Guest Author -- Mrs. Chris Weigant's Democratic Convention Thoughts For An Irish Audience
What follows is a submission my lovely wife made to the Irish Times, for a blog they run which deals with ex-patriot (or "expat") themes for Irish people who have moved outside of the Republic of Ireland. Four years ago, they ran a report she wrote from the 2012 Democratic National Convention, but due to logistics we are able to run it here before they actually get it. Call it nepotism if you will, we're just glad to get it before it even goes to the presses.
The audience for such an article is a bit different than the articles we usually run here at ChrisWeigant.com, so please keep that in mind while reading it. Certain things need explanation which are taken for granted here, just to point out one aspect of this difference. In any case, we are proud to present the following article from "Mrs. Chris Weigant," as she is known here.
-- Chris Weigant
I am an Irish and American woman reporting from the 2016 Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. I say I am Irish and American because I am an Irish citizen who is now an American citizen too. I have noticed a theme in recent blogs posted to the Irish Times' Generation Emigration blog. Many fellow expats are wondering if they are still really Irish, given they have lived outside of Ireland for many years and in some cases longer than they lived in Ireland. I too have been thinking that I am losing my connection to my native land. The recent Irish elections that did not have a clear majority, and then the Brexit results, have opened up even more questions than the votes sought to resolve. I am now trying not to get too excited about the possibility of seeing a united Ireland in my lifetime.
This US election cycle stands out as being one of equal importance. Identity seems to be the theme for the two major American political parties. I would go so far as to say that both the Republican and the Democratic parties are going through their own identity crises as they struggle to unite their members. At the same time, they are both trying to expand their parties' base of voters.
Successfully building a bigger tent, though, does not mean that everyone is going to get along. Those already in the tent have taken the best spots. The newcomers have to find their own space, join an existing faction, or try to take someone else's spot.
Here at the Democratic convention, Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters have demonstrated that they are not mindless followers. They are also not of one mind as to why they are supporting the senator from Vermont. As we have seen over the past two days of the Democratic convention, starting a political revolution is similar to waking the "sleeping lion" -- which must always be done very carefully.
Having a two-party rather than a multi-party system makes it difficult for factions to compromise. Independent (or "third") parties have all of the election rules and laws stacked against them, and they have to struggle to get on the ballot in all 50 states. In the US system you cannot share power because there is no sharing of the presidency, which means that someone is always left out and a "loser" in the eyes of many here in America. The "Bernie-or-Bust" faction does not want to give up because they are afraid their issues may not be prioritized by the Democratic Party (or their candidate, Hillary Clinton), but they also know the Republicans will just completely ignore them.
To me this highlights the need to change the state laws around national elections, or to change federal law. I'm surprised that none of the various action groups are talking about this. There is a lot of talk at the convention about showing respect to the speakers by not booing or heckling them. I actually think this is free speech in action, and if it makes us feel uncomfortable, then that is a small price to pay for living in a democratic society. The goal (in my opinion) of these actions is to inconvenience the speaker and to draw attention to the issues. My concern is that the protesters are not doing that very well. Rather they are using insulting slogans that detract from their various causes. When you ask them to talk about why they are marching and demonstrating, they are mostly unclear about their goals. I think this is a missed opportunity for them to advocate for and advance their issues.
I think perhaps because many of these activists are young and new to politics, they are carried away by their emotions and find it difficult to see the bigger picture. Others have never been political or disaffected, but have found a cause worth risking disappointment. Nothing less than the future of this country as a democracy -- in which all have equal opportunities to participate -- is in the balance.
Donald Trump has succeeded in taking over the Republican Party and many Republicans are struggling to adjust to the changes in their party identity. While Bernie Sanders did not become the Democratic candidate, he did succeed in making substantial changes to the Democratic Party platform. The American political system functions best when people and factions compromise to get things done. But before that can happen, there must be vibrant debates that include disagreement over the direction of party and country. I cannot think of a better forum for these discussions to take place than the party conventions.
Even though there is no absentee voting for Irish citizens, what happens in Ireland and Europe is very important to me. I will always be Irish, but now I am American too. I spent many years not being able to vote in either country and once it became clear to me that I had made my life in America, I became an American citizen. The right to vote has been hard-won and it is the responsibility and civic duty of every citizen to exercise that right by being an active, informed citizen and by voting your conscience. Americans are now in the process of figuring out who they are and who they want to lead them into the next generation.
-- Mrs. Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Welcome Mrs. Chris Weigant, and thank you for the thought provoking article! It was interesting to hear from someone who is a naturalized citizen addressing the people from her homeland, and gaining insight on how others view our country and our elections. I have to say that I strongly agree with most of what you said.
The one area of disagreement would be regarding whether or not the protesting and interrupting of a speaker is a persuasive technique for winning over people's support for a cause. I think it hurts the position you are championing because it instantly causes people to feel angered by the disruption and less likely to form an opinion based on logic and more likely to cause their opinion to be based on negative emotions. It's rude, and most people do not respond positively to rudeness! Why should anyone care to listen to what you have say if you refuse to show them the same courtesy and allow them to speak? This is "basic human interactions 101", which is why I have never understood why people believe it does anything but close minds that probably weren't very open to start with!
I have to agree with Russ.
Shouting down a speaker, in any context, is extremely rude and reflects very poorly on the protesters.
I liked them better when they had tape over their mouths. :)
It would help if the Bernie hold-outs could be clear about what they want. TPP is specific -- the rest is basically "we hate Hillary because reasons" and "we were robbed". The two latter points make them seem like misinformed sore-losers, not principled activists.
Excellent commentary. I agree with much of the view expressed that there does need to be robust debate on the issues not only within each party, but as a country as a whole.
I have to admit that the protesting and heckling of the speakers, while rude, showed freedom of speech in full action and if one paid attention to those moments it really brought to the fore many of the issues that the Sanders supporters feel have not been sufficiently addressed and should be taken as a big signal that more work needs to be done. After all is not the point of protest to call attention to a subject that needs addressing?
I for one, found the spirited displays a refreshing change from the RNC and only shows that the DNC is a more open and inviting environment for discussion.
I agree with the need for some fundamental changes to our electoral system. Perhaps it is the Journalism degree and growing up in a journalism house and radio station that colors me here... but one of the most basic and fundamental changes needs to be a redefinition of "news programs" and strong enforcement of the 1974 equal time regulations.
With the rise of 24 hour "news channels" delivering "news" via what they call "commentary shows" they have been allowed to effectively alter and shape the political landscape for the betterment of their bottom line without accurately reporting all of the sides of an issue or what each candidate running has to offer. I for one find this to be , to say the least, unsatisfactory and an abdication of the 4th estates duty to ensure a well informed electorate.
One has to wonder what our current political landscape would look like if the equal time doctrines had been better enforced. Would Stein and Johnson be polling high enough to be on the stage at the debates? Would be have different nominees for the DEMS and GOP? What would our national political discourse look like, would we be more divided and angry or would we see more compromise? Would our executive and legislative branches actually get stuff done?
Unfortunately, as long as the media continues in it's current mode we will never know.
it really brought to the fore many of the issues that the Sanders supporters feel have not been sufficiently addressed and should be taken as a big signal that more work needs to be done.
Have these die-hard Bernie supporters even read the Democratic Party Platform? Everyone knows that more work needs to be done - time to start working together to restart the work!
Unfortunately, as long as the media continues in it's current mode we will never know.
You may have that backwards.
Or, do you think the media will change on its own? No, the people are going to have to change their media viewing a habits and make their displeasure known.
Good Trickle: agreed, media has fallen down on the job. End of Fairness doctrine, media consolidation and corporate ownership of outlets, News operations becoming profit centers versus supported for the public good, rise of "view from nowhere" and "false equivalency" approaches -- all have resulted in major media functioning as conduits for messages rather than watchdogs. In all of this the Republican media machine has been perfectly positioned to poison our discourse and create an electorate that no longer knows who to trust.
Elizabeth: Reversing all of this will require work on several fronts. Making our displeasure known is only the beginning.
... a beginning which has not yet begun, based on the cable news ratings ...
An ex-patriot in someone who is no longer patriotic. A person who resides outside the country they're a citizen of is called an expatriate.
EM-6
I think I have it right... I do agree with you that media will not change on it's own but at the same time given the lack of impact that we the people have upon the system by expressing our displeasure is going to require a major house cleaning in the down ballot races replacing the status quo with people who not only recognize getting the big money out of politics as a must but also ones that realize that holding corporations who receive subsidies from the government (hence US) need to live up to their obligations. The media is one of those benefactors, they receive our public resource "the airwaves" and very protected space to sell print at very low rates and receive large tax breaks in exchange for "educating and informing" the electorate. Something they currently are failing miserably at.
As to consumption, I have to remain well informed not just on politics but on the happenings around the world to be effective at my job. Prior to the explosion of 24 hour "news" channels and media becoming a for profit endeavor owned by large multi-nationals. That task used to be easier and was easier to filter out the bullshit and get to the truth. Now....it sucks, I have to visit mainstream media sites ( WSJ, Bloomberg, NY times, LA times...ect, ect...) and then hit the major news aggregator sites ( huffpo, breitbart, Kos, Druge) and that is all before I hit the international sites. I remember when news was news and commentary was commentary and ner the twain shall meet. Now I have to read multiple articles, figure out the most common of facts discard the inserted commentary and somehow set my needle in the middle. It is time for news to be news again, IMHO.
