The Great Debate Open Thread

First, from IBD which has Trump up by 1:

By gender, Clinton does much better among women — 47% to 37% — but Trump’s lead among men is just as strong at 47% to 32%. Trump does better among parents (46% to 32%), married women (44% to 41%), lower-class households (53% to 37%), and the religious, among whom Clinton’s support never tops 38%. Among those who express no religion, Clinton handily beats Trump 63% to 16%.

The fact that Trump is crushing it among lower-class households is a warning sign for Democrats – even if they win this one, they are getting in to a situation where they have no backup if their core voters abandon them. This is akin to the position the GOP was in where we only won as long as we kept certain groups happy (for us, it was suburban voters). We’re one financial crash away from Democrats losing everything. Meanwhile, most other polling (other than Rasmussen and LA Times) shows this race a walk-over for Hillary. My thinking – Hillary’s support is a mile wide right now, but an inch deep. If Trump can find a convincing argument for why people should vote for him – and stick to it without being distracted for even just a week – then he could still pull this off.

Malik Obama – the President’s half-brother – wants to Make America Great Again.

People are very much keying in on the amount of Anti-Semitism bubbling up in some areas of the right this year – but less examined is the rising Anti-Semitism of the left. At least Trump can say kind things about Israel and not risk any substantial support…Hillary’s people were worried that even mentioning Israel might be problematic. As the linked article states, Hillary is likely to be less hostile to Israel than Obama has been (and this is in keeping with my view that neither Trump nor Hillary can be as bad as Obama has been), but the bottom line is that, for Democrats, there isn’t much upside in being friendly to Israel…and as the left wallows ever more deeply in things like BDS, there is a risk that supporting Israel in the future will become an entirely GOP thing. Small wonder that Israel is reaching out to places like India and Russia…

Proof that some people keep in the public eye way too long after their sell-by date.

O’Keefe’s videos showing Clinton skullduggery were absolutely nothing – but, they went ahead and fired the guy anyway.

Advertisements

88 thoughts on “The Great Debate Open Thread

  1. Amazona October 19, 2016 / 7:38 pm

    Just look at how the Clinton News Network “covered” the O’Keefe videos:

    “The CNN story is weird in that it does not quote what Creamer told O’Keefe, instead saying, “In the past, O’Keefe and his Project Veritas Action have been criticized for strategically editing footage to create false accusations about people or groups.”Instead of quoting what Creamer told O’Keefe, CNN pretended it was a big ado about nothing.

    Even though a congressional spouse had to quit the Clinton campaign over it.

    CNN also failed to mention that Creamer is a convicted felon who as executive director of the Illinois Public Action Fund ran a check-kiting operation which resulted in a 16-count indictment for bank fraud on March 11, 2004. He bilked banks out of $2.3 million. Somehow he served only a few months in prison.”

  2. Amazona October 19, 2016 / 8:21 pm

    I just saw a very disturbing anti-Trump ad from a Leftist group called Priorities USA Action. It was disturbing on so many levels.

    Worst of all was a passionate, tearful and completely bogus account of the killing of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming, a few years ago, told by his mother. The sad thing is, she might actually believe this, and if she does she is probably going to be very rudely educated. The disgusting thing is that Priorities USA Action undoubtedly DOES know the truth, but set this poor grieving woman up to make a fool of herself and expose herself to being very harshly corrected.

    The Leftist narrative was that Matthew was a shy, timid, kid trying to deal with his homosexual urges, who was lured by strangers “pretending to be gay” who “met him” in a bar, took him out and beat him, tied him to a fence and left him to die. The truth is that he was a well known homosexual prostitute and drug dealer in Laramie, running a drug route between the college towns of Laramie and Fort Collins, Colorado. He stole something like $10,000 in drugs and the people who killed him were in the drug and sex trade with him, knew him well, and his death resulted from his theft of drugs.

    If this sad, teary narrative from a woman who probably believes this fantasy about her little boy is corrected, as it should be, it will only hurt her. But Priorities USA Action doesn’t care who they hurt, if they can spread some excrement in the process.

    Then we get to the last disturbing and creepy aspect of this ad—the attempt to link this whole mess to Trump, because he allegedly promotes “hate”.

    Yes, folks, it is true—-there is no gutter too slimy or lie too blatant for a Progressive to find it repellent.

    • Amazona October 19, 2016 / 8:49 pm

      Jimenez (author of “The Book Of Matt”) had no intention of causing such controversy. He’s an award-winning writer and TV producer, and visited Laramie shortly after the murder to gather material for a screenplay about the case. When he started he was convinced that Matthew died at the hands of homophobes, but he soon discovered that Matthew’s tragedy began long before the night he was killed.

      Jimenez found that Matthew was addicted to and dealing crystal meth and had dabbled in heroin. He also took significant sexual risks and was being pimped alongside Aaron McKinney, one of his killers, with whom he’d had occasional sexual encounters. He was HIV positive at the time of his death.

      “This does not make the perfect poster boy for the gay-rights movement,” says Jimenez. “Which is a big part of the reason my book has been so trashed.”

      Matthew’s drug abuse, and the fact that he knew one of his killers prior to the attack, was never explored in court. Neither was the rumour that the killers knew that he had access to a shipment of crystal meth with a street value of $10,000 which they wanted to steal.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/the-truth-behind-americas-most-famous-gay-hate-murder-matthew-shepard

      (Jimenez, by the way, is gay.)

  3. Amazona October 19, 2016 / 8:42 pm

    You know, if you pay attention you can learn something every single day. For example, today I learned that Tim Kaine is not old enough to run for the vice presidency. He said so himself. He said “Not in my lifetime” have I seen a foreign nation try to influence a presidential election in this country.” Possibly paraphrasing the last part but not the “not in my lifetime” part.

    This means he was not yet born when China was trying to influence the presidential election(s) of Bill Clinton by making huge illegal campaign donations to the Clinton effort.

    Or maybe he was just lying. (Were his lips moving?)

  4. Amazona October 19, 2016 / 9:39 pm

    Oh, dear—watching Trump sink himself, word by word. He admits he wants to appoint justices who have a bias, in this case pro-life, and not just originalist no matter what the topic. He has lost his cool a couple of times and so far Hillary is playing him like a trout. He is babbling.

    He may land some punches but so far he is not coming off well, and that might diminish the impact of anything he says. When she talks about Russia trying to influence our election, why the hell doesn’t he bring up the illegal campaign contributions to Bill?

    (Sigh)

    We’ll see what the public thinks. I think he’s not up to debating her. He could be—everything she is saying is predictable and he could have and should have prepared, rehearsed, and worked on a little focus and discipline.

    (Sigh)

    • Retired Spook October 19, 2016 / 10:38 pm

      It was clear after 30 minutes that Trump didn’t learn a thing from the first two debates, and I turned it off. Either he is completely disregarding his advisers, or he has the worst advisers EVER!!

      • Amazona October 19, 2016 / 11:01 pm

        Trump’s advisers remind me of the people who advise Stevie Wonder on how to dress. “Damn, you look GOOD, Stevie. Trust me.”

      • M. Noonan October 19, 2016 / 11:47 pm

        Can you imagine trying to advise Trump? Gotta be the most difficult thing in the world…would take someone who’s known him for years and has learned how to plant an idea and make it seem like it was Trump’s idea to begin with. Most of his campaign folks have only known him a few months!

      • Amazona October 19, 2016 / 11:56 pm

        Have you ever watched a University of Colorado football game? The team is the Buffaloes, and the mascot is a young buffalo always named Ralphie. When CU scores a touchdown, about 8 big young guys run around the field with Ralphie. Theoretically, they “lead” Ralphie around the field, but if you watch you can see who is leading whom. They are all holding onto ropes attached to Ralphie, and they run as fast as they can to give the impression that they are in charge, but Ralphie goes where Ralphie wants to go, and the “leaders” are along for the ride and hoping for the best.

        That is what I see with Trump and his “advisers”.

  5. Cluster October 19, 2016 / 9:43 pm

    Trump allowed her to turn her damaging wikileak emails into a conversation about Russia. He can’t stay focused – driving me nuts

    • Amazona October 19, 2016 / 9:48 pm

      Few things are more depressing that hearing absolute BS made to sound reasonable and reason sounding a little unhinged.

