for the next debate and will perform better.

        This debate, however, I think reinforced the views of those who oppose his candidacy. Everyone told him to prepare but he knew better.

      • M. Noonan September 27, 2016 / 7:05 pm

        The consensus of the Punditry is that he lost – but just walking ’round town today I heard two working-stiff guys talking about how well they thought Trump did.

        As for me, I was way out of it last night – I’ve actually checked my social media to make certain I didn’t step in it anywhere. I was given medication to prepare for a major bit of dental work and it left me in la-la land for quite a while. But while my comment last night was done under the influence, I retract not a word of it. In vino veritas!

        Today I saw a Bill Kristol tweet where he quotes from what he says is an e mail from a former GOP operative – the usual insulting words directed towards Trump, and capped off with “unelectable”. Are these guys even watching the same election as I am? Maybe Trump does go down to defeat – wouldn’t surprise me, at all…but he’s clearly tied it up right now. He is electable, whatever else anyone may wish to say about him. To claim that Trump is unelectable on September 27th, 2016 is just asinine. But off they go like that – he’s unelectable. What they really mean is that they don’t want someone like him elected…to them, Trump is unelectable while Romney is electable…

      • Cluster September 27, 2016 / 7:50 pm

        What they really mean is that they don’t want someone like him elected…to them

        That’s it in a nutshell. The “well connected” don’t like Trump because he offends their “refined sensibilities”. They also want to keep the power and influence within their cocktail party circuit and Trump definitely threatens that dynamic. I remember reading a while back that 5 of the highest income counties in the United States are located right around Washington DC, in addition to reading recently that the federal government has taken in just shy of $20 trillion in tax revenues in the last 8 years, but spent $30 trillion hence the $10 trillion in additional debt. Think about that. The federal government has spent $30 trillion in the last 8 years and 5 of the richest counties are centered around the capital while our infrastructure nationwide is deteriorating and our military suffers. A lot of bureaucrat pockets are being lined. Both parties have failed this country so to quote Trump: “what in the hell do we have to lose?”

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 7:49 pm

        Kristol is the king of bad predictions. While I (obviously) doubt Trump’s likelihood of victory he clearly is within range of winning, i.e., electable.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 8:11 pm

        Backup for Cluster’s statement:

        1 Loudoun County Virginia $117,876
        2 Fairfax County Virginia $112,436
        3 Howard County Maryland $108,844
        4 Hunterdon County New Jersey $105,186
        5 Arlington County Virginia $100,474
        6 Stafford County Virginia $97,606
        7 Putnam County New York $96,223
        8 Somerset County New Jersey $95,825
        9 Douglas County Colorado $95,324
        10 Morris County New Jersey $95,294

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 8:12 pm

        (sigh) so much for formatting…

      • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 8:13 pm

        btw, what the heck is going on in Colorado to make this list?

  13. Cluster September 27, 2016 / 3:35 pm

    I was just reminded of this little gem from Hillary:

    I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police….

    So we are all racists. Everyone must have gotten a warm fuzzy from that one. But she went on:

    But when it comes to policing, since it can have literally fatal consequences, I have said, in my first budget, we would put money into that budget to help us deal with implicit bias by retraining a lot of our police officers.”

    So two things here – 1. Hillary’s solution is we need “more money”. It’s always more money. And 2. the police need retraining in what? To capitulate to the demands of violent minority factions like the Democrats do? How about if we retrain the public to obey police commands?

  14. rustybrown2014 September 27, 2016 / 9:12 pm

    I pretty much concur that Tump lost on points by a small margin last night but should do better in the upcoming debates. After a strong start he did indeed seem unprepared and flustered at times and that only increased as the evening wore on. It was cringeworthy to watch at times against a seasoned pol like Clinton, who played it cool and was adroit at slipping Trump’s jabs and hooks while sticking to her own game plan, as nauseating as it is. I think Holt was clearly biased to no one’s surprise. What did surprised me a bit were the many openings Trump left on the table and how rattled he was by attacks he should have been well prepared for. I hope Trump realizes how his lack of preparation worked against him. My guess is that he does.

    Interesting how little was said about immigration. I don’t know if that was because of a prearranged agreement on topics, with immigration to play a more substantial role in future debates, or because of Holt’s Clinton bias, but it bodes well for Trump in the future. It’s one of the largest differences between the two and a clear winner for Trump if he can calmly state the facts of the matter. Maybe he’s keeping his powder dry for the home stretch.

    We’ll see how the polls swing in the upcoming weeks. The media’s working overtime to portray this nominal win by Hillary as some kind of death blow, and I find it quite funny how progs are crowing and gloating–kind of like when they were declaring Trump dead in the water a few weeks ago after his dip in the polls only to see him rapidly ascend to even after that.

