Link Roundup, 7/25/2016

From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: It looks like Chinese coal consumption has already peaked.

From the MIT Technology Review: No one knows how much oil is stockpiled around the world.

From the Verge: Nintendo shares plummet after investors realize the company doesn’t make Pokemon Go.

From Politico: Nancy Pelosi refers to Trump as “a gift that keeps on giving.”

From The Daily Dot: Canada is liberalizing its immigration policies. Hmmm…

From the GOPLifer archives: Sympathy for the (blue-eyed) devil

Excerpt: “White support for the likes of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz emerges from a terrible logic that we ignore at our peril.”

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
321 comments on “Link Roundup, 7/25/2016
  1. flypusher says:

    Poor, poor misunderstood Trump, plagued by all those humorless national security people who just can’t appreciate his sparkling wit:

  2. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    Insightful, if somewhat depressing article (esp. in the wake of the baffling unjust situation regarding Freddie Gray legal case in Baltimore).

    The story speaks to the growing connection of police shootings, racial bias and people who are mentally disabled. To a point it almost explains the systemic failings that might be behind that recent abysmal shooting incident in Florida.

    My choice excerpt:
    “In the disability community, I’ve personally been told by many service providers — none of whom want to individually go on the record — that they have an unofficial policy of never calling the cops, even when someone is in dire need, because they’re afraid the police will kill their clients.”

    Yes people… this is the state of what is happening in our country in regards to those who are most vulnerable.

    • 1mime says:

      This is horrible, Sir Crow. Please keep us updated as the investigation moves forward.

      • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

        A follow up on the story.

        The behavioral therapist Charles Kinsey has a long slog ahead of him in regards to physical recovery.

        Currently he is traumatized and sleepless, but he still made the effort (with a cane no less) to see his autistic client in the hospital to provide some comfort to the person.

        His client Amaldo Rios (of Latino descent I might add) who was horrifically the original target of the officer who fired, is not doing too well after the incident and remains hospitalized.

        Charles Kinsey, who attempted to de-escalate the situation (more than the police apparently!) is clearly the hero in this whole sad affair.

        The officer who fired is getting essentially a paid vacation. Typical.

        The city, in an obvious panic at the legal and financial repercussions of this latest example of law enforcement idiocy, have announced a 90-day plan that includes more crisis intervention training and autism awareness for first responders.

        As the saying goes… a day late and a dollar short a**holes.

        How about using some common sense next time? Or listen to what people are saying in that kind of situation (like Charles Kinsey) and give it some credence regardless if the person talking is black?

      • 1mime says:

        Thanks Sir Crow. So sad….keep us posted about what happens to the policeman who shot the case worker.

  3. As President Obama gave what was surely one of his most brilliant and impassioned speeches ever, it was hard to miss the cascading opinions of Republicans that Democrats had essentially co-opted those most striking elements of the Republican Party and conservatism more broadly:

    Former Jeb Bush spokesman Tim Miller: “It’s Morning in America at the DNC convention. They stole the Reagan sunniness.

    Erik Erickson: “I started the evening saying for the first time I thought Trump could win. Then Obama spoke. I’m so angry at my own party right now.

    Former Reagan speechwriter John Podhoretz: “Take about five paragraphs out of that Obama speech and it could have been a Reagan speech. Trust me, I know.

    AG_Conservative: “Still stunned. Feel like I’m in the twilight zone. Obama just defended America & conservative values from attacks by the Republican nominee.

    Rich Lowry: “American exceptionalism and greatness, shining city on hill, founding documents, etc–they’re trying to take all our stuff

    The only thing I’d add to that last one is that Democrats didn’t take anything so much as Republicans gave it up, but you get the point.

    Honestly, I didn’t see this coming. We all knew Democrats had to paint an optimistic vision to counter Trump’s insecurity and despair, but what is this? Are progressives seriously making the effort to paint themselves in conservative colors heading into November? What does that mean for the future of the party and America?

    • Fair Economist says:

      These aren’t conservative colors, they are patriotic colors. “American exceptionalism and greatness, shining city on hill, founding documents, ” – these are all longstanding ideas dating back to the early days of the Republic. While the Civil War was in living memory patriotic symbolism was more of a liberal/progressive thing. As late as the 40’s liberals waved the flag at least as vigorously as conservatives. It was only in the counterculture and especially the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 60’s that liberals turned against the rahrah symbolism and conservatives claimed ownership.

      For some time Democratic leadership has wanted the patriotic symbolism back but the Republicans were the “flag” party and the way brands work anything the Democrats did was “me tooism”. But Trump pretty much tossed it away, typically without thinking about it, and Democrats who have been waiting for years or decades for such an opportunity snatched it up (I guarantee you Obama has spent many an hour studying Reagan’s speeches.)

      It is quite a turn of events.

      Oh, and as you mentioned the Democratic Committee got 3 million more viewers on Monday and 5 million on Tuesday. Wednesday the Republican draw was Ted Cruz, while the Democrats had Obama, Biden, *and* Kaine. Wonder what the Wednesday viewer comparison will be like?

      • >] “These aren’t conservative colors, they are patriotic colors. “American exceptionalism and greatness, shining city on hill, founding documents, ” – these are all longstanding ideas dating back to the early days of the Republic.

        Absolutely agree with you. I meant that in a political sense, in that Republicans, at least for as long as I’ve been alive, have been seen as the party that extols those values on the national stage. Democrats do too of course, but it wasn’t even a close call between the two just a comparatively short time ago.

        >] “Wonder what the Wednesday viewer comparison will be like?

        After that electrifying speech by President Obama? I’ll hedge my bet anywhere between a four and seven million advantage for the Democrats.

      • 1mime says:

        What would be even more interesting (to me) would be to see how “long” viewers stayed on channel. Meaning, the entire program of speakers, not just to “check in”. If data like that is available, that would be very interesting. The convention planners and organizers were brilliant. Let us hope the finale will be the coup de grace.

    • Griffin says:

      Didn’t Tim Kaine openly invite Republicans to the Democratic Party as well? The Democratic Party may be about to become an even bigger tent made up pretty much every important political faction of America that does not subscribe to either Austrian school economics and/or white nationalism. All governing would be done within the party itself if it suceeds. But regardless, Dems can’t take back the House this year anyways, and it’s tough for such a big tent to stay alive for so long when it doesn’t have enough power over governing to focus on compromising within the party and instead has to focus more on campiagning, which tends to highlight ideoligical differences.

      On a random side note I have a name suggestion for the party/organization that replaces the GOP: The National Union Party, the party Lincoln was technically part of during his last election! Plus I just like the sound of it.

      • Okay, not getting into any discussions about the House right now. Moving along…

        As for Tim Kaine, he didn’t just openly invite Republicans to switch over. Oh no, he went much further than that. He literally said that if Repubs are looking for the Party of Lincoln, they’ve got a home in the Democratic Party.

        Holy shit. Talk about a sucker punch right in the conservative gut. That’s gotta hurt.

      • 1mime says:

        Griffin, “union” and Republican just don’t work in the same title (-; You were kidding, right?

    • RobA says:

      Wtf was Erikson smoking that allowed him to say “for the first time” yesterday that Trump could win?

      It’s be one thing if he always thought he could win, and yesterday’s absurd statements didn’t CHANGE that opinion. But how could he have COME to that conclusion yesterday?

      That said, Obama’s speech was incredible. The difference between the quality and caliber of speeches (and speakers) is the difference between the NY Yankees and my nephew’s little league team.

    • 1mime says:

      I have no doubt that there was “method in the ‘gladness'” (contrast w/Trump’s negativism), but I also believe that it was an acknowledgement of how liberals look at the world – how far we’ve come (under O) and painting a more positive world despite the problems that remain. It sets Hillary up for her speech where she must build upon a positive message while acknowledging the pain and anger of many in America who have been left out or behind. She can’t just acknowledge this problem, she has to offer substance as to how she and the Dem Party can change things so that everyone can can share this bright future. For many, the future is now. She has to speak to that with hope and confidence. We’ll see if her oratory and message speaks to this effectively.

      Whoever was in charge of pulling this all together has done a brilliant job. More than “sunshine” was co-opted. And, the quality of delivery, the stature of the speakers, the enthusiasm in the hall – powerful. I was very proud of my party last night.

  4. Archetrix says:

    I feel a certain cocky cluelessness from the Democratic speeches. I say this as a democrat myself. We are not acknowledging the bitter, dark, pessimistic view of their own future that Trump is hearing and validating back to his voters. This is serious, searing anger and pain, and it’s as real as rising rates of white suicide and drug addiction. It’s been burning away for years, as hot, noxious, and persistent as a tire fire.

    We keep giving people all these various reasons why they shouldn’t be for Trump. We are saying, you shouldn’t have these feelings, because Trump is a con man, or a bigot, or a nazi or whatever. Trump is right, it literally doesn’t matter what he says or what he thinks, because as he told them at the convention, “I am your voice.” They didn’t choose him for reasons, they chose him to be their battle flag and they don’t care if the flag is red, blue, or purple.

    My feeling is that thiis election is going to come down to whether more voters in November are angry, bitter, pessimistic, and frightened about the future than are optimistic and hopeful. I feel like it’s going to be close. I think it’s going to be tedious, grim trench warfare for every single vote we can turn out. I hope we win, because the consequences could be 4 years of nearly the entire government being controlled by a white nationalist party.

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      As much as I liked the speeches and the optimism, I don’t think you are wrong in your assessment.

      I don’t think the Democrats exactly get the anger out there, or if they do, they don’t get why or how it transforms into support for Trump.

      At least for as long as I can remember, however, the optimistic candidate wins:
      Reagan over Carter
      Bush over Dukakis
      Clinton over Bush
      Clinton over Dole
      Bush over Gore – but more because Gore personified Trump’s “low energy”
      Bush over Kerry
      Obama over McCain
      Obama over Romney

      At least historically, Americans are an optimistic bunch, and we vote accordingly.

      Maybe that has changed. There does seem to be a groundswell of “screw it, let’s burn it down”, but I like to believe, in the end, we’ll be on the side of the angels.

      • Archetrix says:

        I hope you’re right. I try to be an optimist myself but after Brexit I got a good case of the heebie-jeebies and I’ve been feeling a little cold breath on the back of my neck lately. Think I’ll go unearth my Creedence Clearwater records and take Bad Moon On the Rise out for a spin.

      • Goes back way further than that. Americans chose Teddy Roosevelt, who offered a square deal and fairness for all people, rich and poor. In the midst of the Great Depression, they elected FDR who declared that happy days were here again. JFK spoke of the New Frontier and all the possibilities that came with it.

        American exceptionalism speaks to something much fundamental in the human experience; that boundless spirit of optimism and desire that seeks satisfaction in these short lives we live here.

        Steve Schmidt said it best tonight in that conservatism without optimism doesn’t fare well. I’ll take it one step further and say that without it, it’s just waiting to be swept into the trash heap of history.

        It is nothing short of stunning just how much Republicans have forfeited their most prominent strengths and how Democrats have co-opted them.

      • 1mime says:

        At different points, Republicans have co-opted from the Dems, as well. Their “red state” plan was brilliant planning and we will be dealing with the consequences of that up and down ticket for a very long time. Dems got lazy – focused so strongly on presidency that they didn’t see the enemy approaching on their flank.

      • 1mime says:

        Bush over Gore – low energy or boring? Or a SCOTUS that shut down the counting? That race still rankles.

        Obama made a statement I liked: “The American Dream cannot be contained within a wall.” I think what he was trying to do was to appeal to people’s highest aspirations as Americans. Another interesting point that the talking heads made was O’s clever separation of Trump into “trumpism”….IOW, explaining and picturing a “type” of candidate that doesn’t represent the best in us in America. Lots of discussion in post-convention panel on this.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Gore simply was not a gifted politician. Low energy, boring, or simply not a natural politician.

        In hindsight, the decision to not have Clinton campaign for him was not a good one.

        I understand why the decision was made. Although Clinton’s approval rating went up during the impeachment nonsense, it was going down toward the end of his presidency. However, not utilizing that political talent was a mistake.