      Again—they keep tossing a slow ball over the middle of the plate, about Russia “influencing the election” and we don’t hear a single word about the illegal campaign contributions. And Trump has nothing to do with what Russia does or doesn’t do, while soliciting and accepting foreign campaign contributions was ILLEGAL

      (Sigh)

    • Amazona October 19, 2016 / 9:50 pm

      Heard a caller to a Denver station today absolutely pulling his hair out over our letting the Left get away with acting like the issue is not what the emails say but really why they are made public. Since when does the source matter more than the content?

      • M. Noonan October 19, 2016 / 11:54 pm

        In re: the new videos showing Democrat skullduggery – liked David Burge’s tweet about it:

        O’Keefe: here’s video of Creamer starting a baby on fire

        Media: OH YEAH WELL WHERE’S THE REST OF VIDEO OF HIM NOT STARTING BABIES ON FIRE

        They had to carefully fact check those videos – of course, video of Trump being crude needs no explanation!

        That is another thing I don’t think enough people are keying in on: the American people hold the MSM in utter contempt. They watch it, to be sure, but they know it’s full of it. I do wonder if the MSM bias is going to start working against itself? Let’s not getting into unskewing the polls – they are what they are and the pollsters don’t want to get a reputation of putting out lousy polls (though, remember, if they’ve got a poll with a 4.5 point margin of error and it has Hillary up 3 and Trump ends up winning by three, they’ll assert stoutly that their poll was dead on within the margin of error); but, still, they are to full of it that I wonder if they realize they are full of it? Meaning, that they might have fed themselves on nonsense for so long that they are believing the nonsense and thus confirmation bias is creeping in on everything they do.

        Guess we’ll find out 11/8…

      • Amazona October 20, 2016 / 12:04 am

        I do have to say that Wallace did a better job than all the others put together, and he did try to rein in Hillary’s ducking and dodging on the Clinton Foundation. He also showed some awareness of when to try to shut the candidates up and when it would just turn into a big 3-way shouting match.

        I think Trump scored a little with his comments on the MSM being in the tank for Hillary, though true to form he wandered a little into voter fraud and then forgot where he was going with that. And I think he scored with his comments on Hillary paying people to disrupt his rallies and while she tried to tap dance around it she didn’t deny it. She couldn’t—there is the video.

  6. Cluster October 19, 2016 / 9:45 pm

    Hillary just admitted that the top 1% has benefited the most from the economy following the 2007 recession. Why Trump didn’t seize the opportunity to state that that is an indictment on Obama;s policies confounds me

    • Amazona October 19, 2016 / 9:49 pm

      He has tunnel vision and doesn’t pick up on anything outside that range. That whistling sound you hear? It’s chance after chance blasting right past him.

  7. Amazona October 19, 2016 / 10:59 pm

    Frank Luntz’s group had a split decision on who “won”, half going for Hillary and half for Trump. He did a little better in the end, and I admit that his speaking style is so contrary to what I find appealing or compelling I have a hard time hearing his message. I understand that people without this visceral reaction to him will have a different opinion.

    Dear God, I hope so!

    I had to take a little break and watch some of The Highwaymen on PBS, and was distracted by a 70-pound white poodle doing jumping jacks in front of the screen to induce me into playing ball with her, so the evening was not a complete waste.

    Trump commented on ISIS and Syria but never touched on the fact that Hillary armed these people, and her demand that we help unseat Gaddafi led to the vacuum in leadership that created ISIS or at least gave it room to grow. Not a word, He said she created ISIS but never said how. Not all that helpful.

    If I were not aware of the political system represented by each candidate I could see how Hillary could come across as a better choice. That, and knowing her history and the facts behind her lies. She did not do well, BTW, on the Clinton Foundation thing, and Wallace did a good job of pointing that out and trying to get her back to the Pay to Play thing, which she never did answer. But then Trump let it lie there, twitching a little and begging for attention, while he meandered around for a while. I liked it when he challenged her to give that money back, and she got a little tight-jawed about that.

    I would characterize her performance as No Cliche Left Behind. His was more like concentric navigation, making circles until he narrowed in on a thought.

    (Sigh)

    • M. Noonan October 19, 2016 / 11:44 pm

      Some insta-polls show Hillary the winner – but with an improvement for Trump since last debates. This is the first one I watched all the way through. He had his good points and bad points…I do believe it was a mistake for him to not say he’ll accept the result until he sees it. Should have phrased it, “hey, if it’s a clear result then no problem: but if there are reports of fraud, then we’ll look at that” – either that or a ringing declaration that he’ll accept the results. Doing what he did will just allow the MSM to use that against him for several days in a row, now.

      But, that’s just Trump, all over. He’s either going to win this as he is, or lose it as he is…turns out, there was never a chance he was going to be molded into anything like a traditional Presidential candidate. If he wins, he re-writes how politics is done – if he loses, he proves an outsider can’t make it.

      After taking an hour or so to review some of the after-action reports and pondering it in my own mind, the dog that didn’t bark is Hillary’s supposed appeal to Republicans and Independents. She did make a few fluff statements about wanting the support of all Americans, but you’d think that someone as far ahead as she is and in the process of seeking a landslide mandate would have made it more clear that she wants GOP/Independent votes. She didn’t make the effort – a laundry list of Progressive policy proposals was all she brought. And then there’s Trump’s refusal to say he’d automatically accept the result…it occurred to me that both of them were mostly playing to their respective, minds-already-made-up bases. If I read it right, then both have internal polling showing there’s not too many people who are undecided who will actually show up and its all about just dragging the most ardent partisans to the polls.

      • Amazona October 20, 2016 / 12:07 am

        At first I didn’t like Trump’s comment on accepting the outcome of the election, but on second thought it did telegraph to the Left that any of their hinkinks will be examined.

        And why, when Hillary said every other losing candidate had accepted the outcome, didn’t anyone bring up crybaby cheaterpants Algore?

  8. Amazona October 19, 2016 / 11:02 pm

    You know what I see? No matter who wins, I see a purge of the GOP that would make Stalin green with envy.

    • Bob Eisenhower October 20, 2016 / 12:01 am

      It isn’t a matter of “no matter who wins” anymore. You already know who wins. We Conservatives are in the wilderness.

      The question is, where should we move, forward, here?

      • Bob Eisenhower October 20, 2016 / 12:01 am

        That is not preening or anything, it is a genuine and heartfelt question.

      • Amazona October 20, 2016 / 12:11 am

        Where do we go from here? The same place I describe every time the subject comes up—and you don’t like the answer. Mine is to gut the existing GOP—keep the real estate and the bank accounts and the brand but kick the bums out. Yours is, well, I don’t know. Go off somewhere and start over, I guess.

        If you don’t think the conservative core of the party has been working on this since the party let Trump have his way with them, you haven’t been paying attention.

        BTW, Rubio pulled another wimpy bonehead suckup move. I can’t believe anyone is still thinking of him as a candidate next time around. Not quite sure how history can be rewritten to make a parent of his a citizen at the time of his birth, but what the hey, it’s not as if the law matters to zealots. I hope he wins his current race just for the numbers in the Senate, but if he doesn’t he has a great future as a weathervane.

      • Retired Spook October 20, 2016 / 8:56 am

        The question is, where should we move, forward, here?

        Not sure about the extra commas, Bob. Are you trying to convey some secret meaning, or do you just like commas? Regardless, I’ll try to answer your question from the perspective of someone who has voted in every election since 1966 and has seen a lot of politicians, some good, some bad, but mostly bad, come and go.

        The answer, to a great extent, depends on who wins. You seem to be positive that Hillary will win, and I don’t discount that that’s a pretty strong possibility. The strongest argument against that is that we are headed to an economic cliff, and I subscribe to the notion that the globalists who are orchestrating the collapse don’t want one of their own in charge in the U.S. when it happens. But let’s assume Hillary wins. What “we” do next depends on her margin of victory and whether or not she takes the Senate with her. If that happens, then the question becomes, what do your children and great grandchildren do, because our way of life with a 6-3 or 7-2 Liberal SC majority will change for at least a generation.

