Donald Ducking The Press
As I write that headline, I have to wonder why we all haven't been using the neologistic verb "Donald ducking" by this point in the presidential race. After all, a large part of Donald Trump's campaign has been built on the foundation of him ducking questions and issues that he doesn't want to talk about. He's a master at the art, in fact. Consider just the birther issue -- up until last Friday, Trump's been successfully ducking the issue for the entire campaign. He never answered the basic question of Barack Obama's birthplace, saying quite bluntly that he just didn't want to talk about it. He got away with not talking about it for almost a year and a half. Donald ducked, and it worked.
But since his makeover into Trump 2.0 (now with TelePrompTer!), Donald hasn't just been ducking the questions he doesn't like, he's been ducking answering any tough questions altogether. Earlier in the campaign season, Hillary Clinton was (quite rightly) derided by the press for not giving a press conference for nine solid months. She finally relented (as a part of her own campaign makeover), and now gives press conferences and answers questions from the press corps travelling with her on a regular basis. Trump, however, has moved in the opposite direction, and hasn't given a press conference in almost two months now.
This is kind of extraordinary, because he used to hold press conferences all the time. He seemed to love the back-and-forth freewheeling nature of the events, even taunting the reporters at times. But now he hasn't given one since the last week in July. I suppose it's not all that surprising, since this period roughly matches up with the press suddenly waking up to its responsibility to vet both candidates equally (call it the post-Matt Lauer era). Much tougher questions have arisen around Trump, questions he quite likely doesn't want to answer any more than the questions about his championing birtherism for so long.
The Trump Foundation is the prime example this week, as the Washington Post continues its very deep dive into Donald Trump's charitable giving (or lack thereof). It seems the Trump Foundation gave over a quarter of a million dollars -- of other people's money, since Trump hasn't given the foundation a dime for more than six years -- to resolve lawsuits against Donald Trump himself. This could be a federal crime, amusingly named "self-dealing." This revelation came after the news that the Trump Foundation had made an illegal campaign donation of $25,000 to a state attorney general who was considering taking Trump University to court -- but who decided not to, after getting money from the Trump Foundation.
These are just the biggest revelations about the Trump Foundation, mind you -- the Post has uncovered plenty of other questions Trump is not likely to want to answer either (Lester Holt, are you paying attention?). But even sticking to just the biggest stories, it'd be pretty easy for an enterprising reporter to frame the question to Trump in the following manner:
"Mr. Trump, the Washington Post has revealed that your namesake foundation has given over $250,000 to settle your personal legal problems. What interested me most -- and, I suspect, what will interest the public as well -- is that one of these payoffs happened because you essentially refused to make good on a golf bet. You offered a cool million bucks if anyone got a hole-in-one during a tournament held at one of your golf courses. A man hit a hole-in-one, but instead of ponying up, you stiffed him. You said that the hole somehow wasn't long enough. He sued you to get you to make good on your promise, and you wound up paying only $158,000 -- not to him, but to a charity he supported; and from your foundation's funds, not from your own pocket. So my question is: why should the American people trust you as their president when you don't even keep the promises you make on the golf course?"
This would nicely wrap the controversy up in a package that just about anyone could relate to. Wimping out on paying a bet (or a promise made on a golf course) is something few people see as an admirable quality, after all. It's something that has happened to many average voters, in fact. Say what you want about Mitt Romney, but if Rick Perry had indeed taken him up on that infamous $10,000 bet, I would never have expected Romney to weasel out of paying off the bet if he lost. This is simply not true with Donald Trump.
The Trump campaign, quite obviously, doesn't want Donald Trump to even have to face such questions. He'll do interviews with friendly journalists guaranteed not only to just toss softball questions at him, but also guaranteed to not call him out on it when he ducks them. But he hasn't faced the press en masse in almost two months. The campaign is probably smart to do so, since the less Trump talks to the press off the cuff, the fewer chances he has of lighting a bonfire of a controversy for them to report on (as used to regularly happen).
So from now on, it would behoove the media to ask all Trump surrogates who are willing to appear on camera the basic questions: "Why hasn't Trump given a press conference in two months? What is he scared of?" Or, to put it in slightly more "animated" terms (as it were): "Why is Donald ducking?"
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Donald wasn't ducking at the church today. Although he's likely to contradict himself tomorrow, it was nice to hear Trump say that these homicidal choke artist cops who shit their pants at the site of a black man walking away with his hands up are troubling. Lucky for him, he was able to throw a female cop under the bus. Maybe people like that, people that choke, people that do that maybe cannot be doing what they are doing.
"it would behoove the media to ask all Trump surrogates who are willing to appear on camera the basic questions"
Trump's flying monkeys are running a gaslighting operation and it would behoove the media to stop giving them air time and start reporting.
Trump's flying monkeys are running a gaslighting operation and it would behoove the media to stop giving them air time and start reporting.
Indeed.
With the utmost respect to most Weigantians..
NO ONE here has ANY moral authority or foundation to point out Trump's alleged ducking of the press..
NO... ONE.....
Michale
So from now on, it would behoove the media to ask all Trump surrogates who are willing to appear on camera the basic questions: "Why hasn't Trump given a press conference in two months? What is he scared of?" Or, to put it in slightly more "animated" terms (as it were): "Why is Donald ducking?"
The fact that no one wanted to address Hillary ducking press conferences for ALMOST A YEAR is why no one here has any moral authority to ask Trump supporters ANYTHING along those lines...
Michale
[4][5] Bovine scat! Based on my 5 or so comments you know enough about me to make a statement about my "moral authority". You do not know anything about my background, what I think about Secretary Clinton's issues with servers and foundations. Most, if not all, of the regular contributors to these comments have expressed concern about Secretary Clinton and have even rarely offered at least tepid praise for Mr. Trump. You not so much.
After listening to an interview of Mr. Fahrenthold, I found him quite credible. Both candidates are evasive when confronted with hard questions, but this is especially true for the Republicans. The fact that Mr. Trump and his surrogates cannot factually rebut the Post's articles is very telling. They continue their policy of it is the other guy's fault, never theirs.
Until you either drop your diatribe about Mrs. Clinton' s health or join the chorus asking for greatr disclosure from Mr. Trump, you have no foundation for questioning anyone's moral authority and even then you are not my spiritual guide.
I believe you owe the regular commenters an apology.
Guy Audett
Are you looking forward to the debate, Michale? I'd like to make a party out of it ... perhaps some live blogging, or something.
I need a distraction.
... a stress-relieving distraction, so, you know, you'd have to promise to be good.
Big Guy,
You must be new here.
So, welcome to the site. Do you have a real name you'd like to share? I hate opening a comment with an anonymous username ... goes against my grain.
Anyhoo ... you have quite a lot to learn about Michale and it's going to take considerably more comments than a mere handful.
That was some free advice offered up in the spirit of Weigantia.
Cuddles and Hugs
Oh, I just read the rest of your comment, Guy ... a bad habit of mine. I think I got it from Michale, actually. :)
Is Guy Audett you real name?
My name is at the bottom of the comment above. I have made a few comments over the last couple of months. This was my one and only tilt at the Michale windmill. I will gladly go back to reading approximately 45% of the comments.
Guy Audett
Heh.
Big Orange will become more available to the press as his slide in the polls continues. He should stop wishing for terrorism. Unhelpful!
Or, to put it in slightly more "animated" terms (as it were): "Why is Donald ducking?"
The answer is simple..
Donald is ducking (if that is, in fact, what Donald is doing) for the exact same reasons that Hillary is ducking..
Because the press is in a position to do some harm to their respective campaigns...
Michale
Guy,
Until you either drop your diatribe about Mrs. Clinton' s health or join the chorus asking for greatr disclosure from Mr. Trump, you have no foundation for questioning anyone's moral authority and even then you are not my spiritual guide.
The problem with your position is that Trump has not given us ANY cause to question his health because A> He hasn't collapsed on the campaign trail and 2> He has not lied about his health...
Since these are the facts, the onus is on Clinton to come clean.. Not Trump...
Michale
Donald is ducking (if that is, in fact, what Donald is doing) for the exact same reasons that Hillary is ducking..
Because the press is in a position to do some harm to their respective campaigns...
I am also constrained to point out the fact that Donald has more right to worry about the press than Hillary does...
Many MANY journalists have stated, in essence, "Frak impartiality and the facts!! We have a "DUTY" to prevent Trump from being President..." or words to that effect...
No journalist has come out and said the same thing about Hillary....
So, Trump has the better case to make for avoiding the press....
Michale
Are you looking forward to the debate, Michale? I'd like to make a party out of it ... perhaps some live blogging, or something.
I need a distraction.
Probably not.. I had to come home early from work yesterday with some kind of stomach bug. Spent all last night puking into the toilet and trying (and failing) to get a modicum of sleep...
I have to get my lovely wife off....... to work :D (even at Death's door, I am still a funny guy!! :D heh) and then I am going back to bed..
Rain check??
Michale
[4][5] Bovine scat! Based on my 5 or so comments you know enough about me to make a statement about my "moral authority".
I assume you mean I *DON"T* know enough about you, yada yada yada yada..
And that's true, I don't...
I was speaking generally about the people who ARE commenting about Donald's alleged ducking of the press...
If you are not commenting about it, then what I said doesn't really apply to you, nest'pa??
Michale
The debate isn't until Monday night, Michale - you should be okay by then, no?
ahhh You mean live blogging the debate.. I thought you wanted to debate today..
Yea, I will definitely be in the mood for some monday night debate live blogging.. :D
Michale
Going back to bed..
Maybe we can talk about Charlotte...
Michale
Let's not and say we did.
The golf story gets worse when you read the details. It turns out that there was a rule inserted that any hole-in-one had to be hit from 'at least 150 yards' and that all of the tees on the short holes had been placed less than 150 yards from the hole. That was the loophole that Trump tried to use to avoid paying the million to that poor guy (who, by the way, never got a dime for his hole-in-one).
Let's not and say we did.
WHITE MAN DRAGGED, BEATEN BEGGING FOR MERCY
https://twitter.com/LibertarianQn/status/778845840496594944
I can see why you wouldn't want to... :^/
But, by all means...
Let's talk about some golf contest..
THAT is just SOOOOO much more important.. :^/
Michale
Well, one thing is certain... The riots and the lack of viable Democrat response to them is going to push NC towards Trump....
This race is shaping up more and more like it's Trump's to lose...
Michale
Report: Charlotte Protesters Tried to Throw Photographer Into a Fire
http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-charlotte-protesters-tried-to-throw-photographer-into-a-fire/
Nothing says ONLY BLACK LIVES MATTER like trying to throw a photographer into a bonfire.... :^/
Michale
[15] I was not talking about his health, although he is my height or a little shorter and out weighs me by 50 pounds. I should have been clearer - his tax returns and his foundation, and his charitable (or lack of) giving.
[25] Please expand on "lack of viable response".
[15] I was not talking about his health, although he is my height or a little shorter and out weighs me by 50 pounds. I should have been clearer - his tax returns and his foundation, and his charitable (or lack of) giving.
OK, since we're getting away from the health issue, why won't Hillary release her speech transcripts???
We could go back and forth on this all day, but I have already addressed..
There is something in those records that Trump doesn't want known because it would likely prove negative to his campaign..
Just like there is something in Hillary's full health records that SHE doesn't want known because it would likely prove negative to her campaign..
I can easily concede this about Trump.. Can you concede it about Hillary???
[25] Please expand on "lack of viable response".
The explanation is self-evident.. Here we have a Good Shoot and, as usual, scumbags use this event to get some early christmas shopping done...
The fact that it is still occurring indicates there has been no viable response...
The fact that Hillary condemns the cops but not the scumbag looters and rioters indicates there has been no viable response...
Michale
The good people over at 270 To Win have a simulation of the Presidential Election based on their own updated state probabilities. Results pop up on a map of the USA with a summary of total electoral votes. It's fun, like the New York Times sim of 2012, but with a map!
http://www.270towin.com/2016-simulation/
The model assumes all the states behave independently, which they don't, but it might be a good approximation this year, given the very small number of really competitive races with enough votes to put a heavy thumb on the ol' EV scales.
'Nother limitation, no third parties!
Unlike many of the 270 2 Win maps, you can't customize the states to suit your own prognosis. Too bad that.
'Nother limitation, no third parties!
Then it's not really applicable, is it??
All it is is mental masturbation for the Left or Right Wingery to pretend their candidate is crushing it...
In case you have forgotten, this is a REALITY based political forum... Not Fantasy Football....
Michale
Re: Charlotte...
There is police dash cam footage that shows the Subject with a gun in his hand prior to being shot..
I don't care WHAT color you are... If you are told by police to freeze and drop your gun and you refuse...
YOU WILL BE SHOT.....
It's that simple...
This is simply another case of black people using the shooting as an excuse to pillage, loot and destroy...
Michale
White House Watch
White House Watch: Trump 44%, Clinton 39%, Johnson 8%, Stein 2%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_sep22
Michale
There is something in those records that Trump doesn't want known because it would likely prove negative to his campaign.
No Shirt Sherlock! The seals are leaking on his 'secrets' bottle, and there's already enough in the public domain to get him locked up for fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy after this election is over. It may turn out to be a complete surprise to him, but people look REALLY closely at your affairs when you run for president. Hillary has the advantage here that she has already been rectally examined, politically speaking.
Just like there is something in Hillary's full health records that SHE doesn't want known because it would likely prove negative to her campaign.
Yer kidding, right? I know more about Hillary's health than I know about my own. I don't need video. Meanwhile, all that we have of Trump are a few pages, one of which reads like it was written by Trump himself.
This was always the White Whale of the right: the Clinton scandal that would finally bring them down. But it never happened, despite the constant stream of invective and innuendo that's been hurled at them for thirty years.
In this context, I understand completely why the GOP base went with Trump. They needed an Ahab, a Goliath, an unrestrained beast who could go toe-to-toe with their Moby Dick. Only Trump had the celebrity, the fire and the vitriol to do the job. It's such a close fit that I have my suspicions that Roger Ailes might have had a hand in this campaign from the start.
Unfortunately (for them), their Whaler is riddled with leaks, and they're popping up now with regularity: the $20,000 painting of Trump, the Million Dollar Hole-In-One, the cash payment to Bondi, all made through a legally chartered charitable foundation.
Keep the lifeboat ready, ye matey, there be bad weather a-brewin'...
Stig [29]:
Interesting. If you run that map based on poll-closing times, it always gives Trump a lead for what would be most of the night. Because so many of her votes are on the West Coast, Hillary only passes Trump in most simulations when the last batch from California comes in!
Yer kidding, right? I know more about Hillary's health than I know about my own. I don't need video. Meanwhile, all that we have of Trump are a few pages, one of which reads like it was written by Trump himself.
She won't release ANY neurological records or tests..
She won't TAKE a neuro-cognitive test..
Trump hasn't collapsed or given ANYONE ANY reason to suspect his health..
Hillary cannot make the same claim.
However, Trump has promised full disclosure of his complete medical history if Hillary does the same...
Keep the lifeboat ready, ye matey, there be bad weather a-brewin'...
Yea, ya'all have been saying that for a year... Yet Trump is winning... :D
Michale
And, if Hillary doesn't condemn the scumbag thugs in Charlotte, then Trump's numbers are just going to continue to rise...
Michale
SCUMBAG THUGS
https://twitter.com/Myrna_Perez/status/778828429248622592
Michale
Hillary Clinton exhibited abnormal eye movements during her recent speech in Philadelphia and they were not photoshopped.
Her eyes did not always move in the same direction at the same time. It appears that she has a problem with her left sixth cranial nerve. That nerve serves only one function and that is to make the lateral rectus muscle contract. That muscle turns the eye in the direction away from the midline.
It comes out of the base of the brain and runs along the floor of the skull, immediately beneath the brain before coursing upward to the eye. Dysfunction of that muscle causes the striking picture of the eyes not aiming in the same direction and causes the patient to suffer double vision.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/297208-clintons-eyes-a-window-into-her-health-issues
Hillary has some serious serious health issues....
Michale
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/mystery-going-hillarys-eyes-philly-speech/
I don't care WHAT your Party persuasion is..
THAT is not normal... THAT is a sign of a serious neurological disorder..
Michale
https://twitter.com/gifdsports/status/778787322141765632
Start shooting some of the looters and scumbags...
Word will get around...
Michale
And, if Hillary doesn't condemn the scumbag thugs in Charlotte, then Trump's numbers are just going to continue to rise.
She actually did condemn the violence, if you've been following her remarks. I'd say Trump already has the "shoot 'em, don't book 'em" vote wrapped up.
She actually did condemn the violence, if you've been following her remarks.
Link???
Michale
Looks like the good people of Charlotte are going to handle their own self-defense..
Charlotte violence sparks self defense gun buying spree
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/charlotte-violence-sparks-self-defense-gun-buying-spree/article/2602559
Like the old saying goes, I would rather have a gun in my hand, then a cop on the phone...
Michale
I'd say Trump already has the "shoot 'em, don't book 'em" vote wrapped up.
They're looters.. Lowest of the low of scumbags....
Michale
White House weighs in on Charlotte unrest: Protesters have ‘legitimate’ complaints
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/22/white-house-says-charlotte-protesters-have-legitim/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT0dFMU1UazBZVEpsTlRReSIsInQiOiJzTEpadlwvbHhEbE5jVWFxXC9GZUNDVk1YbDV2SGs0YkhIYnFkU1FPZDZXVDBOSFYzSWVuY2FpNnJNWGxzQ1lDbytuZHFyWDJtQTUzQTNOSHJWSzdwOG9cL3ViTzFra1NETWswNVwvYUVncCtudUE9In0%3D
No, they don't.... This was a good shoot... through and through...
Michale
That's exactly what I mean..
No one on the Left is condemning the looters.. According to the Left they have "legitimate complaints"....
That's bull.. They DON'T have legitimate complaints..
And even if they did, addressing those complaints by violence and looting and destruction??
Negates *ANY* legitimacy they might have had...
Michale
She actually did condemn the violence, if you've been following her remarks.
Link???
Just in case ya missed it the first time.. :D
Michale
Oh Balthasar...
I found that quote from Hillary..
"We Have Two Names To Add To The Long List Of African Americans Killed By Police."
-Hillary Clinton
The fact that both shootings were completely and unequivocally justifiable doesn't seem to matter to Hillary....
So, what have we learned??
Donald Trump has the back of LEOs across the country...
Hillary Clinton has the backs of scumbags, cop killers, looters and thugs.....
That about sums it up...
Michale
Back to the subject du jour:
Unlike Trump, HilRod is not dodging tough questions.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b2fc974d1d/between-two-ferns-with-zach-galifianakis-hillary-clinton?_cc=__d___&_ccid=3e7c85a3-488d-446a-a8b4-43a10717ceb0
I don't get how you guys can deal with this troll.
Michale, Hillary's health has nothing to do with financial disclosures. Neither do her speech transcripts.
On every single disclosure front, Hillary has revealed far more data than Trump.
More importantly, why can't you answer a question about trump with something besides an accusation at Hillary?
Just answer the questions that are posed.
Once again leaving for months because I just can't handle this guy.
Unlike Trump, HilRod is not dodging tough questions.
Only YOU could think that questions from Zach Galfinkus would be "tough" questions.. :^/
Michale
HilRod dodged ALL questions, including tough ones, for nine months...
Where were you then??
Oh yea, yer nose was so far up HilRod's ass....
Michale
I wonder if Trump will answer questions about why his "no racism before Obama" county campaign chair has been let go. Is it because she's wrong?
Link?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?415668-1/hillary-clinton-campaigns-orlando-florida
At 4:40 She mentions the targeting of police, and goes on to effusively praise the police's handling of several incidents, finishing with "We are safer when communities respect the police and police respect communities".
Not the "Gun 'em down" statement you were looking for, but not either the stone silence you've implied in your many posts.
At 4:40 She mentions the targeting of police, and goes on to effusively praise the police's handling of several incidents, finishing with "We are safer when communities respect the police and police respect communities".
Yea, the handling of the terrorist attacks in New York..
But she DOESN'T condemn the scumbags and thugs who are tearing Charlotte apart..
She DOES condemn the police for the shootings, even though the Charlotte and the Oklahoma shootings were good shoots..
Like I said, Hillary has the back of scumbags, looters, cop killers and thugs..
Trump has the back of LEOs...
Michale
Not the "Gun 'em down" statement you were looking for, but not either the stone silence you've implied in your many posts.
It's EXACTLY the stone silence on the subject of the looters, thugs and scumbags that I implied in my many posts...
Michale
I don't get how you guys can deal with this troll.
Just a hint.. When you start a comment with childish name-calling and immature personal attacks, it's hard to take you seriously with anything you say...
Just FYI...
Michale, Hillary's health has nothing to do with financial disclosures. Neither do her speech transcripts.
Yet, when asked about Hillary releasing her health records, ya'all go on and on about Trump's tax returns..
I completely agree with you. The two are NOT equated..
But it's ya'all that is equating them, not me..
More importantly, why can't you answer a question about trump with something besides an accusation at Hillary?
Because the questions ya'all ask are not legitimate questions..
Just answer the questions that are posed.
Ya mean like ya'all refuse to do???
Once again leaving for months because I just can't handle this guy.
Yea, I get that a lot.. :D Well, Weigantia is not a place for the faint of heart and the wussified.. :D
Michale....
There is something in those records that Trump doesn't want known because it would likely prove negative to his campaign.
No Shirt Sherlock! The seals are leaking on his 'secrets' bottle, and there's already enough in the public domain to get him locked up for fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy after this election is over. It may turn out to be a complete surprise to him, but people look REALLY closely at your affairs when you run for president. Hillary has the advantage here that she has already been rectally examined, politically speaking.
Just like there is something in Hillary's full health records that SHE doesn't want known because it would likely prove negative to her campaign.
Yer kidding, right? I know more about Hillary's health than I know about my own. I don't need video. Meanwhile, all that we have of Trump are a few pages, one of which reads like it was written by Trump himself.
But do you see how so utterly bias you are..
You are perfectly ready to accept that Trump is hiding something..
But when Hillary does the EXACT same thing, you REFUSE to accept that she also is hiding something..
I have the integrity to call BOTH candidates on their actions and obfuscations..
But you only call Trump on his actions and give Hillary a pass..
That is what happens when you are totally ensnared by Party dogma...
Michale
http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIF.nOy8fm/9/GyWftSnSzpPiQ&w=230&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0
Another picture with Hillary's cock-eyed eyes....
That is simply not normal...
Michale
MHorton [50]
Just skim past it all the same way you fast forward thru commercials with your DVR.
I recommend it to all readers. You aren't missing anything and the quality of the other posts is high.
For example Paula had a great series a while ago of street interviews, and there are many useful links.
The analogy to paid commercials is more apt than you'd think as Michale has claimed he gets a free pass form CW because he pays a lot at the end of the year.
Neil,
I wonder if you can appreciate how insulting you are being to our host....
But, by all means.. Continue to ignore my posts.. :D
heh
Michale
MHorton [50], neilm[60], et al.:
I use a tampermonkey script in Chrome (should also work for other browsers) to collapse Michale's comments by default; this makes the whole site 100% more pleasant. And I can still browse Michale's contributions when I wish.
Example (static) page, from CW's 'Turd Tornado' post:
http://chasbrown.com/cwWeedBlocker/cwExample.html
If you have the chops, you can inspect the page source and grab the tampermonkey script from there.
Cheers - Chas
I always laugh when people "brag" about needing artificial means to 'ignore' people because they lack self-control... :D
Chas,
Apparently, yer little script didn't work so well in our last exchange...
But, by all means.. Continue to try... :D
Michale
But I get it... I really do...
It's tough being exposed to other viewpoints...
It's always better to live in your "safe space" free from micro aggressions...
Seems to me to be kinda a boring life, but hay.. I guess some people like that.. :^/
Michale
Chaz [60] This is amazing. You are right it makes the site much better. I didn't see the controls but I'll mess around with Tampermonkey and see if I can figure it out.
Appreciated.
I have the integrity to call BOTH candidates on their actions and obfuscations..
You'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for your "Trump rant"...
[65] neilm
Controls are right under the "XX comments on " at the start of the Comments section.
You can choose from a menu of 'Expanded' (all comments are shown) 'Collapsed' (you can individually expand or collapse a comment) or "Hidden" (sets display to 'none' for the comments; maintains original numbering of other comments).
BigGuy [6]
Guy, I know where you are coming from and I feel your frustration, trust me! There have been countless times where I think that I can easily show Michale the folly of a statement he has made, but that belief is based on the assumption that we are all rational thinkers interested in a real debate. And every time I have attempted to do this, I just wind up being more frustrated. Here are a few things that I have learned from my short time here:
1. When Michale begins a rant with "No one here has the moral authority to....", it means that he knows the message is true and he cannot deny it, so he has to attack the messenger.
2. Michale is the only person who deserves an apology here ( 99% of the time)...according to Michale. I say "99% of the time" because Michale has saved those rare past occasions where he has apologized for/admitted to being wrong about something so that he is able to defend against accusations that he "never" apologizes for/admits to being wrong and then demands that you admit that you were wrong.
3. Take neilm's advice in [60] to heart. It's a good group of folks who offer a wide range of input on the subjects at hand. Michale has raised good points, they just often get overlooked because of the manner in which he chooses to address those he is making them to.
Russ
Chaz [67]
Got it.
Do you have the source for the script?
LWYH, as I stated in a later post comment 6 was my one rant. A while back I vowed to read every comment for a week (TPM to TPM). I have to admit some of the stuff was pretty entertaining. neilm's Chelsea joke last week and reactions were a fun read.
Guy
[69] neilm
I fear invoking the net nanny :), but if you look at the page source, you'll see that it references a javascript file named CWTrollBlocker.user + dot + jay + ess; (is that too obscure? Hope not!)
So if you go to that example URL I gave, but instead of 'cwExample.html' you type in the possibly net nanny forbidden file name above, I think your tampermonkey plug-in will do the rest...
Glad you like it! I'd be happy to add a more complete installation page for regular contributors who may not be familiar with tampermonkey scripts. It really does a big improvement to my experience here.
And you can still tilt at Michale's windmills to your hearts content!
Isn't it just easier to ignore comments you don't like or wish to respond to?
Chaz [71] - got it and it is working - I can't thank you enough!
I'll give CW $50 in your name at the end of the year for this - how about that?
Elizabeth [72] - Either works, this is just easier
It's even easier to ignore them when they're only one line long, so that a fusillade of 12 comments takes up half a screen instead of 5 or six screens of gish gallop to skim over.
It's comparable to AdBlock. You do have to install it, which is a bit effortful; but once it's there, it saves mental energy! Your mileage may vary of course.
neilm [73]
You honor me, sir! :) Actually you gave me the idea a while back in some random comment...
Hey CW
Given that people trust the media only slightly more than Congress... hardly at all... this post is bit like flogging a comatose horse.
The lead article over on HuffPo today was interesting.
Apparently someone there thinks Hillary is progressive (although quite a few topics including energy and foreign policy were completely ignored despite having space for a Katy Perry mention).
You know, the Wall Street coddling, warmongering, drill baby drill, Israel first type of "progressive" just like Obama, but maybe not quite... that quite a few weren't buying if you have time to read the comments. The author also seemed to be a bit delusional on other issues like Republicans in Congress working with her.
Of course, this propaganda wouldn't be necessary if it were self evident from her history, but whatever.
Hard to believe that with a Bush and all the neocons endorsing Hillary, the "liberal" media can't seem to be bothered to even raise one eyebrow... the list of reasons for the Left to be skeptical just keeps growing.
I saw a mention of "Donald ducking" a few months back during the clown car primaries... though I'm not sure it was an intentional reference... but I don't think it will catch on because people like Donald Duck.
Someone at another site was using Don Jaundice... that's a bit problematic for other reasons, but it's another one of those things you'd have expected to hear sooner.
A
Chaszzbrown
God bless you! I''m off to find a Tampermonkey and some chops while I'm at it!
Christmas before Halloween this year!
um
... this post is a bit like flogging...
As in a little, not bitten.
A
You know, the Wall Street coddling, warmongering, drill baby drill, Israel first type of "progressive" just like Obama, but maybe not quite.
Really? Let me know when you find an electable candidate that suits your obviously exacting standards. Until then, we'd all like you to set "perfect" aside, and concentrate on "not Trump". Thank you.
[78] TheStig
Mmmm... tampermonkey chops... with bacon! (It's dinnertime here... :) )
chasszzzbrown -
Easy first step, TamperMonkey is available from Firefox as an extesion!
But- I have no Earthly idea of what the scripting language is: that's not the sort of coding I do. Syntax challenged!
Could you perhaps publish something that could be cut and pasted into the part of the add script template?
TS,
Did you see #71?
jfc- uh, no....that's one of the reasons I need this extension! Too much chaff! Thanks.
[82] TheStig
The coding language is plain-old javascript; and what tampermonkey does is to jump in and add some additional javascript when pages are loaded from certain specific domains (in this case, chrisweigant.com).
Let me test posting this...
So if you go to:
http://chasbrown.com/cwWeedBlocker/CWTrollBlocker.user.js
then (assuming the net nanny doesn't block) you should either be taken to a tampermonkey page that lets you install it; or else you can can download the script to a local file and install it from there.
OK all, I was a bit dense about spotting the nanny cloaked clue, but I've installed the script, set the options, it works like a charm. Hidden goes on, hidden goes off...heh, heh. This would probably be easier early in the evening....before the gin and tonic :)
P.S. I'm going to follow neilm's lead at The Annual Kitten Pledge Break! Three cheerszzz for Chaszzzbrown!
[88] TheStig
It is a pleasure to be of service!
Balthasar - 34
I hadn't tried the poll closing option, but you're right, Clinton tends to nail it down late in the evening. CA is a big honkingv55 EV matzoh ball!
Now that the race is tightening, I need to run my own model again, which doesn't assume that the states behave independently of each other. I'm not sure which candidate will favored by state herding behavior this year, or if the impact is even noticeable in all the other noise.
Balthy
80
"Let me know when you find an electable candidate that suits your obviously exacting standards. Until then, we'd all like you to set "perfect" aside, and concentrate on "not Trump"."
Couldn't care less what you'd like.
Jill Stein will get my vote without any hesitation or regret... and I live in a swing state.
"Not Trump" is such a pathetic reason to support a candidate who is oh so very far from perfect with truly disgusting policies though.
I guess you're also using the software to make the little bubble you live in even smaller, so now you can actually believe it's true when you write "we'd all like you to set perfect aside".
Too bad you don't actually speak for everyone here.
Then again, those condoning war crimes, fraud, injustice and environmental destruction do tend to think their rationalizations make sense.
Of course, "electable" may just end up being the worst rationalization of the bunch.
Hillary is struggling against the worst candidate ever.
Yeah, it looks like either way it goes, it's going to be a long night for Clinton fans!
Then again, those condoning war crimes, fraud, injustice and environmental destruction do tend to think their rationalizations make sense.
Well that's the thing. I have never heard Hillary condone war crimes, fraud, injustice and environmental destruction in any manner. I have, however, heard Trump support three out of four of those things, and I'm pretty sure that at least two of those are at the top of Trump's "to do" list.
Of course, "electable" may just end up being the worst rationalization of the bunch.
Then don't take my word for it; I have no cred on the far left. Here, however, is Noam Chomsky on that exact subject:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/noam-chomskys-8-point-rationale-voting-lesser-evil-presidential-candidate
Of course [92] was an answer to theStig at [90].
I'll give CW $50 in your name at the end of the year for this - how about that?
50 whole dollars.. Wow :^/
heh
Michale
I'll give CW $50 in your name at the end of the year for this - how about that?
They can't... :D
Makes me feel kinda proud that they have to rely on artificial means to NOT be exposed to differing viewpoints... :D
Michale
Listen,
When Michale begins a rant with "No one here has the moral authority to....", it means that he knows the message is true and he cannot deny it, so he has to attack the messenger.
You DO realize that you are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing me of right??
You are also missing the point of my comments..
The fact that ya'all are right or wrong is not the point.
It's the fact that you have no moral authority to pass judgement... THAT's the point of my comment...
Michale
Michale is the only person who deserves an apology here ( 99% of the time)...according to Michale. I say "99% of the time" because Michale has saved those rare past occasions where he has apologized for/admitted to being wrong about something so that he is able to defend against accusations that he "never" apologizes for/admits to being wrong and then demands that you admit that you were wrong.
Rare occasions, my left arse check..
Google -"blue moon" chrisweigant.com- and you'll see there are plenty of occasions where I have admitted when I am wrong and apologized...
Now, try and find me one instance where ANYONE ELSE here has admitted they were wrong and apologized..
You will find exactly TWO instances.. In over 10 years..
But I know you won't address this. You never can admit when you are wrong...
Michale
3. Take neilm's advice in [60] to heart. It's a good group of folks who offer a wide range of input on the subjects at hand. Michale has raised good points, they just often get overlooked because of the manner in which he chooses to address those he is making them to.
As opposed to the manner that my comments are addressed??
Of course, you don't address THAT, do you... :D
"Gee!! I wonder why that is!!!"
-Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR
Michale
Woops...
Liz,
Isn't it just easier to ignore comments you don't like or wish to respond to?
They can't... :D
Makes me feel kinda proud that they have to rely on artificial means to NOT be exposed to differing viewpoints... :D
Michale
Now we're going to have to endure a bunch of posts from Neil telling everyone how he is "ignoring" me... :^/
Michale
[86] chaszzzbrown: All Hail!!!
Balthy
93
"Then again, those condoning war crimes, fraud, injustice and environmental destruction do tend to think their rationalizations make sense."
"Well that's the thing. I have never heard Hillary condone war crimes, fraud, injustice and environmental destruction in any manner"
I was talking about you.
Giving Hillary your vote is condoning what she has already done.
Both of you being in denial about the facts doesn't change the facts.
As for the "electable" bit, once again you missed the point completely. If Hillary loses, the claim that she was electable becomes nonsense. She will have been proven unelectable.
No, I just won't participate, because I refuse to continually engage with an obvious troll.
It's a shame, because the rest of you seem okay, but I'm not willing to deal with it.
MHorton,
The CWTrollBlocker tampermonkey available in [86] above works like a charm. You should give it a try.
At least MHorton has the maturity to admit when he's beaten... :D
I have absolutely ZERO respect for supposedly intelligent people who need a crutch to "ignore" viewpoints they don't like..
Michale
No, I just won't participate, because I refuse to continually engage with an obvious troll.
It's a shame, because the rest of you seem okay, but I'm not willing to deal with it.
Actually, the real shame is that you don't know how to ignore what you call an obvious troll and deal with the rest of us. This may come as a shock to your system but the rest of us will be okay without your contributions. :)
Now we're going to have to endure a bunch of posts from Neil telling everyone how he is "ignoring" me... :^/
Heh. Not if we're lucky! :)
Follow up to my own post 29 regarding the 270 To Win online election sim.
Assuming that states behave independently tends to inflate Clinton's odds by making it difficult for Trump to "run the table" among the small number of potentially competitive states: at this moment Florida, Nevada, North Carolina
I see ...
Weird accidental post glitch on 109, restart
Follow up to my own post 29 regarding the 270 To Win online election sim.
Assuming that states behave independently tends to inflate Clinton's odds by making it difficult for Trump to "run the table" among the small number of potentially competitive states: at this moment Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Iowa and perhaps Ohio, with a total of 74 EV.
My model has two components of variance driving the outcome, a state specific variance, and a national variance that impacts all 50 states and D.C. equally.
I've run today's state probability data from NYT, 538, Daily Kos, PredictWise and the Princeton Election Consortium through my model setting the national variance component between 100% and zero % of the total variance.
In all cases, Clinton does best when national variance is near zero, i.e states behave independently. With zero national variance, Clinton wins 92%,76%,73%, 94% and 86% of the time at NYT, 538, DK, PW and PEC, respectively. These are higher than the actual predictions of any of the five outfits, presumably they don't assume total independence. Small amounts of national variance have a noticeable impact, adding more tends to produce diminishing returns. High proportions of state variance (think 30-50%) reduce Clinton's odds by 15, 20% or even a bit more. I saw a similar effect in the 2012 election, but it seems stronger in 2016.
I thought there was something missing.
Do you think it is wise to rely on numbers this time around, TS?
Do you think it is wise to rely on numbers this time around, TS?
Exactly!!!
But TS, et al rely on the numbers when they numbers say what they want to hear...
The numbers that say that Trump is going to win???
THOSE numbers are ignored..
The **ONLY** thing predictable about this election is that it is completely, unequivocally and 1000% unpredictable...
Michale
Liz -113
The whole point of my MS Excel driven thought experiment was to illustrate you have to be very mindful of assumptions that drive election forecasts. 270ToWin's online sim is making the pretty extreme assumption that states are statistically independent. Political scientists know this is not the case.
270toWin is putting a pretty hefty thumb on the scale (in Clinton's favor) by assuming complete statistic independence. Multiply their projected Clinton probability of victory by something on the order of .8 to .85 and you are probably much closer to reality. A little bit of correlation in state behaviors goes a long way, and the effect (usually) seems to flatten out fairly quickly as you add more dependence. It's seems more accurate to assume zero independence and treat the states as thundering herds that tend to move roughly in the same direction towards D or R. This is also easy to compute by simple computation (all you have to do is rank order the states and take the probability of the state or states that bring the EV up to or over 270. This is a bit too conservative, but that's probably not a bad thing if you are a Clinton strategist. Err on the side of cautious expectations and work harder!
270toWin is putting a pretty hefty thumb on the scale (in Clinton's favor) by assuming complete statistic independence.
SHOCKING!!!!!! :D
Michale