      • Fair Economist says:

        In all of American history, the only time I can think of that the grim pessimist won was Nixon and that was in a period far more frightening and unsettling than now. Plus the Democrats are acknowledging problems; they just have solutions as well. I think this positioning is a big advantage for the Democrats.

    • 1mime says:

      Very astute observation, Archetrix. In fact, this very point was raised in the post-convention program by Chris Hayes (MSNBC). He feels that this will be Hillary’s most important role tomorrow night – to speak directly to these people. The rah rah has been uplifting in comparison to the doom and gloom presented by the Republicans, but this pain and anger must be acknowledged and validated. At the same time, the extreme Bernie wing is obviously not sold on Hillary either although I think the majority of them will come around as they get more comfortable with her and Bernie out on the campaign trail with her. Her oratory skills are not great but the speeches that I thought she has done best with were delivered in a quiet, thoughtful tone – which might not be a bad contrast to the upbeat messages since she can’t possibly match the skills of her supporting team.

    • flypusher says:

      The angry White voters are a lost cause for the Dems. They dug in, the immovable objects who will not be swayed by reason. By all means, the Dems should preach the optimistic vision, and they should reach out, but also realize it’s all falling on deaf ears with that group. The Dems have more realistic targets for GOTV. Who’s going to tilt it in their favor. You’ve got the GOPe national security types, who have to be having some sleepless nights right now with Trump talking about backing out of NATO obligation and “looking into” policies that would favor Russia. Some of them, like Richard Armitage, Henry Paulson, and Brent Scowcroft, have had the stones to openly endorse Clinton for such reasons. The others need to be reminded that what happens in the voting booth stays in the voting booth. Then you have your suburban GOPe moms and dads who are cringing at the bad example Trump is setting with his behavior. Homer posted an ad targeted at them down thread- the children are indeed watching. There is also Barbara Bush who has come out and said that she can’t see how ANY woman could vote for that man, given the things he has said. I don’t thing Mrs. Bush will be campaigning for HRC, but that quote is out there to use. Another vital group are the urban African Americans, who have their own reasons to be angry, and can’t be happy about Trump’s appeal to White racism. Last but certainly not least, Hispanic citizens, who traditionally have not voted in proportion to their numbers, but have very good reason to be alarmed by Trump’s policies. A robust turnout from this group could secure FL, and flip states like AZ and NV.

      Of course writing off their votes doesn’t mean you ignore the problems of the poor Whites. The only thing scarier than Trump would be someone like Thiel, who has all the sociopathy, but none of the stupidity and lack of impulse control.

      It’s going to be a long and crazy 3 months.

    • RobA says:

      Interesting points, and I’m not saying you’re wrong. But let me play devil’s advocate.

      Where is Trumps support? Overwhelmingly in the GOP camp. All he’s beaten in actual elections is Republicans. Independents are not sold on him. Dems certainly are not. I read yesterday that only 20% of independents thought his speech was “good or excellent” and overall it had the worst reception of any convention speech by a candidate since they started polling the question in 1992.

      What this says to me that although the aggrieved group is very vocal and very loud, they’re largely concentrated in the GOP. And when we realize that of the two major parties, it is by far the GOP who refuses to represent their own constituents interests, this result is not only not surprising, it’s inevitable. The average Republican viter has gotten zero representation in Washington over the past few decades, and so an overly pessimistic, negative, Anti establishment base is inevitable. But that doesn’t mean the entire country is hurting. On the contrary, almost every objective economic indicator we have tells us the overall economy is as good as it’s ever been. Ever. And of the very real hurt out there in Middle America, the vast majority ofnit is directly caused by Republican policies and their refusal to represent their base, in the form of perpetual tax cuts for the rich and perpetual social cuts for everyone else.

      If the country was truly hurting as a whole as much as it seems like sometimes, Trumps fear and authoritarian message would be resonating far more with independents. Im not saying the economic pain felt by the GOP base isnt real, it is. But the fact remains that this pain is disproportionately felt within the traditional Republican party. That is entirely different from a general, broad based malaise. For the 80% of the country who don’t see the end of America if Trump isn’t elected, this sort of optimistic, “shining beacon” rhetoric is exactly what they want to hear, and NEED to hear.

      And it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. No Dem is saying everything is perfect, and I’m sure Hillary will be far more realistic about he specific problems tonight then the speakers have been up to now. Dems also have solutions. Trump is just saying “be afraid! Only I can fix this! But I won’t tell you how, you’ll just have to trust me!!”

      • RobA says:

        It’s also important to realize that oftentimes, messages from politicians/media don’t just reflect the public, they INFORM the public. Often, the message itself BECOMES reality.

        This is seen very clearly in the general perception (especially aming conservatives) that crime is out of control, when in fact crime is at multi decade lows. Should Dems defer to the facts and just spout pessimism and negativity about crime just because a sizeable minority of ppl FEEL like crime is a problem? Even though we KNOW it isn’t?

        Why should we let the right drive the narrative, and in fact reflect THEIR narrative? Especially when their narrative is demonstrably false?

        At the end of the day, Donald Trump is going to out fear anybody. If the Dems give in to that type of negative pessimism, they may as well pack up the election now.

      • 1mime says:

        Obama spoke directly to this issue (lowered crime rates), but clearly, clearly, the Dems have been very poor on messaging as a counter to misinformation. They have had so many fires to tend to (a GOP tactic) that they’ve failed to market their own facts and accomplishments. This is very important and I hope it comes out. Especially since, as Tracy put it, (I am paraphrasing here) H has declared war on gun owners with her appeal for common sense gun legislation.

      • flypusher says:

        The indies may not like Trump, but I don’t get the impression that they are sold on Hillary either. How many people will not vote out of disgust with both candidates? Now maybe, we’ll all look back on this election as too much angsting over a threat that never materialized, but for now, better safe than sorry. I think turning out the base is going to matter more than snagging the fence-sitters (real original thinking, isn’t it?).

      • flypusher says:

        “t the end of the day, Donald Trump is going to out fear anybody. If the Dems give in to that type of negative pessimism, they may as well pack up the election now.”

        I absolutely agree. Michelle Obama said it best: “When they go low, we go high.”

      • 1mime says:

        Rob, I think what Trump actually said, (as restated by Kaine) is: “BELIEVE ME” (-;

        On your larger point about “the country hurting as a whole”, that one is tricky. Remember, you have the masters of deception and mind control spinning, spinning that the sky is falling, but there are also real problems, not just in the rust belt, but in coal country, the east coast factories, and in poor communities everywhere. Hillary’s job is to speak to this specific group while offering hope. It may or may not be a lost cause, so I don’t think her speech should focus in its entirety on this, but a great leader is able to offer hope to the poor and oppressed.

        Another group that I have read that is undecided are younger women – millennials. Many of them were “bernin'” but they need to be convinced to get out and vote. If you notice, the GOP has been VERY quiet on womens’ issues. They know the same things about who they need to reach out to. For the GOP, it would be dishonest (not that that matters) to appeal to them as protectors (!), but they also don’t want to needlessly fire these women up with more talk about contraception, abortion, etc. So, the silence, which is most unusual for a party whose vitriol in this sector has been loud and ongoing.

    • Archetrix says:

      Thanks for your thoughtful replies to my first post here. Chris Ladd has created a really wholesome place for people like me, centrist Dem that I am, to hide out in.

      • 1mime says:

        No need to hide anymore, Achetrix. We encourage respectful discussion and disagreement, but do hope all will make an effort (as you did) to support your opinions thoughtfully.

  5. Bobo Amerigo says:

    The Dem’s convention has been pretty exciting so far. The president was excellent tonight.

    I’ve committed to going the Harris County Dem’s watch party tomorrow. The fall semester should be my final one in pursuit of a master’s degree, but I think I’ll have a little time to volunteer for the D’s.

    • 1mime says:

      Good for you, Bobo. I wish I had time to do things like this but have had my day. I was very proud of the Democratic Party and hopeful that HRC can “thread the needle” tomorrow night and do all she needs to. Goodness knows, Michelle, Joe B., Bernie, Bill, Tim K., M. Bloomberg (he was awesome), and Obama….wow – hard, hard acts to follow.

  6. formdib says:

    I was reading this article on the train home tonight:

    To me, this article clearly indicates Peter Thiel intends to run for President, though it never says it explicitly. If Trump doesn’t win in 2016, it will be Thiel versus Cruz in 2020. If Trump does win, it just depends on what happens, whether Thiel will run in 2020 or 2024.

    Either way Thiel is the true trend of The Party of Trump. A super rich, callous, absolute troll acting out of entitlement and complete disregard to other people’s perspectives and circumstances, who can afford to fuck people hard and not lose ground and only stands to benefit from the attention.

    The difference between Trump and Thiel is a) Thiel is not as well known and not as controversial, so will have a better ability to avoid controversy, and b) Thiel is actually smart.

    What that means is that Trump tweets about opening up libel laws to protect his name; Thiel spends years quietly destroying Gizmodo. Other than that they have the same motivations at heart.

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      Although the political world has been torn inside out, I’m not convinced the the GOP is ready to nominate a gay man from California as President.

      • 1mime says:

        Might I point out that they weren’t ready to nominate Donald Trump, either (-;

      • flypusher says:

        1mime’s right there. If so many evangelicals can overlook Trump’s blatant and unrepentant sinning for the promise of a crumb of power, overlooking sexual orientation is the next step.

      • formdib says:

        The thing is, Peter Thiel isn’t LGBT gay, he’s more like Yukio Mishima gay*. As the article points out, he rejects ‘identity politics’ and supports procedures that have magically have a disproportionately positive effect on white males.

        As a rich white man, all he has to do is keep sounding the dog whistle on identity politics and saying that ‘it’s not about race, it’s about achievement’ and all the bigots can nod and say, ‘Right, black people don’t need special treatment, if they aren’t doing well it’s because they aren’t good at what they do.’

        There’s more I could dig into why I feel Thiel sells the masculinist case for emasculated bigots to rally around, but I’d have to do so employing quite a bit of identity politics of my own. Suffice to say, there are some, a small and largely less known minority, of homosexual men out there who really don’t like ‘gay people’, and tend to have issues with femininity as well. Peter Thiel strikes me as that type of gay person, hence the Mishima reference.

        * In case Yukio Mishima reference isn’t known here, he was a gay Japanese writer and artist who was basically what we in the US would call a ‘paleoconservative’ and extreme misogynist. He hated women and hated gay men who acted like women more because he thought they should act like men. Dudebro eventually committed hara-kiri outside of the Edo Palace gates because the modern post-war Japanese government refused his request to return Japan to the feudalist system under samurai ethics (which, by the way, is basically the Japanese equivalent of our Western movie nostalgia for a frontier that never existed [gee, and I wonder why the Diet would refuse such a request?!]). He’s certainly a piece of work, but he’s largely beloved in the West because of the beauty of the writing despite the actual meaning of his books (like Nabokov).

    • flypusher says:

      Theil definitely strikes me as another huge jerk, but I’m having a hard time feeling sorry for Gawker. They crossed a line with posting that Hulk Hogan tape.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Gawker was stupid and wrong with that.

        Theil’s long term vengeance is pretty scary. That is putting a whole lot of time and money to swat a relatively small fly.

        His politics are a bit goofy, but from another lens, his is a pretty common perspective.

        Rich dude who “did it himself” and doesn’t have the empathy or understanding to figure out why everyone else can’t be rich and successful just like him, and if you aren’t as rich as him or useful to him, he doesn’t really care if you exist.

      • 1mime says:

        I recall reading a piece on the millennial millionaires (mostly tech) who were interviewed about their responsibility to the larger world. It was pretty self-centered. Not many Bill Gates in there.

      • flypusher says:

        I saw that suit as one of those situations where everyone involved was a scumbag. But Thiel is the biggest one, a sociopath with power.

  7. One of the most memorable vice-presidents I’ve ever seen. Terrific speech, heartwarming and authentic. We love you, Joe.

  8. RobA says:

    Big Bad Rudy G thinks tagging ppl on the terror watch list is “a great idea”.

    ” If someone is on the terror watch list, I should be able to know who they are”.

    Because forcing a suspect group to force identifying marks has never ended poorly before.

    Oh, and just in case you’re wondering, don’t worry: they can still buy assault weapons. We don’t want to suspend their constitutional rights just because they’re on a list without due process.