        I would suggest, Bob, that one of the best things you can do is run for School Board and begin helping to reverse the victory that the Left has won in our educational system over the last 50-60 years. According to a recent study most Millennials believe George Bush killed more people than Stalin. How do you advance Conservatism when that is the mindset coming out of our educational system?

        Second, I would suggest that you join (or form if there isn’t one to join) a grass-roots organization dedicated to recruiting conservative, liberty minded people for public office at all levels.

        Lastly, I suggest that you get yourself a good quality rifle, shotgun and handgun, a decent supply of ammunition and a good supply or food, water and medical supplies.

      • Amazona October 20, 2016 / 10:51 am

        A Hillary win would probably mean losing the Senate, as well, so we would be well and thoroughly screwed, so there wouldn’t be much we could do until the 2018 midterms, where we would stand a pretty good chance of picking up a lot of seats in both House and Senate. This is usually the case anyway and after two years of Hillary and the GOP lacking the Great Trump Speed Bump it would be probable.

        Back to my old refrain, yes, join or form a solid grass roots organization, but please try to focus on governance instead of issues. True, issues under a Hillary regime will be important, but I truly believe if more people understood that she is not just a single person running for office but the representative of a political SYSTEM, and understood just what that system is, and were making choices between the SYSTEM represented by Trump and the one represented by Hillary we would not be as worried as we are now. We are where we are because of Identity Politics and we need to get a grip on that idea and see it for the folly it is.

        And I would say get involved, really seriously involved, in your state politics, because that is where the real power is supposed to be and that is where it will be again if a conservative government is ever reestablished in this country. Even under a Central Authority like the one Hillary will work to enlarge, states can put up a fight. Look at what states have been doing regarding Obamacare. Even a hard-core Leftist Supreme Court has to rule on an issue, and that means the issue has to be passed by a state legislature and then ruled on by lower courts before it gets to that level, so the death spiral of Leftist governance can be slowed by state legislation.

        And the last advice of Spook is good. I have a feeling gun and ammo sales are going up a lot this morning.

      • Amazona October 20, 2016 / 10:54 am

        The poll I found so stunning was the one where a majority of Millennials found Hillary to be a good role model. Wow. What does that say about a country? Electing a known criminal who has used a high position of trust and authority to sell out her country is bad enough, but having more than half of its youth look to her as a role model (which to me means being inspired by her and even wanting to be like her) is downright scary.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 20, 2016 / 12:42 pm

        Spook

        That’s very good advice regarding rebuilding from school boards.

        As for grassroots organizations, that is what I seek at this moment. I’ve been involved with other grassroots organizations and the closest any came to accomplishments has been the Tea Party, which is the direction I have more or less retained.

        I just have zero faith in the GOP to clean out the rot that exists in its every crevice (imo). Some of the bums may be thrown out but plenty more will remain.

        As regards use of commas, I think I was having a mild stroke when I wrote that particular sentence.

  9. Amazona October 20, 2016 / 1:12 pm

    An example of why Trump is so out of touch:

    I have tried to contact his campaign, and it simply cannot be done. The Denver office merely links to a Trump web site. The web site has a Contacts page, which you can fill out and try to send, and it stops right there. It has one of those Captcha things, where you have to prove you are not a robot by picking out certain photos from groups of photos. Hey, I can do that! Except 27 times I picked out the right pictures, and every time I got bounced back to the comments page.

    So I called the Denver office to see if there is another place I can to go send observations and information, and the response I got when I said I couldn’t contact the Trump campaign was “Well, could you contact Romney?” And it went downhill from there. It was an incoherent lecture on “situational morality” and everyone has an opinion and why don’t I try to reach Giuliani or Christie or Dr. Carson if I want to get through to someone?

    I’m trying to decide if Trump is the Titanic or the iceberg.

    • Bob Eisenhower October 20, 2016 / 2:01 pm

      Trump is neither Titanic nor iceberg.

      He is a meteor that happens to hit the Titanic on it’s way to the Earth’s core.

      • Amazona October 20, 2016 / 2:12 pm

        That doesn’t make any sense.

    • Cluster October 20, 2016 / 5:26 pm

      For all his outrage, however, Kallstrom knows he can hold a press conference tomorrow and end Hillary’s career.

      Oh please, oh please, oh please

      • Amazona October 20, 2016 / 5:50 pm

        Except we keep hearing about how this will end Hillary’s career and that will end Hillary’s career, yet nothing ever does. Her supporters simply do not care. There could be video of her actually firing the missile at the aircraft and she would still pull in about 45% of the vote.

        And Millennials would still revere her as a role model.

        I was just listening to Hannity on my way home and there was this kind of weepy-voiced woman on (I tuned in during her call so I have no idea who she was) carrying on about how there have only been 31 cases of voter fraud so why are we upset about the idea, and Donald Trump is “sending a message” that there should be “unrest” if he loses the election. I listen to people like this and I wonder what it is about them that encourages them to so actively participate in the “Just How Stupid Do You Think I Am?” game.

      • Cluster October 20, 2016 / 7:14 pm

        So this just came out:

        Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arranged a $12 million donation from Moroccan King Mohammed VI to her family’s charity in 2014 in return for the Clinton Global Initiative hosting its international meeting in the North African Muslim nation, according to an email made public Thursday by Wikileaks……..The actual meeting was paid for by OCP, the Moroccan-government-owned mining company that has been accused of serious human rights violations. Clinton vigorously supported the Moroccan King when she was Secretary of State and the U.S.-financed Export-Import Bank gave OCP a $92 million loan guarantee during her tenure as Secretary of State.

        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/20/wikileaks-hillary-got-12-million-for-clinton-charity-as-quid-pro-quo-for-morocco-meeting/#ixzz4NfdKUwXM

        Honest to God, how much more proof of corruption has to come out until people wake up?

        http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/20/wikileaks-hillary-got-12-million-for-clinton-charity-as-quid-pro-quo-for-morocco-meeting/

      • Amazona October 20, 2016 / 7:32 pm

        I don’t have much of a problem with the $12M “donation” in exchange for having the meeting in Morocco—she was no longer Secretary of State and it is a private foundation. I do have a problem with the earlier relationships when she WAS Sec of State. I have a problem with her interactions, as Sec of State, with OCP. As you quoted from the article, (t)he actual meeting was paid for by OCP, the Moroccan-government-owned mining company that has been accused of serious human rights violations. and of course Clinton vigorously supported the Moroccan King when she was Secretary of State and the U.S.-financed Export-Import Bank gave OCP a $92 million loan guarantee during her tenure as Secretary of State.

        And let’s not overlook the fact that (t)he mining company also contributed between $5 million to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to the charity’s web site.

        Abedin described the arrangement in the email as having been organized by her boss. Hillary Clinton “created this mess and she knows it,” she told Podesta and Mook.
        ……………

        As usual, Hillary is hanging out with a really rough crowd. (One might even call them “deplorable”.) The Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice charged OCP with “serious human rights violations,” including exploitation of workers by not “adequately compensating the impoverished people who live there.”

        Mohamed Yeslem Beisat, the Washington envoy for the Polisaro Front, told U.S. News & World Report in April 2013 that “OCP is the first beneficiary of the war and the first beneficiary of the occupation — it is the one that is cashing in on the misery of thousands of refugees and hundreds of political detainees for the past 40 years.

        Polisaro claims to lead a Moroccan government-in-exile based in Tindouf, Algeria.

        “They’re doing this because they know Hillary has some chances of being president of the United States. And they want her to support their brutal occupation of Western Sahara,” Beisat charged.

        The Moroccan firm mines phosphates. Human rights critics have called OCP’s mining product “blood phosphates,” appropriating the term “blood diamonds” for gems mined in operations that kill and injure local workers

        OCP is not the only mining company linked to human rights violations that has donated to the Clinton Foundation. The foundation accepted a $100 million pledge from Lukas Lundin, who owns mining and oil drilling operations in North Africa and in the Congo.

      • Cluster October 20, 2016 / 8:01 pm

        In 2014 Hillary was a former SecState, soon to be Presidential candidate, with Obama on speed dial. The fact that she was not currently the secretary is meaningless. She used her government influence to enrich herself. It’s all interconnected.