If the regulations currently on the books were to be enforced, we would easily see the difference between the "infotainment" we receive now and real news... and that can onlhy be healthier for all...
Paula 7-
At the risk of channeling Michale...
I would point out that the Democrats are also in on the game of media manipulation. Both parties have their media arms and both promote a lopsided view of the other that prevents true and honest discourse.
Back in high school, our discourse used to be that you could have a more civil debate over a subject using the same news article that was actual news presenting both sides of an issue in a impartial fashion.
Today, we have a completely fractured discourse where more often than not someone will mention one "infotainment" network or site and the other side discounts the information immediately because it did not come from their " infotainment" site of choice. As a result of this fractured system and a lack of impartial equal time reporting it is virtually impossible to reach compromise in our public discourse that used to be achievable when everyone could discuss a subject from the same page (literally).
The breakdown of not only the public discourse but the DEM and GOP weaponization of the media has given the main legislative branch of our government cover to not compromise on anything and not have to worry about the consequences of their actions. Whereas back when fairness doctrine and impartiality were par for the course congress lacked that cover so more things got done.
That's not to say that the media is solely to blame for the sorry state of congress but....where there is a lack of sunshine, shady things will happen.
[11] Goode trickle: There is no comparison between the media machines on the right and the left. Both parties have their media arms and both promote a lopsided view of the other that prevents true and honest discourse. That is an example of false equivalency.
FOX offers 24/7 conservative/republican spin, disinformation, misinformation and outright falsehoods. It connects to Drudge, Brietbart and other outlets and together they all release the same talking points, amplifying them and repeating them constantly. Talk radio is also dominated by conservative/republican hate jocks and shock jocks who also disseminate rightwing talking points. When ANYTHING happens within literally minutes you will see/hear the same messaging, often literally word for word, coming out via FOX, talk radio and online. These same talking points, stories, etc. are also used constantly by Republican politicians.
On the left there are definitely partisan outlets like DailyKOS. There are some lefty radio shows scattered around. And there are lots of media outlets that claim to be non-partisan but which, in fact, lean one way or the other.
MSNBC played around with being a progressive cable channel for a period of time. It is pulling back from that now. But even at it's height these outlets have avoided the kind of outright lying that FOX and rightwing media present and have been presenting for years. You can quibble over the occasional slant of a story but for the most part the kinds of left-Democratic-oriented outlets I frequent are very concerned about accuracy. Do they try to make the progressive case? Yes. Do they LIE to make the case? No.
Having said that, I agree that it is now virtually impossible to conduct public discourse because there is no "same page" to start from.
I disagree with the idea of "impartiality" however -- the view from nowhere. The problem is that many political issues hinge, not on matters of opinion, but on matters of fact. Today's media refuses to follow the facts to inevitable conclusions IF the conclusions are partisan - i.e. if Democrats have a position which is supported by facts, and Republicans counter the position with non-facts or pseudo facts (Climate Change, for instance) major media will act as though both sides' facts have equal merit. The "we report, you decide" dodge which enables them to simply restate without having to reach a conclusion.
Chris: can't wait to hear what it was like for you last night! It was pretty thrilling from where I sat!
He may be busy right now, Paula.
Hey, Chris ... are you watching the big game? Heh
goode trickle [4],
Are you referring to the Fairness Doctorine or the Equal Time Rule? Neither were from 1974, so I wasn't sure what exactly you were referring to.
Listen-
Well it used to be that both were intertwined, so to some extent I mesh them together. One having to do with how the equal time had to be measured out and the other having to do with ensuring both sides of an issue/story receive coverage. You are correct that the foundations of both laws were in 1934 and 49...However I believe it was the equal time side received a major overhaul in 1974 (or could it be 1984, jet lag sucks and the free booze in the departure lounge is counteracting my rememberall) that loosened the standards for providing equal time...but still even under those standards in conjunction with the fairness doctrine news coverage was much more impartial and both policies were largely followed voluntarily (albeit not perfectly).
Then we can jump forward to the really late 80's to early 90's when there was a court ruling ( forget if it was supreme or just appeals ) that essentially trashed both regulations when they ruled in favor of Howard Stern being exempt from equal time because he presented enough news to be considered a "bona fide news program" and at the same time allowed him to be exempt from the fairness doctrine because at the core of it, his show was designed to create controversy ( there was something else in there ...just isn't in my brain at the moment). This ruling essentially was what paved the way for the FOX and MSNBC of the world (and of course some litigation and congressional meddling that exempted CABLE from the rules since they weren't BROADCAST) and spelled the end for the fairness doctrine. Which if memory serves went the way of the Dodo by like 1987 or shortly thereafter.
At this point the equal time rules were nothing more than a technicality for providers to get around and was dealt to some extent a final death blow by congress when they did another overhaul in like 2008(?) creating further restrictions on the FCC's ability to act on complaints of non-compliance.
So.. here we are today with polarized media and reporting that is "allowed" to slant to one way or the other that fails serve the needs of informing the electorate in a way that promotes healthy discussion. While the equal time rules exist they are basically dead as they are basically unenforceable.
Which brings me back to Paula...
Paula-
It is not about comparing machines of the left or the right, who is good or bad. It is not about how they go about operating, it is about how they go about informing.
So is it reprehensible that to your point of view one side gets away with being divorced from facts? YES... Just as I find it reprehensible that the other gets away with manipulation from omission or soundbites. Is one worse than the other? Sure and it is a subject for discussion till the cows come home.
It does not get us away from the fact that the media and the lack of regulation requiring them to fairly and accurately report the facts in an equal and impartial fashion has created and helped promote the broken national discourse we have today.
When I was going through learning how to report on the W,W,W,W,H that makes the news I was always taught that it is not our job to lead the audience to the "logical" conclusion. It is their job to arrive there on their own, or as Joe Friday would say "Just the facts"...
So if I was covering a political rally, if I am to really be doing my job it is to simply convey what happened at the rally, what was said and not to editorialize how one went after their opponent ( which sadly seems to be the news norm these days).
Now if I was reporting on say climate change under the old fairness and equal time rules, my reporting really should be about what one said and how it measures up to accepted methods of verification, or in otherwords if the facts are made up it needs to be noted that he facts could not be verified by method x,y,or z. just as it is my job to point out the verified facts and where one can find them. It is the job of the reader to reach the logical conclusion given the facts presented in an equal fashion.
If reporting was being performed as it should be then "impartiality" actually becomes " The view from everywhere ".Which brings me back to my basic assertion that we very well could be looking at a completely different electoral picture and discourse if the media actually did it's job as they are subsidized for and are supposed to do. In other words, it does not matter which way they lean they need to let the sunshine in and sometimes (like after a cloudy rainy Vancouver week of the grey) it can be very painful, especially if you are not prepared with your sunglasses.
You will have to excuse me if I don't come back to this...I gotta get on a plane and fold more time...then off the grid for about 10 days...thank god for lie flat seating.I owe, I owe it's off to work I go...
[17] goode trickle: Appreciate the reply -- and don't expect another as you have noted.
So is it reprehensible that to your point of view one side gets away with being divorced from facts? YES... Just as I find it reprehensible that the other gets away with manipulation from omission or soundbites.
I maintain that is false equivalency. You are willing to admit the right has been divorced from facts but then feel compelled to accuse the left of manipulation via omission or soundbites. What media outlets are guilty of this manipulation? I agree it gets done, but who does it? And of those outlets, which are actually "Democratic" outlets? Versus CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS? MSNBC has a couple of lefties remaining in their stable -- do you think Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes manipulate as described? The other news orgs claim to be impartial and when they manipulate it sure as hell rarely "favors" Dems.
The media landscape is not balanced equally left and right AT ALL.
Separately, yes, if journalists consistently pointed out both where claims offered were not substantiated and also made clear what relevant substantiated facts WERE we'd clear away a lot of crap.
That AND if News were returned to being public service entities rather than profit-generating entities we'd resolve several problems.
Another aspect of the problem with media is the lack of disclosure about pundits and "experts". We might be told so and so works for such and such, but are NOT told such and such is FUNDED by this or that interest, or that the person (Mrs. Alan Greenspan) is married to, father/mother/sister/brother of so and so who has financial ties to -- etc.
Program Note:
Once again, I am going to punt. Drove 250 mi. today, and thought I'd have enough energy left to put together a column, but I just don't.
I promise, next Monday (rest of weekend will be spent traveling home) you'll get the rest of the convention reports. A few days late, but hopefully not a few dollars short.
Sorry to disappoint everyone, but the most memorable part of this trip has been the lack of sleep... until Monday...
(Oh, the Mrs. has been reading your comments here and would like to respond, but that's also going to have to wait...)
-CW
@CW & FW,
happy trails, and don't forget to enjoy the scenery. really good article, love the international perspective. as a feminist i do kind-of have an issue with any spouse, male or female, going only by their spouse's first and last name. i know it's a traditional convention and i'm the last person who should be commenting on anyone else's choice of pen name, but it kinda rubs me the wrong way. i'm sure you guys had good reasons, and my small discomfort over author title in no way reduced my appreciation of the quality of the writing.
@paula,
agree completely about the lack of transparency in media about who the so-called "experts" are and who they represent. as to left-wing sites having more journalistic ethics than right-wing sites, i'm not so sure just how different they are these days. perhaps it started out high-minded, but there's been a fair amount of mission creep - lefty intentional spin to counter the righty intentional spin. complete fabrication (see the DNC "flags" story) is still much more prevalent on the right, but if you think some folks on the left don't fight fire with fire on occasion then you're kidding yourself.