    Man, do these guys even know how they sound to the 80% of America that ISNT f’ing lunatics? Or do they know and don’t care?

  9. 1mime says:

    I emphatically agree. DO your jobs, MEDIA! For ALL candidates. Instead, Trump gets more free press, they all show up to sop up whatever spittle he spews, and real news gets trashed. I can’t blame Trump for that. I blame the media.

  10. Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

    In an interview released today, Trump: “I think president Obama has been the most ignorant president in our history.”

    Certainly Obama is not the most beloved President in history, but his approval rating is above 50%, and miles higher than Trump’s or Hillary’s.

    Attacking Obama as ignorant is going to rub lots of folks the wrong way (and rub a very unpleasant set of folks the right way).

    Go with “incompetent” or “wrong”, but not “ignorant”, especially on the eve of Obama about to stand up and give a speech in front of a few million people tonight that is likely to highlight how not-ignorant he is.

    To those below who think the “I hope China/Russia has those emails” will finally be the downfall, this is a man who criticized John McCain for being a POW…Trump has more teflon than Reagan.

    I think there are still lots and lots of undecideds out there, and the polling really backs that up. I think people find both candidates so polarizing that they truly haven’t talked themselves into voting for one or the other.

    I would like to think they will land on the side of the angels, but there were a whole bunch of Republicans who thought that all spring too.

    • Shiro17 says:

      Nearly all the polls provide comprehensive breakdowns of demographics. It shouldn’t be surprising, but the undecideds tend to be young, moderate to conservative women. The people who say they’re voting third party, which may or may not be another form of undecided, tend to be men and Latinos who don’t want to vote for Hillary.

      • 1mime says:

        What is the “basis” for Latino dislike of Clinton?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Because she cheated Bernie!

      • 1mime says:

        And, Trump didn’t cheat Latinos? Building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico? Etc, etc. It doesn’t add up, but, good try, Tutta!

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        In general, “latinx” (not loving that new naming) didn’t really love Bernie at all.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Mime: Shiro is referring to Latinos who don’t want to vote for Hillary who say they’re voting third party, not those who are voting for Trump.

      • 1mime says:

        I failed to clearly present my point, Tutta. Many pundits who are tracking polls and groups closely for this election, are finding a shrinking pool of undecideds (Homer’s sources and mine are at odds…) but those who have decided to vote 3rd party, as a way of avoiding support for Trump or Hillary, their 3rd party votes are actually hurting Hillary more than Trump.

        Does this help?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Mime, I stand by my reply.

        “You asked, “What is the “basis” for Latino dislike of Clinton?” and I responded: “Because she cheated Bernie!”

      • Shiro17 says:

        I don’t know the “basis” for Latino dislike of Clinton, except that, like everyone else, they have widely divergent views on topics and they span the liberal to conservative spectrum. The conservative Latinos, who would otherwise want to vote Republican, form a large part of Johnson’s base.

        Another interesting thing that is also present in almost all polls (like this recent one from Ohio: that ask this question: Despite the yuuuge media focus on Trump, Hillary is by far the one driving the results of the election. I.e., the majority of people voting for Hillary are voting for her rather than against Trump. The clear majority of people voting for Trump are voting against Hillary rather than for Trump. Granted, that is what people SAY their reason is, but it’s completely consistent across the board in every poll that I’ve seen so far.

    • 1mime says:

      Nothing about this whole campaign cycle makes sense.

  11. texan5142 says:

    Some interesting reading about the short-fingered vulgarian.

    • 1mime says:

      I hope this author is correct, but I sure don’t feel confident of the election outcome. I loved this quote from the article:

      “(Trump) In the end, I have faith that just as Americans ultimately decided that Sarah Palin wasn’t qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, they’re not about to let The Donald get even closer.”

      ” (Trump) He’s become the dark, nasty id of America itself: uncensored, unthinking, bullying, angry, forever unapologetic, and vaguely unhinged. ”

      Of course, the only people who would believe this are those who wouldn’t be supporting him anyway…..

  12. DNC ratings have officially beaten out RNC ratings by an average of 3-5 million viewers. SAD!

    • 1mime says:

      Not only were there more viewers for the DNC, but the quality of the programming was superior by far. Well organized, diverse, interesting, entertaining, and with so many speakers of note. I didn’t plan to watch the whole thing (streamed a lot of it on computer but obviously couldn’t sit there the whole time), but it kept my interest and I was proud of the tone and the commentary of all the presenters. Willy went on too long but I thought he painted an important, less well known picture of HRC. One that illustrates how deeply she feels about children, health care, principles, and how long she has committed herself to public service – working at it, actually doing the job – which we all know, many don’t. All in all, a class act.

  13. flypusher says:

    For those of you who think that Trump can’t tweet anything even stupider, challenge accepted, achievement unlocked:

    Think about that. He’s rooting for the Russians against the USA.

    • texan5142 says:

      His supporters don’t care.

      • flypusher says:

        But those GOPe jellyfish who halfheartedly endorsed him do.

      • 1mime says:

        I have tried to be positive and gird myself for a possible Trump presidency, but every time I read something else he says or does, I just cannot fathom Americans choosing a man like this as President of the United States. I don’t feel it is denial of what may happen, just disbelief that it could happen and disappointment that there are so many people in this country with whom I have so little in common.

      • Turtles Run says:

        I am pretty sure OBJV and TTHOR are getting their excuses for Trump ready. I am sure it will involve reasons and because…….

      • Oh, turtles. I offer no excuses for Trump. One does excuse the inexcusable. Of course, the same applies to Hillary. **AND** she’ll try to take away… Hmm, how did someone recently so pithily put it? Oh, yeah… my “f*cking guns.” (I should of course point out that guns don’t f*ck people; people f*ck people. Some of you are just *so* confused.)

        Hillary has publicly declared herself to be my enemy, and the enemy of millions like me. Guess whose votes she’s *not* getting. I look at this way: I’m not voting *for* Trump; I’m voting *against* Hillary. I must admit a certain grim satisfaction at the prospect.

      • 1mime says:

        If Trump wins, you will get what you deserve; I won’t get what I deserve. Conversely, If Clinton wins, I will happily get what I asked for, and you will get the same.

        One of the new commentators linked to Hawaii’s gun laws. I looked them up and they seem to be quite happy with the results. Are you familiar with Hawaii’s program on regulating guns?

      • LOL. Freudian much, Thorleifson? That would be, “One does *not* excuses the inexcusable.”

      • RobA says:

        “Hillary has publicly declared herself to be my enemy, and the enemy of millions like me. Guess whose votes she’s *not* getting”

        What, specifically, are you referring to tracy?

      • texan5142 says:

        What specifically did she do Tracy,?

      • flypusher says:

        You’re entitled to your opinion Tracy, but mine is that this “Dems will confiscate all the guns” claim is paranoid bullcrap. I agree with what Chris has already proposed about guns, and I reject the slippery slope argument.

      • texan5142 says:

        Nobody is going to take your guns, unless you are not mentally compident, then somebody should. The real gray area is who or what criteria decides.

      • 1mime says:

        Tacy, if you don’t stop stating that Democrats are going to take all your guns, I am going to wonder if you are mentally competent! Either that, or, worse, you are saying something you know is untrue in order to instill fear and anger, like someone else who is running for President is doing. And, it ain’t Hillary.

      • objv says:


        If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!


        Let me get this straight. In your minds, making a sarcastic comment about hacking emails is a far worse sin than actually handling classified information in an “extremely careless” way and leaving oneself open to being hacked?

        Look, the FBI investigation brought to light that Hillary’s private server could have easily been hacked but there is no way to tell. The DNC’s emails WERE hacked.

        Shouldn’t it be a relief for Hillary to have Russia turn over her 33,000 deleted emails to the FBI? After all, she said they contained only private, unclassified information.

        Your outrage is misplaced.

      • 1mime says:

        Ob, there is no way I can respect or agree with what you just stated. Honestly, I feel sorry for you.

      • Griffin says:

        Donald Trump is, clearly at this point, essentially pro-Russia. He prevented the GOP from adding a plank that would send military aid to the Ukraine and said he would probably not defend Baltic countries or other NATO allies from Russian aggression. No less than three of his top foreign policy advisors are deeply pro-Russian and have actual connections to the Russian government (albeit not as direct foreign spies per se). He has repeatadly offered admiration of Putin and Putin has done the same for him. And Putin has noticed that Trump is a useful idiot for Russia, throwing Russia Today’s support behind him and hacking emails to sabotage the DNC. And now, in a distinctly non-sarcastic tone, Trump openly aks Russia to find dirt on Hillary Clinton that would help him win.

        If there was a bedrock for the modern American right-wing, apart from a fanatical anti-leftism, it was a belief in an aggressive varient of American exceptionalism which manifested itself in the idea that the current government was not tough enough on hostile foreign powers and thus posed a threat to our security. Now you two and many others are supporting a candidate who wants to practically leave NATO and support policies that would clearly strengthen our foe, Russia.

        And you know the biggest irony of them all? Guess which state is in the Russian sphere of influence and would indirectly benefit from their position being stronger, allowing them to receive more financial/military aid and better trade with a much stronger Russian economy, as well as being in a position to ask for more diplomatic support from a now stronger, less restrained Russian bear? If your guess was a state controlled by Shia fundamentalists and whom merely negotiating with was enough to bring accusations of “weakness” against the current administration (despite them freezing their funds and bringing harsh sanctions against them as well) then you’re correct!

        The total reversal in such a breathtaking amount of time (or at least the wilful ignorance of it) on what was seemingly supposed to be THE major, consistant principal of your party indicates to me that the modern American right-wing (as in to the right of center-right) appears to have virtually no foundations or deep desires apart from wanting (A) an anti-leftist strongman and (B) more kool-aid.

      • 1mime says:

        Griffin – very well thought out. YOU are doing the media’s job. This is the type of thing that should be headlines in all newspapers and journals. There is an online petition that asks that Trump not receive classified briefings. And, the Repubs were asking that HRC be denied access? This should give pause. Here’s a link to the petition fyi. (I am NOT suggesting or asking you to sign, merely pointing it out.)

      • texan5142 says:

        Competent, not compident, seems I am not a competent speller.

      • objv says:

        You’re being played, folks. And just when you thought more poop couldn’t hit the fan ….

        “Assange told CNN in an interview that DNC officials were taking advantage of the possibility of Russia’s involvement in the hack to distract voters from the contents of the emails, which have revealed shocking internal discord and collusion.

        Speaking from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where Assange has resided for five years now, he said: “It raises questions about the natural instincts of Clinton that when confronted with a serious domestic political scandal, she tries to blame the Russians, blame the Chinese, et cetera. Because if she does that while in government, it could lead to problems.”

      • flypusher says:

        “You’re being played, folks. And just when you thought more poop couldn’t hit the fan ….”

        A Trump supporter sez we’re being played, oh the irony. So far, all the leaked stuff is talk, not action. It’s the equivalent of trash-talking someone at a party while you don’t realize they are standing right behind you. Find me an ACTION, and then it will merit my concern. But even then, why should I be more upset over this than Trump’s indications that he wants to cozy up to a loathesone scumbag like Putin???

    • 1mime says:

      Not a vindictive bone in Trump’s body.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I get the impression he’s having the time of his life, at everyone’s expense. He’s like the young rogue who likes to shock and horrify his elderly aunt.

      • flypusher says:

        Great fun and games until those tax returns get subpoenaed. Or hacked and leaked. I hope it’s the former.

      • flypusher says:

        “Let me get this straight. In your minds, making a sarcastic comment about hacking emails is a far worse sin than actually handling classified information in an “extremely careless” way and leaving oneself open to being hacked?”

        You and Tracy don’t disappoint, I’ll give you that. The bottom line is, if you are aspiring to be President, there are some things THAT ARE NOT APPROPRIATE TO SAY. Not even if it is sarcasm (a big if, with Trump’s history of verbal diarrhea). Not even if it’s a joke. Reagan said something that was just a joke once- something about bombing the Soviet Union. Near an open mike. He at least had the grace to apologize. Trump says stupid crap and never apologies. He has all the impulse control of a two year old. What the President says matters. So yes, THAT IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN AN E-MAIL MISTAKE FROM 5 YEARS AGO, unless you had credible reason to believe that Hillary would keep being careless with e-mail. I have every reason to believe Trump won’t stop saying stupid shit. And finally, why don’t you ask Mike Pence and Paul Ryan if they think this is some harmless sarcasm- they don’t seem to agree with you.