    • Amazona October 20, 2016 / 5:46 pm

      Wasn’t that the funniest tap dancing you ever heard? “I am a Christian so I understand persecution and I will not be persecuted…”

      Yeah, such a good Christian that she will lie, cheat and try to steal an election and be an active and even leading part of a criminal organization.

      So funny on so many levels………

  10. Amazona October 20, 2016 / 6:03 pm

    I have a genuine question here, and maybe someone here can answer it.

    A few years ago I was talking to a Liberal about cleaning up the voter registration rolls. I said I thought we should send out letters to every registered voter, letters that cannot be forwarded, and in these letters would be an explanation of the voter laws and a questionnaire. You would have to live at the address on your registration to get the letter. Returned letters would lead to that name being removed from the voter registration rolls.

    The questionnaire would be very clear that answers are under penalty of perjury, and explain a pretty serious penalty for lying. In the questionnaire, the person would be required to:
    Verify name, address, place and date of birth and citizenship status.
    If naturalized citizen, state date and location of citizenship ceremony, and date and number assigned to the citizenship process.
    State that this person understands and agrees that this is the ONLY address where this person is registered to vote, that if there are other registrations in other areas they will be canceled or the person is liable for severe penalties for attempted voter fraud or voter fraud if a vote is cast in any of those other areas.
    Be signed and returned to the local voter registration office.

    Anyone who has moved will know about this process and can go to the nearest voter registration office to register at the new address, and fill out and sign the same questionnaire.

    To this I added:

    No Motor Voter.

    Do remote voter registration at designated locations if people think it is important, but with the understanding that one has to be registered a full 45 days before election day, and has to fill out and sign the same questionnaire.

    Government-issued photo ID required to vote.

    The indignant response to the first part, the part about culling voter registration rolls, was that this is (can’t remember the term) and is illegal. This person got his “information” from people like Ed Schultz and Al Franken—-this was back when Franken was on Air America, and he was an Airhead.

    Does anyone know what he was talking about? Is there some term to describe this kind of purging of the voter registration rolls of dead people, multiple registrants, non citizens, etc. ? And would it be “illegal” or even questionable?

      • Amazona October 22, 2016 / 4:02 pm

        You didn’t answer my question. It was simple: Is there some term to describe this kind of purging of the voter registration rolls of dead people, multiple registrants, non citizens, etc So your “answer” is not an answer at all.
        .
        You spun it to mean some sort of voter suppression. emphasis mine

        Voter caging and voter purging are two types of voter suppression.

        Voter caging is a tactic that specifically refers to times when a political party or another partisan organization sends registered mail to addresses of registered voters that they have identified as likely to be unfriendly to their candidate. All mail that is returned as undeliverable is placed on what is called a “caging list.” The group that sent the mail then systematically uses this list to challenge the registration or right to vote of those names on it, on the grounds that if the voters were unreachable at the address listed on his or her voter registration, then their registration is fraudulent, and they should not be allowed to vote.

        However, what I am talking about is a nonpartisan, national, effort to remove from the rolls all people who have died or who are not now living at the registered address. It would be accompanied by a massive multi-media educational and informational blitz to inform people that if they no longer live at their registered addresses they will be removed from the voter registration rolls, and they will need to re-register with their new addresses. It’s not as if this is some wild-eyed wholly new and surprising kind of action to take. We have a very finite length of time in which to change our addresses on our drivers licenses and vehicle registrations after we move, and this doesn’t seem rile up any particular political faction.

        It is also an effort to make sure that anyone who is not a citizen and who plans to vote is fully aware of the penalties, both for lying on the form and for voting illegally, and has signed a statement to that effect. Theoretically, this would be something of a deterrent to many.

        You guys really focus on answering questions that were never asked, and/or responding to what was never said, while ducking and dodging the real questions and comments. It’s quite an obvious pattern.

        Many of us find it interesting that the Left fights with such vigor to prevent any effort by anyone to ensure that our voting system is as free as possible from corruption, manipulation and fraud. It makes us wonder why……………

        BTW, figured out what your political philosophy is yet, or do you think you can weasel your way back in here as a political observer and commentator without any actual political position?

      • Amazona October 22, 2016 / 4:12 pm

        Congress got sucked into the hysteria of wanting to make sure people were not denied the right or ability to vote, passing the Help America Vote Act, which really just makes it possible for someone else to steal or cancel out my legitimate vote.

        Quite clearly, both the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 need to be revisited, severely amended or simply repealed, as they have created the mess we have now, where basically anyone who strolls up to a voting booth can vote, without any prior registration and without showing any state-issued ID. A nation which is governed by elected officials must have confidence in those elections, which means the only people voting are citizens qualified to vote.

        Ah, those Unintended Consequences.

        Or maybe they are not “unintended” but were part of the agenda, buried deep in hyperemotional cant.

      • tryvasty October 22, 2016 / 11:53 pm

        You sounded like you were asking what term the guy in your story was using/talking about. I took my best shot at guess what term he had used. I expressed no opinion on whether it was accurate, reasonable, or anything else.

        Maybe take a chill pill once in a while.

        Also, the reason Democrats want to make it easier to vote is the same reason Republicans want to make it harder: they want to win elections. And no, I don’t mean by voter fraud. Republicans actually give up the game when they try to enact voter ID laws, because they sometimes like do all sorts of other fun things at the same time like shorten early voting time periods and lengthen the amount of time you have to register in advance, clearly things that have nothing to do with voter fraud. But I’ll give you three guesses which way the people most likely to be affected by the changes in voting rules are likely to vote. (Here’s a hint: college kids are new to voting and less likely to have registered long in advance, are more likely to need to vote early, and are less likely to have photo IDs that comply with the ID laws, hitting the full trifecta).

        Of course you don’t have to listen to me. Occasionally a particularly dumb politician gets confused and explains exactly what the intent is:

        http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/10/26/gops-don-yelton-resigns-after-lazy-blacks-remark-on-daily-show/

        I’m curious what particular part of HAVA you take issue with. I’m not sure I like the way the electronic voting part of it was handled, but other than that I’m not sure any piece of it seems particularly egregious.

      • Amazona October 23, 2016 / 7:36 am

        “…take a chill pill..” So witty, so original, so too too darling.

        No, I asked specifically about one process and you lurched in with a bunch of whining about something else altogether. I do have to hand it to you, you spout the party line quite well—word for word, actually.

        Republicans actually give up the game when they try to enact voter ID laws, because they sometimes like do all sorts of other fun things at the same time like shorten early voting time periods and lengthen the amount of time you have to register in advance, clearly things that have nothing to do with voter fraud.

        Well, not exactly. As in “not at all”. Shortening early voting time leads to more educated voters who have had time to consider what the candidates have to say, while extended voting times favor only the had-core party types who will vote one way or another no matter what comes out during the campaign. Advance registration gives time to cross check to see if a person has registered in other places. You know, to help avoid voter fraud. Glad you think it’s fun, though.

        What these wascawwy wepubwicans DO “give up” in their “game” is a desire to make sure that the only people who vote are people who are legally qualified to vote—-undercutting a lot of the Dem vote as a byproduct of keeping our elections legitimate, but hey, that seems to just be the way it shakes out.

        …college kids are new to voting and less likely to have registered long in advance, are more likely to need to vote early, and are less likely to have photo IDs that comply with the ID laws..”

        This is particularly funny. College “kids” register for things all the time, such as classes, dorm assignments, etc. but you claim they would have trouble registering to vote. You also throw in the qualifier “LONG in advance..” And seriously, college “kids” don’t drive? Seriously? Or get college-issued IDs?

        Lovely little knee-jerk apologia for the Left, fella. Silly and unconvincing, but a good try, for a good little foot soldier.

      • Amazona October 23, 2016 / 7:47 am

        Some problems with the HAVA:

        ” HAVA requires any voter who registered by mail and who has not previously voted in a federal election to show current and valid photo identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. Voters who submitted any of these forms of identification during registration are exempt…”

        And what could be easier to fake than a utility bill in particular, but even a paycheck or even a bank statement? I could run a bank statement through Photoshop and change the name and address at the top in a couple of minutes. I could run off fifty of these, with fifty different names, in an hour. Ditto for utility bills. This seems to give a complete pass to anyone using the name of someone who HAS voted in a prior federal election. Yeah, that’s brilliant!