@liz,
i don't think there are enough people who even realize the dynamics behind corporate media manipulation to make an organized dent in it. there may be a vague sense that something isn't right and a sense of outrage about it, but most people aren't informed or analytical enough to do more than lash out blindly. which is how donald ended up being nominated in the first place.
@russ,
a sense of propriety and decorum really would be a good thing. i guess part of the issue is that media ignoring whole swaths of the population has been much more obvious in recent years. those people who have been ignored seem to feel that shouting and occupying is the only way they'll be heard at all. which is unfortunate for everyone.
JL
Well, ya'all had your convention break...
Hope you enjoyed it.... :D
"I hope you enjoyed the peace, because as of now, we're back in business."
-Gene Hackman, CRIMSON TIDE
:D
There are 3 facts that are simple undeniable..
1. This is an ESTABLISHMENT vs ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT election.. The Anti-Establishment candidate will likely win. The Establishment candidate will likely lose..
2. Over 70% of Americans feel that this country is heading in the wrong direction.. The candidate who promises a CHANGE of direction will likely win the election. The candidate who promises a continuation of the same direction will likely lose..
3. This is an election where new, enthused and excited voters will decide the election. The candidate who brings those new, enthused
and excited voters to the voting booth will win. The candidate who attracts the HOLD YOUR NOSE AND VOTE voters will lose..
These are the facts. And they are indisputable...
Michale
welcome back michale. much deserved credit for standing aside and allowing us to enjoy the convention unhindered. as to your points, all three are in dispute, so calling them "indisputable" isn't accurate. they are also all opinions, so calling them "facts" is also not accurate.
as to the substance of those opinions:
1. Anti-establishment is one of the dimensions of politics that may impact the results. treating it as if it were the sole determinant of probability is selling the electorate short. most incumbent congress critters are in the "establishment," but most will also be re-elected.
2. most polling has "wrong direction" under 70%, not over. admittedly not by much. even so, there's no evidence a majority trusts either candidate to make the kinds of changes they want. obama's approval is a much better predictive measure, and that's been within an error margin of dead-even for almost seven consecutive years.
3. enthusiasm and negatives are about even for both candidates, among different groups. so even if you were right on this point, it wouldn't necessarily dictate a winner one way or the other.
JL
welcome back michale.
Funny, it feels like he never went away ... :)
Funny, it feels like he never went away ... :)
"You keep that shit forever.. Like luggage.."
-Eddie Murphy, DELIRIOUS
:D
Michale
It is no surprise that almost 80% of Americans feel
that this country is heading in the wrong direction. The GOP currently holds:
248 out of 440 seats in the house.
54 out of 100 seats in the senate.
31 out of 50 governors.
70 out of 99 state legislative chambers.
and 4 out of 8 justices.
The GOP have there hands on the steering wheel and Americans know which direction we're going and it's not good...
Indeed.
And, that is precisely why this right/wrong direction polling may not reveal what some observers say it does. :)
Correction: There are 441 seats in the house. In addition to 435 seats there are six non-voting Representatives who have a voice on the floor and a vote in committees, but no vote on the floor.
I didn't know that.
Here is something that many here may be interested in ...
Former Senator Gary Hart has solicited reflections on the future from people reading and participating in his blog, Matters of Principle.
Specifically, he has asked,
"Given the historic moment in which we find ourselves, let me invite comments, and offer to respond to questions if any are asked, concerning the impending national election and particularly its impact on the long term national interest."
http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=1306
Just remember that it may take a bit of time before your comment is posted. Also, civility and decorum are hallmarks of his blog (I am addressed as Ms. Miller and, believe me, I'm still trying to get used to it!) and all thoughtful and considerate comments are welcome!
10 point bounce for Clinton in RABA poll today. Nate Silver made a big deal about it in tweet. Can she sustain it? 100 days to go, anything can happen...
Re #26
Now THAT is spin.. :D
It's clear from the polling that it's OBAMA's policies that over 70% of Americans feel is causing the wrong direction..
But I applaud your spin, apophis...
It's impressive..
OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS have been in control of the country, but everything is the Republicans fault..
Yea.. Try and sell that.. :D
Michale
And, that is precisely why this right/wrong direction polling may not reveal what some observers say it does. :)
No.. It's precisely why ya'all don't want to accept the wrong direction polling.. :D
Hide your heads in the sand all you want...
But reality IS reality...
If this country was going in the right direction, Donald Trump would have been nothing but apolitical footnote..
The mere fact that Trump is the GOP nominee proves ya'all's claims are nothing but pure fantasy...
Michale
If this country was going in the right direction, Donald Trump would have been nothing but apolitical footnote..
In these right/wrong track polls, are the respondents asked who or what they think is responsible for the country being on the wrong track, in their opinions?
Are you just automatically assuming that they blame President Obama and Democrats for the direction of the country?
If this country was going in the right direction, Donald Trump would have been nothing but apolitical footnote..
that line of thought actually supports apophis's conjecture. if people thought it was mainly democrats that were going in the wrong direction, why would they have gotten rid of sixteen republican nominees?
"It's clear from the polling that it's OBAMA's policies that over 70% of Americans feel is causing the wrong direction"
If that were true then Obama's approval rating would be in the dumpster. It's not, but the house and senate ratings are in the dumpster..Americans know who's in control of the country and it's not the Democrats.
"In these right/wrong track polls, are the respondents asked who or what they think is responsible for the country being on the wrong track, in their opinions?"
No, I've been polled twice and my opinion wasn't asked for. Just yes or no to the question...
Isn't that kind of strange?
I mean, wouldn't you expect there to be at least one follow-up question ... what is the reason for the country being on the right/wrong track and choose (a), (b), (c) etc. ... ??
I've seen some pretty complicated, multipart poll questions. This would seem to be a simple enough follow-up question ...
Paula,
I agree with you regarding how not all news networks are created equally! I think this is an extremely serious issue that we fail to recognize just how manipulated by the media that we are in this country. Our forefathers recognized the importance and roles that journalism plays in maintaining the health of a democracy, and we have certainly afforded journalists special rights as a result. My question is: when is a news journalist NOT a news journalist? I do not consider Fox News to be an actual "news network" and instead consider it to be an infomercial paid for by the GOP. And as bad as Fox is, the others are just as guilty at sensationalizing stories to increase ratings. How much dishonesty do we allow them to shower us with before they are no longer reporting stories as much as they are creating them. The average American watches 5 hours of television every single day! When you hear the same exaggerated "facts" repeated that frequently, you start to just accept it as being true. It's like when people say "Hillary Clinton is a criminal" and I ask them what, specifically, makes them say that; most often they say the email server, but rarely do they understand what that was actually about. And I've only had a few that could give any other reason for Hillary to deserve being called a crook. But they've heard her bashed for thirty years, so it really shouldn't surprise anyone that she is thought to be a crook by so many Americans. The problem is determining where we should draw the line and say, "enough is enough!" We need truth in broadcast journalism in order for the people to be able to make educated decisions on how our country should be run. I still do not know why people aren't more angered by the GOP's going to court and fighting for the ability to lie in their political ads without being held culpable for anything that might happen as a result...and they WON! The Republicans cannot say anything in an ad that should be taken as the truth, as far as I am concerned! When the press chooses to run with those lies as well, it makes determining the truth so much harder for the average citizen!
[38] Listen: Yep!
Another aspect of this -- for years, Armed Forces Radio carried Rush Limbaugh. (They still might -- I don't know now.) I remember when Air America started they tried to get carried on Armed Forces radio and I don't think they were able. That's how many years ago now? But I remember thinking how damaging it had to be to have voices like Limbaugh's offered without any kind of counterpoint. And the kind of anti-Democrat message Limbaugh spewed, year after year...
Joshua,
welcome back michale. much deserved credit for standing aside and allowing us to enjoy the convention unhindered.
Yer quite welcome.. And thank you for the acknowledgement.. It's appreciated..
. Anti-establishment is one of the dimensions of politics that may impact the results. treating it as if it were the sole determinant of probability is selling the electorate short. most incumbent congress critters are in the "establishment," but most will also be re-elected.
I was referring to the POTUS election. If one wants to get down to each and every downstream race (which I do not) one might be able to make a different point..
most polling has "wrong direction" under 70%, not over.
Details... The gist of what I said was accurate.. If I am off by a point or two, that doesn't negate the validity of the point..
even so, there's no evidence a majority trusts either candidate to make the kinds of changes they want.
But that's my point. 70% of Americans (+/-) don't necessarily care about they changes THEY want. They just want it to change..
enthusiasm and negatives are about even for both candidates,
And yet, the GOP is enjoying millions and millions more voters turning out..
The enthusiasm is clearly with the GOP. This is undeniable factual..
. so even if you were right on this point, it wouldn't necessarily dictate a winner one way or the other.
Whatever ya got to tell yourself. :D
Michale
if people thought it was mainly democrats that were going in the wrong direction, why would they have gotten rid of sixteen republican nominees?
Are you just automatically assuming that they blame President Obama and Democrats for the direction of the country?
It doesn't really matter WHO is to blame... It's not a GOP v DEM point..
The point is that, of the two candidate running for POTUS, one candidate is the candidate of a continuation of the same wrong direction..
The other candidate is the candidate of changing the direction...
The candidate that convincingly promises to change the direction this country is heading is the candidate who will win..
The candidate that convincingly promises to stay the course and continue the current direction is the candidate who will lose...
