Cleveland, Day Two
We are now halfway through the Republican National Convention, and I still have yet to hear a single policy proposal or thing that the Republicans or Donald Trump are for. Well, maybe that's a slight exaggeration, but not by much.
Before I get to reviewing Day Two, we've got to first take a look back at the aftermath of Day One. Because I do try to be fair-minded about things, yesterday I wrote about Melania Trump's speech:
Melania Trump, in all fairness, was impressive. She's never given a speech longer than a minute or so out on the campaign trail, so she was a real unknown quantity before tonight. Her English is heavily accented, but she delivered her lines almost flawlessly. She knew when to pause and flash a smile, her cadence was actually pretty good (for someone not used to public speaking or TelePrompTers), and she spoke about her personal story and her husband in ways the public simply hasn't heard before. She even gave gracious nods to all the other Republican candidates, and to Bob Dole (the only living Republican presidential nominee who showed up tonight).
I didn't have any expectations for what to expect from Trump's wife, but I have to say she gave a very good impression with her speech tonight. Her job was to humanize her husband, and I don't know if she achieved that or not with the public at large, but she certainly gave it her best shot. And her best shot was better than many political speeches heard throughout the evening, so my guess is that pundits on both sides of the aisle are going to give her some deserved credit for her speech.
Looks like I spoke too soon. The credit, it turns out, was undeserved, or perhaps "unmentioned" or "uncited." Melania had previously said in an interview that she had written her whole speech herself, with only minimal help from any campaign staff. This turned out to be a rather inconvenient lie when the plagiarism of Michelle Obama's 2008 convention speech came to light. The Trump campaign's reaction was pure Trump -- deny everything, accuse the media of making it all up, and then (very reluctantly) blame it on unnamed staff. Which proved Melania wasn't telling the truth about writing it, by the way.
Yes, the GOP convention is turning out to be nothing more than Amateur Hour, folks. Which brings us to today's events. Early on in the day, Paul Ryan opened up the roll call of state delegates, on a day which was billed as being about jobs and the economy (today's slogan was supposed to be "Make America Work Again"). Instead, virtually the entire day was devoted to bashing Hillary Clinton. A few speakers bravely tried to stick to the subject of jobs, but they were few and far between.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. First we had the roll call. We had Jeff Sessions officially nominate Trump, and then Chris Collins and Henry McMaster second the motion. Collins gave a "they took our jobs!" style speech, and McMaster did have the best opening joke I've heard yet: "I asked my wife if in her wildest dreams she ever saw me nominating Donald Trump at the Republican convention and she told me that she was sorry to tell me that I never appear in her wildest dreams." Corny, but delivered well, I have to say.
We then got to the alphabetical roll call of states, complete with bragging about all the home-state sports teams, no matter how humble or obscure (Missouri and Kansas both tried to claim the Kansas City Royals, an amusing moment). Minnesota gave a shout-out to Prince, which was surprising but kind of nice, and Ohio seemed extremely pleased to award all its votes to John Kasich. One uncomfortable moment was when Corey Lewandowski spoke for the New Hampshire delegation, and I could have sworn the Nevada delegation bragged about their "capital city" of Las Vegas. Um... wonder what the delegate from Carson City thought about that. Michigan, for unexplained reasons known only to them, passed on their chance for state boosterism.
New York, of course, got the honor of putting Trump "over the top" in delegates, and the surprise was that Donald Trump Jr. was the one who got to cast the clinching votes. This was fairly well-staged, I have to admit, and I wonder how many times a son has done this for a father in American history. His "We love you, Dad" seemed heartfelt, and was the high point of the roll call.
Just before the show was supposed to get underway, Alaska demanded a recount of their delegation, which was due to an obscure disagreement about how delegates are officially awarded. So for the first five or ten minutes of the main portion of Day Two, what viewers got was a lot of disarray and people wondering what the heck was going on. Not the best optics to open with. But eventually Paul Ryan read off the final vote tally, with Trump at over 1,700 votes, all the way down to Rand Paul with two votes, and Jeb Bush with a grand total of three. Reportedly Bush spent $150 million on his campaign, which translates to $50 million per convention delegate -- possibly the worst "return on investment" in American political history. Mitch McConnell then came on and got everyone to unanimously agree to Mike Pence as the vice-presidential nominee.
Finally, we got the start of the evening lineup, with Sharon Day, who is co-chair of the Republican National Committee. She set the tone for the entire night, by bashing both Clintons as hard as possible, right off the bat. Also, Benghazi. Lots and lots and lots of Benghazi. I'd never seen Day speak before, but she did a fairly good job as rabble-rouser, which was obviously her role this evening.
The first bizarre guest of the night was Dana White, who started off with "I'm sure most of you are wondering 'what are you doing here?'" which was entirely correct. I was wondering precisely that, in fact. White told a personal story about Donald Trump helping him out when he took over the ultimate fighting organization he heads, which was one of the few times the purported theme of the evening was adhered to. He gave a sort of macho, shouty performance, but (oddly) a fairly cheerful and happy macho, shouty performance.
Next up was Asa Hutchinson, who got things back to the real theme of the evening, Hillary-bashing. In fact, my notes for the next two speakers (Leslie Rutledge and Mike Mukasey) were almost identical: "Hillary-bashing, more Hillary-bashing, Benghazi, and life under Clinton would be an absolute Hell on Earth." Mukasey at least managed to stay dignified and calm throughout his Hillary-bashing, something most of the other speakers didn't bother with.
Andy Wist was next, who also had a pretty good opening joke, explaining who he was: "Some said I was Batman -- that was Adam West, idiot." Wist was another of the rare speakers who stuck to the "Make America Work Again" theme, and talked entirely about economics and jobs. I don't think he even mentioned Hillary's name, in fact.
Ron Johnson was up next, and returned to Hillary-bashing with a vengeance. Liar! Benghazi! Radical Islamic terrorism! Johnson actually managed to work in a plug for his own tight Senate re-election race, something no other politician pulled off.
A National Rifle Association lobbyist was next, and I probably don't even have to tell you what his subject was. If you guessed "Hillary is going to personally take away everyone's guns," then you deserve a prize!
We then got a professional woman golfer, who was obviously included as "women's outreach," and she too bravely (and quite perkily) talked about economics and jobs and how wonderful Trump would be for both.
Trump himself then appeared by video, and he mostly stuck to his script, thanking everyone for his nomination briefly. This was the top of the second hour, I should mention, because the scheduling for the evening turned out to be almost as bad as the fiasco at the end of Day One. Again, I have no idea who is making the scheduling decisions, but they obviously aren't doing all that great a job (more Amateur Hour stuff, in other words). Conventions only get one hour's coverage a night from the broadcast networks, and once again Trump squandered at least half of it. Speakers came on in Hour Two who should have been in prime time, and vice versa.
Mitch McConnell arrived on stage after Trump's video, and a few boos were heard before he even got going. McConnell jumped on board the Hillary-bashing express, tossing out stuff that others hadn't even mentioned. Here are my notes for the start of his speech: "Liar! Benghazi! Sniper fire! Her own name! Flip-flopper! Baghdad Bob! Liar!" McConnell then bizarrely went on to tout the Republican Senate's record of getting pretty much nothing done for the past year and a half. He even shamelessly tried to place the blame for Senate inaction on the Zika virus crisis (going on six months now, with no funding to fight it) on Democrats. McConnell really tried making lemonade out of the lemons of his dismal leadership record, but it was pretty unconvincing to me. Dan Sullivan of Alaska then followed up (with a bunch of other GOP senators on stage) with an "aw, shucks, ain't the Senate great" sort of address that also went nowhere fast.
Paul Ryan then reappeared to give his own speech. He really should have gotten to speak in primetime, but he had to settle for rambling on for a long time on subjects the crowd truly didn't care much about (like poverty, for instance). He was also attempting some lemonade-making skills, asserting that GOP arguments show "signs of life" in the party. Um, OK, Paul... sure, whatever you say. The noticeable thing about Ryan's speech was how much crowd noise there was -- not in a good way (like applause), but rather in a "let's chat about stuff because this speaker is boring everyone to tears" kind of way. Even the applause lines barely woke anyone in the room up.
Kevin McCarthy then appeared, straight from Central Casting, to give the most generic partisan "Republicans good, Democrats bad" speech of the night. I mean, seriously, this speech could have been used at just about any GOP function in just about any decade. Thankfully, he at least kept it short.
Chris Christie was the real loser of the night, however, because he gave the most rousing and exciting speech all night -- before the primetime hour even started. He spent about one sentence talking up Trump before lighting into Hillary like a buzz saw for the rest of his speech. He sounded natural, well-paced, and he excited the crowd the way no other speaker tonight managed. His call-and-response ("Guilty... or not guilty?") thrilled the delegates, who also broke into "lock her up!" chants multiple times while Christie was speaking. Christie's speech could have been described as his "I want to be attorney general" audition, but snark aside he was the most dynamic and crowd-friendly speaker of the entire night. His takedown of Hillary was more detailed and more substantial than anyone else's -- on a night with many people vying for that prize -- and he certainly deserved a primetime slot. Just one more scheduling screwup we can chalk up to Team Trump.
Just before primetime began, the first Trump offspring took the stage. Tiffany Trump hasn't been heard from much in the campaign, but I thought she actually did a fairly good job for an amateur speaker. She was chirpy and upbeat, and she did a better job of humanizing her father than Melania managed the previous evening.
This brought us to the top of the primetime hour, which began with a Trump employee (who runs his Trump wine business). I guess this was supposed to highlight the whole economic message, and maybe it might have -- if any of the networks had shown her speech. Instead, they were all doing their analysis, and so her big moment was seen by only a few (who were watching the RNC live feed instead of television).
Out of six speakers during the big hour, only two really deserved to be there. The first of these was Donald Trump Junior, who I found to be insufferably smug, but then that's my reaction to many of his ilk and should be chalked up to my own bias. To be fair to Junior, he is an accomplished speaker. His speech flowed effortlessly in a manner even many professional politicians didn't manage tonight. He sounded natural and relaxed, in fact, and did an even better job than Tiffany of talking up his dad. Towards the end, he had to indulge himself in a bit of the old "Benghazi!" and Hillary-bashing, but for the most part his speech was a solid hit both with the delegates and the television audience. Isn't this the Trump kid who will take over Daddy's business empire if he wins? You can see why. In fact, he seems more on the ball than his own father, in many ways.
Next up was yet another mis-scheduled speaker, Shelly Moore Capito. The senator from West Virginia gave a dull snoozer of a speech, in which she blamed Barack Obama -- at seemingly endless length -- for all the problems with the coal industry. Maybe this is why so many speakers ignored the theme of the night, because economics is, essentially, pretty boring stuff. She did (finally) finish on a high note, but it was the only one during her speech.
Next came a real surprise star of the night -- Ben Carson. Not "sleepy, heavy-lidded Ben Carson" but rather "awake and energetic Ben Carson." No, really! You could see his eyes and everything! I'm being snarky, but Carson was clearly the most exciting speaker of the night -- the only person I've yet seen (other than Trump himself) who got a full-on standing ovation when he walked on stage. He even joked about it, as the first words out of his mouth were "Don't eat up my time!" when the crowd refused to stop wildly applauding.
Carson did fire up the crowd, but my guess is that this speech will be the one the late-night comedians zero in on tonight. Carson not only took the whole Hillary-bashing thing to another level, he threw in Saul Alinsky and essentially equated Hillary Clinton with Lucifer. He managed to imply that all Democrats were simultaneously secular and Satanists (say that three time fast, I dare you!).
The crowd absolutely ate it up, I should mention.
I was left wondering: if Carson had been half this animated on the campaign trail or during the debates, who knows how far he might have gotten? His energy level was higher than I've ever seen from Carson, and he absolutely had the crowd eating out of the palm of his hand. He also kept his remarks fairly short, so nobody got tired of hearing him speak.
But, once again, this is where the speechifying should have ended. Carson fires crowd up, drops microphone, walks off stage, show's over folks. That's the way it should have gone, but didn't. Instead we got two more people speaking who nobody cared about in the slightest, a soap opera actress and a bizarre prayer by a leader of "American Muslims for Trump." People had already streamed out the exits, though, so few actually listened to either of them. Once again, the evening ended with some political malpractice in the scheduling department, although nowhere near as bad as Day One's fiasco. At least they managed to end on time tonight, instead of running 40 minutes over. But why close with two uninspiring nobodies, after a rousing star's speech? It boggles the mind.
So that was it for the second day of the Republican convention. All day long the story was Melania's plagiarism (and the Trump campaign's ham-fisted reaction to it), and then we got an hours-long Hillary-bashing-fest. I suppose that's par for the course of a political convention, but again I am left wondering exactly what was supposed to convince any wavering voter out there that Donald Trump and the Republican Party has any sort of ideas or positive plans for the future. The only speaker who even attempted to answer this glaring lack was Paul Ryan, and the audience fell asleep during his speech. I'd be willing to bet a lot of Quatloos that next week the Democrats will have a showcase of positive plans for the future in their first two days, rather than just trying to convince America how awful the other party is. Maybe that's just me, though. We'll see if they get around to any of this in the next two days, but so far the Republicans seem most interested in convincing people to vote against Hillary rather than for Trump.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
How did the audience react when the "American Muslims for Trump" guy was introduced? I guess that is one way of making sure your name goes on a watch-list!
inally, we got the start of the evening lineup, with Sharon Day, who is co-chair of the Republican National Committee. She set the tone for the entire night, by bashing both Clintons as hard as possible, right off the bat. Also, Benghazi. Lots and lots and lots of Benghazi. I'd never seen Day speak before, but she did a fairly good job as rabble-rouser, which was obviously her role this evening.
In other words, she laid out the truth about the Clintons.. A rapist and a crook...
A National Rifle Association lobbyist was next, and I probably don't even have to tell you what his subject was. If you guessed "Hillary is going to personally take away everyone's guns," then you deserve a prize!
The point that it's a fact doesn't even warrant a mention?? :D
We then got a professional woman golfer, who was obviously included as "women's outreach," and she too bravely (and quite perkily) talked about economics and jobs and how wonderful Trump would be for both.
Again, dead on ballz accurate...
Again, I have no idea who is making the scheduling decisions, but they obviously aren't doing all that great a job (more Amateur Hour stuff, in other words). Conventions only get one hour's coverage a night from the broadcast networks, and once again Trump squandered at least half of it. Speakers came on in Hour Two who should have been in prime time, and vice versa.
So what??? Yea, yea, Democrats will probably put on a great show to tell everyone how awesome they are..
Democrats are good at that...
But when it comes to actually GOVERNING???
Well, the polls are clear on that..
Democrats SUCK at that...
The vast majority of Americans don't care about a glitzy show.. They want jobs. They want a good economy. They want to be safe from terrorism and illegal immigrant rapists and murderers...
Trump will do all that for Americans..
Crooked Hillary will do just the opposite.. Kill jobs... Kill the economy... Kill Americans... She has proven beyond ANY doubt that she is good at killing Americans..
The senator from West Virginia gave a dull snoozer of a speech, in which she blamed Barack Obama -- at seemingly endless length -- for all the problems with the coal industry.
Again, just the facts.... Just the facts...
Carson not only took the whole Hillary-bashing thing to another level, he threw in Saul Alinsky and essentially equated Hillary Clinton with Lucifer.
How dare he!!!
Oh wait.. That's what ya'all do with Trump on a daily, sometimes hourly basis...
Com'on.... :D
I'd be willing to bet a lot of Quatloos that next week the Democrats will have a showcase of positive plans for the future in their first two days, rather than just trying to convince America how awful the other party is.
I am going to hold you to that bet... :D
So that was it for the second day of the Republican convention. All day long the story was Melania's plagiarism
You DO realize that Biden had to bow out of an election because of plagiarism, right??
You DO realize that Obama plagiaris'ed like hell in a couple speeches, right??
Seriously, slamming Melania for plagiarizing?? That's like slamming the Trump campaign for dishonesty..
One should clean one's own house first, eh?
I'm just sayin....
You go on and on about how it's not a good show and scheduling and such..
You don't get it.. It wasn't about putting on a show for the American people...
Michale
Listen,
How did the audience react when the "American Muslims for Trump" guy was introduced? I guess that is one way of making sure your name goes on a watch-list!
You seem to be saying that, if an American speaks out in support of Trump, the Odum.... Obama (caught myself there.. :D ) Administration will use all the power of the government to harass that American...
Yep.... You called it...
Michale
Well, it's official..
Donald Trump is the GOP nominee for POTUS...
I will pause while a chorus of You were right, Michale. We were wrong.. is rendered from the peanut gallery..
...........
Well, it's a nice dream.. :D
We should also officially agree that betting markets and Nate Silver should NEVER be quoted as a source for predictions until the day AFTER the election... Of course, they will join Karl Rove in that category.. :D
Michale
Dammit!!
My timing just really REALLY sucks... :D
Election Update: Clinton’s Lead Is As Safe As Kerry’s Was In 2004
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-lead-is-as-safe-as-kerrys-was-in-2004/
But, as I am wont to do, I have to give credit where credit is due...
Nate asks the EXACT same question that I have asked for the last couple days.. A question, I point out, that NO ONE has been able to answer...
I’ve nevertheless detected a lot of consternation among Clinton voters: Why isn’t her position safer? There’s really about a 35 or 40 percent chance that Trump will become president?
Joshua, maybe you can fill Nate in on that whatsawhosits answer you gave me yesterday.. :D
But the question remains...
If Trump is so bad and Hillary is so good, WHY is the election so close??
There are 2 possibilities and 2 possibilities ONLY...
Either the entirety of the Left Wingery is full of crap when they say that Trump is bad personified....
Or the entirety of the Left Wingery is full of crap when they say how good Crooked Hillary is....
Which is it???
Michale
There are 2 possibilities and 2 possibilities ONLY...
"There are two possibilities. They are unable to answer. They are unwilling to answer."
-Captain Spock, STAR TREK V, The Undiscovered Country
:D
Michale
Poor Melanomia. She seemed content playing the silent Robert Palmer chick in the background and now she's been exposed as a typical immigrant thief. It would be ideal if she took personal responsibility for using common words in exactly the same order that the Antichrist's trans-wife used in her speech, but it's unlikely that the short-fingered orange vulgarian will allow that. She'll never recover her good reputation as a third trophy wife. Now she's just an unrepentant thug. Lock her up!
Poor Melanomia.
"Sigh"
-Hillary Clinton
:D
She seemed content playing the silent Robert Palmer chick in the background and now she's been exposed as a typical immigrant thief.
Ahhhh So in JFC's eyes all immigrants are thieves...
"Well, it's nice to finally have you out of the closet.."
-SecState Arthur Curry, THE FINAL OPTION
It would be ideal if she took personal responsibility for using common words in exactly the same order that the Antichrist's trans-wife used in her speech, but it's unlikely that the short-fingered orange vulgarian will allow that. She'll never recover her good reputation as a third trophy wife. Now she's just an unrepentant thug. Lock her up!
Dood!! Put down the crack pipe... Yer killin' yer brain cells and you don't have any to spare!!!
Michale
Some people say that cops and Jesus only care about stealing if you steal from white people, but I've always been under the impression that Mr Christ was not a hater.
Law and order for thee, but not for me.
As an aside...
http://www.imdb.com/comic-con/quizzes/qz4279236773?pf_rd_m=A2FGELUUNOQJNL&pf_rd_p=2559848302&pf_rd_r=0X4A699V1QJV6E6G6SDD&pf_rd_s=center-4&pf_rd_t=57801&pf_rd_i=quiz&ref_=ccn_ccn_ccn_ss_qz_cap_pri_2
Here's another Trek Quiz... 10 for 10, 3,350 points. :D
Michale
Law and order for thee, but not for me.
You are the LAST person to complain about law and order.. Your Party routinely beautifies scumbags and thugs and demonizes LEOs...
but I've always been under the impression that Mr Christ was not a hater.
Unlike you and your Demcorat Party.... :^/
Michale
CW-
What's it like outside the convention? How tight is the the security cordon? What's going on at the fringe? Have you had any time to experience Cleveland's eateries and drinkeries? Have been to the lake? It's very green this year but walleye are plentiful, or at least they were last week!
Wright State U. in Dayton (well, strictly speaking, in Fairborn) has just bowed out of hosting one of the Prez TV Debates. Security issues were cited as the driving factor, but costs of hosting the event were exploding and it was't clear where the money was going to come from/how bad was this going to look? The university administration was catching a lot of flak about the whole affair. So, job security of the administrators was one of the major security issues.
What's it like outside the convention? How tight is the the security cordon? What's going on at the fringe? Have you had any time to experience Cleveland's eateries and drinkeries? Have been to the lake? It's very green this year but walleye are plentiful, or at least they were last week!
Uh... you DO know that CW is not at the GOP convention, right???
Remember... REAL world.. Facts... That's what rules..
Security issues were cited as the driving factor,
So, is it fear mongering or is it not fear mongering?? :^/
Michale
Oh, too bad that, I thought he must have wrangled credentials. Too much to hope for I guess. Extra points to CW for detailed reporting by means of video live feed.
Oh, too bad that, I thought he must have wrangled credentials. Too much to hope for I guess. Extra points to CW for detailed reporting by means of video live feed.
Yea.. I think he made both conventions in 2008 or 2012...
I think this year he applied for the GOP convention press credentials but the evil GOP'ers (no sarcasm there) denied them...
Thank you for the rational and mature response. I apologize (BLUE MOON!!!) for my immature and smart-ass comments...
Michale
Don,
The left is correct when they say Trump is bad and wrong when they say Hillary is good.
Agreed...
With very few exceptions, if you vote for either side from every office from president on down then you are voting for the corporations and against the people.
I disagree... Trump isn't beholden to those corporations like Crooked Hillary is...
Trump is beholden to NO ONE except the people who will vote him into office...
This is less impossible than the possibility at this point in 2015 that Trump could be the Republican nominee and that Hillary would need all of the rigged system to defeat Bernie.
After all, this is the anti-establishment election.
It is, indeed.. And as such, the winner is pre-ordained..
About the only way that Hillary can win is to have Bubba knocked off and then ride the sympathy vote...
And that wouldn't surprise me a bit if it happened...
Michale
Joshua, maybe you can fill Nate in on that whatsawhosits answer you gave me yesterday.. :D
i believe i said something about predicting the outcome of presidential elections in july being an example of blowing smoke out one's rectum.
But the question remains...
If Trump is so bad and Hillary is so good, WHY is the election so close??
There are 2 possibilities and 2 possibilities ONLY..
incorrect on both counts. the flaw in your logic is that it rests on the ad populum fallacy, the mistaken idea that something can be accurate simply because many or most people believe it.
at least logically speaking, hillary may be great or awful and donald may be great or awful, completely irrespective of their poll numbers.
JL
@don,
"You're fooling yourself" (STYX)
i couldn't have said it better. either donald or hillary will be the next president, make your peace with that.
JL
incorrect on both counts. the flaw in your logic is that it rests on the ad populum fallacy, the mistaken idea that something can be accurate simply because many or most people believe it.
Yea.. THAT's the argument I was talking about.. :D
Michale
i believe i said something about predicting the outcome of presidential elections in july being an example of blowing smoke out one's rectum.
I have already made the offer that I will forge GE polls if everyone else will.. :D
Michale
Until ya'all decide..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Crooked Hillary continues her free-fall :D
Michale
on top of which, that's not even what pelosi was doing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html
whoops, that belonged in yesterday's column. ah well, might as well continue here. fox took a quote out of context and made it out to mean something completely different from what was intended. the house and senate were fighting over different versions of the same bill.
So, your "proof" is Pelosi's BS claims???
"Who are you going to believe?? ME or the facts??"
-Nancy Pelosi
:D
She has a bigger partisan filter than all of ya'all put together... :D
Michale
from the article:
“the outside groups...were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on.
i.e. the quote referred to two different versions. the subtext of the quote was, "if the senate doesn't pass a bill too, there's no point discussing what's in the house bill."
therefore, even if a legislator refusing to discuss a law were "IDENTICAL" to a candidate refusing to discuss himself (which it isn't), your comparison and your accusations of hypocrisy don't hold water.
- Are you sure?
I'm positive.
~my cousin vinny
i.e. the quote referred to two different versions. the subtext of the quote was, "if the senate doesn't pass a bill too, there's no point discussing what's in the house bill."
No, that's the SPIN after the fact..
If THAT is what Pelosi had meant, she would have said "**THEY** have to pass it before we can know what's in it.."
But she didn't say that... She said **We** have to pass it.....
Your argument is identical to LD's argument when he was trying to claim that Obama DIDN'T lie about the health care legislation..
But your spin is as week and un-factual as his was...
But I'll give you credit.. That was some pretty fancy tap-dancing.. :D
Michale
@michale,
you're really going to argue over the meaning of the word "we" - the context doesn't change because you want "we" to mean just the house rather than the house and senate together. the quote was still taken during reconciliation, still taken out of context, still not about a final version because the senate hadn't brought anything out yet. your argument is fallacious and currently delving even deeper into the abyss of wishful thinking.
JL
Joshua,
http://sjfm.us/temp/HillaryHero.jpg
I'll wear it this Saturday and give you access to the cams to confirm.. :D
After Saturday, I am going to mark out HERO and write in BIATCH :D hehehehe
Michale
nypoet22 [20][21]: couldn't have said it better myself.
fox took a quote out of context and made it out to mean something completely different from what was intended.
It's what they do. Other than groping the newswomen, of course.
It's interesting to me that, while establishment republicans are either incognito or running for the hills, the righty media establishment is all-in for Trump. Now, that's not surprising to me, because righty media seems to be what comprises Trump's entire data set on policy matters, so of course the two are sympatico.
Part of Trump's power is his ability to make the cameras swing in his direction. He accomplishes this by emphasizing hot-button issues that the media can't resist, or is talking about already.
Whether he does this deliberately, or whether it's a by-product of his 'unique' media bubble, it is a clever end-run around the usual candidate's problem of how to get his/her issues into the media. When you think about it, even his media-bashing is something the media can't resist discussing, so it's a go-to when things get dull.
The downside for Trump is that the media can go sideways on him, as it has several times in the last month or so. He believes himself to be good at damage control; he'd better be, because he's in the ring with the Grand Master and current reigning champion of damage control.
So this could end like Rocky I...
The downside for Trump is that the media can go sideways on him, as it has several times in the last month or so.
Another TRUMP IS TOAST prediction... This is wha??? The 20th??? 22nd???
It's what they do. Other than groping the newswomen, of course.
And attacking people without ANY supporting facts is what ya'all do....
Michale
@32,
lookin' GOOD!
;)
JL
Michale wrote:
You might want to actually cite MORE of the article Michale, rather than just ONLY what seems to support your position, SUCH AS:
"The flip side is that the recent polls could just as easily prove to be a low-water mark for Clinton. Conventions have oftentimes helped the incumbent party’s candidate. One of the biggest turnarounds came in 1988, when Michael Dukakis, the upstart winner of the Democratic nomination, held a lead of 6 or 7 percentage points going into the conventions. But a well-staged Republican convention in New Orleans helped to unify the GOP and highlight the successes of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, and Bush eventually won by a landslide.
What’s relatively safe to say is that we’ll know a lot more in a month or so.
But Clinton remains ahead of Trump in the clear majority of polls. She leads by about the same margin that Barack Obama did heading into the conventions in 2008, and by a somewhat larger margin than Obama did in 2012."
"If Trump is so bad and Hillary is so good, WHY is the election so close??"
In other words, if Clinton and the Democrats have a REALLY GOOD well run convention, it might just PERMANENTLY cement Hillary's lead over Trump going into the election. THAT'S THE POINT of the article YOU cited.
And attacking people without ANY supporting facts is what ya'all do....
So, suddenly you're interested in facts. Try this:
Yesterday, Ann Coulter joined a growing number of women who have accused Ailes of impropriety. When told details of accusations being made by Fox host Megyn Kelly, who joined a growing list of women accusing Ailes, which includes former anchor Gretchen Carlson and a half-dozen others, Coulter said, "Oh boy, I have better details than that, from every woman who has ever been employed by Fox, which I have not."
Coulter added, "So that means he’s definitely out, by the way."
JM,
You might want to actually cite MORE of the article Michale, rather than just ONLY what seems to support your position, SUCH AS:
Ahhhh So, you slam me for cherry picking the parts of the article that supports my position...
And then you turn around and do the EXACT same thing?? :D
In other words, if Clinton and the Democrats have a REALLY GOOD well run convention, it might just PERMANENTLY cement Hillary's lead over Trump going into the election. THAT'S THE POINT of the article YOU cited.
And if the dog hadn't stopped, he would have caught the rabbit...
If Hillary keels over from a black black heart attack, then her numbers might go up as well...
If it happens, I'll be glad to concede the point..
When it DOESN'T happen, will you answer the question?? :D
Michale
Yep. Ailes is already negotiating his Golden Parachute. Jeez, that's an uncommon option: 1) harass employees, 2) get big cash bonus and severance package.
Not the sort of deal he'd have offered to Bill Clinton, eh?
So, suddenly you're interested in facts. Try this:
I am ALWAYS interested in facts..
Unlike ya'all who only want facts when it is ideologically advantageous to have them..
Take your sudden love of Ann Coulter right now...
Ya'all have called her every name in the book, including "bitch" if I am not mistaken..
But now that she says what you want to hear, all of the sudden her words are gospel??
You want to know Megyn Kelly's (another one ya'all have attacked in the past) idea of "sexual harassment"???
A hug she didn't like 10 years ago..
If Kelly had made that accusation against Joe Biden or Hussein Odumbo, ya'all would have laughed your asses off. And I would have joined you...
But, because it's ideologically advantageous to treat Coulter and Kelly as the goddesses of facts, ya'all fall all over yerselves to do so...
And ya'all REALLY believe that ya'all's ideology doesn't color EVERYTHING ya'all say and do???
REALLY??? :D
Michale
Not the sort of deal he'd have offered to Bill Clinton, eh?
Let's see.. Bill Clinton RAPED women and sexually assaulted women..
Ailes gave Kelly a hug she didn't like a decade ago..
And ya'all slam *ME* for false equivalencies???
Jesus h christ!!!
Michale
Ailes gave Kelly a hug she didn't like a decade ago..
And Kelly was SOOO broken up about this "sexual harassment" that she latched onto Ailes as a mentor to further her career..
And now, it furthers her career to bring up decade old news..
And YA'ALL lap it up because your ideological filter demands it...
Again... jesus h christ!!!
Michale
lookin' GOOD!
;)
"Lookin' good, Lewis.."
"Feelin' good, Billy Ray"
-Trading Places
:D
Michale
Balthasar,
Yesterday, Ann Coulter joined a growing number of women who have accused Ailes of impropriety. When told details of accusations being made by Fox host Megyn Kelly, who joined a growing list of women accusing Ailes, which includes former anchor Gretchen Carlson and a half-dozen others, Coulter said, "Oh boy, I have better details than that, from every woman who has ever been employed by Fox, which I have not."
As usual your "facts" really aren't...
Coulter never claimed to be sexually harassed by Ailes.. She claims to have heard from someone(s) who has...
Third-person hearsay from someone the Left Wingery has vilified 6 ways from Sunday...
But NOW.....
NOW that she is saying what you want to hear, all of the sudden, her words have the golden squeek of truth, justice and the American way....
Ideological filter strikes again..
Michale
Let's see.. Bill Clinton RAPED women and sexually assaulted women..
False. None of those allegations ever stood up, and they've been litigated in the media for twenty years. What we do know for sure about are a few fleeting sexual encounters initiated by an intern, or as Maher puts it: 'prison sex'.
Ailes gave Kelly a hug she didn't like a decade ago..
That's Ailes' spin. The truth is: "Sources tell New York that Kelly has described Ailes' actions 'in detail', but her remarks have not been made public."
Truth is, Coulter's right, it's over. Murdock's sons have made it clear that Ailes is out by Aug. 1, unless he wants to face firing for cause, an option he seems inclined to take.
False. None of those allegations ever stood up, and they've been litigated in the media for twenty years.
Bullshit...
They ALL stood up just fine.... The ONLY problem was that Clinton has a -D after his name....
Clinton is no different than Bill Cosby....
Let's face the facts.... You only care about sexual harassment when it's committed by someone with a -R after their name...
You'll ignore rape and sexual harassment and sexual assault when it comes from someone with a -D after their name..
These are the facts...
Ailes gave Kelly a hug she didn't like a decade ago..
That's Ailes' spin.
Actually, that's Kelly's statement..
But, like I said.. You don't care about the facts...
Truth is, Coulter's right, it's over. Murdock's sons have made it clear that Ailes is out by Aug. 1, unless he wants to face firing for cause, an option he seems inclined to take.
So???
I know, I know.. Yer all excited over this and you can barely contain the glee...
But honestly, who really cares??
It's not as if Ailes was responsible for the deaths of Americans or anything...
Michale
If Kelly had made that accusation against Joe Biden or Hussein Odumbo, ya'all would have laughed your asses off. And I would have joined you...
But, because it's ideologically advantageous to treat Coulter and Kelly as the goddesses of facts, ya'all fall all over yerselves to do so...
And ya'all REALLY believe that ya'all's ideology doesn't color EVERYTHING ya'all say and do???
REALLY??? :D
Just in case ya missed that one, Balthasar.. :D
Michale
Oh, hey, I just realized it's "moon day", the anniversary of the first walk on the moon.
So happy Moonday, everyone.
That even goes for Trump supporters, who might be celebrating "the day we faked the moon landing" day.
That even goes for Trump supporters, who might be celebrating "the day we faked the moon landing" day.
And this is what passes for "serious" discussions??
:^/
The sad thing is, ya'all actually BELIEVE this crap ya'all spew...
Michale
If Kelly had made that accusation against Joe Biden or Hussein Odumbo, ya'all would have laughed your asses off.
You know why? Because they are men of good reputation and character, as Ailes is not. For the record, I'd be just as skeptical if accusations of this sort were made against, say, George Will, or any of the Bush's.
because it's ideologically advantageous to treat Coulter and Kelly as the goddesses of facts, ya'all fall all over yerselves to do so...
I could fill a hundred posts with all of the things on which I disagree with Ann Coulter, but in this case I have to take her motives into account: she has no reason to lie about the stories she's heard about Ailes, as he's likely to be a potential employer someday.
As for Kelly, she had even more to lose by coming forward, being involved currently in contract negotiations with Fox. In the end, it looks like the Murdochs decided that she was the more credible witness in this affair as well.
That even goes for Trump supporters, who might be celebrating "the day we faked the moon landing" day.
As opposed to Democrats who believe that Bush and the MOSSAD planned and executed 9/11....
Like I said... Partisan ideology colors EVERYTHING ya'all say and do.... :^/
Michale
You know why? Because they are men of good reputation and character,
No, they are men who have a '-D' after their name...
That is your ONLY consideration...
as Ailes is not.
And you only believe that because Ailes has a -R after his name...
Partisan ideology colors EVERYTHING...
I could fill a hundred posts with all of the things on which I disagree with Ann Coulter, but in this case.....
She says what I want to hear so I trust her implicitly...
:^/
Michale
And this is what passes for "serious" discussions?
Says the guy who posted a link to a Star Trek quiz.
As opposed to Democrats who believe that Bush and the MOSSAD planned and executed 9/11....
Betcha twenty quatloos that you can't find a link to an elected democrat making that accusation.
And you only believe that because Ailes has a -R after his name...
And the Murdochs? What's their ideological angle?
Says the guy who posted a link to a Star Trek quiz.
At least my link wasn't hurtful to fellow Americans....
You cannot make the same claim...
That's the difference that makes all the difference...
But you can get away with it because everyone else has the same firmware in their ideological filters that you have in yours....
:^/
Michale
At least my link wasn't hurtful to fellow Americans.
Nor was mine, unless a harmless joke directed at Trump supporters' apparent willingness to buy into conspiracy theories is considered 'harmful'.
Nonsense. Grow a skin.
At least my link wasn't hurtful to fellow Americans....
You cannot make the same claim...
But that doesn't matter because they are just Trump supporters and don't deserve any kind of consideration whatsoever....
:^/
Michale
Nor was mine, unless a harmless joke directed at Trump supporters' apparent willingness to buy into conspiracy theories is considered 'harmful'.
And if I had said "harmful" you would have an argument..
But... Well, you know the rest...
Is civility, respect and tolerance too much to ask???
Apparently, it is...
Fine, whatever.....
Michale
But that doesn't matter because they are just Trump supporters and don't deserve any kind of consideration whatsoever..
Okay, let's compare that to some of the things you've said about Hillary supporters TODAY, eh?
The sensitivity and consideration is palpable:
Your Party routinely beautifies scumbags and thugs and demonizes LEOs...
And attacking people without ANY supporting facts is what ya'all do....
Unlike ya'all who only want facts when it is ideologically advantageous to have them..
Let's face the facts.... You only care about sexual harassment when it's committed by someone with a -R after their name...
You'll ignore rape and sexual harassment and sexual assault when it comes from someone with a -D after their name..
The sad thing is, ya'all actually BELIEVE this crap ya'all spew...
And NONE of what I said was directed at Crooked Hillary supporters..
The were specifically directed to Party leadership in the case of the first one and Weigantians in a couple and you specifically in the rest.....
I have NEVER attacked Crooked Hillary supporters *JUST* because they were Crooked Hillary supporters...
Ya'all cannot make the same claim...
But, like I said. Whatever...
You'll believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts... Always having to correct ya'all with the facts is becoming tiresome...
Michale
And if I had said "harmful" you would have an argument..
That's right, you said "hurtful". Who was hurt, again, exactly? Trump supporters that believe the moon landing is a hoax? I'd bet my cat that the number of Trump supporters who believe that is higher than it is among Democrats.
That's right, you said "hurtful".
Thank you for that concession that I was right and you were wrong...
Who was hurt, again, exactly?
Who gets hurt if I say ALL Crooked Hillary supporters are racist scumbags???
Trump supporters that believe the moon landing is a hoax? I'd bet my cat that the number of Trump supporters who believe that is higher than it is among Democrats.
Just like I would bet my dog that the number of Crooked Hillary supporters who believe that 9/11 was an inside job is a lot higher than the number of Trump supporters who believe that...
It's one of those facts that, while being entirely accurate, has absolutely NO bearing on the discussion at hand...
"Are we done??"
-Todd, STARGATE: ATLANTIS, The Last Man
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Ahhhh So, you slam me for cherry picking the parts of the article that supports my position...
And then you turn around and do the EXACT same thing?? :D"
Actually NOT. Since the WHOLE thrust of the article was discussing Hillary Clinton's lead in the polls and the question of how firm it was, AND was NOT about how her lead was slipping away and how she was losing to Trump.
Now, if I HAD cherry picked something out about Hillary's lead in an article that was in fact about how poor her lead was and how it was dropping like a stone, you WOULD have a point.
But since I DIDN'T and that was NOT what the article was in fact discussing, YOU DON'T.
JM,
Whatever....
Michale
ListenWhenYouHear [1] -
There wasn't much of an audience left, to tell you the truth. Saw some news orgs are finally starting to notice the emptiness of the arena -- CBS showed comparison shots at the same time of night as the first two nights from GOP conventions past, and it was a stark difference. Trump can't even fill the arena! Although I expect tonight and tomorrow night will be better attended, to be fair.
Michale [2] -
You go on and on about how it's not a good show and scheduling and such..
You don't get it.. It wasn't about putting on a show for the American people...
But... but... Trump himself promised it'd be the best TV ever!
Heh.
Michale [4] -
OK, I'll give you credit, as long as you go back and read some of my articles from last July and August -- I also saw "Trump, nominee" as a serious reality long ago.
And I have to admit, you're right about Nate Silver. He screwed the pooch on the whole Trump thing, no doubt.
TheStig [13] -
Hey, I'm just watchin' on TV with everyone else... the RNC turned down my request for a press pass. I guess they read one of my articles, or something (heh).
Minor kerfluffle today with some communist org trying to burn a US flag. There's a good story in Salon about how the protesters are outnumbered by the press (salivating over the possibility of some violence), by like 2-to-1. I can look up the link if you need it, it's a good piece. Other than that, outside seems pretty darn calm.
I actually went to school pretty close to Wright State, here's my WS story: I blew it, and failed to get tickets to a surprise concert by the Talking Heads at WS for their homecoming, in the early 80s. David Byrne was an OH local, so he gave the local fans a very intimate concert (this was at the height of their fame, when they were filling stadiums). One of my biggest missed opportunities to see a band in my life...
:-)
Don Harris [16] -
I've been thinking of writing an article about how whoever wins will have the same problem as Bill Clinton did (which would be ironic if it's his wife) -- because the third-party voting will likely be quite high, it's almost guaranteed that whoever wins will have less than 50% of the popular vote, which will immediately lead to talk of "not having a true mandate." Maybe I'll write it after the conventions, seems a little gloomy during the two parties' parties.
Michale [17] -
Nope, didn't even apply for GOP press pass in 2012 -- never thought I'd get in to the Dems, let alone the GOP. But this year, the prospect for absolute chaos was so high I had to bite the bullet and try to convince them to let me in. Looks like they should have -- at least I'd be another warm body in the crowd for the cameras (something they've obviously been lacking... heh).
Don Harris [19] -
Oooo -- points for quoting a Styx song from Grand Illusion that is NOT "Come Sail Away"!
After watching Melania, I really should go look up the lyrics to "Miss America"... heh...
Michale [32] -
Hey, at least save a couple minutes of video or send me a photo or two -- I'll be traveling on Saturday!
Balthasar [33] -
What's that you say? Groping newswomen? Is there something going on at Fox News I should be aware of?
Heh. Been so focused on convention I've been largely ignoring this story, at least for the time being, but lo, how the mighty have fallen, eh?
John M [36] -
I won't be seriously paying attention to the polls until about a week or so after the Dem convention is over -- it takes time for any "bumps" to appear in actual polls.
Oh, teaser for column series: "Electoral Math" will begin again soon, folks!
:-)
Balthasar [48] -
Happy moonday indeed! One of my earliest memories, in fact.
Balthasar [53] -
Hey, watch it! Star Trek quizzes sound like fun to me... but then it's one of the few things me and Michale see eye-to-eye on (although we do have disagreements about the relative worth of TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise, I must admit).
OK, that's it for now everyone, gotta go watch the GOPfest once again...
Look for a late posting tonight.
-CW
Balthasar -
One last note on Star Trek. I think I wrote a whole article about this, or maybe it was just bantering with Michale in the comments, but here's proof ST is connected with today's politics:
If it wasn't for Seven Of Nine, we'd never have elected Barack Obama. Look up the details of Jeri Ryan's husband's fall from grace, and notice who got elected in his place.
:-)
-CW
Obama approval rating reaching 56%.
Per Plumline/WaPo -- in 3 major polls 65%+ see HRC as qualified to be President; even larger majorities see Donald Trump as unqualified to be President. Plenty of people who don't like HRC still see her has qualified.
Good.
Thinking about the crowds' hatred of Hillary Clinton, I can't help but be reminded of the story I learned in church of Jesus before Pontius Pilate. The people had accused Jesus of committing all sorts of criminal activities, but Pilate could not find any evidence that Jesus had done anything that warranted being put to death. He even went as far as invoking the practice of allowing the people to grant one person their life and their freedom in honor of the Jewish holiday of Passover. Pilate chose one of the most notorious criminals/murderers of the time, named Barabbas, to be one of the people he'd offer freedom, believing that surely the people would never allow Jesus to be killed and Barabbas to go free. But the people were whipped into a frenzy by those wanting Jesus dead, and they called for Barabbas to go free. Pilate responds famously by washing his hands as he ordered Jesus to be crucified. The people placed their favor on someone who definitely did not deserve it because they were caught up in the hatred of the moment.
Now let me be clear, if you think I am comparing Hillary Clinton to Jesus Christ, you are wrong -- something I am sure that you are used to hearing by now! The comparison is between the crowd attending the RNC and the one before Pilate, and the recognition that we are prone to make foolish choices when we allow hatred to override our ability to think!
[68] Yep.
if you think I am comparing Hillary Clinton to Jesus Christ, you are wrong
But are you comparing Trump to Barabbas?
;)
LWYH[68]: You are describing populism. We haven't had a populist leader in this country for so long we have forgotten what happens when a Mussolini-like "strongman" gets into power. Populism is scary - when the feelies outnumber the reality-based bad things happen. There is no arguing with the feelies. Facts and logic don't work with the feelies (cough cough). Feelies need "us" and "them" divides and they need to vilify and publicly punish "them". Just look at how easy it is to whip up the weirdos in Cleveland to call for Hillary's blood.
This is a seminal election. Fortunately Trump is losing support with college educated whites and all minorities (vs. Romney in 2012), which makes his support and turnout with non-college educated whites need to reach blow-out levels to win.
[71] Yep.
I read today that Romney is going to vote for Clinton. Don't know if true.
Trump wants to re-instate Glass-Steagall. Wow!
This is a Hail Mary designed to appeal to the Bernie voters, but probably will be too little to really make a difference. If it does start to impact the polls, I expect a backroom deal between Hillary and Wall St. to let Hillary trash Wall St. with a nod and a wink (it helps that Clinton has strong NY ties) - both know that no Republican house will pass a G-S-like law, especially if Hillary waits until she has really annoyed them over something else just before she introduces it.
G-S is poorly understood - by the time it was repealed in 1999 (by Bill Clinton - part of the reason Trump has targeted it) there were so many exemptions it was not operational anyway. It also would have done little, if anything, to address the 2008 crisis since it wasn't the FDIC insurance that prompted the bailouts but the counterparty interconnections that meant that there was a potential disastrous domino effect requiring a strong intervention to stop the toppling.
Cruz just failed to endorse Trump.
I was wrong about Cruz. I have new respect for him. I always thought that he was fake through and through. He's still creepy and insane, but I think his crazy is authentic.
So, Natasha dictates Mrs Obama's speech to a Trump organization peon and now they're throwing the peon under the bus? After days of blatantly, unconvincingly lying about playing the plagiarism card? Sad!
[76] The fact that they're not firing her makes me wonder if they paid her to take the fall. That's so out of character for Trump.
Cruz wasn't booed because he didn't endorse Mr. Trump. Was anyone really expecting a full-throated endorsement of Trump from Cruz!?
No, I think Cruz was booed when the audience there and watching on TV realized what precisely Ted Cruz was attempting to do with this golden opportunity to speak at the Republican convention.
When it dawned on everyone there that the point Cruz was hammering home is that he is the one who should have been the Republican nominee for president because it is he who is the standard bearer for conservative values and he who respects and defends the constitution.
It felt to me that when it became clear that Cruz's speech was nothing less than an extension of Cruz's presidential campaign may become one of the most historic moments in US convention history. At the very least, I think they'll be talking about this speech for a very long time.
Where does Cruz go with this? Third party run?
Trump didn't look too happy. Probably wishing he had sprung for the Cruz Control Package. I just had to sat that.
I think Cruz goes nowhere pleasant in the wake of that speech.
At least, I should say, nowhere pleasant in the political realm.
If I were him, I'd head for French Polynesia, a pleasant enough place for anyone to be ... :)
Cruz control package ... nice!
[75]. This was Cruz preparing for 2020. I have never seen a politician whose every move is so calculated and so obviously intended to improve his chances at becoming President the way that Cruz's are! He scares me far more than Trump does, because Cruz is very intelligent. Thank GOD he is so unlikeable!
[76] [77] The woman who took credit for the screw up doesn't work for Trump's campaign, she works for Trump's corporation. Her press release was written on corporate stationary. She offered to step down, she claims, but Trump declined her resignation. So it appears that Trump is now violating election laws by having corporate employees working on his campaign while on the clock.
Trump could actually wind up making money off of this election, and the GOP will go broke as a result! God only knows how much each of his children are being paid for their "expertise" in...... ummmm....what was it they were supposed to know how to do, again???...it doesn't matter, they are the greatest ever!
[70 -71]. neilm,
But are you comparing Trump to Barabbas?
Oh, you caught that one, did ya? Guilty!
Echo... Echo.... Echo..... Echo...... Echoo
:^/
Michale
I have never seen a politician whose every move is so calculated and so obviously intended to improve his chances at becoming President the way that Cruz's are!
If THAT doesn't prove beyond ANY doubt that partisan ideological filters are fully engaged around here...
NOTHING will....
Cruz is the most "calculating" politician ya'all have ever seen???
Cruz has been "calculating" for a few years now..
Crooked Bimbo Hillary has been "calculating" for over two DECADES!!
But, of course ya'all's partisan ideological filters won't allow you to see that, let alone acknowledge it..
Ya'all's PIFs are fully functional and engaged... Congrats...
Ya'all should be so proud of your lockstep slavery.. er.. loyalty to the Demcorat Party...
:^/
Michale
I had planned to take a few days away from Weigantia.. Take a break..
Recharge and rejuvenate, so to speak..
But, after reading the downright delusional and orgasmicly partisan rhetoric that passes for "serious" conversations and "common sense" discussions???
Well, it just became painfully obvious how much I am really needed around here...
So, no rest for the weary...
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends.. I am as constant as the northern star!!"
-General Chang, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country
Now if THAT's not a perfect set up for ya'all, NOTHING is!! :D
Michale
CW [66] -
Actually, I'm a huge Star Trek fan, and will be seeing the new movie tomorrow.
And I do remember that election, and how the Republicans were so anxious not to lose the seat that they flew in Alan Keys to oppose Obama. That was also a neat piece of luck, as Keys turned out to be a terrible candidate, and was viewed as a carpetbagger to boot.
Michale [88] - that's properly spelled: Orgasmically Partisan. As in: "During Christie's speech, the crowd became orgasmically partisan."
CW,
But... but... Trump himself promised it'd be the best TV ever!
Heh.
Exactly... But then Trump realized that what is most important here is to unify the GOP.. So he supplanted his own desires to serve the good of the many...
Whatta guy, that Trump, eh? :D
OK, I'll give you credit, as long as you go back and read some of my articles from last July and August -- I also saw "Trump, nominee" as a serious reality long ago.
You saw it before most, that is true.. Credit where credit is due.. But even as YOU saw it, everyone else here never did..
And, with the exception of you, has ANYONE else here acknowledged that they were wrong??
of course not.. Because their partisan ideological filters simply will NOT allow them to do so...
And I have to admit, you're right about Nate Silver. He screwed the pooch on the whole Trump thing, no doubt.
See!!!??? That is *EXACTLY* what I am talking about...
YOU can acknowledge the facts.. YOU can actually articulate the words, "Michale, you were right"...
NO ONE else here can do that..
Because their tongues would surely turn to fire if they EVER articulated such a heinous idea...
Liz said it perfectly and spoke for everyone when she said, "I never apologize" which is simply another way of saying, "We're never wrong" which, in turn can be extrapolated into, "Michale is never right"
Apprently, CW... You can actually turn OFF your PIF when warranted.. Congrats. :D
Hey, at least save a couple minutes of video or send me a photo or two -- I'll be traveling on Saturday!
Don't worry.. I'll make sure ya will be able to bask in my humiliation.. :D heh
What's that you say? Groping newswomen? Is there something going on at Fox News I should be aware of?
Heh. Been so focused on convention I've been largely ignoring this story, at least for the time being, but lo, how the mighty have fallen, eh?
There was no groping newswomen. That's just Balthasar's factually-challenged wet dream...
Supposedly Ailes propositioned one of the FoxNews bimbos and gave a hug to another FoxNews bimbos 10 years ago that said bimbo didn't like...
Of course, none of this is proven or factual.. And it's NOTHING compared to the rape, sexual assaults and sexual harassments done by Bill Clinton over the years..
But none of that matters to those who are ruled by their Partisan Ideological Filters... :^/
Michale
ey, watch it! Star Trek quizzes sound like fun to me... but then it's one of the few things me and Michale see eye-to-eye on
I know, right!!?? Woe is the ignorant who do not realize the importance of Trek....
(although we do have disagreements about the relative worth of TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise, I must admit).
TNG was mostly boring and tedious.. But I am biased because they stole a script from me..
Voyager was Trek LOST IN SPACE, but it grew on me and I came to like it a lot..
Enterprise was OK.. But Scott Bakula will ALWAYS be Dr Sam Beckett and doesn't do a starship captain very well...
But credit where credit is due.. X4
The story arc that explained why Klingons looked like humans in Kirk's time was BEAUTIFUL! I have never seen CANON adhered to so beautifully and seamlessly...
The story arc with Brent Spiner was some of the best story-telling on TV ever...
Any episode that has Commander Shran* in it was awesome..
And the Series finale.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXotJu1CapU
... was awesome.....
*The actor that plays Shran holds the record for most Star Trek aliens portrayed.. Jeffery Combs played a Ferengi, a Vorta, an Andorian, and an unknown alien spieces in Voyager... The previous record holder was Mark Leanard who portrayed all of Trek's major aliens, Klingon, Romulan and Vulcan.. Combs is one of the best actors in Hollywood and his filmography is impressive, to say the least. One of my favorite roles of his was in FRIGHTENERS with Michael J Fox.. :D
I am also constrained to point out that you didn't mention DS9, which I didn't like much when it was airing, but have binged watch the entire series once or twice and it grew on me. Avery Brooks form of acting is somewhat annoying. I think he was trying to channel HAWK too much... :D
Er.... Did you WANT to talk about Trek??
Or were you just making chit-chat?? :D
Michale
Michale [88] - that's properly spelled: Orgasmically Partisan. As in: "During Christie's speech, the crowd became orgasmically partisan."
I am in such a good mood, what with seeing once again how much I am needed around here, I'll forgo the obvious SPELLING LAME retort... :D
But, yes... The GOP is as orgasmically partisan as ya'all are...
Thereby proving once again, that there is no difference between GOP and DEMs.. Both are orgasmically enslaved by Party Dogma and have fully functional Partisan Ideological Filters... :D
Michale
Actually, I'm a huge Star Trek fan, and will be seeing the new movie tomorrow.
That's not Trek...
That's a pale Politically Correct BS lackadaisical corruption of true Trek...
Star Trek 90210..
It will likely kill the franchise...
And yes, I'll be watching it too... :D
Michale
But, enough about Trek.. Speaking of islamic terrorism..
When President Obama entered office, he dreamed that his hope-and-change messaging and his references to his familial Islamic roots would win over the Muslim world. The soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize laureate would make the U.S. liked in the Middle East. Then, terrorism would decrease.
But, as with his approach to racial relations, Obama's remedies proved worse than the original illness.
The new message of the Obama administration was that the Islamic world was understandably hostile because of what America had done rather than what it represented.
Accordingly, all mention of radical Islam, and even the word "terrorism," was airbrushed from the new administration's vocabulary. Words to describe terrorism or the fight against it were replaced by embarrassing euphemisms like "overseas contingency operations," "man-caused disaster" and "workplace violence."
In apology tours and mythological speeches, Obama exaggerated Islamic history as often as he critiqued America. He backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He pushed America away from Israel, appeased Iran, and tried to piggyback on the Arab Spring by bombing Libya. He even lectured Christians on their past pathologies dating back to the Crusades.
Yet Obama's outreach was still interpreted by Islamists as guilt and weakness to be exploited rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated. Terrorist attacks increased. Obama blamed them on a lack of gun control or generic "violent extremism."
Obama kept insisting that guns, not Islamic terrorists, were the real danger -- even as assassins used bombs from Boston to Paris, knives from California to Oklahoma, and, most recently, a truck to run over innocents in Nice, France.
Intelligence and law enforcement agencies got the message and worried more about charges of "Islamophobia" than preempting deadly terrorist attacks. Authorities had either interviewed and then ignored the Boston, Fort Hood, San Bernardino and Orlando terrorists, or they had blindly ignored their brazen social media threats.
Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West. America and Europe had welcomed in Muslim immigrants -- even as Christians were persecuted and driven out of the Middle East.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/21/the_dream_of_muslim_outreach_has_become_a_nightmare_131265.html
Yep....
Hussein Odumbo is a moron...
Michale
Okay, Michale, here's the (filter-friendly) link to the allegations, which actually go far beyond groping:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/07/six-more-women-allege-ailes-sexual-harassment.html
If there's really nothing to this, why is Ailes on his way out the door? Would Fox risk a sympathy walkout by O'Reilly and Hannity if they didn't think that (perhaps not-yet-public) allegations against Ailes wouldn't do even more harm to their brand?
And of course, the only defense you've offered is to diminish and degrade the accusers, which plays right into the narrative about the attitude of Righties toward women. It's a neat trap for Y'all:
the more you defend Ailes, the worse you look for it.
The desperate attempt to swing the conversation over to Bill Clinton only reminds people that the GOP tied the country up for TWO YEARS investigating every alleged Clinton peccadillo and came up with only Monica, and that was (very) consensual. As a result Clinton left office with a 75% approval rating. So, bring it.
And of course, the only defense you've offered is to diminish and degrade the accusers,
You mean, like you just did above with Clinton's accusers???
And you said your Filter was not engaged.. :D
Further, I haven't said anything about the FoxNews bimbos that ya'all in the Left Wingery haven't said many MANY times over...
So, please.. Spare me the faux-righteous indignation.. It's blatantly obvious bull carp...
The desperate attempt to swing the conversation over to Bill Clinton only reminds people that the GOP tied the country up for TWO YEARS investigating every alleged Clinton peccadillo and came up with only Monica, and that was (very) consensual.
It's still workplace sexual harassment..
At least, it would be if Clinton didn't have a -D after his name..
Face the facts, Balthasar.. Your defense of Clinton and his rapes and sexual assaults gives you absolutely NO MORAL leg to stand on vis a vis the Ailes issue..
NO... MORAL... FOUNDATION....
This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to deflect the fact that Hillary's numbers are dropping like a stone...
I understand your desperation, I really do...
But a spade is still a spade.. A hoe is still a hoe...
Michale
Paula,
[76] The fact that they're not firing her makes me wonder if they paid her to take the fall. That's so out of character for Trump.
Yer just attacking the poor employee because she is a woman and she is black... :^/
Michale
Re: [95] "Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West", must be one of the most laughably incorrect statements I've ever read. After that, I couldn't even read any further.
I haven't said anything about the FoxNews bimbos that ya'all in the Left Wingery haven't said many MANY times over...
That's it. Keep callin' them bimbos. The soccer moms will just love it.
It's still workplace sexual harassment..
I remember Lindsay Graham trying to explain to his fellow Republicans back during the impeachment why what Clinton did couldn't be termed 'workplace sexual harassment'. It didn't go over very well in a room full of party zealots, some of whom (we know now), had a very broad interpretation of that particular statute when it came to their own behavior. For his part, Graham was more fixated on describing Lewinsky, who was 23 at the time, as a much younger person, so that he could portray Clinton as a molester. By comparison, Taylor Swift has been winning awards for writing about the men she's slept with for over half a decade, and right now she's only 26.
This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to deflect the fact that Hillary's numbers are dropping like a stone...
Blah, blah, blah, blah, 'Convention Bump', blah, blah, blah, September.
That was also a neat piece of luck, as Keys turned out to be a terrible candidate, and was viewed as a carpetbagger to boot.
Yea, what kinda sick twisted idiotic contemptible moron would move to a state, SOLELY to run for office in that state..
"Hillary Clinton Moves To New York To Run For Senate"
Oh... wait.. :D
Yer making this WAY too easy for me.. :D
Michale
Re: [95] "Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West", must be one of the most laughably incorrect statements I've ever read. After that, I couldn't even read any further.
OK.. Fine...
What legitimate grievance does radical islam have against the West??
Put up, concede the point or shut up...
I remember Lindsay Graham trying to explain to his fellow Republicans back during the impeachment why what Clinton did couldn't be termed 'workplace sexual harassment'. It didn't go over very well in a room full of party zealots, some of whom (we know now), had a very broad interpretation of that particular statute when it came to their own behavior. For his part, Graham was more fixated on describing Lewinsky, who was 23 at the time, as a much younger person, so that he could portray Clinton as a molester. By comparison, Taylor Swift has been winning awards for writing about the men she's slept with for over half a decade, and right now she's only 26.
blaa blaa blaaa.. None of that changes the fact that your defense of the serial sexual harasser Bill Clinton proves you have absolutely NO MORAL foundation to condemn Ailes...
NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA......
Michale
laa blaa blaaa.. None of that changes the fact that your defense of the serial sexual harasser Bill Clinton proves you have absolutely NO MORAL foundation to condemn Ailes...
In other words, Clinton is everything you accuse Ailes of and so much worse.. Clinton is the Democrat's Bill Cosby...
But you can't admit that even though it's dead on ballz factually accurate....
Michale
Oh wait, Balthasar!!
I think I found your "legitimate grievances" from radical islam..
Pro-Al Qaeda jihadis are issuing a series of directives ahead of next month’s Olympics urging their followers to carry out so-called 'lone wolf' attacks at the Rio Games, according to material obtained by The Foreign Desk.
In a list published on social media, jihadis are advised to target American, British, French and Israeli athletes with the notion that “One small knife attack against Americans/Israelis in these places will have bigger media effect than any other attacks anywhere else in sha Allah.”
“Your chance to take part in the global Jihad is here! Your chance to be a martyr is here!” the jihadis said, citing the easy process of obtaining visas for travel to Brazil as well as the wide availability of guns in “crime-ridden slums.”
Israeli athletes are further singled out.
“From amongst the worst enemies, the most famous enemies for general Muslims is to attack Israelis. As general Muslims all agree to it and it causes more popularity for the Mujahideen amongst the Muslims,” they state.
http://www.foreigndesknews.com/world/middle-east/pro-al-qaeda-group-calls-target-olympics-emphasizes-attacks-u-s-france-israel-u-k-athletes/
Yer weird....
Michale
That's it. Keep callin' them bimbos. The soccer moms will just love it.
It's what the Left Wingery calls them...
Double standard much??? :D
Face it, this is a losing debate for you...
The Left Wingery has demonized and vilified Kelly and Carlson six thousand ways from sunday...
Now that they are saying what you want to hear??
Yer BFFFLs...
Hypocrisy much??
Michale
What legitimate grievance does radical Islam have against the West?
You're misreading the sentence. It said Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West (in context: from their perspective). Never? Religious zealots never criticized the crusades, or the legitimization of Israel, or the six-day war, or the partitioning of the Middle East by (mostly) Britain, or the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran, or the West's support for dictators in the region, and on, and on, and on?
None of that changes the fact that your defense of the serial sexual harasser Bill Clinton proves you have absolutely NO MORAL foundation to condemn Ailes.
Well, apparently, the Murdochs believe that a moral foundation isn't needed, just a quick reading of Ailes' contract. I don't have to condemn Ailes. He's out already.
"Oh my god and the quarterback is toast!"
- Die Hard
You're misreading the sentence. It said Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West (in context: from their perspective). Never? Religious zealots never criticized the crusades, or the legitimization of Israel, or the six-day war, or the partitioning of the Middle East by (mostly) Britain, or the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran, or the West's support for dictators in the region, and on, and on, and on?
You had to go back to the CRUSADES!!!????? Odumbo, is that you!!??? :D
I'll let that little piece of idiocy stand on it's own (lack of) merits...
Well, apparently, the Murdochs believe that a moral foundation isn't needed, just a quick reading of Ailes' contract. I don't have to condemn Ailes. He's out already.
Well, at least we agree you have no moral foundation..
And I'll end this little commentary thread as I started it..
So what???
Who cares??
The ONLY reason YOU care is because your Partisan Ideological Filter that controls you DEMANDS you attack and vilify ANYTHING and ANYONE with a -R after their name.. EVEN if it means you jump into bed with someone with a -R after their name...
:D
Michale
"AND THE QUARTERBACK IS TOAST!!!"
-Theo, DIE HARD
:D
Michale
EVEN if it means you jump into bed with someone with a -R after their name...
Hey, I represent that remark. Unlike Trump, I'll reach out to an unlikely ally any chance I can. Then, with permission, I can start fondling.
You had to go back to the CRUSADES!?
They certainly do. In any case, I've yet to see a real scholar of war who advises ignoring your enemy's reasons for fighting, even if you don't yourself agree on their legitimacy.
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
– Sun Tzu
Hey, I represent that remark. Unlike Trump, I'll reach out to an unlikely ally any chance I can. Then, with permission, I can start fondling.
hehehehehehehe OK, now THAT was funny.. Far surpasses my 'wet dream' crack.. :D
They certainly do. In any case, I've yet to see a real scholar of war who advises ignoring your enemy's reasons for fighting, even if you don't yourself agree on their legitimacy.
So, let me see if I understand you..
YOU are saying that ISIS and Al Qaeda are committing their atrocities BECAUSE OF THE CRUSADES!??
And you are further saying that it's LEGITIMATE??
Well..... OKAAAY.....
Michale
Hey, I represent that remark. Unlike Trump, I'll reach out to an unlikely ally any chance I can.
And then turn around and demonize and vilify them when they say something you don't agree with..
How is this NOT hypocrisy???
Michale
YOU are saying that ISIS and Al Qaeda are committing their atrocities BECAUSE OF THE CRUSADES!??
And you are further saying that it's LEGITIMATE?
No, again, the question is, do THEY think it's legitimate? The Crusades is one of dozens of reasons they think they have to believe what they believe. The original statement implied that Muslims have NEVER had a grievance against the West that THEY'VE considered valid, until dreamy-eyed Obama came along and encouraged them to make up reasons to attack us. That's just such utter nonsense as to make this conversation a waste of blog space.
And then turn around and demonize and vilify them when they say something you don't agree with.. How is this NOT hypocrisy?
Hey, I used to call it marriage.
No, again, the question is, do THEY think it's legitimate?
OK.. So, extrapolating your claim to the here and now...
Because the GOP believe they are legitimate, that gives their position validity???
The original statement implied that Muslims have NEVER had a grievance against the West that THEY'VE considered valid,
That may be YOUR spin on the original statement, but that wasn't the original statement..
The original statement was Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West.
And that is a true and factual statement..
The point of the article is Odumbo was dreaming when he thought he could just make nice with terrorists and they would cease their terrorism..
He has been proven WRONG... INCOMPETENTLY wrong at EVERY turn...
Hey, I used to call it marriage.
Sorry ta hear that... Sincerely...
Michale
The point of the article is Odumbo was dreaming when he thought he could just make nice with terrorists and they would cease their terrorism..
He has been proven WRONG... INCOMPETENTLY wrong at EVERY turn...
Now... DO you want to address the POINT of the article??
Or do you just want to nibble and quibble around the periphery because you CAN'T address the main point??
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Cruz is the most "calculating" politician ya'all have ever seen???
Cruz has been "calculating" for a few years now..
Crooked Bimbo Hillary has been "calculating" for over two DECADES!!
But, of course ya'all's partisan ideological filters won't allow you to see that, let alone acknowledge it.."
Actually Michale, this is again one of the few times where I do in fact agree with you. Though not about using the term Bimbo obviously. Bimbo denotes a stupid, empty headed brutish individual who is mainly concerned with enhancing their own superficial physical attributes. Hillary may be many things, but unintelligent and lacking in shrewdness is certainly not one of them.
In any case, both Clintons and Cruz are all extremely calculating individuals as politicians. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just makes them very competent at what they do, in this case, being politicians. Something that Trump is very obviously not. Trump forte is in an entirely different realm.
If anyone could be called a bimbo, it is Trump. Something again, that he is very good at. Use as many terms as you like; reality star, narcissist, publicity seeker, self centered, someone who revels in his own ignorance and doesn't really care or even get the fact of how ignorant he is, (by ignorant I mean lacking in intellectual knowledge, not stupid) with a total lack of self control and the attention span of a mosquito, unless the subject is about himself, etc.
Definitely not in the same sphere or league as the calculating, intelligent, controlled, Machiavellian individuals that Cruz and Clinton are. Which is what would make them powerful effective Presidents if they got power. Something Trump would certainly not be.
Also, please notice I did not necessarily say "good" as in the good, moral, Disney like things they would do to better humanity. I am not quite THAT naive. I would also way more agree with what Clinton would try to accomplish, and oppose most of what Cruz would stand for. But that does not mean I could not appreciate the obvious level of skill at least of either one.
I probably won't be seeing it tomorrow. I have to save up my pennies to be able to go. But I too will be seeing the new Star Trek, ASAP. :-D
Also, have you heard? They have already confirmed officially that there is in fact, yet a 4th Star Trek movie with Chris Pine and cast in the works.
Oh, and as far as our bet is concerned, I will have to stick with quatloos instead of a t-shirt for now, as much fun as that would be. It's either the t-shirt or the new Trek movie, and Trek won out. :-D
Actually Michale, this is again one of the few times where I do in fact agree with you.
Now, hold on a sec, can't you just..... huh??? OH... er... thanx.. :D
Though not about using the term Bimbo obviously. Bimbo denotes a stupid, empty headed brutish individual who is mainly concerned with enhancing their own superficial physical attributes. Hillary may be many things, but unintelligent and lacking in shrewdness is certainly not one of them.
Fair enough...
:D
Also, have you heard? They have already confirmed officially that there is in fact, yet a 4th Star Trek movie with Chris Pine and cast in the works.
Yes, I heard that.. I also heard they are going to be bringing back Kirk's father, George...
Not sure how they'll do that little piece... :D
Ever read the George Kirk novel FINAL FRONTIER??
I highly recommend it if you haven't...
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Yes, I heard that.. I also heard they are going to be bringing back Kirk's father, George...
Not sure how they'll do that little piece... :D"
Yes, with Chris Hemsworth playing him again. That will be very interesting, since aren't Pine and Hemsworth about the same age?
Also, I don't know if I will be able to stand seeing that much good looking manhood on the screen together at the same time. :-D
RUPERT MURDOCH: AILES STEPS DOWN FROM FOXNEWS; STAYS ON AS CONSULTANT TO 21ST CENTURY UNTIL 2018
heheheheheehehehehehehehehehehehe :D
Michale