    I was just driving through rural Washington state and saw dozens of prominent Trump signs all over the place; not one sign for Clinton.

    • Cluster September 27, 2016 / 9:42 pm

      Trump is his own worst enemy and for the life of me I still can’t figure out why he has such thin skin. He really needs to learn to brush those personal attacks off. I heard a couple of pundits say something today that I agree with which goes to what you just pointed out on immigration. Trump has a lot of ammunition left for the 2nd and 3rd debate including immigration, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, etc, whereas Hillary has pretty much fired all her shots.

      • rustybrown2014 September 27, 2016 / 9:57 pm

        Not to mention he didn’t bring up Clinton’s deplorables comment, something he’s masterfully hammered her on at the time. He’s clearly holding some things back for later which shows quite a bit of caginess on his part. How effectively he can roll these out and argue them in the next debates remains to be seen.

    • Retired Spook September 27, 2016 / 10:38 pm

      I was just driving through rural Washington state and saw dozens of prominent Trump signs all over the place; not one sign for Clinton.

      My wife and I went on an Alaska cruise last month. We drove to Seattle up across I94 and I90 and returned home diagonally through Washington and Oregon, across Idaho, stopped to visit friends in Wyoming and Colorado, and made a pit stop at our daughter’s in Kansas before returning home to Indiana. We saw exactly the same thing, particularly in Washington, Oregon and Idaho — lots of Trump signs, no Hillary signs. We drove a total of 5,100 miles and also didn’t see a single Hillary bumper sticker.

  15. rustybrown2014 September 27, 2016 / 9:43 pm


    how can you be surprised at Hillary’s use of name calling and slander when Trump has said far worse names and slander?

    Far worse? What has Trump said that even approaches the slander of Hillary calling tens of millions of Americans “deplorable”, and an undefined portion of those “irredeemable”?

    • Bob Eisenhower September 27, 2016 / 10:12 pm

      Well, for starters, I recommend you read the definition of slander. Labels such as “deplorable” and “irredeemable” barely fit the criteria.

      Bot ok, I get your point, and you are 100% right, Hillary sucks. You convinced me, I will not vote for her.

      But, really, you want to defend Trump on name calling? On actual slander, like publicly impugning a judge’s conduct due to unsubstantiated ideas of racial bias? That’s the discussion you want?

      • rustybrown2014 September 28, 2016 / 12:41 am

        Bob, I recommend you read the definition of slander because Oxford says the verbs means to “Make false and damaging statements about (someone)”. Seems apt to me. Now, obviously we’re not talking about legal definitions here; nobody’s suggesting Trump’s guilty of legal slander. So for our purposes labels such as “deplorable” and “irredeemable” certainly do fit the criteria. Maybe it’s a good idea to have a dictionary at your elbow before slandering others for not doing so.

        I’m open to all discussions. bring it on.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 28, 2016 / 1:27 am

        Um, slander is a legal term, not an English term.. Its definition comes from case law, not

        One requirement to file a claim of slander is to provide provable, calculable damages. Also, there needs to be specific litigants, not just “millions of unnamed people harmed in real dollars by being called deplorable.” Also, the sheer size of the class, were a class action be authorized, would dilute the possibility of any calculable damages. Also, also, also…enough.

        I notice you didn’t respond to my example of actual slander by Trump. He made public charges against a specific person which may entail financial impact not only on the judge’s life but on every case he tried.

        THAT is an example of slander, it meets all legal requirements. And libel, too, since it was repeated in print and other media.

        So, she labeled millions of people deplorable, with no real effect, and he recklessly slurred a justice, possibly affecting his future and his pay, but also threatening his past cases abnd possibly costing the State millions to review.

        You see the difference now? Should I still “bring it on?”

        This thread seems dead so hopefully you can do better in the next one.

      • rustybrown2014 September 28, 2016 / 2:12 am

        Slander is a word that is indeed in the English vernacular which is why it’s in the Oxford dictionary, which is where people go to look up the meaning of, you know, words. You were the first one to bring up the term and I believe we were all under the impression that you were speaking in the vernacular since there are no legal proceedings underway for legal slander against Trump.

        As far as your alleged case of slander against Trump, it amounts to this: Trump questioned (questioned mind you, not the definitive assertion of Hillary’s “deplorable” statement, true slander in the vernacular) the neutrality of a Mexican American judge’s partiality to rule on a case he was presiding over in the midst of Trump’s presidential campaign which happened to draw a hard and divisive line on Mexican immigration. Where is the slander? Seems like run of the mill legal posturing to me. He’s throwing out a suggestion of bias. It might be the basis for appeal should he lose. And by the way, he’s following the rules laid out by decades of identity politics that have been in practice by the courts for quite some time; how many times have you heard about a white jury unable to reach an impartial decision because the defendant happened to be black for example?