        “….voters who do not comply with HAVA’s voter identification requirements are able to cast a provisional ballot.”

        So who decides when and if a “provisional ballot” is counted? This essentially means the feeble “identification requirements” are just for show.

        “Criticisms of HAVA center around mandated changes in voting technology, voter identification, confusion and voter intimidation, misappropriation of federal funds, and unnecessarily complicating the voter registration process…” from Left-loved Wikipedia.

        It’s not that hard. Only citizens should be allowed to vote. People who want to vote should be able to prove who they are, and if naturalized prove when this occurred. Activists whose only goal is to help people vote should expend their efforts to actually HELP these people. For example, if a homeless person doesn’t have a government ID, he or she can’t use a lot of services, so helping this person get an ID is a lot more “helpful” than just giving him or her a pack of cigarettes and a bus ride to a polling place. If helping people is the real goal, that is.

      • Retired Spook October 23, 2016 / 10:56 am

        But I’ll give you three guesses which way the people most likely to be affected by the changes in voting rules are likely to vote.

        What you’re essentially saying is that Republicans can get a valid ID but Democrats can’t; that Republicans can register by a certain deadline but Democrats can’t. Why are Democrats so challenged? Are they just inferior both mentally and physically? Why is it that one side just wants everyone to play by an established set of rules, while the other side wants to do everything possible to make it easier to break the rules? My Liberal Democrat neighbor and his wife who spend summers in Indiana and winters in Florida brag about the fact that they vote absentee in Indiana before heading south and then vote again in Florida, but he is adamant that Republicans are evil incarnate. Any idea how many fraudulent votes that is if, say, 10% of snowbirds vote twice? Palm Beach County, Florida alone has nearly 150,000 seasonal residents.

      • Amazona October 23, 2016 / 3:15 pm

        The “snowbird” element alone is enough to warrant a review of voter registrations. Your neighbors might think twice before filling out two separate declarations, under penalty of perjury, that they are only registered in one precinct and only vote in one precinct, and the threat of a felony conviction might make their antics a little less appealing.

        Also, we have the technology to cross-check information now, and could pick up double registrations. You say Palm Beach, Florida, has something like 150,000 seasonal residents. Expand that to all of Florida and you are easily talking about enough votes to swing the state one way or another. In 2000, no doubt many of the votes that made it so close were from double voters, who would no doubt be quite indignant at having their actions referred to as “voter fraud”.

      • tryvasty October 24, 2016 / 2:21 am

        “No, I asked specifically about one process and you lurched in with a bunch of whining about something else altogether. I do have to hand it to you, you spout the party line quite well—word for word, actually.

        A bunch of whining? I literally posted a single statement specifying a term and a link to a nonpartisan source. I’ve heard of hyperbole, but holy crap. It is very very hard to take you seriously. Do you have any modes besides “extreme outrage”? Or did you just get confused and think that I wrote the article in question?

        Also, I am nearly 300% sure that the Democrat party line isn’t that they are against voter ID laws because they want to win elections. But that’s okay, when you can’t think of anything else to say, just accuse people of spouting the party line. It makes you look super smart, I promise. I am truly in awe of your ability to fall back to one of your default complaints. You are too smart 5 me.

        “Shortening early voting time leads to more educated voters who have had time to consider what the candidates have to say”

        Ah, so you admit it has nothing to do with voter fraud.

        “Advance registration gives time to cross check to see if a person has registered in other places. You know, to help avoid voter fraud.”

        We already have provisional ballots for that. But I seem to recall reading someplace that you didn’t like those…

        “So who decides when and if a “provisional ballot” is counted? This essentially means the feeble “identification requirements” are just for show.”

        Ah, there we are.

        Here’s the thing, though: there is nothing you can do by checking registration before the election that you can’t do (and we don’t already do) for provisional ballots after the election. You actually have a lot more information after the election, because people have actually voted.

        And it turns out, lots of provisional ballots do actually get thrown out post-voting day. Don’t worry, though, Republican politicians already know all of that. They just don’t care, because nothing they are doing has anything to do with preventing voter fraud.

        “This is particularly funny. College “kids” register for things all the time, such as classes, dorm assignments, etc. but you claim they would have trouble registering to vote.”

        Making voter registration happen earlier disproportionately affects college students because they are young enough that they likely are voting for the first time and will be the most likely to be taken by surprise by voter registration requirements. It actually affects all people of that age and not just college kids, and that entire demographic leans left. I just chose college students because they were an easy example where all three of the restrictions I listed were applicable.

        “And seriously, college “kids” don’t drive?”

        I didn’t have a driver’s license the first time I voted.

        “Seriously? Or get college-issued IDs?”

        College issued IDs aren’t allowed as ID for voting in my state. Can you guess which party is in power?

        “Lovely little knee-jerk apologia for the Left, fella.”

        You really need to work on your personal attacks. I haven’t talked about “the Left” (I like reading that as “The Boogeyman” every time you guys say it) at all other than to say that they don’t want voter restrictions because it hurts their ability to win elections. Maybe work on expanding your playbook a little so you can have something actually applicable to accuse people of when you want to distract from the conversation by falling back to ad hominem. Otherwise, it just makes you look goofy.

        “And what could be easier to fake than a utility bill in particular, but even a paycheck or even a bank statement? I could run a bank statement through Photoshop and change the name and address at the top in a couple of minutes. I could run off fifty of these, with fifty different names, in an hour. Ditto for utility bills. This seems to give a complete pass to anyone using the name of someone who HAS voted in a prior federal election. Yeah, that’s brilliant!”

        The whole idea that somebody is committing mass voter fraud by knowing which people voted before but aren’t going to show up to the polls this time and voting in-person on their behalf is stupid. Just think about the logistics of casting a meaningful number of votes that way. You’d have to have enlist a bunch of different people to go in and vote with fake names at polling places. If the same people walked in over and over, it would be obvious, and they’d have to have individually doctored utility bills that don’t look the same. By the time you organized all of that in such a way that you weren’t likely to get caught, you’d probably be spending a significant portion of your campaign’s war chest for hundreds or at best thousands of votes. You’d be better off just throwing that money into more ads in the state.

        A mechanism where voter fraud costs more than the equivalent way of buying elections the Citizens United way isn’t a mechanism at all. Organized in-person voter fraud on any scale isn’t a thing.

        “that seems to just be the way it shakes out.”

        Yeah, totally an accident. No intent there, nosiree. Republicans would totally be crusading for voter ID laws even if it was hurting them. That’s why they seem so obsessed with voter fraud on absentee ballots. Oh wait…

        “from Left-loved Wikipedia.”

        Did you miss that half the complaints that you quoted were that it made voting unduly arduous?

        “What you’re essentially saying is that Republicans can get a valid ID but Democrats can’t; that Republicans can register by a certain deadline but Democrats can’t. Why are Democrats so challenged?”

        No. What I am saying is that the demographic groups that vote Democrat are more likely to be affected by the restrictions Republicans want to put in place. See above for why early registration affects young people. Young people and urban poor and immigrants are less likely to have IDs. Students and working poor are less likely to be able to find time to get to the poll, so restricting access to early voting makes them less likely to vote.

        These are demonstrably true correlations. You can ask why all day, but the why doesn’t matter to the Republicans enacting the laws at all. What matters is that combining disenfranchisement with gerrymandering is the only way they have to combat the demographic trends that would have already buried them if they didn’t play the game that way. They couldn’t care less about voter fraud, because none of them actually believe it exists in any meaningful sense.

        “My Liberal Democrat neighbor and his wife who spend summers in Indiana and winters in Florida brag about the fact that they vote absentee in Indiana before heading south and then vote again in Florida, but he is adamant that Republicans are evil incarnate. Any idea how many fraudulent votes that is if, say, 10% of snowbirds vote twice? Palm Beach County, Florida alone has nearly 150,000 seasonal residents.”

        Or what if 100% of them voted twice? Why stop at 10% if you’re going to make up numbers based on a single unverified anecdote?

        It’s funny how every time somebody wants to talk about voter fraud to support voter restrictions, I’m always asked to imagine it. I’ll spend my time imagining things a lot more fun than voter fraud, thank you.

        Really, though, my favorite part of your anecdote is how none of the voting restrictions we’re talking about do anything to stop it. Isn’t it funny how Republicans aren’t worried about absentee ballots at all, even though they are incredibly less resistant to fraud than in-person voting? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that absentee ballots tend to lean Republican?

        “The “snowbird” element alone is enough to warrant a review of voter registrations. Your neighbors might think twice before filling out two separate declarations, under penalty of perjury, that they are only registered in one precinct and only vote in one precinct”

        People normally actually get into trouble because when it would cost a ton to try to do that sort of verification (especially since you’d have to do it before ever election, or else how could you make sure the “snowbird” didn’t register their way back to 2 different spots in between?), so when it comes time to pay up, they end up only really having the time and money to contest voter registration in say poor, black parts of town.

        “the threat of a felony conviction might make their antics a little less appealing.”

        It’s already a felony.

        “In 2000, no doubt many of the votes that made it so close were from double voters, who would no doubt be quite indignant at having their actions referred to as “voter fraud”.”

        Yes doubt. Lots of doubt. Especially with regard to any in-person voter fraud. Lots of things went wrong in Florida in 2000, (my favorite was the Bush campaign’s push to ease restrictions on overseas abstentee ballots. I guess that’s just a particularly nuanced facet of the Republican party’s interest in foolproof voting restrictions, right?) but none of them would have been solved by voter ID laws, excepting maybe that there wouldn’t have been a recount in the first place because it would have hurt Democrat turnout more than Republican.

      • Amazona October 24, 2016 / 10:31 am

        Whew. Feel better? Did you remember to flush?

  11. Amazona October 20, 2016 / 7:34 pm

    Here’s another take on the whole “Russia is behind this” whine: Even Vladimir Putin is offended by the blatant criminality of Hillary Clinton.

    • Bob Eisenhower October 20, 2016 / 7:44 pm

      Putin clearly wants Trump to win. That is a heavy mark against Trump.

      • Cluster October 20, 2016 / 7:59 pm

        Why would that be Bob? Haven’t we been lectured enough by the left that diplomacy with our adversaries is the “smart” approach to foreign policy? As it is now Obama and Clinton have us on the brink of war with Russia. So like Trump says, “what in the hell do we have to lose”

      • Bob Eisenhower October 20, 2016 / 9:35 pm

        I think we all agree Putin is cunning and always seeking advantage. I guess when the cunning head-of-hostile state wants us to pick someone it seems unlikely that option would be in our better interest.

      • Cluster October 20, 2016 / 9:59 pm

        Well first of all, Assange and his cadre of hackers at wikileaks are the source of these emails, not Russia. Secondly, I have no doubt that Russia has hacked our systems and Hillary made it super easy for them by using a private unprotected server. I am sure Putin knows a lot thanks to Hillary. It also exposes our governments gross negligence in not even possessing the ability, or worse yet not having the presence of mind to secure their servers and communiques. That’s foreign policy 101. And finally, if you will remember just four short years ago Obama telling Medvedved on a hit mic that he would have more flexibility after the election, in addition to mocking Romney for accurately pointing out that Russia is our #1 geo political threat. Stay focused Bob

      • Bob Eisenhower October 20, 2016 / 11:26 pm

        Cluster

        I’ll try to focus.

        We agree that “Russia is our #1 geo political threat” but we seem to disagree that Russia is committing espionage on America to influence our sovereign election.

        The thing is, the entire IT security apparatus, military and civilian, agrees that our #1 threat is working to make Trump President. I do not believe those disparate companies and agencies are all in cahoots with Hill the Pill.

        So that brings the focus back to, why would Putin prefer Trump to be President?

        (btw, I’m not saying there is some nefarious deal between Putin and Trump whereby Trump would be a puppet. I’m saying Putin would like the less-capable opponent for the next four years).

      • Cluster October 21, 2016 / 8:20 am

        Oh Bob, Bob, Bob. You are already “out in the wilderness”. With all the advances Putin has made under SecState Clinton, why would he not want her as President? And do you honestly think the lesbian pantsuit will be tougher on foreign policy than Trump? C’mon man. But the big question is, do you not have any concern about the influence on our election that our own media has? Our own media is much worse than anything Russia is doing.

      • Amazona October 21, 2016 / 12:42 am

        “Less capable”? We ARE talking about the very same Secretary of State of the most powerful nation in the world making a complete fool of herself by acting like a giddy schoolgirl, giving Vladi a special little present she thought was just the cutest thing, like, you know, like EVER, that she and the entire State Department under her command couldn’t even SPELL CORRECTLY.

        One word. Spelled wrong.

        Someone less capable than that?

        The alternative options are a lot easier to buy into. There is the “time to show her I’m not impressed by cheesy misspelled trinkets designed to denigrate a guy I kind of like”. There is the fun of showing off how easily the West can be raided by dragging out the dirty laundry of its administration and governing party. And of course there is plain old Eastern European misogyny.

        Russian intelligence is pretty good, so Putin probably knows a lot more than we do about the overall incompetence of Hillary as Secretary of State. We are just learning about the bungled arms transfer to A-Q after she convinced Barry to secretly try to aid in the overthrow of the only Middle Eastern leader who was actually fighting A-Q, a move that left Libya so unbalanced that ISIS had an open field in which to operate and expand. Personally, I would put a concern by Putin that Hillary is really an alien puppet governed by a sinister force based on Jupiter ahead of him thinking she is more capable than pretty much anyone.

      • Amazona October 21, 2016 / 12:54 am

        Cluster, regarding the thing about Russia (among who knows how many other nations) having Hillary’s State Department emails—–there is the absolute LIE they are peddling, that when Trump joked that Putin probably had those emails on his desk and should share them with us what he was REALLY doing was encouraging Russia to commit espionage.

        Duh. The freaking emails had already been hacked, guys, and probably by several actors, some of them bad actors. And why wouldn’t they be? They were lying out there on some rinky-dink server run out of some rinky-dink operation in Denver, Colorado, run by some guy who didn’t even have a security clearance himself. It was like leaving a $50 bill on a park bench and then coming back a few years later and wondering why it was gone.

        All Trump did was point this out, and point out that Russia was probably one of the nations that had taken advantage of Hillary’s absolutely stunning negligence and incompetence, and the lying sacks of excrement on the Left have tried to spin this as him asking Russia to “commit espionage”.

        Also, let’s get this straight. What Russia is revealing is the DNC emails—-what Assange is revealing is the State Department emails. Or at least that is what I understand. Now I get it, the Dems think they ARE the nation, but get real, folks. It is a political party, a private entity, and hacking into their little spitefests is hardly “espionage”.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 21, 2016 / 9:44 am

        Cluster

        You are in the wilderness, too. I know you’ll disagree, but it is true come November.

      • Cluster October 21, 2016 / 10:39 am

        I don’t deny at all that Trump could easily lose this thing, it’s just that I don’t throw in the towel like you do. And like many other conservatives do when the going gets rough and that is why you can count me out of any “reformed” conservative movement.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 21, 2016 / 9:51 am

        Amazona

        I’m not going to argue who is likely more capable, the answer is obvious.

        I’m not going to argue the Putin is meddling in our politics, that is verified.

        I’m not going to argue a difference between a domestic media bias an a foreign espionage, it is different in myriad ways.

        I’m not going to argue spelling errors in email define Clinton’s obvious intelligence, that is stupid.

        I still have not heard my question answered, WHY does Putin work hard for a Trump presidency?

      • Cluster October 21, 2016 / 11:07 am

        Well let’s turn the tables Bob. My contention is that Putin could not care less who is President, but I am curious as to why YOU think Putin wants Trump. Please regale us with your opinion.

      • Amazona October 21, 2016 / 10:34 am

        As usual, when you get an answer you don’t like you just keep asking.

      • Amazona October 21, 2016 / 10:41 am

        Bob, you do realize you often respond to things that were never said, don’t you?

        For example, you say I’m not going to argue spelling errors in email define Clinton’s obvious intelligence…

        Good. Don’t argue that. Actually, given your wild and wacky punctuation style and sometimes random spelling, that is a pretty good area for you to avoid.

