Friday, August 12, 2016

TV or Not TV

obama, obama jokes, political, humor, cartoon, conservative, hope n' change, hope and change, stilton jarlsberg, hillary, clinton, scandal, email, murder, trump
When Democrats watch the news.
This is pretty much how the news looked to us this week, although the reality is quite different for most television news viewers - mostly because Hillary's multiple, escalating scandals were almost completely ignored, while Trump's ill-considered but casual joke about the Second Amendment was broadly reported as a rabid call for his opponent's assassination and armed insurrection against the government. Sheesh.

While Hope n' Change still finds itself solidly in the #NeverEnthusiasticallyTrump camp, we're standing by our plan to vote for him based on a very simple rationale: Trump says bad things, but Hillary does bad things. "Very, very bad things," to use Mr. Trump's distinctive parlance. "So, so, very, very, bad, bad things."

Hillary is, by her very nature, a skilled liar and serial lawbreaker who is pathologically power-hungry. That's a dangerous combination - and she's already hinting that her potential use of Executive Orders as president to retool America would have us looking back on the Obama administration as "the good old days."

In anything like a sane society, this week's news alone should eliminate Hillary from consideration from high office. But of course, that "sane" ship sailed - and sank - a long time ago.

obama, obama jokes, political, humor, cartoon, conservative, hope n' change, hope and change, stilton jarlsberg, bernie sanders, hillary clinton, lake, house, summer
Apparently Socialism doesn't begin at home. Or in Bernie's case, THREE homes.


Sortahwitte said...

Speaking of burnie, where did all of his kids go? Since he accepted hill's money and death threats and dropped out, his supporters have been pretty quiet. Have they all headed back to their protected place at birkenstock u? Maybe they have moved back into their parent's basement to consider whether to embrace anarchy or just binge eat cheetos. Maybe they are working at a micky d's and agitating for a $15 an hour gift. Wherever they are, I'm glad they received a big dose of reality. I wouldn't expect them to do anything positive with that reality, but hope springs eternal, internal or some sanctimonious crap like that.

Boligat said...

Ah, yes, this is our Vermont home, this is our DC home, and this is our Clinton home.

Joseph ET said...

Looking at the political polls this week it’s hard to figure out who are all these folks that vote for her. I’d vote for a ham sandwich other than her. At least a ham sandwich is useful. Of course there will be the usual low information voters and the MSM carrying water for her, but gees. Are any of them looking at her platform? Then there will be the usual cheating at the polls. Does any Republican have chance?
BTW; if Abraham Lincoln was running, they would claim that he is not qualified to be POTHUS. Meanwhile, Obama is the least person qualified for the job, ever.

Like other Socialist Bernie, likes Socialism for the people not themselves.

Fred Ciampi said...

There's a series my wife is watching on Netflix called Prison Break. Among the convoluted plot twists is a verrrry interesting part of the show: a bunch of assassins reminiscent of Jason Borne working for a female vice president who could pass for Hillary in a pinch. It first came out in 2005. I wonder if the writers were clairvoyant. But, even back then Hillary was known as The Hildabeast, and for good reason.

REM1875 said...

If us Bill of Rights supporters were violent bunch I think you know it by now.

Barry in Britain said...

The Hildebeast has plenty of key players - The MSM, Wall street, a united Democrat party AND the Republicans. Yes, the GOP is doing everything it can to scupper Trump. Latest is 70 Senators/congressmen want the party to remove funding from The Donald.
Ye gods and little fishes - what is the matter with these people?

Dr. Strangelove said...

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Tromp. I'm hoping that McMullen gets on the ballot so I'm relieved of deciding whether to write in Frank Underwood or Alice Cooper.

Vermont Woodchuck said...

As a Vermonter, I know what is necessary. What Bernie bought is called a "Deer Camp" as any good Woodchuck knows.

Since Bernie claims to a Man of the people, he needs to 'get down with the struggle' like every other Vermont male does in November.

Linda McWilliams said...

I heard a few people call in to talk radio shows who were at the rally; they said Trump made that remark after some in the crowd were chanting "Vote her out!"

chef621 said...

This election is insane. The Britons are laughing at us, the French are laughing at us, the Germans are laughing at us and God is laughing at us.