It really is that simple..
Michale
) I remember when Air America started they tried to get carried on Armed Forces radio and I don't think they were able.
And why do you think that is??
Because 99.9% of American military men and women don't want to hear how bad America is and how bad America sucks.
That's why the Left Wingery can't compete in that venue. Because the entire foundation of "Left Wing" radio is based on America-Bashing..
Michale
.Americans know who's in control of the country and it's not the Democrats.
Right.. When things are shitty and it's a GOP in the White House, it's ALL the president's fault. The president is in control..
But when things are shitty and it's a DEM in the White House, then it's not the president's fault. The president is NOT in control. :D
Why not just make it easier for yourself and state plainly that EVERYTHING bad is ALWAYS the fault of the GOP and EVERYTHING that is good is ALWAYS because of Democrats..
I mean, that's what you are saying anyways. It would just save you a lot of typing.. :D
Michale
And in other news...
THE LATEST: SKYDIVER SUCCESSFULLY LANDS WITHOUT PARACHUTE
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SKYDIVING_WITHOUT_PARACHUTE_THE_LATEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-07-30-21-13-32
"Ballsy.. Stupid! But ballsy.."
-Tom Arnold, TRUE LIES
:D
Michale
Re: In your face protesting..
I have to admit that I am torn on this issue...
Mrs CW makes a valid point that aggressive in-your-face protesting DOES put the issue in the spotlight..
On the other hand, Listen et al ALSO made a good point that such rudeness usually says more about the protester than it does about the supporter or the issue. And not in a good way...
So I have to acknowledge that both sides of the issue have legitimate points..
Michale
enthusiasm and negatives are about even for both candidates,
Yea??? Tell me..
How excited is the Left Wing base about Tim Kaine??
Answer: Barely at all..
Hillary had a chance to really excite the liberal base and choose someone to GIVE the base a reason to go to the polls..
But wait, you say.. The liberal base already has an incentive to go to the polls. Preventing Trump from being President..
But here's the thing..
Trump is to the LEFT of Hillary on many things that the liberal base cares about...
Hillary taking the liberal base for granted is simply another mistake in a long long LONG line of mistakes Hillary has made...
Michale
American voters are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the status quo, and being an establishment politician in 2016 is a political liability. And while her most diehard supporters are loath to admit it, Hillary Clinton is probably the most establishment presidential candidate in decades (after the DNC email leaks last week, which revealed the party working behind the scenes against her primary opponent Bernie Sanders, this is no longer debatable).
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/30/hillary_clintons_foolish_tim_kaine_hedge_democrats_cannot_defeat_trumpism_with_cautious_conservatism/
Michale
Right.. When things are shitty and it's a GOP in the White House, it's ALL the president's fault. The president is in control..
But when things are shitty and it's a DEM in the White House, then it's not the president's fault. The president is NOT in control. :D
How many Weignantians have said, "Ya know?? Democrats share blame for the 2nd Iraq War, not just Bush and/or the Republicans"
{{chiirrrrrpppp}} {{chiirrrrpppp}}
Yea.. That's what I thought..*
Now we have a THIRD Iraq War... Do ya'all blame Obama for that??
Nope.. It's all still Bush's fault...
Michale
* If I am wrong about this, I am open to being corrected... :D
Because 99.9% of American military men and women don't want to hear how bad America is and how bad America sucks.
perhaps that's why so many of them spoke at the democratic convention instead of the republican one. pissed off or not, americans like optimism and patriotism more than doom and gloom.
JL
perhaps that's why so many of them spoke at the democratic convention instead of the republican one.
I wouldn't count 1 as "so many"...
If you want to make the case that the US Military is predominantly pro-military, by all means, give it a shot.. :D
pissed off or not, americans like optimism and patriotism more than doom and gloom.
Who doesn't???
But Americans also like FACTS and REALITY over rainbows and lollipops and unicorns...
And rainbows and lollipops and unicorns are all that the American people got from the Demcorat convention...
Michale
But Americans also like FACTS and REALITY over rainbows and lollipops and unicorns...
no they don't. americans far prefer rainbows and lollipops and unicorns. where were you when reagan was president?
JL
no they don't. americans far prefer rainbows and lollipops and unicorns.
Maybe Left Wing Americans...
where were you when reagan was president?
Korea, Phillipines, Okinawa...
Michale
I wouldn't count 1 as "so many"...
you wouldn't count, period.
DNC convention speakers explicitly there on behalf of military or law enforcement:
Lupe Valdez, Jennifer Loudon, Wayne Walker, Wayne Owens, Barbara Owens, Khizr Khan, John Allen, Florent Groberg, Jamie Dorff, John Hutson, Kristen Kavanaugh, Sharon Belkofer, Charles Young, Cameron McLay, Joe Sweeney.
JL
DNC convention speakers explicitly there on behalf of military
"on behalf" of the military do not military make..
> or law enforcement:
Yea, we saw how LEOs were treated at the Demcorat convention..
We also saw how thugs and scumbags were honored and fallen officers were ridiculed and boo'ed...
That's exactly what I am talking about...
Michale
validation of everything i've been saying, from right wingers:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/conservatives-agree-dnc-was-disaster-for-gop
"on behalf" of the military do not military make..
so khizr khan has no standing to speak for his son?
about two thirds of that list are actual military or law enforcement, and most were cheered loudly. the other third were parents or spouses of the slain, speaking to honor their patriotism and sacrifice. except for the VERY few jackasses in the audience who were booing everyone indiscriminately, military and law enforcement people were all cheered.
JL
validation of everything i've been saying, from right wingers:
Your validation is a Left Wingery rag site?? :D The only conservatives who are saying that the Demcorat convention was a disaster for the GOP are those NEVER TRUMPers...
Hardly a credible source by ANY stretch of the definition..
so khizr khan has no standing to speak for his son?
No insofar as what the military feels about Democrats...
except for the VERY few jackasses in the audience who were booing everyone indiscriminately,
And the millions of Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, who didn't say a word of condemnation..
Michale
Michale
You will never convince me that the Demcorat is pro-military or pro-LEO..
There are simply too many facts to prove this is total bullshit..
Michale
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-police-can-make-job-being-cop-lot-safer-admitting-their-failures
This is what Demcorats think of LEO...
"Admit your failures or you will continue to be killed.."
Yea.. REAL supportive... :^/
Michale
Your validation is a Left Wingery rag site? The only conservatives who are saying that the Demcorat convention was a disaster for the GOP are those NEVER TRUMPers...
that's ad hominem, not a valid refutation of any of their points of view.
that's ad hominem, not a valid refutation of any of their points of view.
It's the Demcorat way... :D
They belong to #NeverTrump.... It's a perfectly valid refutation of their point of view...
Michale
It would be like dismissing a racist who has a certain point of view regarding black people...
The simple fact that they are racist completely refutes ANY point of view they may have about black/white people
Michale
And, for those who claim that there is no valid criticism of Hillary Clinton...
Hillary Clinton acknowledges that Americans have a legitimate concern about her trustworthiness, particularly related to her email scandal and the Benghazi terror attacks
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/31/clinton-acknowledges-hard-work-ahead-frustrated-by-america-s-caricature-her.html
Even Hillary acknowledges that the trust deficit she has with the American people is valid...
Michale
Hillary Clinton has received almost 50 MILLIONS dollars from Hedge Funders/Wall Street...
Trump has received less than 20,000 dollars...
So we know who is bought and paid for by the 1%....
Michale
Wall street don't back no losers. Even the Koch bros told him to take a hike..
Wall street don't back no losers. Even the Koch bros told him to take a hike..
So, it doesn't bother you that your most sworn and hated enemies, enemies that ya'all have denigrated and demonized to hell and back are buying your candidate???
In other words, all that matters is that the person with the -D after their name is the winner..
Integrity?? Principles?? Morality?? FRAK THAT!!!
Party uber alles....
Gotcha... :^/
Michale
They belong to #NeverTrump.... It's a perfectly valid refutation of their point of view...
never is, never was. an ad hominem argument is never a valid refutation of a statement, and your continued insistence that they can be just weakens your stance.
JL
never is, never was. an ad hominem argument is never a valid refutation of a statement, and your continued insistence that they can be just weakens your stance.
So, you are saying that a racist's views of black or white people is perfectly valid??
On what planet?? :D
Michale
Oh Oh!! Wait!! I know..
"That's different"
:D
Michale
Sure it bothers me, but SCOTUS opened the gates and there is little I can do about it. I would feel the same if Wall street backed Trump. And Clinton is not my candidate and Wall street is not my enemy. I observe and form an opinion and right now Trump is losing and Clinton is winning in the money race. It may change in the coming weeks and no doubt so will my opinion...
Sure it bothers me, but SCOTUS opened the gates and there is little I can do about it.
So, the issue that would "destroy democracy as we know it" is perfectly acceptable if the Left Wingery can benefit from it..
And how is this not blatant hypocrisy???
and right now Trump is losing and Clinton is winning in the money race.
Trump is not IN the "money race"... He has no need of other people's money...
He is beholden to no one but the voters..
Clinton cannot make the same claim...
Michale
So, you are saying that a racist's views of black or white people is perfectly valid??
whether or not a person is an affirmed racist has no bearing on whether or not their statements can be proven incorrect.
being that they are racists, they are more likely to MAKE statements on racial themes that are demonstrably incorrect. however, their status as racists does not in and of itself constitute an argument against the veracity of any specific statement.
all of which leaves us back at your ad hominem arguments against the thirteen cited conservative pundits being completely without merit. not a single one of them likes hillary clinton either, but they're giving the dems credit, and you've said nothing to prove any of them wrong.
JL
JL
being that they are racists, they are more likely to MAKE statements on racial themes that are demonstrably incorrect. however, their status as racists does not in and of itself constitute an argument against the veracity of any specific statement.
And being that people join #NeverTrump would indicate that their opinions on Trump are biased and, therefore, not worthy of consideration...
but they're giving the dems credit, and you've said nothing to prove any of them wrong.
Other than they are against Trump...
Would you listen to a Trump supporter about Hillary and give their opinions any merit??
No you would not...
So, here we are...
Michale
"So, the issue that would "destroy democracy as we know it" is perfectly acceptable if the Left Wingery can benefit from it.."
No it's unacceptable no matter who benefits from it.
"Trump is not IN the "money race"... He has no need of other people's money..."
Oh, but he is and has a need for other peoples money..
"He is beholden to no one but the voters.."
Bullshit!!
"Clinton cannot make the same claim..."
Right on..
No it's unacceptable no matter who benefits from it.
Yet you support any Left Winger that benefits from it...
You are not making anysense..
Oh, but he is and has a need for other peoples money..
That's your unsubstantiated claim...
Bullshit!!
See above...
Right on..
Exactly...
Michale
Would you listen to a Trump supporter about Hillary and give their opinions any merit??
i would and i have. yourself, for instance...
JL
but they're giving the dems credit, and you've said nothing to prove any of them wrong.
Other than they are against Trump...
as i said, you've said nothing to prove any of them wrong.
JL
"Yet you support any Left Winger that benefits from it..."
No, I do not support any candidate, left or right that might benefit..
No, I do not support any candidate, left or right that might benefit..
So, you don't support Hillary Clinton for POTUS???
Michale
No, I do not support any candidate, left or right that might benefit..
So, since Trump doesn't benefit from CU, then you would support Trump for POTUS?? :D
Michale
"So, you don't support Hillary Clinton for POTUS???"
No, I do not..
"So, since Trump doesn't benefit from CU, then you would support Trump for POTUS?? :D"
No, I would not...
"So, you don't support Hillary Clinton for POTUS???"
No, I do not..
Interesting....
I am glad we have common ground on at least that point...
Good ta know... :D
Michale
so khizr khan has no standing to speak for his son?
Funny how ya'all are supportive of Kahn speaking for his son..
Yet ya'all are completely dismissive when Sean Smith's mom speaks for HER son...
So, please..
Ya'all support and sympathize with Kahn because he says what ya'all want to hear..
Ya'all ignore and ridicule the families of those killed by Hillary's incompetence in Benghazi because they say what ya'all DON'T want to hear...
Spare me the crocodile sympathies.. As with everything else, it's all motivated by ideological slavery...
Michale
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/tale-two-grieving-parents
Good article that points out the major differences between the two.
Ya'all support and sympathize with Kahn because he says what ya'all want to hear...
not just what i want to hear, but what i know is right. khan is an explicit example of an issue (banning muslim immigrants) on which donald has always been wrong and continues to be wrong, in spite of his surrogates' attempts to dissemble on his behalf.
benghazi on the other hand is an issue where hillary has been proven over 33 hearings and 13 reports by 10 congressional committees to have done NOTHING wrong, and still gets unjustly blamed for factors beyond her control. the benghazi victims' parents have every right to advocate on their children's behalf, but any attempt by them to blame hillary for their loss is misguided.
JL
@russ,
good comparison.
Khan spoke the truth about Trump’s proposed Muslim ban, about American principles of diversity and respect, and religious liberty under the Constitution.
Smith talked up a conspiracy theory that even congressional Republicans no longer support.
Khan spoke of defeating Trump at the ballot box. Smith spoke of imprisoning Clinton for reasons that defy explanation.
To see these two appearances as effectively identical because of their superficial similarities is to have missed the point of their remarks entirely.
side note: i'll be away for a week doing religious/spiritual stuff up in the mountains with my wife. all the best, and i'll look forward to reading all the columns and comments when i get back.
all the best!
JL
Have fun, Joshua! :)
Safe journeys! May you find all that you need, Joshua!
If you have never been polled this might interest you..
http://www.newsy.com/videos/clinton-trump-a-gorilla-what-a-unique-question-tells-us-about-polls/
not just what i want to hear, but what i know is right. khan is an explicit example of an issue (banning muslim immigrants) on which donald has always been wrong and continues to be wrong, in spite of his surrogates' attempts to dissemble on his behalf.
If Trump said he wants to ban muslim immigrants, then you would have a point.
But he didn't, so you don't..
benghazi on the other hand is an issue where hillary has been proven over 33 hearings and 13 reports by 10 congressional committees to have done NOTHING wrong, and still gets unjustly blamed for factors beyond her control. the benghazi victims' parents have every right to advocate on their children's behalf, but any attempt by them to blame hillary for their loss is misguided.
Right. Hillary did nothing wrong. Except ignore 600 requests for security upgrades...
There is no difference between Kahn and Mrs Smith...
One says what ya'all want to hear so ya'all support them..
The other says what ya'all DON'T want to hear so they are demonized and called liars...
Michale
Listen,
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/tale-two-grieving-parents
Good article that points out the major differences between the two.
What would you say about an opinion from Rush Limbaugh supporting a position contrary to yours???
Probably the same thing I am thinking about an opinion from Maddow supporting the ludicrous idea that there is a difference between Kahn and the family of those killed in Benghazi due to Hillary's incompetence..
The families of those killed in Benghazi by Hillary's incompetence are spit on by the Left Wingery and called liars by Hillary..
None of you say boo...
A muslim uses his dead son to attack Trump and he is the cat's meow... If he supported Trump, ya'all wouldn't care about him OR his dead son... Just like ya'all don't care about those killed at Benghazi..
It's nothing but partisan ideology... Nothing more...
Michale
Oh Joshua?? :D
most polling has "wrong direction" under 70%, not over.
In a Gallup poll two weeks ago, just 17 percent of respondents said that the country was on the right track, while 82 percent said it was on the wrong track. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shortly before that, the corresponding figures were 18 percent and 73 percent.
EIGHTY TWO PERCENT of Americans think this country is going in the wrong direction...
And you honestly believe that Hillary's promise of keeping on that SAME wrong direction is going to get her elected??
On what planet?? :D
Mcihale
No matter how ya'all want to spin it, two facts are completely clear...
FACT #1. Upwards of 80% of Americans think this country is heading in the wrong direction.
FACT #2. Hillary is the candidate who is a continuation of the same wrong direction.
Couple those facts with the Anti-Establishment mood of the country and the fact that Trump is to the left of Hillary on MANY issues progressives care about and that every terrorist attack (of which ya'all HAVE to know that there will be dozens more) every ambush of LEOs by (O)BLM scumbags will cause Trump's numbers to rise and Hillary's to sink.....
Add all of this up and it's clear that Hillary doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell... No mythical Blue Wall will save her...
Michale
The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that I mentioned also found that 56 percent of respondents preferred a candidate who would bring sweeping changes to the way the government functioned, no matter how unpredictable those changes might be, while only 41 percent tilted toward someone with a steady and possibly incremental approach. That spread favors Trump over Clinton.
Another point I made above that was disputed...
Americans want things to change.. They don't really care that the change MAY be bad... They just want things to change..
And THAT is a perfect indication on how bad Obama and the Demcorats have frak'ed things up..
Americans are so pissed off and so disgruntled they are saying, "I DON'T CARE IF THE CHANGE IS GOOD OR BAD!!! THINGS JUST NEED TO CHANGE!!!"
A very illogical and emotional way of looking at things, but it is indicative of how bad things have been frak'ed up by the current President and his Party.....
Michale
“Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything and change nothing. It’s time to turn the page.”
Trump's campaign slogan???
Nope... Barack Obama's campaign slogan...
It's more apropos and dead on ballz accurate today than it was 8 years ago...
Michale
I am not a fan of Donald Trump, or his less than eloquent sound bites. I do not share his nihilism, his expectation of the worst from us instead of his hopes for our better angels. He is a pragmatist, a businessman who has not always managed his affairs wisely and well, an opportunist and even, in some ways, a grifter.
But he is a realist, and he doesn't pretend that the murder of a Catholic priest in France is irrelevant to our necessary actions at home. Not one of the major speakers at the DNC had the courage to promise that the evil soldiers of an evil cult would face annihilation. They held hands, spoke Spanish (Tim, you need to work on your accent), chanted about historic firsts (with the people of Pakistan, India, Germany, Great Britain, Myanmar, Israel, Liberia and even Iceland smirking) and acted like the "grown-ups."
Grown-ups would have mentioned that a priest had been martyred. But they were too busy crowning a queen and living happily ever after.
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20160729_Webhed_here.html
That's what ya'all don't get..
Yes, the GOP convention was dark. These are dark times.. THAT is the reality of the here and now..
The Dem convention was nothing but rainbows and lollipops and unicorns..
"BURY YOUR HEADS IN THE SAND!! IGNORE THE PROBLEMS WE FACE AND THEY WON'T HURT US"
THAT is the message that the DEM convention sent...
Americans prefer reality to rainbows, lollipops and unicorns...
That's why 17 qualified politicians were discarded by the wayside in favor of Donald Trump...
Michale
But if ya'all REALLY want to talk about Russian connections??
Soon, dozens of U.S. tech firms, including top Clinton Foundation donors like Google, Intel and Cisco, made major financial contributions to Skolkovo, with Cisco committing a cool $1 billion. In May 2010, the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in U.S. venture capital—and weeks later the first memorandums of understanding were signed by Skolkovo and American companies.
By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan—who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation—recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European “Key Partners.” Of the 28 “partners,” 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.
Russians tied to Skolkovo also flowed funds to the Clinton Foundation. Andrey Vavilov, the chairman of SuperOx, which is part of Skolkovo’s nuclear-research cluster, donated between $10,000 and $25,000 (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton’s family charity. Skolkovo Foundation chief and billionaire Putin confidant Viktor Vekselberg also gave to the Clinton Foundation through his company, Renova Group.
Amid all the sloshing of Russia rubles and American dollars, however, the state-of-the-art technological research coming out of Skolkovo raised alarms among U.S. military experts and federal law-enforcement officials. Research conducted in 2012 on Skolkovo by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth declared that the purpose of Skolkovo was to serve as a “vehicle for world-wide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and-kremlin-connections-1469997195
Fine.. Let's talk about Russian connections..
But, we're going to talk about *ALL* the Russian connections..
Not just the one's that further ya'all's partisan Party agenda...
Michale
Hope ya'all enjoyed this latest edition of Michale's Monday Morning Media Roundup :D
Michale
Speaking of Maddow....
http://theamericanmirror.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/media.jpg
This is the EXACT blatant hypocrisy that I was referring to above....
And ya'all just ignore it... Because of your Partisan Ideological Filters..
Michale
Ya'all go on and on about Kahn and his fallen son...
Apparently, Mr Kahn doesn't remember that it wasn't Donald Trump who voted for the war in Iraq that killed his son..
It was HILLARY CLINTON who voted for the war in Iraq that killed Kahn's son...
What happened to Kahn's son 12 years ago is not on Donald Trump, it's on Hillary Clinton...
But ya'all ignore that little FACT, don'tcha??
Why?? Because it doesn't fit ya'all's partisan agenda...
Such blatant hypocrisy in using an American hero that was killed 12 years ago just to further a Party agenda??
Well, that's just sad...
Michale
Enough, Michale. Move on to something else. You are not doing yourself any favours.
Enough, Michale. Move on to something else.
OK... I won't talk about how bad Hillary Clinton is if ya'all cease talking about how bad Donald Trump is..
Deal??? :D
You are not doing yourself any favours.
Au contraire... :D
Michale
I guess the fact that Donald Trump had absolutely NOTHING to do with Captain Khan's death and Hillary Clinton had EVERYTHING to do with Captain Khan's death is quite annoying for ya'all...
I can understand ya'all's frustrations..
Michale
Police: Clinton Supporter Lights Flag On Fire, Attacks Trump Supporter
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/07/31/police-clinton-supporter-lights-flag-on-fire-attacks-trump-supporter/
Ahhh yes....
The peace and tolerance of the Left Wingery...
Such a joy to behold, eh?? :^/
Michale
Well then, here are some more FACTS and polling data for you Michale, from PoliticusUSA:
"A new poll taken after the Democratic convention revealed that Hillary Clinton had erased any gains that Trump made after the Republican convention, with a 10 point convention bounce and a 15 point lead.
RABA Research found:
Among likely voters, Clinton garners 46% support to Trump’s 31%. Libertarian Gary Johnson now captures 7% of the vote, while Jill Stein sits at 2%.
The RABA poll showed Clinton opening up a 7 point lead with men (42%-35%), a 22 point lead with women (50%-28%). Clinton also had 14% of the Republican vote, and she led by double digits with all age groups.
The poll was a bipartisan poll that was not paid for by any candidate, party, or organization."
The Washington Examiner is showing a similar convention bounce for Clinton in the same range, at 7 percent.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ny-post-runs-naked-pics-trumps-wife-again-093411944.html
To be fair, now the NY POST has to run naked pictures of Bill Clinton...
{bbbaaarrrrrfff}
:D heh
Michale
RICHMOND AREA BICYCLING ASSOSCIATION
http://www.raba.org/
Wasn't aware the RABA ran Presidential Polls
:D
The poll was a bipartisan poll that was not paid for by any candidate, party, or organization."
The Washington Examiner is showing a similar convention bounce for Clinton in the same range, at 7 percent.
Oh..I see how it is..
*I* have to wait til at least 4 Aug to point to polls...
I guess ya'all are under no such restrictions..
Color me shocked.. :D
Michale
JM,
But credit where credit is due..
Yes.. You can cherry pick polls, just like I can.. :D
Michale
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/289932-khizer-khan-was-tricked-into-smearing-donald-trump
Demcorats.. The most shameful species on the planet.. :^/
Michale
But hay...
Let's talk about the Russian connection, eh? :D
Report: Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Mgr John Podesta Sat on Board of Company that Bagged $35 Million from Putin-Connected Russian Govt Fund
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/report-hillary-clintons-campaign-mgr-john-podesta-sat-board-company-bagged-35-million-putin-connected-russian-govt-fund-2/
What???
Now that I have proven that Russian connections to the Clinton campaign run long and deep, NOW no one wants to talk about Russia anymore???
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!!! :D
Michale
JM
CLINTON AHEAD IN POLLS *ONE SINGLE DAY* IN JULY
http://www.latimes.com/politics/
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.. :D
Michale
http://sjfm.us/temp/indicted.jpg
And THAT is the ONLY good thing that someone can say about Hillary Clinton...
Michale
[103]
Elizabeth Miller wrote:
Enough, Michale. Move on to something else. You are not doing yourself any favours.
Not exactly a critical thinker is he...
Not exactly a critical thinker is he...
When one can't argue facts.... One always turns to immature personal attacks and childish insults..
:D
Michale
[116]
Michale wrote:
Not exactly a critical thinker is he...
When one can't argue facts.... One always turns to immature personal attacks and childish insults..
Bullshit!
I've been reading your posts for almost 10 years, and you are not a critical thinker. And that's a fact...
I've been reading your posts for almost 10 years, and you are not a critical thinker. And that's a fact...
A> it's not a fact.. It's a personal opinion..
and
2> it's a personal attack and a childish insult.. Usually employed when those insecure persons of lesser intelligence and maturity are confronted with a superior argument...
I've been reading your posts for almost 10 years
Apparently, my posts hold your interest quite well since you have been reading them for a decade.. :D
If you can't handle facts, then I would respectively suggest that maybe lurking is better suited for you...
I'm just sayin'... :D
Michale
You see, Apophis, what you call non-critical thinking is nothing more than a total lack of political correctness, a complete absence of partisan ideological bias and a plethora and abundance of common sense..
So, to a person and/or people who are consumed by ideological filters and Party dogma, it appears my thinking is not critical..
But, I can assure you that, after over two and a half decades in the military, security and LEO fields, I have a highly developed sense of critical thinking..
I just don't deal in bullshit political correctness...
So, I could say where you might be confused... :D
Hope this clarifies things for you.. :D
Michale
http://ntknetwork.com/benghazi-mother-hillary-clinton-kills-people/
The Left Wingery deifies a man who lost his son 12 years ago, in a war that HILLARY CLINTON supported and voted for....
Then the Left Wingery turns around and vilifies and spits on a mother who lost a son due to Hillary's indifference and/or incompetence...
Yea... Absolutely NO HYPOCRISY from the Left Wingery...
:^/
Michale
Clinton’s claim that the FBI director said her email answers were ‘truthful’
As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions. While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements.
And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server. That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting.
Four Pinocchios
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/31/clintons-claim-that-the-fbi-director-said-her-email-answers-were-truthful/
Hillary just can't help herself.
She lies about EVERYTHING.....
Michale
I've been reading your posts for almost 10 years, and you are not a critical thinker. And that's a fact...
A> it's not a fact.. It's a personal opinion..
No, it's a fact
and
2> it's a personal attack and a childish insult.. Usually employed when those insecure persons of lesser intelligence and maturity are confronted with a superior argument...
Talk about insecure...
I've been reading your posts for almost 10 years
Apparently, my posts hold your interest quite well since you have been reading them for a decade.. :D
Yes, I enjoy reading your posts..
If you can't handle facts, then I would respectively suggest that maybe lurking is better suited for you...
No, I don't think so. Thank you anyway.
Here's why you're a non-critical thinker.
You take your facts as the only relevant ones.
You see your perspective as the only sensible one and your side of the argument as the only valid one. If a post is made that don't fit your facts or bias you ignore it.
Have a nice day...
Hey Chris: Just FYI, an old HS friend who connected to me on Facebook had put up some Benghazi junk as a defense for why the principled Republican COULD vote for Trump (it was a sad effort) and we commenced a back and forth. Eventually I posted the link to the House Intelligence Committee Report, and link to MediaMaters debunking guide, and, a link to a Huffpost post by You! It came up during a google search and I ran through it before noticing you had written it!
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/benghazi-conspiracy-theor_b_6215662.html)
A> it's not a fact.. It's a personal opinion..
No, it's a fact
You saying it's a fact does not make it a fact..
Yes, I enjoy reading your posts..
Thank you... :D
You take your facts as the only relevant ones.
Not at all.. My ability to accept other facts is well-documented.. But I don't accept facts just because someone says they are facts.. Like your opinion that you try to pass off as fact..
You see your perspective as the only sensible one and your side of the argument as the only valid one.
Until someone gives me FACTS that support a different perspective or side of the argument.. Absolutely...
If a post is made that don't fit your facts or bias you ignore it.
THAT is rich.. :D
Has ANYONE here ever known me to ignore a comment???
heh :D
Have a nice day...
I always do.. :D
Michale
If a post is made that don't fit your facts or bias you ignore it.
I think most people's complaints around here is that I *DON'T* ignore comments.. :D
Michale
[122] apophis: yep!
While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public.
It's also not the same as saying that she lied to the American Public. Oh, how quickly we forget. During the Comey hearings it came out that the whole discussion boils down to three attachments to emails found among the 30,000 emails that the FBI examined. These attachments were marked with little (c) symbols that Comey admitted she could have easily missed, since the primary emails to which these earlier emails were attached weren't themselves marked classified. It turns out that the State Department has said that all three of these email attachments were inappropriately marked anyway. So Hillary told the truth when she said that she didn't send any emails marked classified. Period.
Chris Wallace can make all of the insinuations he wants, but neither he nor all of the Fox viewers (or all the king's men) can change these facts.
It's also not the same as saying that she lied to the American Public.
Yes, Listen. That is EXACTLY what it means..
So Hillary told the truth when she said that she didn't send any emails marked classified. Period.
She did not tell the truth....
Where documents sent that were marked classified?? You yourself said that they were..
Ergo, Hillary lied when she said she didn't send documents that were marked classified...
The fact that she may or may not have MISSED the classification mark does not change the FACT that the mark WAS present...
Michale
Yes, Listen. That is EXACTLY what it means..
Sorry.. For some unknown reason, I thought LISTEN had posted this...
My bust...
Michale
The fact that she may or may not have MISSED the classification mark does not change the FACT that the mark WAS present...
If she DID miss the classification markings, she is incompetent..
But we know she didn't miss classification markings, because we have an email from her telling one of her minions to strip the classifications from a classified document and send it in the clear..
This is FACT...
Hillary Clinton is a liar. This is well documented... It's a fact that over 70% of Americans agree with..
Michale
Chris Wallace can make all of the insinuations he wants, but neither he nor all of the Fox viewers (or all the king's men) can change these facts.
And it wasn't Chris Wallace that made any insinuations.
It was the WaPo News FACT CHECKER who gave Hillary 4 Pinocchios... That's LIAR LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE territory.. :D
Ya'all usually like FACT CHECKERs.. But, apparently, only when they say what ya'all want to here... :D
Michale
Paula,
[122] apophis: yep!
So, you are agreeing with me that Hillary did in fact lie??
Because that is what comment #122 says... :D
Michale
And now we have Democrat Party Puppet Kahn who is complaining how he is always in the spotlight.. In his scheduled interview...
This guy's 15 mins is long long up..
Michale
AN OPEN LETTER TO MR KAHN
Your religion of peace, Islam, is anything but that in 2016. That is a fact that is confirmed every time a Muslim shoots, bombs, beheads and tortures innocent men, women and children. This does not mean that every Muslim is a terrorist, but most terrorists, sir, are indeed Muslims.
A Muslim terrorist attack has become the sign of the times.
Regardless of what the feckless, naïve, leftist ideologue Barack Obama and his dimwitted colleagues John Kerry, Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel state, the United States and the West are at war with Radical Islam. It is the job of the president of the United States to protect his nation from all enemies; foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama romanticizes Islam and refuses to accept reality, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people across the world.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/01/open-letter-to-mr-khizr-khan.html
Yep
Michale
It's funny how ya'all are hysterical about things like Russia and Mr Kahn...
And then when we find out that Hillary has TONS more connections to Russia and ya'all are reminded that it was HILLARY'S choice and HILLARY'S vote that sent Mr Kahn's son into harm's way...
All of the sudden, there is eerie silence coming from ya'all on Kahn and Russia...
I accept ya'all's concession on both points and, unless new information comes to light, I'll consider these subjects closed..
Michale
“I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost, I would like to beat her to death.”
-Hillary Supporter Bethlehem Shoals
The hypocrisy from the Left Wingery could NOT be clearer...
:^/
Michale
Video: Leftist Mob Violently Ejects Trump Supporter From New York City Park
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/video-leftist-mob-violently-ejects-trump-supporter-new-york-city-park/
Once again, the "peace" and "tolerance" of the Left Wingery..
Funny how ya'all slam and attack Trump and his supporters for being violent and advocating violence...
Yet the totality of the Left Wingery is virtually silent when the REAL and DOCUMENTED violence comes from the Left *AGAINST* Trump and his supporters..
Which simply proves beyond any doubt that the Left Wingery doesn't mind violence as long as it's directed towards the Right (pun intended) people...
The facts are clear..
Michale
Michale[136]
This is the last non-serious comment from you that I will ever address.
If you wish to converse with me in the future, you will have to produce comments worthy of response.
Liz,
Once again proving beyond any doubt that your definition of a "non-serious" comment is a comment that you have no factual rebuttal to.. :D
Look at the facts.. When I gave ya'all your convention to comment freely on without my input, it was ALL about Russia and Trump..
Now that the FACTS clearly show that Hillary is in deep a LOT more with the Russians than Trump is... All of the sudden, no one wants to talk about Russia..
Same thing with the Kahn issue.. Everyone here was "Oh Kahn this" and "Oh Kahn that".... Then when I point out the fact that it was HILLARY'S vote that killed Captain Khan in 2004...... Dead silence.. NO ONE wants to talk about Kahn now...
Call it "non serious" all you want.. But the FACTS clearly show that ya'all *CAN'T* address the facts....
Michale
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/02/obama_trump_unfit_woefully_unprepared_for_presidency_has_to_be_a_point_where_you_say_enough.html
Obama and the Democrats are running scared.. :D
Michale
Mr Obama....
Upwards of 80% of Americans feel this country is heading in the wrong direction...
That's not on Mr Trump... That's on YOU!!
Michale
Michael [94],
What would you say about an opinion from Rush Limbaugh supporting a position contrary to yours???
Probably the same thing I am thinking about an opinion from Maddow supporting the ludicrous idea that there is a difference between Kahn and the family of those killed in Benghazi due to Hillary's incompetence..
I would actually bother to read the article before commenting on it; if you had you would have seen the article wasn't written by Maddow.
No one is saying that there is a difference between the loss the Khan family experienced and the loss felt by those killed at Benghazi. You are the only one, as usual, making this argument! I don't have any desire to debate a position that I have not taken, nor that I support in any way. Sorry, I just don't have the patience for it anymore. If you have an issue with what someone says on here, that is fine; but taking issue with a position that you claim everyone here holds despite the fact that it has never been stated by anyone on this site has become tiresome.
Michael [94],
What would you say about an opinion from Rush Limbaugh supporting a position contrary to yours???
Probably the same thing I am thinking about an opinion from Maddow supporting the ludicrous idea that there is a difference between Kahn and the family of those killed in Benghazi due to Hillary's incompetence..
I would actually bother to read the article before commenting on it; if you had you would have seen the article wasn't written by Maddow.
No one is saying that there is a difference between the loss the Khan family experienced and the loss felt by those killed at Benghazi. You are the only one, as usual, making this argument! I don't have any desire to debate a position that I have not taken, nor that I support in any way. Sorry, I just don't have the patience for it anymore. If you have an issue with what someone says on here, that is fine; but taking issue with a position that you claim everyone here holds despite the fact that it has never been stated by anyone on this site has become tiresome.
I would actually bother to read the article before commenting on it;
Really?? You would read an article on Rush Limbaugh's website??
Com'on!!! :D
if you had you would have seen the article wasn't written by Maddow.
It's on her website.. Same diff...
No one is saying that there is a difference between the loss the Khan family experienced and the loss felt by those killed at Benghazi.
Really??
So, we must commiserate with Kahn who lost his son 12 years ago in a war that HILLARY CLINTON voted for and supported (Funny how you don't address that), but with Sean Smith's mother, it's perfectly OK to say “I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost, I would like to beat her to death.”
Want to tell me again how no one is saying there is a difference??
Because I seem to find that incredulous, considering the FACTS that the totality of the Left Wingery (yes, including everyone here) indicates that there *IS* a difference.. As evidenced by the fact that you yourself posted a website OUTLINING the difference..
But, hay.. I am a fair guy... You find me comments from people here in Weigantia about the families of those killed in Benghazi that approach the same sentiments that ya'all have said about this Kahn moron and I'll concede that you are right and I am wrong..
In the absence of such facts, my point stands..
It's the epitome of hypocrisy to support and commiserate Kahn at the same time denigrating and demonizing the parents of those killed in Banghazi due to Hillary's indifference and incompetence..
I am sure you would agree with that, were it not for the Partisan Ideology Filters that are in place...
Michale
Ya gotta ask yourself, Listen..
Why did Hillary have Kahn speak at the DNC??
Why not ask Pat Smith or Charles Woods speak at the DNC??
Their loss was a lot more recent than Kahn's loss..
ALL have a case to make against Hillary for their childs' deaths..
But Kahn won't put the blame on Hillary even though he has every right to..
And THAT is why Kahn was chosen.. Pure unadulterated partisan politics...
The fact that Kahn has a FINANCIAL stake in electing Hillary just proves what a scumbag he really is...
But don't try and tell me that the Left Wingery (including everyone here) supports Pat Smith or Charles Woods as much as they support Kahn..
Because the FACTS clearly show that this is not the case...