        However, I said nothing about “spelling errors in email”. You wanna know how I know that? By looking at what I said. ……giving Vladi a special little present she thought was just the cutest thing, like, you know, like EVER, that she and the entire State Department under her command couldn’t even SPELL CORRECTLY….” and then reprising this comment with a reference to “….. cheesy misspelled trinkets…..” Said special little present carefully constructed, a custom piece just for Vladi, representing not just the State Department but the whole United States of America.

        It’s OK if you don’t understand a reference, Bobann Bobannadanna, but you should at least make an effort to know there IS one, before you go off arguing against something that was never said.

        It’s really an annoying little habit of yours.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 21, 2016 / 1:17 pm

        I know it seems annoying that I keep asking my little question but that’s what happens when no one answers the question, they just throw other items out.

        But here you go, I will answer yet another of your questions first, but only if you promise, promise, promise to actually answer the question originally posed.

        The reason I think Putin is puposefully tampering with our election because the entire intelligence and private IT industry says Russia hacked into various sources, and then that very data was released cia Wikileaks. That’s the reason that I believe it is happening.

        As for why Putin wants Trump, I don’t think he cares about Trump, he wanted to destroy Clinton’s campaign. His hackers targeted the DNC, her servers and those of staff around her. Putin does not want her President. Much as I dislike Clinton, Putin disliking her puts her a notch up in my book.

        This has nothing to do with Putin liking Trump and everything to do with Putin preferring anyone but Clinton as President.

      • Cluster October 21, 2016 / 3:39 pm

        That makes zero sense

      • Bob Eisenhower October 21, 2016 / 1:21 pm

        Amazona

        Wow, out of an entire post you respond to the spelling-related issue. How uncharacteristic of you.

        Yes, you got me, I hadn’t read the entire sentence in writing that line of my response. I saw your bold all-caps word “spelling” and presumed it would be what you usually post when you find errata. My bad.

        The other points, tho…

      • Bob Eisenhower October 21, 2016 / 5:38 pm

        Cluster

        What made zero sense to you? The part about why Russia is meddling in our election (affirmed by the civilian and military security community) or the part about Russia doing this to have a weaker President in office (my conjecture)?

        Now that I have answered your question, how’s about the answer to mine? The questions is, since all who know about these things confirm the Russians are meddling in our election, WHY would Putin sabotage one specific candidate?

      • Cluster October 21, 2016 / 6:35 pm

        This was your answer:

        As for why Putin wants Trump, I don’t think he cares about Trump, he wanted to destroy Clinton’s campaign. His hackers targeted the DNC, her servers and those of staff around her. Putin does not want her President.

        So Putin doesn’t want her to be President. No reason why, just that he doesn’t want her to be President. Now considering that since Obama took office and Hillary was SecState, Putin now owns Crimea, is threatening Ukraine, is reassembling the Soviet bloc, and has a better relationship with Egypt, Iran, etc., etc., why in the hell would he not want her to be President?? She has allowed him to do everything wants.

        Bob, I am convinced now more than ever that you are a progressive democrat and if not and you are a GOP conservative, then I am equally convinced that conservatism is dead. You, Rubio, and Jeff Flake will have a good time putting together a squishy constituency.

      • Amazona October 21, 2016 / 6:16 pm

        (1) Setting your cattiness aside (that shelf is getting pretty crowded) you actually wrote an entire statement, the premise of which constituted a full 25% of your list of things you will not argue. And of course it included what seems to be your mandatory insult toward me. Now it is not your fault you didn’t understand what I actually said, because, well, because you don’t bother to read what I say before coming up with some overheated underthought knee jerk reaction to it, and now it is an indictment of me that I addressed what was really a pretty blatantly stupid comment. Typical Bobness. And BTW, it was TWO sentences, not just one, you now say you ignored but I think just didn’t understand. (“Yes, you got me, I hadn’t read the entire sentence in writing that line of my response…”)

        And it wasn’t a “… spelling-related issue.” Duh. Double Duh. It was about your totally missing a point and not letting that deter you from responding with something completely off the wall and topped with an insult. You often come across as someone who looks at who wrote something to decide how you will treat it, skims it very very lightly and picks up a word here and there, and then posts some meandering nonsense but featuring your opinion of the writer.

        And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

        (2) There is no suggestion anyone can possibly make that can dislodge or even nudge off center your absolute conviction that you have special insight into what Vladimir Putin, a man you have never met, who has not made a single comment on the election or about either candidate, actually thinks about them. I gave three possible reasons for Putin preferring to deal with Trump, IF that is his motivation, and you just ignored them. Or, more likely, dismissed them for some really legitimate reason, such as capital letters or commas or something.

        I’ll repeat and expand a little on my answer the first time around.

        The alternative options are a lot easier to buy into.
        (A) There is the “time to show her I’m not impressed by cheesy misspelled trinkets designed to denigrate a guy I kind of like”.
        (Said guy being GW Bush, which you would know if you knew what I was talking about.)
        (B) There is the fun of showing off how easily the West can be raided by dragging out the dirty laundry of its administration and governing party. (It could also be a reminder of how powerful Russia is and how much mischief it can stir up, a “watch your back” warning.)
        (C) And of course there is plain old Eastern European misogyny. (Personally, I lean toward the last of the three ignored suggestions. Putin doesn’t come across as a feminist, and given his public persona and posturing I think it a pretty good guess he’s more comfortable dealing with men. Given Hillary’s well known strident nature such an inclination would be even more likely.)

        We know Hillary has never been good at anything, while Trump has been good at a lot of things, so clinging to the fantasy that she strikes Putin as more “capable” and therefore more of a challenge/threat is just that—fantasy, germinating in your hidebound opinion of Trump.

      • Amazona October 21, 2016 / 7:04 pm

        Cluster, thank you so much for your input on “Bob”. I have thought the same thing, but he does wobble along that thin line between someone with a basic commitment to conservative principles who is just kind of an idiot and someone who is a Progressive who is just messin’ with us. I think his dependence on pissy-pants snark is what has convinced me he is a Prog.

        Maybe I shouldn’t say this, being a woman, but then along the lines of black people being allowed to use a word that others can’t, I point out a characteristic known mostly as female—or at least not manly—- and that is bitchiness. And to put it bluntly, Bobann Bobannadanna is just plain bitchy.

        I’ve tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, and so have you and Spook and Rusty, but after a while enough is enough.

  12. Cluster October 20, 2016 / 9:10 pm

    Every now and then, Joe Scarborough gets it right, as he does here

    • Retired Spook October 21, 2016 / 12:10 pm

      Personal Liberty Digest goes into detail on the ways elections are rigged.

      Obama tells us there’s “no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig elections.” Oh really, let us count the ways:

      The so-called nonpartisan debate commission prohibits anyone other than candidates from the two main parties from participating in the debates, which denies them equal access to the electorate.

      Many states set an extremely high bar for ballot access that keeps potential third-party candidates off the ballot.

      As Trump secured the nomination, instructions were sent out by the GOP establishment that Republicans in elected office must run away from Trump or, as Pat Buchanan wrote, “cease to be seen as morally fit partners in power.”

      The Obama Department of (In)Justice just gave Clinton a pass on numerous flagrant and blatant criminal acts regarding mishandling classified information and pay-to-play schemes, which maintained her viability as a candidate.

      Obama’s Department of Homeland Security said last month it may classify the election system as “critical infrastructure” because of the danger that hackers may tamper with (i.e. rig) the election. DHS is part of the same regime that recently cleared the table in order to keep Clinton’s election prospects alive.

      WikiLeaks has shown us that Clinton and DNC operatives have been working with a complicit propaganda media to misreport on Clinton’s health, the disruption of Trump rallies and the Benghazi/email scandal.

      WikiLeaks has shown us that the DNC and Clinton campaign conspired to steal the election from Bernie Sanders.

      Undercover video shot by Project Veritas shows that the Clinton campaign and DNC funded criminals for the expressed purpose of disrupting Trump rallies and admitted they have been rigging elections “for 50 years” and were intentionally registering illegals to vote. And the criminal heading up the operation was a frequent visitor to Obama in the White House.

      A company connected to George Soros, who has contributed millions of dollars to Clinton, Obama, Black Lives Matter and progressive organizations backing Clinton and Obama and their policies, provide electronic voting machines to 16 states.