      • 1mime says:

        And where is the outrage of the Republican Party leaders who know exactly who Putin is and what he stands for?

        Justify your vote in your own mind. Don’t do so by defending Donald Trump who casually invited a known enemy not only of America but of our allies to hack into the email server of our Secretary of State?! What Hillary did was careless. What Trump did was deliberate. What, I ask you, would he do as President?

    • tuttabellamia says:

      This type of stunt may not change the view of his die-hard supporters, but it should be a turnoff for the undecided.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        So, it DOES have an effect.

      • texan5142 says:

        “This type of stunt may not change the view of his die-hard supporters, but it should be a turnoff for the undecided.”

        This type of stunt may not change the view of his die-hard supporters, but it should be a turnoff for the “educated”.


      • Can’t say I understand how there could be many undecideds at this point, other than those who, somehow, haven’t been paying attention.

      • 1mime says:

        Listened to the post convention pundits and this topic was discussed. The feeling is that the number of “true” undecideds is greatly reduced but that the topic of personal choice is not one that many undecideds want to divulge. I can understand that on many levels.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Ryan, I know many people who can’t stand Trump but prefer him over Hillary, who might just vote Libertarian if Trump continues to embarrass himself.

      • 1mime says:

        Reputable polls document that those who vote 3rd party because they can’t stand T or H, their votes help Trump. Everyone should vote for whoever they think best (?), but if the purpose is NOT to help Trump win, voting 3rd party doesn’t achieve that goal.

      • flypusher says:

        Enough people turning from Trump to Johnson in the right states could make a difference. But will the GOP finally get the message that they’re doing it wrong? Doubtful. Cruz probably has to crash and burn first. If there’s a GOP left.

      • 1mime, I’m stuck at “Everyone should vote for whoever they think [least likely to instigate the Apocalypse].” No point in setting unreasonable expectations.

      • 1mime says:

        The dilemma is, each person’s view of what constitutes the “appocolypse”.

    • RobA says:

      I think this is “the one” that’s going to stop him. He’ll always have his die hards of course. But when he’s polling at 40% of the electorate, no more then half of those are ‘die hards’. They won’t be able to get passed this.

      If not, I’m officially exiting the predictions business.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        This move smacks of treason. Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, being careless with State Department emails is bad enough, but for a would-be president of the United States to say he “hopes” another country has access to those emails is highly irregular, if not treasonous.

      • flypusher says:

        I agree that there aren’t that many undecideds. Those who are have really been working hard to ignore the news. Trump has his diehards, but he has a bloc of pretty squishy support- those GOPe types who are staying out of party loyalty. Each stupid thing Trump says is another smack upside their heads. Even Pence, who is gambling on being the power behind the throne, is squirming over this and those comments about NATO. They need to be smacked with this daily, as well as all the new stupid stuff we all know Trump will keep Tweeting. I won’t say he can’t tweet something even dumber because he probably can. He really should delete his account, but he won’t.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I don’t think the undecided are uneducated, not paying attention, or ignoring the news. I think they are so opposed to Hillary that they’ve been glossing over a lot of what Trump has said and done, but this may be what pushes them over the line and gets them to vote Libertarian or even for Hillary herself.

      • 1mime says:

        Help those whom you influence to understand why Donald Trump is so dangerous for America.

      • flypusher says:

        “I think they are so opposed to Hillary that they’ve been glossing over a lot of what Trump has said and done,..”

        I understand the downsides of HRC, but I cannot grok the reasoning that concludes that her downsides are worse than Trump’s. But my mistake is probably assuming reasoning. This is feeling more and more like it’s a sporting event and some people will root for their team no matter what. There are Trump supporters with this attitude of “How dare you ask me for reasons. I said Trump is better, and that should be good enough.” I can only hope people this far gone are less than 20% of the voters.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Mime, I might be able to convince the undecided, but not the die-hards. I don’t even want to get into it with the die-hards.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Plus, Mime, that’s not my style. I normally don’t tell people how to vote.

      • 1mime says:

        I understand that, Tutta. But someone might “ask” you and then possibly you could share some of the links with them that you have found iinformative, or ask them what their concerns are and what qualities they are looking for in a President. If nobody has this conversation with undecideds, they will be more likely to make an uninformed choice. I think there is a way to do so that fits with your comfort zone and without coming out directly about who you support. Your call. I’ve never been uncomfortable about sharing my presidential preference because I feel it is so important. Anyone I can influence, I hope to.

    • Actually, fly, the Trumpster was simply pointing that if the russkies cared enough to hack the DNC mail server, there was undoubtedly another server hacked, too – that of the inevitable Democratic nominee during her tenure at State.

      Ah, well. I suppose I’m beginning to understand why Trump generally forgoes the understated, subtle approach… 😉

      • flypusher says:

        So you’re going to whiteknight Trump by saying he was subtle? That’s original, I’ll give you that. The subtlety seems to be lost on much of the GOP, including his own running mate. People calling it treason are into hyperbole. But this is speaking before thinking, which is unacceptable for this job.

        As to whether the Russians got anything from HRC’s computer, the words “unknown” and “maybe” are more accurate than “undoubtedly”.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Fly: Thor said Trump FOREGOES (rejects) the subtle approach.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Well, I have had enough of getting all riled up over Mr. Trump. I will do like Mr. Putin and throw in the towel.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Plus, it’s ridiculous and a waste of time to have to parse the words of a flame thrower.

        What he said may not have been treasonous, or illegal, or maybe he was just joking, or maybe the media made it seem worse than it really was, but it’s absurd to have to digest on a regular basis outrageous comments on the part of a man who very well might become President of the United States. He is a disgrace.

      • flypusher says:

        “Generally foregoes”. I read this as a Trump was trying subtlety this time claim. But I find the reactions of Ryan and Pence to be great indicators. The more they spin and squirm the more boneheaded the statement.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I don’t want a flame thrower for President. I don’t want a president who, every time he makes a pronouncement, we all have to look at each other and ask, ‘He’s kidding, right?”

      • 1mime says:

        I think your basic instincts are on the money, Tutta.

    • RobA says:

      Tracy, she didn’t say she was coming for your guns. Are you suggesting that you’re psychic and “just know” that deep down she wants too? If so, then that truly is absurd.

      It was absurd when they said it about Obama and it’s absurd now. The GOP is manipulating you for your vote and you’re not thinking critically.

      If nothing else, take comfort that HRC is a political animal at heart, and she would never try to enact a law that almost nobody wants or is clamoring for.

      Do you not see how hyperbole weakens your own arguments? It’s what is doing the GOP in right now. When they screamed for years about how Obama is the worst thing ever, and the world will end once he’s president, and then he goes out and does a pretty solid job, the GOP loom like vindictive and pettty assholes, and it does absolutely nothing to further their agenda.

  14. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    I can’t say this surprises me alot given the nature of Fox New’s former executive’s exploits… but still, damn. Awful what some people make other people have to deal with.

    The misogynistic swamp at Fox News needs to drained considerably. people need to think about what has been going on at that place anytime that put a story or opinion out on those horrible gay bullies of Bill Clinton’s escapades. That got issues of their own.

    The emperor (Ailes) has no clothes… mostly because he liked to take them off when chasing the women folk.

    Here is a delightful excerpt:

    Multiple people said that the Fox networks housed pervasive discussions of female employees’ looks and sex lives. Fox supervisors would try to date their employees or proffer them for dates with higher-ups. Several sources recount dates and sexual acts being used as conditions of assignments, appearances, and employment. A one-time Fox reporter told the Times that every time she met with Ailes, he bookended their encounters with a hug and a kiss, the latter of which he’d try to land on the lips.

    Another woman recalled an executive whispering in her ear at a happy hour about the sexiness of the zipper on her dress.

    Most of the Times’ sources spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of torpedoing their current TV careers.

    Just one went public with her name: Rudi Bakhtiar, who joined Fox News in 2006 after several years at CNN. She earned a three-year contract after a freelancing stint, taking on weekend correspondent gigs in Washington, D.C. on a fill-in basis. In 2007, she says she had coffee in her D.C. hotel’s lobby with co-worker Brian Wilson, who was set to become the Washington bureau chief.

    He told Bakhtiar he could help her get the weekend Washington correspondent gig full-time, but, Bakhtiar told the Times, Wilson repeatedly asked her “You know how I feel about you?”

    • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

      Sorry about bad spelling/grammar, here is a correction:

      “The misogynistic swamp at Fox News needs to drained considerably. People need to think about what has been going on at that place anytime Fox News puts out a story or opinion about those awful gay bullies in American culture or the horror of Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades. They have issues of their own.”

      There. better.

    • 1mime says:

      Next thing we’ll know is that there are cameras in the women’s bathrooms at FOX (-;

    • Well, at least we have a plausible explanation for Megyn Kelly’s on-air attire.

      • 1mime says:

        Isn’t that sad. Megyn Kelly is a smart, capable news journalist and she should be able to wear clothes with sleeves and collars if she wants (-;

        Really, I respect her ability and especially her decision to support her colleague about Ailes behavior.

      • Fair Economist says:

        Yeah, for all these years we all figured Fox had them dressed like that to get dirty old men to watch (creepy enough) and now we find out it was actually to sate the sexual fantasies of one particular dirty old man. Eeuurgh.

        It’s not just Megan Kelly; I’ll bet most of the “blond bimbos” are actually capable journalists. Gretchen Carlson played an airhead but she actually had a degree from Stanford and studied at Oxford. Jon Stewart had a hilarious bit on it. The question is more of how did Kelly get a dispensation to show her actual reporting chops and not pretend to need to google high school vocabulary words.

      • 1mime says:

        Ratings, Fair Econ. Ratings, coupled with a “don’t you touch me you dirty old man” look. When someone commands the charts like Kelly, that gives her a lot of authority. Don’t want to mess with the princess when you have all the maidens around that are easier pickings.

  15. Obviously no one can see the future. But according to demographics, this could happen. I only watched snippets of the GOP and Dem conventions, but there is a stark difference, at least to be, in the two parties. The GOP is doom and gloom. The sky is falling! Obama did it all, ruined the party! and the Dems are for equal rights for all. Hard the believe the GOP will attract a lot of minorities and women with their ranting!

    As the article says “The only ones for whom conservatism is a natural fit are Roy’s “cranky old white people” — and they’re dying off.”

    A Republican intellectual explains why the Republican Party is going to die

  16. Stephen says:

    This is from The Big Picture Blog by Barry Ritholtz.

  17. RobA says:

    Bill getting some rave reviews for his speech, deservedly so. I just can’t get over the contrast between conventions.

    If Hillary doesn’t get a huge convention bounce, I’ll be pretty surprised.

  18. Griffin says:

    Hey is anyone interesting in how uncomfortably cozy Trump is with Putin. Like, to an even greater degree than you may have already suspected:

    Also, Trump actually rips off children:

    It may be highly unlikely he wins, but it’s still “possible”. And if he does… it’s hard to overestimate the amount of damage he would do to the USA.

    • flypusher says:

      I want to know if Donnie-deadbeat has borrowed a lot of $ from the Russians- would his tax returns necessarily show that?

      • Fair Economist says:

        If his tax returns aren’t fraudulent, yes. There’s a section for foreign loans.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        Where are those tax returns? 🙂

      • 1mime says:

        Listened to the late post-convention discussion on MSNBC and Sherrod Brown made some interesting allusions that if Trump’s tax returns were released, that would be one means of examining his relationship with Russia. However, many large corporations have business investments in Russia. That, in and of itself, to me, is not the bug-a-boo. His coy statements expressing warmth and admiration of Putin is what bothers me.

      • Creigh says:

        The issue is not investments in Russia, it’s loans from Russia. Our buddy DT has a history of shafting creditors, and being petulant when he doesn’t get his way regarding shafting of creditors. This is has the potential for huge complications for foreign policy.