It's as much of a bullshit claim as the Balthasar/Apophis claim that the shit-canning of the TOP FOUR positions at the DNC was "usual"...
Like I always say....
AT night... Not LAST night...
Michale
And, if I need MORE *facts* to support my position (which I don't)...
http://theamericanmirror.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/media.jpg
Michale
Russ[144]
Indeed.
Liz,
Like I said.. Your definition of "serious" is "comments I agree with"... :D
As I have aptly proven with FACTS, Listen's comments are completely in error and non-factual..
I am sure they are "serious" comments.. They are just non-factual comments..
But I gave him the chance to prove me wrong.. Let's see if he can...
Michale
Why did Hillary have Kahn speak at the DNC??
To counter Donald Trump's very dangerous and ignorant narrative on Muslims. I would guess that about 40% of the American people are unaware of Muslim American's who have served and died for their country. Call it a civics lesson.
Why not ask Pat Smith or Charles Woods speak at the DNC??
Donald Trump hasn't said anything to denigrate them or, collectively, their faith ... yet!
Their loss was a lot more recent than Kahn's loss..
Hardly relevant but, this is wholly distasteful and disgraceful comment as the pain of losing a loved one who has faithfully served their country knows know boundaries or end.
ALL have a case to make against Hillary for their childs' deaths..
Let them or others make it.
The fact that Kahn has a FINANCIAL stake in electing Hillary just proves what a scumbag he really is...
Another distasteful and disgraceful comment that has nothing to do with Trumps ignorant and dangerous comments about Muslims and the Kahn family response to them.
But don't try and tell me that the Left Wingery (including everyone here) supports Pat Smith or Charles Woods as much as they support Kahn..
And, this is what separates you from the rest of us ... we acknowledge and sympathize and empathize with the Smith family and Kahn family and, indeed, with all families whose children have paid the ultimate sacrifice in great service of their country. You really should understand this without me writing it in a comment.
To counter Donald Trump's very dangerous and ignorant narrative on Muslims. I would guess that about 40% of the American people are unaware of Muslim American's who have served and died for their country. Call it a civics lesson.
And, because you have a problem with apostrophes, Michale, that paragraph should read as follows:
To counter Donald Trump's very dangerous and ignorant narrative on Muslims. I would guess that about 40% of the American people are unaware of Muslim Americans who have served and died for their country. Call it a timely civics lesson.
To counter Donald Trump's very dangerous and ignorant narrative on Muslims.
You mean the narrative that muslims coming from terrorist oriented countries should be checked much more closely??
How is that "dangerous" and "ignorant"???
I would guess that about 40% of the American people are unaware of Muslim American's who have served and died for their country. Call it a civics lesson.
If we were talking about muslim Americans you would have a point. But we're not, so you don't..
Hardly relevant but, this is wholly distasteful and disgraceful comment as the pain of losing a loved one who has faithfully served their country knows know boundaries or end.
“I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost, I would like to beat her to death.”
-Hillary Supporter Bethlehem Shoals
Yet, you are silent on this.
So, forgive me if I don't treat your condemnation as serious...
Let them or others make it.
They have. And the Left Wingery (plus many here) attacked them and demonized them for it..
Another distasteful and disgraceful comment that has nothing to do with Trumps ignorant and dangerous comments about Muslims and the Kahn family response to them.
But it IS a factual comment. And it's no more distasteful or disgraceful than many of the comments made here about Patricia Smith and Charles Woods..
And, this is what separates you from the rest of us ... we acknowledge and sympathize and empathize with the Smith family
Bullshit.. Show me where...
You can't because it never happened..
Smith and Woods have been demonized and attacked by the Left Wingery ad nasuem..
Hillary out and out called them liars when the facts CLEARLY prove that it is Hillary who is lying..
But facts don't mean anything here..
Or, more accurately, facts take a backseat to Partisan Ideology..
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that Captain Khan would be alive today if Hillary and the Democrats had not FULLY supported the Iraq war and VOTED for it...
In ya'all's blind partisan hysteria to attack Trump, you forget that one salient point..
Michale
Sweet! We get to create fictitious people and have them "say" things that support our arguments now! If your argument rests on quoting a random unidentified individual from a message board, you should rethink your position!
Khan was asked to speak at the DNC to put a human face on Trump's claim that we should bar all Muslims from entering the country.
Why didn't Trump have him speak at the RNC? And is Clinton now responsible for every single death that has occurred since Bill was President? She caused all of those people to die, but Republicans don't have the blood on their hands? Convenient! Comrade Trump is spiraling outta control, but you keep on believing it's all part of his "master plan"!
Khan was asked to speak at the DNC to put a human face on Trump's claim that we should bar all Muslims from entering the country.
Right out the gate, Kahn was furthering a lie because that is NOT what Trump said..
But the Democrat Party is the Party of Lies, so Kahn fit right in...
And is Clinton now responsible for every single death that has occurred since Bill was President
Why not? Bush is responsible for every single death under HIS presidency...
Comrade Trump is spiraling outta control,
And the 36th??? 37th??? TRUMP IS TOAST prediction.. :D
Ya'all have been wrong *EVERY SINGLE TIME* to date...
What makes you think you will be right this time??? Wishful thinking??
Michale
! If your argument rests on quoting a random unidentified individual from a message board, you should rethink your position!
And yet, not a SINGLE ONE of ya'all condemned that statement..
Funny how that is, eh??
Of course, NOW ya'all will fall all over yerselves to condemn the statement...
But the simple fact remains that ya'all support the attacks on the families of Hillary's Benghazi victims...
It's nothing but blatant hypocrisy...
Michale
She caused all of those people to die, but Republicans don't have the blood on their hands?
Hillary has as much blood on her hands as the GOP has on theirs..
But you can't admit that because you are enslaved by Party loyalty and dogma...
Michale
But you can't admit that because you are enslaved by Party loyalty and dogma...
It's like listening to the pastor who is overly critical of gays, or that one friend you can always tell what they have been up to by what they accuse others of being guilty of...
The lady doth protest too much, me thinks. -Hamlet Act III, Scene II
It's like listening to the pastor who is overly critical of gays, or that one friend you can always tell what they have been up to by what they accuse others of being guilty of...
"These endless obfuscations and quibbles!!"
-Romulan Commander Thea
It's easy to prove me wrong..
Just agree to the point..
Michale
Have ya'all noticed how ya'all NEVER address any of the points I bring up, but rather just turn your comments into a personal attack??
If ya'all would just address the issues and not go off on a dozen different tangets, there would be a LOT less posts from me..
Michale
If ya'all would just address the issues and not go off on a dozen different tangets, there would be a LOT less posts from me..
And don't think I don't appreciate the irony of me complaining about ya'all going off on tangents. :D
Michale
And yet, not a SINGLE ONE of ya'all condemned that statement..
NEITHER HAVE YOU!!! You have pointed fingers at the rest of us for not condemning this statement that none of us made, that was not made by Hillary nor any one associated with her campaign, but YOU have never condemned it! Where is Trump's condemnation or the GOP's condemnation of this comment? Surely they addressed it, but I cannot find any links that show them speaking out against it! Oh wait, how is anyone supposed to condemn the statement that you created in an attempt to prove your point? You failed to provide any link to verify the statement's authenticity. So if you want me to condemn you for making up a vile statement in an attempt to prove a point that no one was arguing, then I will give in and respond as you wish....
I condemn you and your fictional quote!!!
Congrats!
NEITHER HAVE YOU!!!
Uh... yea.. OK... :^/
You failed to provide any link to verify the statement's authenticity.
So, you think I made it up?? :D
That's so typical of ya'all... You see something you don't like or doesn't fit thru your Partisan Ideological Filter, you simply deny it exists..
A simple google search shows how lame the accusation is..
https://www.google.com/#q=%E2%80%9CI+don%E2%80%99t+care+how+many+children+Pat+Smith+lost%2C+I+would+like+to+beat+her+to+death.%E2%80%9D+
It came from a GQ writer who has since "apologized" for the statement. But lets face reality.. As a Left Wingery moron, he was simply apologizing for the uproar, not apologizing for the statement itself..
But the point is, this is how the Left Wingery treats people like Patricia Smith.. And then worships and deifies morons like Kahn, Brown or Martin who want to make money off their children's deaths..
Michale
Since ya'all like Ann Coulter again..
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-08-03.html
There is her take on this Kahn issue..
I am sure ya'all will soak it all up just as ya'all did when she said something you like to hear.. :D
Michale
What it all boils down to is this..
If Kahn had spoke at the RNC and lambasted Hillary for her vote on a war that got Captain Khan killed, ya'all would be saying the EXACT same things about Kahn that I am saying...
Ya'all would be bringing up his financial interests, his support of Sharia and all the other stuff that's floating around..
But because Kahn is saying exactly what ya'all want to hear, he is the cat's meow...
So, spare me the faux righteous indignation...
It's all about partisan ideology... Nothing more...
Michale
Karen Vaughn, mother of Navy SEAL Aaron Vaughn who was killed in Afghanistan, blasted Barack Obama Thursday for using the death of her son in a photo op against her and other SEAL families’ wishes.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/04/gold-star-mom-obama-used-the-death-of-my-son-for-a-photo-op-video/#ixzz4GORzwwHm
Once again...
Spare me the faux righteous indignation regarding Trumps responses to the scumbag Kahn who put his own financial interests before the honor of his son....
Kahn is no different than Trayvon Martin's parents or Michael Brown's parents..
Making money off their dead children..
Pathetic... Pathetic and sad...
Michale