      The propaganda media and moneyed interests prop up from the outset of the campaign cycle their favored candidates from each party with money and fawning media coverage in order to set up two Council on Foreign Relations/bankster-approved candidates for selection by the people.

      • Amazona October 21, 2016 / 12:51 pm

        And the criminal heading up the operation was a frequent visitor to Obama in the White House. Wasn’t it something like 400 times?

        This, to me, is or at least should be the last nail in the coffin. Just what would this guy be discussing in his White House meetings other than election-rigging and other Leftist trickery?

      • Retired Spook October 21, 2016 / 1:09 pm

        You don’t usually think of censorship extending to something like YouTube unless the content is pornographic. And anyone who has listened to or watched videos produced by Dennis Prager and Prager University has to be scratching his/her head.

      • Amazona October 21, 2016 / 1:29 pm

        So, just to be sure I am clear on this——J-Z videos full of profanity, obscenity and violence toward women and law enforcement are OK on Youtube, but a calm, rational man discussing the foundation and laws of our country is not?

        As Prager himself said, to understand this you need to read Goldberg’s book on fascism.

        We have a Supreme Court justice, whose job by its very definition is to assure that laws and actions in this country comply with the United States Constitution, telling people she would never use our constitution as a model for a new nation writing its own. We have the nation’s top law enforcement officials, ranging from the national Attorney General to the head of the FBI, either promoting and condoning actual criminal acts or acknowledging them but refusing to act on them. We have a political party openly and blatantly lying to the American public and the American public doesn’t care. We have a Secretary of State supplying deadly weapons to our enemies and then getting people killed trying to cover this up and then lying to the American people and the families of those she got killed, and enough of that American public is so uncaring of things like this they are going to elect her as our president. We have a majority of our young seeing her as a role model, meaning they are inspired by her and possibly even want to be like her.

        And now we have a major medium, Youtube, openly shutting down civil and polite political education and discourse, while promoting filth and obscenity.

        We are just gaining velocity in our Death Spiral, and the various media (which is, by the way, a plural, not a singular, as in “media ARE” and not “media IS”) are greasing the skids. With, I might add, the approval and assistance of the Left.

        And our “conservative” candidate is ineptly running an inept campaign not against the political system represented by his opponent, but against her, personally.

        Arrrggghhhh

      • M. Noonan October 21, 2016 / 10:50 pm

        According to the Reuters poll, which shows Trump gaining ground quite fast, the “rigged” thing is resonating with voters…

      • Amazona October 22, 2016 / 12:50 am

        The White House won’t explain why disgraced Democratic operative Robert Creamer visited some 342 times, including 47 meetings with President Barack Obama.

        “I don’t know if we’ve had the time to go back and look at every individual visit,” explained Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz in response to questions from reporters about the unusually high number of White House visits. Schultz discussed the issue with reporters on Air Force One on the president’s trip to Florida.

        Schultz made the excuse that the White House visitor logs “don’t always reveal real-time information” and that Creamer sometimes attended events with more than 1,000 other people.

        “This idea that there were intimate meetings in the Oval Office,” Schultz said, “I don’t think is consistent with where the data is.”

        Creamer’s visits to the White House came under scrutiny after he boasted of inciting violence at Trump rallies in undercover videos released by Project Veritas.

        Yesterday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest dodged questions about Creamer’s relationship with the president.

        “I’m not sure that I can describe it because I’m not sure that there’s much of one,” he said, referring to their relationship.

        http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/20/white-house-dodges-details-robert-creamer-visits/

        This idea that there were intimate meetings in the Oval Office……I don’t think is consistent with where the data is.

        I’m not sure that I can describe it because I’m not sure that there’s much of one,” he said, referring to their relationship

        More tap dancing. “I don’t think” “I’m not sure” “I’m not sure” “much of one” Get the popcorn.

      • Cluster October 22, 2016 / 9:19 am

        It’s amazing how effortlessly they lie

      • Amazona October 22, 2016 / 12:31 pm

        Remember the wall-kicking “get a rope!” hissy fit these same Lefties had when a photo surfaced of George W. Bush at a crowded White House function, with Jack Abramoff way way way in the background in a group of people?

        He was not yet convicted (nor, I believe, charged) at that time, it was clearly a very big and crowded event, he wasn’t even near Bush in the photo but was clearly just in the background, he had no White House log records of hundreds of visits to the White House much less dozens with the president himself, yet the Lefties were beside themselves (easy to do when you have two faces) with glee at being able to try to tie Bush to Abramoff.

    • Amazona October 21, 2016 / 12:49 pm

      This is my favorite quote from the Comments section in your Miller link:

      …….. remember the M. Stanton Evans quote, “We have two parties here, and only two. One is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party. … I’m very proud to be a member of the stupid party. … Occasionally, the two parties get together to do something that’s both evil and stupid. That’s called bipartisanship.”

  13. Retired Spook October 21, 2016 / 1:35 pm

    Hillary said in the debate that she supports the 2nd Amendment; she just wants “common sense, reasonable” controls and regulations.

    • Amazona October 21, 2016 / 2:17 pm

      Can anyone tell me what the “gun show loophole” is? Around here, if you buy at a gun show you go through the exact same background check you would at any storefront gun shop.

      • Retired Spook October 21, 2016 / 2:43 pm

        As someone who has been to a number of gun shows I can tell you exactly what it is. About 90-95% of the vendors at gun shows who sell guns are actual firearms dealers who possess a valid FFL (Federal Firearms License). If you buy a gun from one of them at a gun show, they do an instant background check, just as they would if you purchased a gun from their brick and mortar store. There are always a handful of vendors at virtually every gun show who primarily sell something other than guns (first aid supplies, knives, camping gear, survival products and gear, etc.) who may have a firearm from a personal collection for sale and on display in their booth. By current federal law they can sell that firearm without a background check. In fact, it isn’t that they don’t have to do a background check; they are not allowed to do a background check. Such sales account for a tiny percentage of gun show gun sales, and an even tinier percentage of guns that end up being used in the commission of a crime because they’re usually collectors items, and, as a result, on the expensive side.

        So, while there IS a gun show loophole, it’s small and pretty insignificant. Makes for a good sounding campaign soundbite, though.

        Hillary also referred to the “Internet gun loophole”, which is as specious as the as the gun show loophole.

      • Amazona October 21, 2016 / 6:32 pm

        Spook, that is what I thought. I have only been to a couple of gun shows, but I know people who go quite often. I was really surprised at the range of things offered for sale. You know what I bought at my last gun show? Earrings. And fudge.

        My point was, and you described it perfectly, there IS no “gun show loophole”. There is no “loophole” at all. There is a law covering FFL dealers, and there is no law covering private sales. It’s just a difference in dealing with different categories of sales. It’s like selling cars. I can sell my own car, but after a small number such as 3 or 4 I am considered a “dealer” and have to be licensed. It is just common sense to not require a casual seller to be licensed.

        But the gullible, whom I am increasingly thinking of as just plain stupid instead of the milder “gullible” if they buy into this and can’t even be bothered to look it up themselves, just nod grimly and are swayed by this nefarious “LOOPHOLE”. (I put that in caps to see if Bob would read it.)

        At the shows I attended, there were no private gun sellers in the building. I asked, out of curiosity. Gun show people don’t want the hassle or bad publicity of having a gun bought at a gun show without a background check being used in a crime. There is no upside to having private sellers alongside licensed sellers.

        And what the Left wants, hidden in its lies, is to force every single person who ever wants or needs to sell a gun to go through the expense and time and effort to obtain a Federal Firearms License. I inherited some guns from my late husband. As I never intend to learn to fire an old Sharps rifle, and it is the kind of gun that someone else would be really excited to own, I ought to be able to sell it.

    • M. Noonan October 21, 2016 / 10:49 pm

      What really cut against her, though, was that she was forced to admit that she wants no restrictions on abortion because it’s a Constitutional right, but believes there must be restrictions on gun ownership, even though it is a Constitutional right. People did notice…

  14. Amazona October 21, 2016 / 10:02 pm

    Tim Allen is a hardcore conservative and so is his character on Last Man Standing, and tonight in the show’s Halloween party he went as Trump and the running joke throughout the show was that he singlehandedly ruined the party.

Comments are closed.