Proverbs 1:26-28 King James Version (KJV)

26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.

28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

This---because we, as a country, have taken God out of the equation. Now, we will not find Him.

Geoff King said...

Now that Trump has come out and said he is fine with losing, how can anyone believe he might win?
The prmaries were rigged, why believe the general election won't be? With the MSM being totally biased in favor of Clinton, she being protected from any scandals from the president on down, and anyone who crosses her being suicided, is there any doubt that she has already won the election?
That is why I feel that it is a vote for Trump that is a wasted vote. On the other hand, Gary Johnson is very close to having enough support to be included in the debates. If so, while Trump and Clinton continue their mud-slinging, Johnson will actually discuss the issues and may earn a place for third party candidates in all future elections.
I believe that is far more important to our nation's health than who is the lesser of two evils in this election. That train of thought is what has put our country in such dire straits in the first place, especially since there is now very little discernable difference between the two main parties.

TrickyRicky said...

@chef621- The euros are laughing at us? Really? Who gives a flying fuck what they think? I suppose anything to distract them from the fact that their women are being gang-raped, eighty-year old priests are being slaughtered at their altars, and their economy is circling the drain even faster than ours is. I know that I make my decisions based upon the opinions of a bunch of decadent has-beens.

TrickyRicky said...

@chef621- BTW you are absolutely correct about the loss of God in our society, and the deleterious effects are easy to see.

Rod said...

@REM1875: Well said. Still could happen; but we're not there yet.

Why? Because a hellofalot of good people still believe an election could resolve this mess nicely. If/When we loose that, watch out. As for Trumps' off-hand comments: Stupid or Smart? ; Deliberate or it just rolls out? I don't know. But Democrats react like really irritating spoiled little "Neener-Neener" children and media promotes it. I'm so disgusted my hair hurts. The obvious reason for all this is they simply cannot let attention turn to issues and to their records.

B Martin said...

#NeverTrumpers... There are many courses of action but only two effects. Oppose Hillary or don't oppose Hillary.
Please feel free to STFU when she puts a couple of liberal activist justices on the SCOTUS. You will have not earned the right to complain.
Stilton nailed it. Trump says bad things Hillary does bad things.

B Martin said...

#NeverTrumpers... There are many courses of action but only two effects. Oppose Hillary or don't oppose Hillary.
Please feel free to STFU when she puts a couple of liberal activist justices on the SCOTUS. You will have not earned the right to complain.
Stilton nailed it. Trump says bad things Hillary does bad things.

AmyH said... Interesting. Along with pathological liar, she is unfit healthwise. But MSM wont talk about that, just that Trump is 'unfit'. How? Because he isnt PC, hes a very successful businessman? She is mentally and physically unfit & that is way more deadly to have in office than a 'bigmouth/loudmouth'.

Sandy Link said...

Have you seen this yet? This video shows how the voting machines can be (and likely are) rigged. The woman in the video who began crying reflects exactly the emotion that I am feeling today. This corrupt government needs a Trump shake-up from the top down. But, if ballots are rigged as evidenced by this video, voting becomes an exercise in futility.

Mike Porter said...

Rod: Good question: stupid or smart? - notice what happens every time Trump says something so truly cringe-worthy that it makes your head scream 'YIKES!':

1) the liberal media schmucks douse themselves with lighter fluid, flick a Bic and begin screaming that the Trump flame thrower threatens to burn down the holy bridges of tolerance and strand us all in the hellfire of hate-facts and consequences.

2) the cuckservative pundits declare once again for the twenty thousandth time that this, THIS! I tell you, will derail the Trump Train, all the while pissing and moaning about how they were promised by the establishment gods that he would pivot toward the center of controllabil... er, um, civility.

3) the almighty poll numbers refuse to sink beyond something like neck and neck, even with billery outspending Trump fifteen to one and shady pollsters overtly skewing the questions.

4) the above spectacle functions like peril-sensitive sunglasses that dampen your initial alarm and leave you with a mildly vindictive, yet soothing 'burn motherhumpers, burn' ringing in your ears.