    • flypusher says:

      About that Trump -Russia connection:

      The author is absolutely no liberal, no fan of HRC or the Dems. Also no fan of Trump (he wrote articles in favor of Cruz). Right now we have various dots- the Russians hacked the DNC computers, Trump has business dealings with the Russians, Trump’s been talking about less US participation in NATO, Trump’s people got that plank about Ukraine in the GOP platform, Manafort has Russian ties. Do these dots connect into anything scary? Dunno. But the 4th Estate needs to be looking into this, because someone like Putin trying to influence our election is a big effing deal.

    • 1mime says:

      So Popick got stiffed as did the kids and he “still” doesn’t know if he believes Trump is a poor candidate?

      It’s no wonder Trump feels he can get away with anything he does. Stiffing kids?!!

      As for the Russia thing, unless his income taxes are released and show a relationship to Russia, or it can be proven some other way, at this juncture, the Clinton team needs to let that one ride on its own wings. Nothing would surprise me with the man. He’s not just coy, he’s deceitful, but you still have to be able to prove it.

      I’d rather Clinton focus on what she “can and will do” for America than get down in the dirt voluntarily. You have to know Trump plans to pull her there any way he can as a distraction from his lack of a substantive campaign. The two conventions are an interesting contrast for thinking people….too bad there seems to be so few (like Popick!!) who it seems refuse to think for themselves.

      • flypusher says:

        It’s the job of the press to do the digging, so I agree Clinton should leave that alone unless someone finds a smoking gun. It’s not like she doesn’t have a target rich environment.

    • RobA says:

      The plot: it thickens.

      During an interview on CBS’ “This Morning,” co-host Norah O’Donnell noted that Trump has said that he does not have any investments in Russia. Paul Manaforts interview this morning:

      “During an interview on CBS’ “This Morning,” co-host Norah O’Donnell noted that Trump has said that he does not have any investments in Russia.

      “But does Russia have investments in Trump?” she then asked. “Would Mr. Trump be willing to release his tax returns to provide transparency on this issue?” Manafort did not say whether Russia has invested in Trump, but said that the Republican nominee still has no plans to release his tax returns.

      “Mr. Trump has said that his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them,” he said. “It has nothing to do with Russia. It has nothing to do with any country other than the United States and his normal tax auditing processes.”

      Specifically “Manafort would not say whether Russia has invested in Trump”.

      So the smoke is so thick you can’t see, and now there’s heat. Hard to imagine there isn’t a fire somewhere close by.

      • flypusher says:

        The audit excuse is pure bunk- that’s from the IRS. He could release those returns if he chose to.

        I’ve speculated that he was fudging his worth upwards, because bloated overbearing ego. Now I wonder if there is something more damning. Borrowing lots of $ from Russia IS a potential conflict of interest.

        He needs to be hounded, non-stop, to release those returns. Don’t talk about Russia, or anything else here, just show us the 1040, because that is expected of ALL nominees.

      • 1mime says:

        Media,media,media,media….do your job for both candidates!

  19. formdib says:

    Fluff post:

    ‘Do you eat like a Republican or a Democrat?’

    I got 59% Democrat, except with one caveat: I chose ‘burrito’ over ‘gyro’ thinking in terms of what foodstuff I like better, being from the Southwest.

    If I switch it to ‘gyro’, which I select more these days because there’s no good Mexican food on the East Coast, I become 52% Republican.

    What can I say, I’m a consummate centrist, even as regards food.

    Now argue taste with me! Argue it!

    • 1mime says:

      Ha! I scored 72% Democrat! There’s no hope for me…..

      That was fun, formdib. I’m going to pay it forward (-;

    • Griffin says:

      62% Republican. I like my meats.

      • flypusher says:

        69% Republican???? But where were the options for pho and pad Thai and falafel and samosas and sushi??

      • 1mime says:

        OMG – Makes me wonder if this poll is skewed in favor of healthy foods/Republican….you know, the fat, lazy welfare types sucking on the taxpayer’s teat (-; We’ll need more “provenance” . At least they had spring rolls and egg drop soup (both on my list)

      • Griffin says:

        Hmmmm I also like my sushi. The others you listed I find kind of meh for me, I’d probably take a hot dog instead tbh. I’m extremely boring food wise.

      • 1mime says:

        You’re just a normal guy, Griffin….when it’s up to you, you eat to live (-;

    • 1mime says:

      “No good Mexican food on the East Coast”? Sounds like a business opportunity to me!

      • flypusher says:

        True, but there would be a skepticism hurdle to overcome. I would be wondering about a Mexican restaurant in Philly or Clevekand or Newark, whereas if it’s in San Antonio or San Diego or Tucson or Houston I’m salivating in anticipation. But people are moving all over the country, so maybe someday I won’t raise an eyebrow at a Mexican joint in New Haven.

      • 1mime says:

        Good food is always appreciated by those who enjoy food – irrespective of country of origin….Indian food? check. Thai food? double check. Besides, Mexican food is affordable and most everyone likes that!

      • Turtles Run says:

        I have always wanted to open a Mexican/Cajun restaurant in the Northeast or Midwest.

        So who is in? We could call it Tio Thibadaux’s.

        By the way I scored 70% Republican.

      • 1mime says:

        I’ll invest but you have to change the spelling from Thibadaux to Thibadeaux!

      • flypusher says:

        Love the name!! I’d try it. You can get some tasty stuff with fusion. There is a Mexican-KoreanBBQ food truck that makes the rounds at Rice. Yum!!!

      • formdib says:

        I actually did talk to a distributor about bringing in Hatch valley sourced green chile but it’s not a project I have the bandwidth for. If I ever find myself in desperate straits.

      • 1mime says:

        Keep the idea in your back pocket, formdib! For that time when you can do something fun.

    • Fair Economist says:

      Not an entirely serious article, even if amusing. “Salad has been a wedge issue”, ha ha.

      I got 81% Democratic. Mostly the Democratic choice is lower-calorie, and that’s how I got such an extreme score.My teen son would score Republican – hope that doesn’t presage family trouble in a few years!

      • flypusher says:

        Honestly I didn’t like either of the salad choices. I prefer them with primarily veggies, skip the eggs, meat, cheese, a few croutons OK, with a vinaigrette style dressing.

      • 1mime says:

        So, you figured out the political odds by trying several scenarios and determined that Dems eat healthier (-;

    • duncancairncross says:

      As somebody well to the left of the US democrats I scored 69% Republican!

    • objv says:

      81% Democrat. Ha!

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Don’t you weigh about 100 lb?

      • texan5142 says:

        “Lordy, this is rigged against the Democrats!”

        I would say so, I scored 50% Republican, how is that possible. If I am 50% Republican it stands to reason I am also 50% Democrat , so who decides at the 50% mark ? I would think at 50% I should be listed as neutral.

      • 1mime says:

        Tex, you’re even smarter than I thought! For sure, 100-50 = 50….

        Brilliant and so funny! Now you know how Obama feels (-;

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Texan, that makes you a bona fide moderate.

      • 1mime says:

        Well, Ob, you have just debunked the legitimacy of the whole food/political survey! Now we know for sure it’s flawed because in your wildest dreams, you would never, ever be a Democrat!

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Mime, and I guess that debunks your own tongue-in-cheek theory that Republicans gravitate towards unhealthy foods.

        OV weighs about 100 lb, and my boyfriend, who is ultra-conservative, is very slender himself.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        The survey should also have presented breakfast options. I will choose eggs, hash browns, and buttered bread over oatmeal or fruit any day.

        Actually, I prefer oatmeal, cream of wheat, or cereal in the evenings.

  20. In the latest installment of sordid economic policy by right-wing whacko birds, Kansas has seen its credit rating downgraded again, the fourth worst in the nation and behind only Illinois, New Jersey and Kentucky. Will it go for the gold? Stay tuned to find out!

  21. Michael Cohen says:

    GOPLifer: Have you ever talked to the podcaster Dan Carlin? His podcasts Common Sense echoes many of your points, and I’d love to see him interview you (or vice versa) – you both have important things to say and I imagine there would be some excellent material to come out of that.

  22. This could well be the start of something big. Anti-Trump Republicans are coming together to build a sizable coalition to see that Clinton is elected in November. If this is to be believed, many Republican members of Congress, governors and staff members are in private support. The only question is if it gets big enough to go public and what happens then.

    • formdib says:

      ” Anti-Trump Republicans are coming together to build a sizable coalition to see that Clinton is elected in November.”

      Define ‘sizeable’.

      And also, how can I help? That’s the new gig now. I’m already prepping materials on my backend for p2p outreach to a handful of people who I feel are persuadable. I’m pessimistic but operating under the ‘better to try and fail than not try’ philosophy at this point.

      • Sizeable as in, optimistically, the majority of Republican voters who didn’t vote for Trump and the huge chunk of Republican congressmen/congresswomen, senators and governors who have either refused to endorse him or come out in outright opposition. All that’s needed is the right leadership to bring them together. This could be it.

        As for how to help, get in contact with Stubbs and Reyes and find out for yourself. Maybe the article’s author, Haley Edwards, could lend a hand.

      • 1mime says:

        There were some names there you could contact, formdib.

    • Fair Economist says:

      I suspect it’s sizable among political activists, because they’re the ones having their life’s avocation ripped away from them. Polls are not showing a significant number of voters switching over, though. Trump is actively trying to discourage these kinds of things with his aggressive attacks on the comparatively few elected Republicans still resisting him. Fortunately Trump is rather clueless, as seen in his threat to make Jeff Flake lose his election (he’s not up this cycle).

      • flypusher says:

        I imagine I would disagree with Flake on quite a few things, but damn that was good to see someone stand up to Trump.

      • 1mime says:

        Threats against Jeff Flake whose election is not up this cycle….

        That kind of statement/threat would be a “tell” for most thinking people, n’est pas?

  23. RobA says:

    I mean, I know it’s Fox and the OReilly factor, but this is ridiculous. They’re not even trying to hide it anymore. OReilly is saying “well, the slaves were housed and well fed” on TV. The ONLY way those words make sense is if we take it to its logical conclusion that slavery after all wasn’t that bad, as long as they were clothed and well fed.

    This is insane.

    • More frustrating is the fact that it’s nothing new. It’s the same kind of rhetoric that dates back to the days of the Confederacy; that, somehow, blacks not only should be enslaved, but that they would actually benefit from it. Of course, behind that mishmash of an argument was the condescending, racist idea that they were too stupid and weak to provide for themselves.

      O’Reilly is just spewing a watered down version of that same bullshit.

      • 1mime says:

        Next thing you know they’ll be telling us how women prefer to be housewives instead of scientists, doctors, astronauts, teachers, or go to college….How can these White men presume to tell a woman or a Black person what they “should” like. Of course, this is how they justified being condescending and repressive.

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      These are people who feel as though their fundamental liberties are being attacked when someone says, “happy holidays” to them, but hey, those slaves were pretty well fed and had a roof over their heads.

      Does this tiny thing slightly inconvenience or affect me? Oh, this is horrible.
      Does this huge thing affect other people not like me? Why are you making this an issue?

      • 1mime says:

        Especially when “these” people draw multi-million dollar salaries….like, who’s having a hard time here?

    • flypusher says:

      Good Lord, what a total and complete ass O’Reilly is. He deserves to be strapped down “Clockwork Orange” style and forced to watch “12 Years a Slave” until he gets a clue.

      This has been posted here before, but for the benefit of out new readers:

      O’Reilly has plenty of ignorant company. Being called a “Pollack” is totally the same level of bad as being a slave. I have to admire the author’s patience in dealing with these fools for as long as she did. My tolerance for that sort of ignorant denial is very low.

      • 1mime says:

        O’Reilly must be “gunning” for Ailes position which will go to: the person who can be even more disgusting than Ailes.

  24. flypusher says:

    So I agree with Pelosi’s assessment of Trump, but she’s being too optimistic IMO. Cali is solidly Blue, so while more Hispanics getting motivated to vote is good, they don’t change that many outcomes there. Now if they get their friends and family in AZ and NM and NV and CO to vote, then you’ve got something started. Even better in TX, although I don’t see it flipping yet.