        So your implications that this is slander is clearly ridiculous. “Meeting all legal requirements”, what a laugh. Contact the judge right away Bob, I think you’re onto a legal breakthrough worthy of a cabe miniseries.

        By all means bring it on Bob, we’re all amused.

      • Bob Eisenhower September 28, 2016 / 10:03 am


        You know, I considered this thread done, but no one posted in the new thread so I checked here, and boy, I was not disappointed. Please, please, please keep “bringing it,” as your “it” is just too good.

        So your point is that, because a legal term exists otherwise in common vernacular, the common vernacular should be taken?

        When I inform you that your candidate’s friend Don King murdered a man, you must assume that man was laughing uproariously in a comedy club at which Kink performed, because “murdering someone” is comic vernacular for making an audience laugh. Right?

        Heck, even in the vernacular, you are wrong. According to your own source, the OED, slander is

        1) The action or CRIME of making a false spoken statement damaging to A PRESON’S reputation.
        2) A false and malicious spoken statement.

        You cherry-picked the secondary (lesser) definition as the one anyone should accept over the legal definition that everyone is required to accept. And notice that slander is about A person, not millions of unknown people.

        If this is your “it” then please keep bringing it. Maybe you should read a little Stunk and White before you bring “it” next time.

        Of course, I’d rather be involved in discussions of real substance rather than feigned outrage over the false equivalence of the word “deplorables” or usage of legal terminology. How’s about we talk actual conservative politics instead? Next thread.

      • rustybrown2014 September 28, 2016 / 10:58 am

        So your point is that, because a legal term exists otherwise in common vernacular, the common vernacular should be taken?

        No, not always, my point is that I took YOUR use of the term “slander” to be in the vernacular. You’re now making it clear you meant the term to be taken in the literal legal sense. OK Bob, please enlighten us as to what legal slander of Trumps you’re referring to. I assume you can point us to the specific court cases since you’ve made it clear you’re talking about a legal issue.

        While we’re waiting I must point out that I did indeed mean to use the word slander in the vernacular in regards to Hillary’s deplorables comment and I used it quite correctly. Now, this is a bit embarrassing, but here I have to educate you on how to properly use a dictionary. When looking up a word, Bob, one is not “required to accept” the first definition. The second, third definitions are just as valid as the first, and one should pick whichever definition best fits the context. In this case it should be clear I meant the vernacular because obviously Clinton’s comment is not legally actionable.

        And finally, you’re the one guilty of cherry picking here, because even the FIRST definition of slander fits my usage in the vernacular:

        1) The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.

        You emphasized CRIME, but I clearly meant ACTION in the context of what I was saying. Note the big “OR” there, Bob. And it goes without saying that if you can slander one person in the vernacular you can slander a dozen.

        Gee Bob, for someone who struggles with the basics of common English and appears to need instructions for how to use a dictionary you sure are mighty pedantic. And you actually think you’re winning this exchange? Oh my.

      • Amazona September 28, 2016 / 3:24 pm

        Rusty, enjoying your tour of Bickerstown?

      • rustybrown2014 September 28, 2016 / 3:56 pm

        Bizarre, but not so bad. I think I might have a second career in educating adults with disabilities.

      • rustybrown2014 September 28, 2016 / 4:10 pm

        Very odd how he insists an author’s words comport to HIS preferred definitions, not the authors. You tell him what you mean and he comes back with “No, what you REALLY mean is…”

        Never run into that one before.

      • Amazona September 28, 2016 / 5:39 pm

        Rusty, you were gone for a while so I think you missed some great examples, but if you are looking for a career change this is the place to practice.

        As an example: Did anyone “…defend Trump on his name calling…”?

        Your quote is a great example of how you can get bogged down in Bickerstown: ….how can you be surprised at Hillary’s use of name calling and slander when Trump has said far worse names and slander?

        There is no way to answer that question because it is based on three false premises. If you challenge the premises (no one showed “…..’surprise’ at Hillary’s use of name calling and slander…”and one would have to accept the falsehoods that “…Trump has said far worse names….” and “..Trump has said far worse ….. slander ..”) by correcting the record, assuming one even cares enough to try to respond, you merely find yourself sucked into another bickerfest of semantics, idiosyncratic definitions and redefinitions, and snide lectures on the English language and its usage.

      • rustybrown2014 September 28, 2016 / 6:01 pm

        Right. Snide lectures from someone who clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

        Hey Bob, where are those court cases of Trump’s slander? Still digging them up? After all, you were talking about the legal definition of slander, right? You burned a lot of calories making that distinction.

Comments are closed.