Enter the negotiation asking for three times what you want, then allow your adversary to barter you down to what you want. Even the loser walks away feeling like the winner. Where have I heard that before?

John the Econ said...

The Clintons deal with the devil: After nearly 3 decades in the national spotlight, it should be an accepted fact that the Clintons are corrupt to the core, and will say or do anything in service to their self-interests. By the latter half of the '90s, America was suffering severe "scandal fatigue", and was no longer surprised by the latest revelation of Clinton wrongdoing that replaced yesterday's revelation of Clinton wrongdoing.

To @Stilton's point, the media went along with this for the simple rationalization that whatever a Clinton did, it paled in comparison to what a conservative might do. As long as the Clintons feigned Progressive values, that was good enough. This is why there is such a wide gulf in what is considered "acceptable" for a Presidential nominee anymore. Any single one of Hillary's scandals would preclude any non-Democratic candidate from consideration for practically any office in this country above "dog catcher". But leftist fealty to the cause has brought the country to this level.

Speaking of Trump: For quite some time now, I've been making the case that come November, your choice from the major parties will be between a fascist and a Democrat. In case I've been unclear, Hillary is the fascist. Here's another example of Trump, the life-long Democrat:

Trump: 'This Is the Time' for Government to Borrow

"Trump doubled down on a previous comment that the government would need to spend at least twice as much on infrastructure as Hillary Clinton has proposed in order to restore the nation's surface and air transportation systems. He has said he would fund the projects with bonds, adding Thursday that they could be incentivized with credits. He also said he would limit costs by using "the proper procedures" in awarding contracts and monitoring construction progress."

So the doubling of the national debt over the Obama era hasn't been enough. He's wants to double-down again and outspend Hillary on the continuing quest to achieve the Keynesian dream.

This is your new GOP, out democrating the Democrats?

John the Econ said...

@Sortahwitte, his kids are out there, still licking their wounds after the hard lesson in life they received at the DNC convention. But for the same reason the media is focusing on Trump's diarrhea of the mouth, they are ignoring Bernie's kids; hoping that they'll remain demoralized or simply vote for Hillary as she continues to up her bidding war. (Free college and Desitin for their diaper rash, etc) Latest polls I see still have them pretty evenly split between Hillary, Trump and Johnson.

@Joseph ET, I'll tell you who will ultimately vote for her: The >51% of this country that now depends upon the Federal government for a check or political favor. This is why short of some form of divine intervention, she will win.

@chef621, the Europeans don't have much to laugh about these days. Their leaders are way ahead of ours at flushing the middle class down the toilet.

Bernie's Retirement Home: It does seem strange that a guy who seemed to so genuinely believe his socialist shtick would do such an optically strange thing mere weeks after getting thrown under the bus. My guess it was all part of the "deal" that included his forced Hillary support.

Just look at it this way: The social injustice isn't that Bernie now has a $600,000 vacation lake home. It's that there are people out there with $1,200,000 vacation lake homes.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

So, is there now going to be a remake of "Weekend At Bernie's"?

Here's something I don't have an answer to: since Sanders ran for president, does he retain the services of the SS, or are failed candidates deemed not worth the effort?

#B Martin: Spot on. Those who "cannot in good conscience" cast a vote to keep Clinton out of the Whitehouse are, IMHO, just as traitorous as those who directly cast a vote for her.

#Geoff King: Really? Is that what you took away from that? You should probably listen again with the #NeverTrump part of your brain shut down, or at least muted. Pretty clear his point wasn't that he is complacent; his point was that he has a pretty good lifestyle outside of the presidency - which, clearly, he does. A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote NOT keeping Clinton out of office. No third party is yet viable. Plus, Johnson has his own fleas...

#Mike Porter: Good analysis. I find it difficult to believe that anyone as successful in the real world as Trump is to be "stupid". Shrewd is probably the better word.

#John the Econ: Huh! I thought the crumbling national infrastructure - interstate roadways and the like - was the responsibility of the federal government - both fiscally, and for the fact that it is crumbling. I think Trump made an astute observation that the federal government was directing funds to purposes outside of the federal mandate, and that his opponent was understating the extent of that neglect. I guess sensibilities vary...