    But the Dems remind me of this infamous play:

    Get to the bloody end zone 1st!!!

    • 1mime says:

      Florida is Yuuuge. Huge electoral vote potential….The hispanic vote there was big for O in last election, despite the long lines and other oppressive tactics used to make it difficult for Floridians to vote.

      • Stephen says:

        It is going to be close. The state is pretty much 50/50. It will depend on who turns out. But I think in the end Hillary will carry Florida by a close margin. Idiot Trump has hugely motivated Blacks, Hispanics and moderated educated Whites to pour into polling stations. It blows my mind so many will vote for him, especially people who call themselves Christians.

      • 1mime says:

        Let us hope there are few (there will always be some) Republican voting shenanigans that discourage turnout for Clinton supporters. I’m worried about Patrick Murphy – I want Rubio to lose. He’s a weasel and he needs to find a real job for a while, grow up, and then try again. He has not “earned” re-election.

    • I wouldn’t count Cali out for its influence just yet. iirc, over 600,000 Hispanics have registered to vote for November this year alone. Republicans have 15 House seats there (obviously nothing compared to Democrats’ next 40 House seats, but still a sizable number) and that’s the kind of number that could flip a number of seats if it’s hitting the right regions.

      For example, Kevin McCarthy’s district has a sizeable Hispanic population. A strong enough wave could have the Majority Leader out of a job if he’s not careful.

      • 1mime says:

        Down ticket wins are a real plus in any state. California would be particularly sweet easpecially if we could oust the likes of McCarthy and Issa.

      • Fair Economist says:

        The states with swing House districts are often not the swing Presidential states. The most important state for control of the House is actually New York, aka the bluest state in the nation. California is third. The districts are split between blue and swing states – very few are in red states, reflecting how outrageously they’re gerrymandered. North Carolina, for example, has NO district between D+19 and R+8. Texas, in spite of having a huge Congressional delegation, has only one between D+5 and R+10.

        So, surprisingly, Hillary’s chance of making a significant difference depends on running up the score in states she’ll probably win anyway, rather than “expanding the map” to states Obama lost, and about half the House districts she needs are in states she almost can’t lose.

      • 1mime says:

        NY – important to Clinton win.

        Interesting deduction, Fair Economist. A different game plan than O’s which took targeted voting to a new level. Robby Mook knows what he’s doing. I’m surprised you don’t more weight to FL with its 29 delegates. Clinton’s campaign focused heavily in the convention speeches last night on NY which supports your position of its importance, and she and Kaine premiered in FL. That, to me, tells me that these two states are primary targets. She does need to ram it home in states she can do well in both for delegate count plus down ticket wins.

        We still really haven’t seen any overt, organized attack ads against Clinton. They are “keeping their powder dry”. That, by no means should give anyone the idea that more dirt and attacks are not waiting to be launched. It’s just a matter of when.

      • 1mime says:

        This is the most sobering “current” campaign analysis I’ve seen to date. Recommended by Larry Sabato of the U of VA Center for Politics, here’s the grim news from someone who knows what they are talking about:–_post-rnc_edition.html

        Sean Trende, senior political analyst, Real Clear Politics:

        “No one really knows where the race is going to be in a week, to say nothing of where it will be in November. What I do know is that if you still don’t believe Trump has a very real chance of winning this, you are deeply in denial.”

        He notes that Hillary “has already dumped $50 million in unanswered advertising on his head, with little movement in the polls.” I mentioned as much in an earlier post today. The Trump campaign isn’t spending its ad money yet, she is, but not to much advantage.

        Sabato’s post is equally interesting and sobering. He also notes Clinton’s early investment vs Trump’s silence, with little bang for the buck for HRC. We can be certain Trump’s campaign will have the $$ it needs to mount a blistering attack. They are waiting for an optimal time and Sabato thinks that’s smart. Whew…….

  25. flypusher says:

    So to comment on one of the links Chris left for us, China backing off their use of coal is a big net good. It may be convenient and easy to use, but it is poison. All the gov’t propaganda in the universe can’t distract from air so dirty it burns your eyes and your lungs, and makes it difficult to see across the street. The stuff needs to stay in the ground.

    Obviously that has an impact here, as coal mining has been the biggest or only game in town for a lot of poor rural communities. If you’re going to try out UBI, people whose jobs are either obsolete, or produce a product that’s just too poisonous to use, could be the first people in the system.

  26. objv says:

    Well, Chris, you’ve finally gone and done it.

    Congratulations and best wishes for the future. Instead of becoming discouraged, please consider joining the Democratic Party. You might have a better chance at reforming Democrats from within their system than you did with Republicans.

    Of course, you run the danger of making this group of commenters yowl like scalded cats, but on the positive side, you might finally attract more than a few Republicans to your blog. 🙂

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Look who’s back from the Grand Canyon!

      • objv says:

        Yes, ma’am. 🙂 I’ve missed you, Tutt. Looks like I’ve missed plenty of drama while I’ve been away.

    • 1mime says:

      Somehow, I think this crowd would be more of a “meow” and that the howl would come from the few conservatives who deign to post here.

      • objv says:

        I don’t know about that mime. There is plenty of hissing, scratching and yowling going on whenever Lifer mentions unions.

        Also, I would like to thank all of you for supporting our National Park System. It’s nice for “rich” Republicans like me to enjoy a magnificent view of the Grand Canyon for only $20 a night. (Seniors over 62 pay $10.) It will make me feel better around tax time next year. 🙂

      • 1mime says:

        Whatever influence you have with your Republican brethren, you may want to weigh in on the GOP platform plank that proposes the following: (is it not a matter of time before the camel follows his nose into the tent?) 2016 platform plank-GOP Convention

        1. We urge the time and orderly transfer of federal public lands to willing states for local control that will provide better public access, better environmental health, and better economic productivity.

        2. We support excluding existing national parks, Congressionally designated wilderness areas, Indian reservations, and military installations from the transfer.

        3. We support equipping federal, state, and local agencies with resources necessary to plan for a successful transition to state-based ownership and management of the transferred public lands.

        Where will it stop Ob? I am certain you share concern that any of our public lands be transferred out of the public domain. The proposal hasn’t been voted on and approved by the entire convention, but it’s up there for consideration. I haven’t seen but a small part of the southern rim of the Grand Canyon, nor many of our national parks. I hope they will still be there when I have an opportunity.

      • objv says:

        Mime, the conclusion to the Snopes article was:

        “So perhaps Republicans (when their full platform is finally voted on and approved, which hasn’t happened yet) will advocate that some public lands in the West be opened to commercial endeavors, but that’s a far cry from calling for the U.S. government to cede control over all national parks and national forests and return ownership of them to the states. And, of course, stating a policy in a party platform is a long, long way from actually enacting that policy, especially when it would require Congressional approval.”

        Mime, I need to explain that not all public lands are spectacular places of beauty. The US government owns vast tracts of land in the West (like behind my house and most of Utah) and it periodically rents out or sells some of it. I think that this is the land primarily in question. The BLM manages this land mostly by benign neglect. In all the time I’ve lived here, I’ve walked on government land almost daily and have never seen anyone from the BLM. I have seen lots of oilfield workers since our area supports a vast network of gas pipelines – yes, on government land.

        While National Parks, Forests, and Monuments should be off limits, I don’t see why states couldn’t manage non-scenic lands that the US government currently owns. I’ve been to a nearby state park that is just as well taken care of as a national park. If there is to be some profit obtained from public lands, the people of a poor state like New Mexico should be the ones to benefit.

        Information on BLM sale of land:

      • 1mime says:

        Once gone, it is never coming back. I read through the entire article, and posted the snopes analysis to be absolutely fair and accurate. I don’t agree with your position about selling any public lands but definitely worry about commercial development.

      • objv says:

        Mime, the Snopes analysis IS that there is nothing to worry about. I posted their conclusion.

        I LOVE the National Parks and Forests. I am lucky to live near so many of them, but the land in question is not part of that system.

        I am amused because if you could see some of the BLM land in New Mexico (piles of sand and rock interspersed with a few juniper trees and sage bushes), you would have no problem with transferring it to state control. 🙂

      • 1mime says:

        Interesting map, Ob. TX doesn’t share much with the public despite being the largest state, does it?

      • objv says:

        Mime, I’m not exactly sure why the government has so much control over western lands. In Texas’ case, low federal land ownership might be due to the fact that Texas was independent for awhile.

        The federal government used to own all the land in the western US and gave away homesteads in the plains. A lot of western lands were desolate and not suitable for farming, so perhaps were not in demand during the time people started heading west.

        It would be interesting to find out more on the subject.

    • “…please consider joining the Democratic Party.”

      Heck, I’ve been suggesting that for years. I’ve concluded that Chris derives more enjoyment from trying to convert republicans to democrats than just about anything else under the sun. I don’t really expect him to stop now. Maybe instead of pushing from one side of the fence, he’ll be pulling from the other… 😉

  27. 1mime says:

    Food for thought. A little dated (3/16) but the thought behind it is worth thinking about.

  28. flypusher says:

    The more I reflect on the First Lady’s speech, and reread parts of it, the more impressed I am. It was a compelling, intelligent, and classy repudiation of Trump. She called out his boorish behavior without mentioning his name or ever straying from the high road. The POTUS is indeed a role model for all the children of America.

    I think some wonderful poetic justice would be for the young children of the GOPe and evangelical Trump endorsers to start talking just like Trump. After all, you support his bid for President, so surely you won’t mind the kids emulating him.

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      You’ll like this Democrat ad:

      • flypusher says:

        Very nice. I don’t think it does much to the poor White contingent, but it has to make the Evangelicals squirm.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        i feel like it is targeted to suburban moms (and dads) who are GOP but uncomfortable with Trump.

        It is pure pandering of “…but won’t somebody think of the children?”, but if that works for the GOP with trans people and bathrooms, why not use it for the side of the angels too?

      • 1mime says:

        Your twins are angels?

      • 1mime says:

        It is true, though, that our children are watching, Homer. And, listening and modeling. Is it too much to expect that the nominees for President conduct themselves to the highest possible standard? As though they were always speaking to our children? That they will do the right thing even when no one is looking?

      • flypusher says:

        “It is pure pandering of “…but won’t somebody think of the children?”, but if that works for the GOP with trans people and bathrooms, why not use it for the side of the angels too?”

        Indeed, and all the more so because exposure to that is actually bad for developing minds.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Mime, no…sadly, neither of my twins nor their little brother are angels. They are good guys, but probably more often likened to little devils than little angels.

        While I do think parents should be good role models, and we should pay attention to what they see on TV, I don’t get too bent out of shape with somewhat salty language. The things they’ll hear in school by second grade will be far beyond what we would say at home.

        To the point about Trump, it is the mocking and references to violence, like what is depicted in the ad, that would cause the concern.

        Of course, this ad only resonates if you believe mocking people with disabilities, wishing you could hit a guy, and making blanket racist statements are bad things. Sadly, lots of folks out there would find it funny rather than bad.

      • 1mime says:

        I was messin’ with ya, Homer! How could the apples fall too far from the tree?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        When I was little I enjoyed kind, gentle humor but I was scared of people who were mocking and sarcastic. I didn’t like to be on the receiving end of cruel humor, nor did I like seeing other people, of any age, on the receiving end, either.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I think I would have been afraid of Trump as a kid, not just because of what he said about Mexicans, but simply because he was MEAN.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Plus, Trump is LOUD, and as a kid I was always afraid of loud people.

      • flypusher says:

        “I think I would have been afraid of Trump as a kid, not just because of what he said about Mexicans, but simply because he was MEAN.”

        That reason is at the core of my dislike for the man. I loath his current politics, but my first impression of him was formed back in the 80s, when he first started making the news that I was reading. I concluded that he was a bully, and I had my fights with bullies in my childhood, so I know the breed. The worst thing you can do is cave in. McCain’s surrender still has me gobsmacked.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        So, FLY, I might suspect our dislike of Trump is purely visceral, because he brings back scary childhood memories, and I do think it’s important that the President of the United States not be a bogeyman, but respect and civility are important to grownups as well.

      • 1mime says:

        Oh, I’ll bet it’s both visceral and intellectual. All one has to do is watch the man and examine his positions (what few exist), and it becomes obvious.

    • 1mime says:

      Not to discredit Michelle’s ability for a minute, but do you think O may have had a hand in its composition?

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        At this level, I’m really certain the speech is more a function of speech writers than the speaker.

        I think it is actually quite hard to write a good speech. The stories probably come from the speaker, and the speaker makes it come alive, but the flow, cadence, and most of the words likely come from someone paid to be good at writing speeches.

      • 1mime says:

        You do realize that Obama is quite involved in writing his speeches?

      • flypusher says:

        I give credit to both. You need the right words and the right speaker to use them effectively. It was first rate through and through.

      • 1mime says:

        Agree, Fly. Obama certainly was the inspiration behind her message but I give Michelle credit for having both the ability and compassion to not only deliver a speech like this one, but to draft it. They are of a similar mind and spirit, so I’ll bet it was somewhat collaborative. It doesn’t really matter as she aced the delivery.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Sure…Obama is involved, but he had the same speech writer for 8 years for a reason.

        At that stage, it is a collaborative process, but I want a plumber working on my toilet, an electrician working on my lights, and a speech writer getting my thoughts together for a state of the union address.

      • 1mime says:

        Well, in Trump’s case, He wants:

        A plumber for his speeches, an electrician for his enemies, and a speech writer for his wife (-;

      • flypusher says:

        “Well, in Trump’s case, He wants:

        A plumber for his speeches, an electrician for his enemies, and a speech writer for his wife (-;”

        That one merits stealing !!

      • 1mime says:

        I’m working on my sense of humor, Fly! Trying to not be too obtuse while still being subtle. That’s work!

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Mime…that is brilliant.

      • 1mime says:

        Aw, shucks, nuthin’ to it …. learnin’ from the masters here!

      • texan5142 says:

        Joe the plumber for his speeches.

    • RobA says:

      I think the proof is in the pudding Fly.

      Trump hasn’t mentioned a peep about it. I’m under no illusions that this is class on his part. It’s that FLOTUS crafted a devastating, classy takedown in such a way thag it has the benefit of being impervious to Trumps type of nonsense insult game.

      • 1mime says:

        Actually, FLOTUS’ speech was so clever that I am not sure Trump “got it”. He didn’t get BREXIT, quite possibly, he didn’t get “FLEXIT” either (-;

  29. Rob Ambrose says:

    Newest poll says no convention bump for Trump after all

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      One poll…certainly the trend across all polls suggests a relatively “normal” convention bump for Trump.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Isn’t the “Trump bump” story from yesterday based on one poll too though? Not saying he didn’t get a bump, just thatnif we’ve got one poll saying he did, and one poll saying be didn’t, it’s still very much up in the air.

      • 1mime says:

        Fair is fair, I agree, Rob. After both conventions, per Nate Silver, an apples to apples comparison will be possible.

      • flypusher says:

        For the sake of my blood pressure, I will not put much stick in any poll until at least after Labor Day.

        (And my blood pressure is actually impressively low)

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Sorry fly….I can’t resist talking about numbers.

        It was a set of polls, not just one…and Trump has been closing the gap for a couple of weeks prior to the convention as well.

        Lots of folks giggled and said it made sense when 538 came out with their first forecast with Trump having a 20%-25% chance of winning. The 538 aggregate of polls now has Trump with a 46% chance.

        So, let’s all hope Hillary finds a bounce too.

      • flypusher says:

        Homer, I’d never begrudge you your joy in numbers. I’m not unfamiliar with statistics, but you do them on a much higher level than I ever have, and I very much enjoy learning from your insights. But for now I’m abstaining from those links!!

      • RobA says:

        Homer, good point. The numbers are the numbers.

        But again, without the Dem convention it’s as meaningful as calling a baseball game 1-0 after the top of the first inning before the other team has even had thei at bat yet.

      • 1mime says:

        I am proud of how Democrats conducted their convention. I wonder how many Republicans can say the same about theirs? And the speakers were outstanding….which is no surprise because the best and brightest all *wanted* to be convention speakers. No underwear models, or other unknowns, the Democratic line up was talented and glad to be there.

    • 1mime says:

      But, here’s the problem for Clinton:

      “The good news for Trump is that his lead over Clinton grew to two points when Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson were included. The GOP nominee holds a 41 percent to 39 percent edge over Clinton in the four-way race, while Johnson earned 10 percent and Stein earned 5 percent.”

      If those who “think” that Trump would be horrible but can’t stand Hillary decide to vote 3rd party as an (wasted) alternative vote, they will actually put Trump in the winning column. Be cautious when advising people to take this route. Make certain that they understand who this vote would actually benefit. It is going to be just like Lifer said: “Hold your nose and vote for Hillary.” She is a better alternative to Trump even for those who are disenchanted with H.

      Read more:
      Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

  30. 1mime says:

    If you try to vote with an illegal drivers license, you face charges. If you use an illegal drivers license to gain entry to a business, falsely misrepresent your purpose, you “might” be charged, but in TX, you will find a friendly D.A. who will dismiss the charges.

    Justice, TX style.

  31. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    The only thing more contemptable than a racial/religious bigot is a bigot who is too cowardly to admit it.

    For example: This guy.

    “I’m talking about territories now,” Trump said on Fox News. “People don’t want me to say Muslim. I prefer not saying it frankly, myself. So we’re talking about territories.”

    Wasn’t Obama’s cardinal sin (as defined by some conservatives and Trump) the fact he won’t use the magic words “Radical Islamic Terrorism”?

    Now Trump doesn’t want to say the word “Muslim”?

    I think about the harsh criticism/comments Chris received after his epic post regarding his resignation letter by Trump/GOP partisans and I have to ask…

    “This is the man he and lifelong Republicans should support without question?”

  32. Patrick Dean says:

    Mr. Ladd, This is quite interesting. As a Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative 19-year-old college student who has followed your blog indirectly – but never commented on it – I’d have to say that your blog has engaged me in politics. I’ll gladly start a write-in campaign in Virginia for you – you seem like the type of president the nation needs. Sincerely, Patrick Dean >

    • 1mime says:

      Vote, Patrick. Get your friends to vote. GOTV has never been more important. FWIW, Lifer is voting for Hillary because Trump is totally unacceptable. Think about that since you respect his views.

      • 1mime says:

        An addendum, Patrick. Lifer has stated that Hillary Clinton is one of the most experienced, capable candidates for POTUS our country has ever seen. He doesn’t like the Clintons but he knows she will do no harm. Trump, otoh, is a disaster. And the other two candidates are non contenders.

  33. Rob Ambrose says:

    Canada has the right idea.Seems to me that America is wasting ab incredible opportunity with regards to immigration. Most take for granted that people actually want to move to America, or Canada, or Sweden, but the fact is, there’s really only a handful of countries that ppl actually WANT to uproot their lives and move too. To be one of them is an incredible natural resource that America is not tapping, for fear of the political ramifications.

    Im not talking about open borders. When you’re one of the few desiroble destinations, you literally have your pick of the litter, so to speak. America could be letting in huge amounts of skilled labor, academics, artists etc and reaping the enourmous benefits of that, both financially (a deeper, richer tax base making more money per capita) and culturally/socially as these people become part of society and enrich it.

    In all Western nations, the birth rate is below the sustainable level. Closed borders nativism is a poison pill in Western world demographics, and smart, liberal immigration policies are not only desirable to maintain prosperity, they are essential.

    • Stephen says:

      You are so correct. Problem is semi-skilled jobs are disappearing (mainly factory jobs) and the low skill ones wages are in decline. As lifer has spoken of , many whites who held those semi-skill jobs are worried about competition from minorities including immigrants for those few jobs left. Which is why Trump appeals to them with his close the border, build a wall rhetoric. Manufacturing in this country has had a revival but needs fewer and fewer people. So stopping immigration or trade will not bring back the old job base. But immigration will bring people in that can work the new type of jobs, expanding the economic pie so native talent would not be hurt. A basic income and open education opportunities for all would make those tensions in time decline. All capably and driven would have the outlet of being able to gain the skills and education to work and move up the economic latter while those less driven and capably would not worry about having basic needs meet. I read the Population Bomb in the sixties. It could not of been more wrong. We are the only Western industrial nation that currently has a positive growth rate which is due to our recent immigrates and their children having kids. We are avoiding many problems because of that. For instance our Social Security is only in minor stress and can be easily fixed while other nations with declining populations are scratching their heads over that problem. Another is our working population is increasing not in decline. Which means our economy will grow not contract over time. In is in the national interest to have immigration. And most of ours are from Latin and South America which means culturally and ethnically they are similar to the native population . I remember one Hispanic grandmother call me white while she was as pale as me, complain about her grandchildren speaking no Spanish. There will be no massive shift in our culture. The fear of being culturally overwhelm is nonsense.

      • flypusher says:

        A theme repeated many times in this country:

        1) A new group of immigrants comes to America to seek better lives.

        2) People already in America bitch and moan about this new group following a different religion or speaking a different language or they won’t assimilate or they’re uncivilized and raise the crime rates or they’re on the gov’t teat or they’re taking all the jobs!

        3) Children and grandchildren of these people grow up American, speak English, integrate into the broader American culture.

        4) The assimilated group joins with other Americans to bitch and moan about the next wave of new immigrants that arrives.

        This is true for pretty much everyone except Native Americans and the African-Americans who are descended from slaves.

      • johngalt says:

        Exactly. This pattern has been repeated more times than I can count.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Yup. Remember when it was the Irish that we needed to kick out in order to Make America Great Again?

        Coming in here with all that goddamn Catholicism, messing thing up.

      • flypusher says:

        And those Wops and Pollacks!! There goes the neighborhood!!!

      • johngalt says:

        Don’t forget the Germans. And Chinese. And Japanese. And…

  34. Rob Ambrose says:

    If Hillary goes on to have a big convention bump and never look back, you can probably pinpoint the turning point as Michelle’s speech. What a tour de force that was.

    It highlights to me how supremely competent the Obama’s are, and makes me sad for what could have been with a normal, functioning Congress to go with Obama’s presidency. The fact that he got done what he did (crime down, Dow at all time highs, the ACA, unemployment below 6%, significantly improved American standing in world) in the face of such petty and vindictive obstruction is a testament to the man’s prowess.

    I guess it makes sense. Jackie Robinson wasn’t breaking any color barrier if he hit .250 with 50 RBI’s and had average defense and speed. No, he had to be an absolute superstar in all facets of the game to even be allowed to play. In the same way, I think even those of us that like Obama have underestimated how much of a superstar this guy is. I think history will look very kindly on President Obama and his wife.

    • 1mime says:

      Earth to Steven….are you listening?

    • Stephen says:

      In my opinion he is the best president in my life time. Sixity years ago he would of been a Republican.

      • 1mime says:

        Sixty years ago, Black people couldn’t be Republicans! Heck, they could hardly vote!

      • shiro17 says:

        Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the majority of African-Americans that could vote voted Republican, as it was still the party of Lincoln and abolition. Since then, they’ve done a massive switch.

      • 1mime says:

        I wonder just “how many” Black people voted back then, Shiro? And, since then they’ve stopped voting Republican? I wonder why?

      • Stephen says:

        Until the Dixiecrats took over the GOP Blacks that could vote were mainly Republicans. About 40 years ago Senator Warren was Republican and future madam president started out Republican. The moderate wing of the of the Democratic party is close to the long ago GOP.

    • I stand by my belief that she’ll be at about a 6-10 pt lead over Trump around Labor Day, or if not, a few weeks after at most. A strong convention will help that, but it’s a lot of things:

      – Sensible-minded Republicans are coming together to build a significant anti-Trump operation and to vote for Clinton in November:

      – Lots of people who otherwise aren’t tuned into politics finally directing their attention to the campaign; a general election public that Trump is going to have a lot of difficulty with.

      – Democrats coalescing around Clinton after the convention.

  35. Don’t tell my wife but I love this woman!
    And, Lifer, I saw your resignation on the Huffingtonpost! I have a feeling your post will resignate far more than you ever thought possible.

    • 1mime says:

      Heck, maybe some actual conservatives will start reading Lifer’s blog and learn something! Hope springs eternal, Just human!