Me? Trumps got my vote. Not because I think he's the best candidate since Ronald Reagan - I share the fear that he has more liberal tendencies than he is currently letting show - but because he will assuredly stir things up.

First, I believe that Trump winning will destroy the two-party system, giving that third party a chance at the roulette wheel.

Second, he has proven himself a shrewd businessman. Maybe it's time we had someone who will run the country like a business, rather than like a law office. (Or the 19th hole at a golf club...)

Finally, I saw what happened when a third candidate entered the stage in 1992 - it wasn't simply the fact that George Bush The First was a feckless politician that got the first Clinton into office. It was H Ross Perot splitting the conservative vote, letting Clinton prance into office with just 21% of those of voting age pulling his lever (no pun intended - 51% voter turnout x 41% of the vote). Had Perot not inserted himself into that election, in all likelihood, Bush would have beaten Clinton by about 8%, and we likely would not be in this debacle we find ourselves in today. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately, you take all of us who HAVE learned along with you...

Anonymous said...

Alice Cooper!!! Woohoo!!

Judi King said...

Chances of Republicans keeping majority in congress....not real good. Odds on presidential vote.....Clinton 1/1, Trump 25/1.

Geoff King said...

@Emmentaler Limburger: I have no #NeverTrump part of my brain. It is more of a #NeverVoteForSomeoneWhoWillNotMakeTheConstitutionHisOrHerFirstPriority part of my brain. The only reason, as you put it, that a third party is not viable, is because those who think like you believe that the lesser of two evils is somehow going to save this country. Granted, Trump may possibly slow the final destruction of our republic by a couple of years over what Clinton is capable of, but of what benefit is that? May God forgive those who simply kick the problem down the road instead of actively trying to fix it. Trump is no solution, and quite possibly may be far worse than the "at least he is not Clinton" faction gives him credit for.
I firmly believe there is no chance in hell, short of actual death, that Hillary will not be our next president, so why should I waste my vote on another narcissistic tool of the establishment with no claim to fame or experience other than his making a profit on family money that was given to him?

John the Econ said...

I'm in total agreement with @Geoff King on the above. Perfectly said.

John Ortmann said...

@ Joseph ET: "Obama is the least person qualified for the job, ever." So far.

Shelly said...

Why don't we slow down on the postmortems until after the actual election? Plenty can change between now and then that can change the course entirely. Drudge just reported that Nancy Pelosi's personal computer was hacked by Guccifer 2.0, revealing the cell phone numbers of all Democrats in Congress (for starters I assume). There is no telling what hackers have on Hillary to be sprung at the right moment.

@Stilton, your cartoon accurately reflects a conversation I had with my daughter-in-law today. She had heard zip about the Clinton real scandalous news but knew everything about Trump's proposed "assassination" of Hillary. Oh, and you left off the prominent position of the father of the Muslim attacker in Orlando in the gallery of props behind Hillary. Also, the death of the Iranian spy, info about whom was on Hillary's home brew. I know, you only have a certain amount of space and can't be expected to include everything. That might crash your bandwidth.

Pete (Detroit) said...

Emmentaller - Good to see you again! Do you ever listen to John McCullach (yes, he's avail on line) 6-7pm daily, 1400 / 92.7 Local guy, good head on.

Sandy Hook - then there's this -
Former Sec of State for MI (no congressman) was on the radio the other day, agreeing that this is a Real Thing.

We NEED to insist on paper ballots and manual counts, and eff how long it takes.

As if it mattered anyway - we do not, and I think never have, directly elected the Pres - we select "electors" who are Supposed" to cast our proxies for us the way we've requested, but you might wonder why it was set up that way...

third parties - If Johnson makes it into the debates (as Perot did) all bets are off. Especially if he can goad either / both of them into a literal foaming fit that will have them removed. This race is "so tight" that if he carries even two battle ground states, he could prevent either candidate from getting min req (270?) E Votes, and it goes to the House - who can basically pick who ever they want.
I may well be wrong about that, but they're going to have options beyond T or H, it seems.
And no, have not run the numbers, so, no, do not know which states. NY and PA should do it. WV, OH, MI? Maybe...

Geoff King said...

Geoff King said...

Emmentaler Limburger said...

#Pete (Detroit): It's good to be seen. Head is just coming up over the waterline on this task the company embarked me on 2.5 years ago. Looking forward to being repatriated at the end of next month.

#Geoff King: Huh. That sounds very much like you have a #NeverTrump part in your brain. You've apparently already assimilated everything the DNC and the MSM want you to know about him into your thinking. In any case, I don't vote "lesser of two evils". I vote defensively; in this case, I plan on voting to keep someone I absolutely *KNOW* has nothing but disdain for the Constitution out of office. I would rather take a chance on Trump being all the things you "know" him to be, than to let her win without a fight. So, Geoff (and John): if you truly believe this shrew taking occupancy of Øbama's 19th hole, what is the point of joining in this discussion?

The libertarian platform DOES most closely reflect my economic, social, and political leanings. Unfortunately, I don't see a groundswell of support for them in this election, just as in the past. When and if that changes, I will happily change my vote. As it stands now, I'm not convinced there is any chance for Johnson to be elected. I guess we'll wait and see...


Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Sortawitte- I imagine Bernie's supporters are feeling pretty, uh, "berned" right now. And sadly, I'm guessing that the dose of reality they received will make them less interested in the political process in the future, which is exactly what those comfortably in power want (on both sides).

@Boligat- For Bernie, it was sleep near the fishes or sleep with the fishes.

@Joseph ET- As nearly as I can tell, except for being the alleged owner of a weathered vagina, the only reason to vote for Hillary is so that she can continue Obama's wildly successful policies. Okay, you and I (and everyone here) knows that Obama has been a complete failure - but on the Left they think the economy is booming, health insurance is cheaper, the world is more peaceful, and the racists are "on the run."

@Fred Ciampi- I don't think it's taken clairvoyance for anyone to associate Hillary with grave wrongdoing (perhaps literally) for a long, long time.

@REM1875- That's an excellent point. Last week, 100 people were shot in Chicago. I'm pretty sure none of those shootings was committed by an NRA member or 2nd Amendment advocate.

@Barry in Britain- Yes, Hillary's army of supporters is formidable and perhaps unbeatable. Sadly, many of those who are best-placed to stand up to her know that they'll remain fat and happy under her administration.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Dr. Strangelove- I hate the "Trump or Hillary" conundrum. I cannot vote FOR Trump in good conscience, but I can vote AGAINST Hillary in good conscience - and Trump may be the only realistic (but godawful) option to stop her.

@Vermont Woodchuck- I'm thinking that Bernie may open a new syrup company in Vermont. He's shown that he has a gift for locating a sap and profiting.

@Linda McWilliams- Interesting. That would put a different spin on Trump's comment. Though there's already so much spin I could use a Dramamine.

@chef621- From a theological standpoint, I'm confused: the Lord is supposed to work in mysterious ways, but it seems like He's tipped His hand by punishing us with candidates who have clearly gotten into the finals by divine intervention. Then again, perhaps that intervention came from someplace a lot hotter...

@Geoff King- I was troubled by Trump's statement that (paraphrasing here) if the voters are too dumb to elect him he'll be fine with it and just go back to his life of luxury. It shows a lack of seriousness on his part, and again shows that he sees this election about himself rather than the American people.

And I notice that Greg Gutfeld on Fox News is mentioning Gary Johnson more often.

@TrickyRicky- I'm not worried about Europe laughing at us. I'm worried about Putin, Iran, North Korea, and ISIS laughing at us. Which I'm sure they do with great gusto.

@Rod- I'm going with the assumption that there is no subtle undercurrent or sly strategy behind what Trump says: it just blasts out of his mouth. He should speak with greater seriousness, but the media also shouldn't get into such an uproar about every little bit of silliness he spouts.

Geoff King said...

Why I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Trump:

"Cowardice asks the question: Is it safe?
Expediency asks the question: Is it politic?
Vanity asks the question: Is it popular?
But conscience asks the question: Is it right?

And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic nor popular--but one must take it simply because it is RIGHT."

Martin Luther King
(no relation)

John the Econ said...

@Emmentaler Limburger, here's the problem: Government has given "Infrastructure Investment" a bad name. It's become synonymous with "massive special interest boondoggle", or just outright corruption. Remember Obama's "Shovel Ready" almost trillion-dollar "stimulus"? During the '30s attempt at "stimulus", at least we got massive public works projects that we still profit from and stand in awe of today. Think things like Hoover Dam, that will stand as monuments to American achievement for hundreds of years. After Obama's stimulus, I think my town got traffic circles. Traffic circles are great, but I doubt anybody is going to travel hundreds of miles to stand in front of them in awe. It's been barely half a decade since that, and I'm pretty sure most people have already forgotten what it was that we spent almost a trillion dollars on.

So would Trump do any better? I doubt it, because the money would have to be funneled through the same wasteful Federal bureaucracy that the money is flushed through today. Change that first, and then perhaps we can talk.

All I've assimilated from Trump is from what he's said and done long before he decided he was a "Republican". But as I and others have been pointing out, there's not a lot of conservative in the guy, then or now. He's not a fan of the Constitution, if in fact he's ever actually read it. He's not a fan of free speech. (He's famous for his nuisance slander suits) And his actual position on practically any topic changes with the wind.

He's just another Clinton without the implicit support of Satan.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@B Martin- My great concern is that if Hillary gets in, the jig is up: it will be impossible to reverse the policies that are destroying our country (if it isn't already). My current intent to vote for Trump assumes that he would screw everything up as president - but among the things he would screw up are the policies of the Left.

@AmyH- I'm genuinely suspicious about Hillary's health. Frankly, whichever candidate wins I think there's an unusually high chance of the vice-president getting promoted to the Oval Office before the end of the first term.

@Sandy Link- Surely all of the hacking currently going on should be a warning about the vulnerability of computerized election systems. I take it for granted that they can be hacked - which is why I also take it for granted that they ARE being hacked. Too bad the alleged watchdogs are the ones who benefit from this usurpation of our most basic expression of freedom.

@Mike Porter- Interesting take, and I can't say I disagree. The rules which used to be true simply aren't any longer. And I think the nature of the electorate this time around is profoundly different from what we've seen in the past. Frighteningly so.

@John the Econ- I've always had a perverse admiration for the Clintons' creation of "scandal fatigue" - just do SO much wrong SO often that everyone eventually says "Oh, to Hell with it."

And I'm not hearing a lot of money-saving talk out of Trump. Oh, he says he'll appoint experts to trim the fat, but it seems like he's got an awful lot of new spending planned.

@Emmentaler- I'm assuming that now Bernie is no longer a threat to Hillary, he doesn't need Secret Service protection.

And per your comments on Ross Perot, I was one of the well-intentioned idiots who pulled the lever for him back in the day, thereby helping Bill Clinton into office. Perhaps that's another reason why I can't muster enthusiasm for casting a third party vote again.

@Anonymous- I'd vote for Alice Cooper just to hear him sing "The Ballad of Dwight Fry" at the inauguration.

@Judi King- Is this your way of trying to remind me that my liquor glass is empty?

@Geoff King- I hear you, and I'm wrestling with the choice. To actively vote for someone who I'm sure would stink up the Oval Office is nearly inconceivable. And it's Hillary who forces me to add that "nearly" qualifier.

@John Ortmann- I'm not sure that any qualifications other than popularity/celebrity are needed anymore (to be elected, not to do the job).

@Shelly- I agree that there is so much craziness going on that there's a good chance of major shakeups before election day. Trying to predict this particular future is a fool's game.

And by the way- I didn't miss the execution of the Iranian spy in the cartoon; check out the 4th panel.

@Pete (Detroit)- The "fractional vote" thing is pretty jaw-dropping. Machines can be manipulated (pretty much undetectably) to register a vote for a Republican as ".75" or a vote for a Democrat as "1.25" The final tallies will seem to square with the number of votes cast as long as the two fractional numbers add up to 2. I agree that paper ballots are the way to go - with close supervision.

@Geoff King- Interesting.

@Emmentaler- (And yes- welcome back to these pages!) I personally lean Libertarian rather than whatever the hell Trump is (oh yeah: a Democrat) but for now my top priority is stopping Hillary. Although as others have pointed out, that may be just a naive fantasy on my part.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Geoff King & John the Econ- Good comments which showed up while I was posting oodles of other responses. I'd say more, but my fingers are tired (grin).

chipmunk said...

Of course, we won't mention that Hillary spoke on what a boon to the IRS it would be if Trump was to *ahem* pass away. Woohoo, billions of dollars in estate taxes! To me, that statement was more threatening than Trump's, given the dead bodies that seem to appear in Hillary's wake.

James Daily said...

My problem is that currently, I have no idea who is president. Turkey lips is always gone, on vacation, playing golf or just screwing off as he has no time to attend meetings of staff or military or anyone else except a State Dinner once in a blue moon.
Whether we get Clinton or Trump, we will fall into the same category. Especially with Clinton as she will sleep, sleep walk or just plain ignore state business in preference to adding to her Criminal Foundations (yea, there is one in Canada also).
Trump has no clue but I do not believe the people he really need will be available. The majority of the Senate has already shucked their responsibility plus there is not a dime's worth of difference between them and the other crooks. In addition, I believe if Trump wins, an indictment of impeachment will soon follow regardless of which party (isn't that a neat name for the government shills)is in the majority.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@John the Econ: The difference between Hoover Dam-type infrastructure, and Øbama "shovel ready" infrastructure is precisely what I'm talking about - though, the Hoover Dam really should have been should have been a local issue - but, hey! - they put it on the border of two states, so I guess it qualified under the 10th amendment... And, as we know, FDR was no constitutional nor economic hero, in any case.

Øbama's "shovel ready" bull-pucky was a label applied to a political ploy to redistribute wealth to his special interests and gain popularity with his thieving constituency - nothing more. And no president can change the plumbing through which funding flows in Washington, so that's hardly a point against a vote for Trump.

And a businessman suing over slander is a strike against free speech? C'mon! I don't think I could solve the equation you've put together on that one. And whether or not he has read the constitution, his response regarding the "anchor baby" issue for which he has been so maligned in the MSM was actually spot on, and shows a deeper understanding of the Constitution than the alleged Constitutional Scholar in office today, and the one in office back in 1963-9 when "anchor babies" became "a thing". The 14th amendment says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Are children born of illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or the state in which they are born? Some would argue not.

Per the pre-republican Trump phase: spot on. I share this concern. But, again, I'd rather take a chance on Trump than take the certainty of Clinton. And, as I said before, Johnson has his fleas, too. In any case, I'll continue casting my vote to defend against the known threat.

@Stilton: In truth, I never left. I've continued to be "Faithful Reader" to your site; just have had precious little time to read the comments and contribute. As I said to Pete, the water line is finally coming down...

Emmentaler Limburger said...

I had posted a cogent response to John's rebuttal, but I see today that it was either deleted, or lost to the ether. In brief, The Hoover Dam should have been a local concern; not a federal. The only potential justification with such meddling in the energy sector was that they built it on the border between two states. Per Øbama's "shovel ready" stimulus: that was simply a populist political ploy by which he enriched his cronies. Your locality must have either built their own traffic circles, or the construction firm was somehow tied to The Øne... Per the financial "pork", no president can impact, outside of a veto, the plumbing through which funding moves in WDC. This is no more a strike against Trump than any other president, past or present.

Per Trump and reading the constitution, I think his comments regarding anchor babies showed a pretty good understanding of the 14th Amendment, which was twisted to fit the will of the progressives under Johnson's occupation of Øbama's 19th hole, to wit: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It is that portion and subject to the jurisdiction thereof that was intended to preclude aliens from birthright citizenship. The Johnson administration simply chose to interpret that in such a way to fit their purposes. Notably, a pregnant illegal alien - or any non-citizen within our borders - are not subject to our jurisdiction inasmuch as we provide no protections to them when they are abroad, vis-a-vis the US consulate.

We are in accord regarding the potential that Trump may be all talk (like a few other alleged conservatives in congress). But I'd much rather the risk of a liberal Trump presidency than the certainty of what Hillary brings.

And, Cousin Stilton, I have always been here playing "Faithful Reader". Just haven't had time to delve into the comments and participate in the discussion until now.