  36. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    I mean Ted Cruz’s father complicit in assassination of JFK. Sorry for typo.

  37. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    Well I once saw a video involving a five foot tall man with down syndrome (his father is of Hispanic descent/mother is black). He was accosted, beaten in front of his own home by a police officer when he thought he had a bulge underneath his clothing.

    It was his colostomy bag. That was yanked from his body when they pulled his pants down searching for a weapon.

    When confronted by his parents outside their home the cop responded to the parents who said “Can’t you see he has down syndrome?” the officer’s response was “I’m not a doctor!”.

    I am also not a doctor but people with down syndrome have pretty universal features.Their condition does not preclude them from having meaningful and fruitful lives.

    So I was pretty damn close to speechless after contemplating this encounter. Livid is too pale a word.

    That’s the thing about racial bias, it blinds people to other groups basic humanity. That officer didn’t see a disabled citizen. He saw a criminal threat.

    This was the first official non-response to the incident:
    “The Miami-Dade Police Department continues to investigate the incident involving Mr. Gilberto Powell. The integrity of the investigation and successful resolution of this case continues to remain our highest priority. As a result, the investigation remains active and ongoing; therefore, we cannot provide additional information at this time.”

    As of yet I have not heard of any disciplinary sanctions, firings, formal apologies… zip, nadda.

    Thinking about this story has reminded me that despite my urge to just avoid political controversies, demagogic insanity and other unpleasant hard truths about American society… I can’t be apathetic, or cynical or a borderline nihilist.

    People like this young man who may be subject to abuses of power can’t afford that apathy. And neither can I.

    So when I hear a candidate saying he will be a great “Law and Order” president I want to know, “What does that really mean?”

  38. 1mime says:

    A terrific first Convention day! All the speakers were great but Michelle Obama spoke from the heart while making a brilliant political case for Democrats. I don’t know how anyone else will be able to touch Michelle O’s performance. Truly memorable. So proud of her. Loved the young disabled woman whose body is compromised but her brain and spirit certainly are not. Quite a speech for disabled people. All good. Warren in great formm despite the rude Bernie supporter, Booker passionate, loved Al Franken but he was upstaged by Sara Silverman….Quite a night.

    What a contrast in message – uplifting – about hope and love of country – ordinary Americans – as opposed to fear and pain. I’m sure this comparison will be made more eloquently than I have and remembered as such by all who watched.

    • Michelle Obama certainly is a speaker in a class all her own. Behind closed doors, I’m sure even Republicans acknowledge that much.

      What Democrats have to do over these three days is exactly what they did today; lighting the flame of hope in people’s hearts and dispense with Trump’s fear and despair. They’ll do a fine job of that, no doubt, though I only wonder if Clinton will find it in herself to open up her heart to her supporters, just like she did in New Hampshire in 2008. If she can, that would go a good ways towards reversing her unfavorability numbers and drawing the starkest contrast with Trump she can.

      Let’s win this thing and make it one for the history books.

  39. Griffin says:

    To go with your blue-eyed Devil article here’s something I thought you would appreciate from the American Conservative if you haven’t seen it already:

    • flypusher says:

      Nice find and the comment section is also very good.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        This is the second article I’ve recently read about that book and its author. I’m going to ask the library to obtain it for me.

        He speaks of the importance of recognizing the agency of individual poor people, that liberal policies don’t do that but do promote learned helplessness.

        I wonder if he has an opinion on the potential impact of UBI on their agency.

        His story about the marine corps and buying a car illustrates a common problem; we often grow up not knowing what we don’t know and have no view into why it’s important.

        In my clan, where neither parent graduated high school, generally my sibs and I scrabbled for education and jobs. Instead of retiring, my parents started a small business that provided tiny nest eggs for us.

        As we age out of the system, it appears so far we will not be too much of a burden to others as we shuffle off this mortal coil. But there’s not a lot of extra at the moment to support the next generation.

        My nieces are a skeptical lot. They’ve internalized the messages of their schools about the important of getting an education or be left behind. Saddled with school debt, they’re dubious.

        What kind of agency would they exhibit if UBI were a reality, I wonder.

      • flypusher says:

        “His story about the marine corps and buying a car illustrates a common problem; we often grow up not knowing what we don’t know and have no view into why it’s important.”

        Also interesting is the story about the young women at Yale who said she was surprised at him being ex-military, because he was so nice. That’s a big disconnect between many of the educated elites and the working class. Given my education/work background, you could now put me in that educated elite caste, but I grew up in a military family, so I in no way would be shocked at a Marine being “nice”. As some people in the comments pointed out, I think the guy missed a teachable moment. There are liberals out there who don’t have a clue about people in the military and their families and how they live. I know people who were greatly improved by their service, just like the author. They were at a nexus point- did they get into trouble, or did they make something of their lives? I try to correct bad, uninformed opinions about the military on the left as I find them.

      • 1mime says:

        A friend had sent this piece to me yesterday and it is a book to read – for all. People like JD Vance have a great deal of wisdom to share, if we would only take time to listen and learn. I believe this is one book I’ll purchase for my “library”…goodness knows when I’ll get to read it, but it will go “on the stack”! I will go back and read the comments which I didn’t do the first read. Thanks for pointing that out, Fly.

  40. formdib says:

    Today is officially the day the moonbats and the wingnuts are indistinguishable.

    Seriously, I literally can’t tell the difference between a bitchy progressive who has now somehow replaced BernieorBust with HillaryforPrison, with the paranoid conservative who says the same.

    Today Breitbart ran a pro-Bernie op ed and progressives shared a Breitbart documentary called Clinton Cash on YouTube. There is no difference between the extreme left and the extreme right.

    What’s funny about all that is that they claim they can’t tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

    Horseshoe theory of politics represent.

    • Griffin says:

      Except the “extreme left” doesn’t have any real power, apart from the power to get Donald Trump elected.

      Interesting article from Jonathan Chait that Sanders supporters might not be as far-left or unwinnable as people think they are:

      But I do know the kinds of people you’re talking about. They are on my Facebook feed and are terribly annoying.

    • marciecallan says:

      I have a few friends of the extreme left persuasion, as prone to conspiracy theories and the Politics of Crazy as my wingnut conservative friends and family. Neither side sees the gray in the complex world we live in, tending instead toward surface-level black and white thinking.

      The main difference I see, and I think it is significant, is that the crazies on the left are calling for things such as more access to education, universal health care, and equal justice. The way they want to go about it may be silly or impractical in our country, but the goals themselves are valid.

      At this point, it’s hard to tell what my extreme right-wing friends stand for. I’m surrounded by them, so I’ll try hard to get some cogent thoughts from them to post here. Lacking specifics at this point, the best I can come up with is that they are all afraid that America as they knew it has changed, and they are rebelling against this sense of lack of national identity.

      • 1mime says:

        Thank God that the America the far right laments passing is doing just that. A better, fairer world awaits if the people of America make the right selection for President. If not, your ultra conservative circle may linger a few more years in bigotry and zealotry. I don’t want to see America regress, but move forward.

  41. 1mime says:

    Now Lifer, not fair to make new post during the DNC convention (-;

    • flypusher says:

      Sen. Booker is on fire! He’s taking the short-fingered vulgarian to task for all his rude behavior.

      • 1mime says:

        Watching. The speaker who most impressed me was the young disabled lady. Powerful, brave moving speech.

      • 1mime says:

        Michelle is tearing it up! Eat your heart out, Melania!

      • flypusher says:

        Good, they dragged off that rude BernieBro. STFU when Sen Warren is talking, you jerk!

      • He really distinguished him as a rising star in the Democratic Party. Wonder if he’ll run for president in 2024?

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Booker has a good bit of political baggage, and I suspect that is going to keep him out of the highest offices, despite some public appeal. His time in Newark was really not all that good, and his insider ties and donors won’t play well with the Sanders/Warren wing of the party.

        He’s great on TV, but I’d be shocked to see him seriously considered for President.

      • 1mime says:

        Booker is better Senator/Governor material.

      • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

        “Booker has a good bit of political baggage, and I suspect that is going to keep him out of the highest offices, despite some public appeal. His time in Newark was really not all that good, and his insider ties and donors won’t play well with the Sanders/Warren wing of the party.”

        “He’s great on TV, but I’d be shocked to see him seriously considered for President.”

        To Houston-Stay-at-Homer:

        Um, are you watching the same election as I am? You do know Trump is running for president. And yet somehow Booker is beyond the pale?

        At least he hasn’t thrown shade on the looks of a political opponent’s wife, then accuse that same opponent’s husband of being complicit in the assassination of JFK. Or say he only likes military veterans who avoid capture during war.

        I am not trying to be over critical, I am just merely confused in general how the same people who said Obama is not qualified for the highest office in the land and then go endorse Trump, or someone like Sarah Palin for the presidency.

        All I am saying is Booker may be just fine…

      • flypusher says:

        ” I am not trying to be over critical, I am just merely confused in general how the same people who said Obama is not qualified for the highest office in the land and then go endorse Trump, or someone like Sarah Palin for the presidency.”

        It’s Political Jitterbug. The partisan, hypocritical dance craze that have been all the rage in political circles for decades. There are only two basic steps 1) They do it= bad, 2) We do it=good. Improvise your moves on the details.

        One of the things about this election that has me dismayed is how Trump is lowering so many bars: for behavior, for character, for relevant experience, for substance.

        And seriously Homer, can any dirt on Booker compare to the mound of toxic waste that is on Trump?

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        While certainly fair that Booker is not Trump, nor anywhere close to Trump, Booker would not be running for President as a Republican. He would be running as a Democrat.

        You had people last night crying on TV because of Bernie and saying Hillary’s insider ties made her unfit to be President. Booker is going to have no appeal to those people (of course, many of those people are lost causes at this point).

        If the Democrats do move left, Booker is not going to pass any political purity tests.

        He’s funny, personable, engaging, and smart. I like the guy. I just don’t think he’s going to be President.

        While the Democrat’s convention contains 10 times the political star power as the GOP convention, I feel like the Democrats are going to run into a talent vacuum of young governors and congresspeople. The GOP running up the score board at the state and congressional levels gives them a broad bench (it may not be deep, but it is broad). The Democrats may not have as much to pull from.

        Of course, Bill Clinton generally came out of no where, and were it not for a relatively tawdry sex scandal, Obama certainly wouldn’t have won the Presidency in 2008, so who knows what political fortunes are in the wind after the Trump presidency.

      • 1mime says:

        Whoooo, Homer, “what” tawdry sex scandal are you referring to that allowed Obama to win the Presidency in 2008? As I recall, it was more like the bonkers VP selection that helped O get past the hurdles of the election. What am I missing?

      • 1mime says:

        Homer, about Booker, I gotta admit, the man is light years finer than Trump. The future in the Democratic Party is looking brighter with the emerging younger pool of talent. Now that DWS is not controlling things, hopefully we’ll see more young stars shine. This is going to be one of the good things to come from the Bernie revolution. He is continuing to support this effort by encouraging these young people to seek office. Of course they will need time to mellow a bit but that fire when combined with intelligence will spark the Democratic Party.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        In 2004, Obama won his senate seat replacing a retiring Republican. The thought at the time was that the GOP candidate, Jack Ryan, was likely to win that seat.

        However, Ryan’s divorce and custody documents were unsealed in a horrible bit of American politics. It was/is almost unprecedented that they were made public, and in those documents, there were allegations that he was pressuring his ex-wife into some sexual activities she was not comfy with.

        Ryan ended up dropping out of the race that summer, and Obama won pretty easily. It is certainly possible that Obama would have won anyway, but Ryan was favored at the time.

        It is wild to think that Obama, a mere four years later, would be elected President. Had he lost that Senate election, no way he becomes President in 2009.

      • 1mime says:

        Thanks for the clarification, Homer. I wasn’t delving deeply enough in O’s political career. Thought you were referring to the presidential race.

      • flypusher says:

        Wasn’t the ex-wife the one who played recovering Borg 7of9 on Star Trek Voyager?? (Yeah, I’m a nerd).

        Plenty of strange twists and turns in politics, even before this year.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        She was (and probably will always be in my mind) 7 or 9.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        So flummoxed that it caused a typo….7 of 9

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: