Trump vs. Clinton III, The Final Debate




  1. The first question to be answered, will it be one on one or one on two as has been the precedent so far. 👿

  2. What is the appropriate drinking game to play for this trainwreck tonight? Drink every time Donald snorts? Every time Hill gives us that snide/snarky smile? Will Ken Bone be in attendance?

  3. Is voting immoral? Rothbard says no. Here is his explanation:

    • If you vote, you have given your blessing to the government to control you.

      Even voting for yourself or Mickey Mouse does not count as this is a de facto vote since it is counted in voter participation number. Even though you are not actually offering a vote for one of the two state-sanctioned candidates, you lend credence to the idea of “consent of the governed” by inflating the number of “government” who participate (and therefore consent). You have done your small part to legitimize the government.

      To do so is little different than those who would vote for the “lesser of two evils.” The lesser of two evils is still evil and your vote – any vote – supports it.

      If you vote – any vote – and do not win, you are just a sore loser. Your “protest vote” is not a protest, but willing participation which renders you complicit and bound by the will of the electorate.

      A boycott is the only moral stance. (although, if you did want to build build a barricade in front of your local polling place in the manner of 1832 Paris, the Dread Pirate might be willing to look the other way)

      Once you leave the path of true and absolute rejection of the state, you have compromised with the statists. The question is no longer whether the government is legitimate since, by your very participation, you are – again – complicit in its legitimization, but whether the ruling junta wears blue or red.

      Only in completely withholding any (voluntary) participation in the system can you morally offer your objection and withhold your consent to coerced by the state.

      • DPM

        Morality has nothing to do with it.

        When you find yourself in a pool full of crap do you choose to not swim, because swimming would give the pool of crap legitimacy? Or do you choose to swim in hopes of some day getting out of the pool?

        As I have said before, the concept of not voting in hopes of de-legitimizing the Govt. will only work if such an effort is orchestrated and possibly binding.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          You cannot singlehandedly delegitimize the government (ignoring, for the moment, that the government is illegitimate to begin with).

          But imagine if everyone thought like you. In fact, there is a solid case to be made that a large swatch of America currently does think like you. If you all voted for your preferred “lesser evils,” you would never accomplish your goal. However, if 5mm of you stayed home (or better yet, picketed), you would make your case.

          But it’s irrelevant. Any vote increases the voter participation rate. The higher this rate, the more semblance of legitimacy the state yields. As such, you have conferred your vote for the legitimacy of the state. Period, full-stop.

          Why do you think it is so important for states like N. Korea to have 90%+ participation rates?

          When you find yourself in a pool full of crap do you choose to not swim, because swimming would give the pool of crap legitimacy?

          Your analogy is flawed.

          You are being offered a choice between swimming in two pools of crap (one of which might smell marginally worse, but really, they’re still both pretty smelly). You might think, well I’m going to be shoved into one or the other, it might as well be the less smelly of the two. So you vote.

          Just by answering the question, you tacitly accept the right of those asking the question to force you into one of the pools. It’s no longer a question of whether they have the right to shove you in, but which pool is the better one into which to be be shoved (boy, that felt like a clunky sentence to type..).

          Standing on the plank, above the pools, any response other than “you have no right to make me swim in crap” is an acceptance of their right to do just that.

          The whole premise of Democracy is that you don’t always get your way, and that the majority wins (oversimplication, I know, but go with). If you vote, and you don’t get your way, you have participated in the Democratic Process by which the United States government claims its legitimacy. You cannot participate and then object because you did not get your way. If you participate, it is on the understanding that you will not necessarily get your way – you have accepted the terms and conditions when you cast your vote. Only by abstaining can you retain the moral high ground.


          And, further, your vote is an act of coercion upon me. Your vote is a statement that I, JAC, choose for the Dread Pirate to be forced to swim in pool of MY choice. Who are you to impose upon me?

          As another well-known individuals in these parts likes to say: freedom for me, but not for thee.

          • DPM

            I am a Citizen of the USA where we the people decided long ago what we would reserve unto ourselves the right to vote for those who run our govt. We further reserved the right to change said govt. if we choose.

            You were apparently born in the wrong place and should relocate to a place without any State. Ah darn, you cannot find any such place except upon the open sea.

            The State is not some mystic creature with a unique identity. It is a reflection of the people who authorize it and those who run it.

            I do not need “moral high ground” to complain about the Government. Whether I vote or not does not erode or strengthen my argument nor my right to make it.

            • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              I am a Citizen of the USA where we the people decided long ago what we would reserve unto ourselves the right to vote for those who run our govt.

              I don’t give one flying **** what the people decided to reserve for themselves. Not one sing solitary lonely ****.

              No one asked me if I want to be governed by your vote (hint: I don’t).

              You were apparently born in the wrong place and should relocate to a place without any State. Ah darn, you cannot find any such place except upon the open sea.

              Irrelevant. You argue, essentially, that because it is this way, that this way must be right.

              It is a reflection of the people who authorize it and those who run it.

              I don’t care.

              If the state were a reflection of cannibals, that still wouldn’t give you the right to eat me.

              I do not need “moral high ground” to complain about the Government. Whether I vote or not does not erode or strengthen my argument nor my right to make it.

              Your arguments stand or fall on their merits. It would an ad hominem fallacy to suggest that, just because you’ve tainted yourself, your case is void.

              HOWEVER, you do cede the “moral high ground” by voting. Your vote is every bit an “act of coercion” upon me as any Democrat’s vote is upon you.

              You are hypocritical to complain about others forcing their Big Government on you while you stand there and support – yes, support – that same government in forcing your approved version upon them.

              Again: Freedom for me, but not for thee.

              How dare “they” vote for someone who will away my freedoms! I’ll vote for someone who will take away freedoms in a manner I deem appropriate instead!

          • So, this means that Mathius is committing an act of aggression?

  4. Does this just about sum up this election cycle or what?

    Please note the Clinton campaign’s formal response: “It was an HONEST mistake”.

    Yep, like isn’t it obvious to everyone with an RV that you are OK to just dump it on the street? Maybe they wiped it down with a cloth……….on the other hand, what difference does it make now?

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Randy Quaid in “Christmas Story”…….find a marina, find a KOA campground, Honest mistake with “NO INTENT” I am so sick of reading and hearing that excuse. I’m surprised hey just didn’t just drive down a rural road and just open the valve and let it run out as they drove along. Just like the fmr Gov of VT who wanted to be Bill Clinton’s head of the EPA. The State of VT had a facility that produced a waste produce that was supposed to be properly recycled. Instead 1) they started dumping it into our back up water supply and then 2) after getting caught doing that the tankers would just drive along the road and open the valves.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Just like in the waters off Boston. The city was planning on lengthening their sewarge lines out into an area called Stillwagon Banks. The Humpback whales frequent the area and the whale watching is a thriving business. These businesses are also big on saving the environment and do a lot of protesting. i went with my folks out one time and also a number of guests that were visiting and the environmentalist on board were really making a fuss and trying to get people to sign a petition to stop Boston…….I looked over the side of the ship and they were pumping RAW sewage out from the heads into the water. I pointed it out to our guests and they in turn challenged the environmentalist and the ships crew. Those folks said….we have no place to pump out in Provencetown so……even the coast guard who would cite yachts for pumping overboard and not having a wired down through hull, would dump raw sewarge. All they would have to do is contract a “Honey Truck” to meet at the dock and pump into their tank who then in turn would take it to a sewage plant. Or as we did on our boat….pump into a jerry can and take it home to be disposed of…..this was all happening whilel Sen Kennedy was touting the facilities on Cape Cod…….there was exactly one on the entire cape and that was at Hyannis Port and up at the end of the harbor where almost nobody had access to……different rules for those in charge.

  5. I will do what I have done for the past two. I will watch “Law and Order” or “Blue Bloods” re-runs and tune in the debate at the commercial. I will then use an object to blot out Hillary wen Trump talks. I cannot stand the smirk!

  6. Ray Hawkins

    Apparently we are not alone:

    WALNUT CREEK (CBS SF) — New evidence shows that Campaign 2016 is having an emotional impact on people, stressing many out and, in some cases, even ruining relationships.

    The fighting and acrimonious campaigning between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has gone on for months over television airwaves and across the Internet.

    “This election is one of the nastiest ones that I’ve seen,” said voter Randall Piona.

    “It’s like two high school kids fighting back and forth passing bad notes,” agreed voter Antrone Bradford.

    Studies are indicating all the election drama is starting to take its toll on the voting public.

    According to a new survey from the American Psychological Association, nearly half of Americans say the 2016 presidential election is stressing them out.

    “It has become emotional. It has become polarized,” Dr. Douglas Haldeman of the American Psychological Association.

    Dr. Haldeman said the stress comes down to how we are processing the information.

    “Because of the emotional tone of this campaign we’ve bypassed the part of our brain that does the rational logical thinking and gone straight to the emotions,” explained Dr. Haldeman.

    And the campaign is triggering emotions for just about every group. According to the survey, the election stress cuts across demographics and party lines.

    The anxiety is so bad for some they are turning off their computers and phones and turning away from social media.

    “I just really don’t use it as much. Its just really inflammatory,” said Walnut Creek voter Kay Kensington.

    “There’s definitely a lot of people who saying things like, ‘If you don’t agree with my political beliefs or you don’t have same political views that I do, I am going to have to unfriend you.’ And I think that’s because the candidates are extreme,” said voter Lauren Edberg.

    But Dr. Haldeman says you may not want to burn bridges, though you should try limiting your exposure to election coverage.

    The American Psychological Association recommends voters try to avoid conversations that could turn into confrontations, control their own actions and keep your eye on the big picture.

    “Remember whatever the outcome, this country will survive,” said Dr. Haldeman.

    His message: keep calm and remember the bitter end of the election is only three weeks away.

    Since it is what I do, I must comment on a couple points made by the article. One is the comment by “Lauren Edberg” about how this campaign has people “unfriending” others. This is not true. This phenomena has been occurring for several years. The Obama election brought some deep seated divides in this country to the public fore front. They surfaced with the Tea Party late in Bush’s term but really energized after Obama was elected. An largely due to his election.

    The other is Dr. Haldeman’s comment about this years tone appealing more to emotion than the logic side of our brains. This is ALWAYS the purpose of Democratic Party efforts. Emotion is the primary mover for most American and those who are strongly emotional thinkers identify almost exclusively with the Democratic Party. (Mathius…see there how I used the correct name for once?)

    The big difference this time around is that the Republican candidate is using the same methodology. Maybe this is why the media has seemed so confused. That is until they had a good sex abuse accusation to wrap their lips around.

    Lastly, the rational part of my brain does not agree with the notion that we should just relax because we will survive. I “think” the stakes of this election are large, and it may mark a last junction in the road where we can turn back to the Home of the Free and the Land of the Brave. Then again, maybe that is just the optimist in me. We may have passed that last fork many years ago.

    • Perhaps the people realize things are not rosy and bright. At least the thinking ones. The unthinking ones are afraid of the thinking ones. A surefire recipe for disaster.

    • @JAC – yeah I don’t know if I am at the ‘unfriending’ stage for this – maybe folks unfriended me and I didn’t know or just didn’t give a shit. We’ll end up with one of these two and maybe finally learn our lesson? Will the GOP finally splinter and reform in a better way? How do you drive the same change with the DEMS (or should we)?

      • Ray Hawkins

        I kind of wish the Conservatives and the Socialists would form their own parties.

        Then the rest of us could get on with making this a better government for the majority of the people.

        Politics is an ever changing thing, that includes the “parties” that exist at any given point in time. Socialist today, Progressive tomorrow, Pragmatic liberal maybe after that. Who knows, except that the chance of any party being the same 40 years from now is pretty low.

  7. This years campaign for POTUS has officially hit the level of Jefferson vs. Adams.

    See reports of Clinton fixer in National Enquirer. Not going to post a link because it might rub off on me and then I will have to take a shower.

  8. Ok Gman……..first of all, I will start the conversation the fact that in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

    The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

    So, I will start conversation that the Second and Fourteenth Amendment assures the right of Americans to own weapons and that it is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

    That said, I think that it is extremely important to understand what a militia is because it seems to be a hanging point with some people. First, a militia is NOT a military organization. It does not function as a military organization in that a militia is not subject to the UCMJ and it is not subject to the Geneva Convention. A militia cannot be called up by the Federal Government nor can it be called up by the Governor of any state. Militia officers are not Federally recognized officers. National Guard units ARE NOT militia. A militia is a civilian organization, run by civilians, governed by civilians, and NON PAID.

    That said, in the 1700’s and again in the War Between the States, militias were voluntary organizations that could come and go at their leisure. They are civilians that own arms for hunting, target shooting, and other non lethal functions. Their only function in this wars was to supplement military objectives. By supplement, they are not trained in breaching or urban techniques but are used to harass enemy units to force them to employ inordinate amounts of front line troops to combat said units. This was the effective technique used to force Cornwallis to remain in the South and not join against George Washington in the North. They harassed troop trains, supply lines, ammunition depots, etc. Very rarely were they employed anywhere in the front lines.

    So, if we can agree here….onward.

    • I forgot….the militia do not wear uniforms nor do they wear any type of military insignia.

    • d13thecolonel

      There is little confusion over the word militia. The arguments arise due to Progressive academics trying to link the Militia with the Right to bear arms.

      But let us take a moment to remember the context of the Second Amendment. And how the Framers view it.

      They absolutely viewed gun ownership as an “INDIVIDUAL” right. Not some right that only exists if you are a member of the militia or any other group.

      They viewed membership in the Militia as a “DUTY” of every citizen. Going so far as to codify in law those citizen who were members. Such as every able bodied man between the ages of x and y.

      One of the Founders sarcastically responded to the chance of the Fed. Govt. controlling gun ownership as the same as the Feds trying to control a man’s right to hunt or fish. I always love this one because if this Founder had only known, we would have another amendment in the Bill of Rights specifying our Right to Fish and Hunt on lands no held by private citizens. I digress.

      The context in which all of this needs to be viewed is that the Second Amendment was a Constraint upon CONGRESS and thus the Federal Govt.

      The Militia as referred to in the Constitution is presumed to be the Militia as needed by and thus to be regulated by the Fed. Govt. Since the FED GOVT and the STATES were to rely upon the Militia for defense the FED GOVT. was prohibited from “infringing” upon THE RIGHT of the Citizens to bear arms, in other words own and carry weapons.

      Without the Citizens right to own and carry guns being protected it would be possible for the Fed Govt. to abolish the Militia, by preventing it from having the weapons needed for it to function.

      The desire and power of Congress to “regulate” the militia was in the setting of standards of training and standards for weapons, shot and powder. As was done in many states.

      Now while the Founders recognized this PERSONAL RIGHT, and they protected it from Fed. “infringement” they did not protect it from State infringement. Thus, some states and cities did have constraints on carrying guns in public. I love the irony here because if not for the Progressives trying to impose the Bill of Rights upon the States on other matters, the Court may have ruled against the Heller challenge. But once you open that can of hornets you can not put selected one back in the can. 🙂

      Some States, in concert with the Feds, established armories where the arms, powder and shot were stored for the Militia’s use. Part of the effort to “standardize” the Militia’s weapons.

      Buck may hate it but there is no doubt in my mind that the “Right to Bear Arms” was an Individual right and it included ALL WEAPONS of any type that could be afforded by said INDIVIDUALS. Few Citizens could afford Cannons but there were some, and these were donated to the cause from time to time when the Militia was called up, or if the Fed. Govt. asked for help.

      The NRA has it right, er correct. I don’t always agree with the tactics but the general premise is correct. What part of “shall not infringe” is so hard to understand?

      It isn’t of course. That is why someone had to invent this idea that “the people’s right to bear arms” was limited to their membership in the Militia. Of course forgetting just who the Militia was. But when reminded they then jumped to the authority of Congress to “regulate the militia”. Again trying to squeeze control of weapons into the regulate category.

      Ignoring the prior fact. Without Private gun ownership the Militia would be nothing but a bunch of people marching down the lane……….. a parade. Without PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP there is NO MILITIA. None to call up and none to regulate. Unless the left thinks the Congress should also regulate parades now. 😉

      • Yes sir…that is what I said….I thought. Except, there is a constant issue, and you stated the same, the militia is NOT operated by the Federal government. Never has been and never will be. My point in all of that was that it is and was intended for the individuals to own weapons.

  9. Ok Gman…..First, allow me to say that both, the spousal unit and myself, are life time members of the NRA.

    Buck and I had a very thorough discussion of the NRA and, what he termed, sensible gun laws. We actually came to agreement on most items.

    1) I support back ground checks – These past two years has shown a two fold increase on back ground checks. This is directly from the FBI records….19 million checks in 2014, 20.1 million checks in 2015, with a record 2 million this past December.
    2) I support back ground checks at gun shows. There is no reason to have a gun show different than anywhere else. Texas does back ground at all gun shows.
    3) I do NOT support selling of weapons over the internet.
    4) I do not support limiting the types of weapons. I have no problems with any type of weapon that you want.
    5) I do not support limiting magazine sizes.
    6) I do not support the trading of weapons or the selling of weapons between individuals at gun shows without back ground checks.
    7) I have no problem with giving weapons to known friends as gifts or to family members.
    8) I do not support age restrictions on weaponry. I had my first weapon at age 5.
    9) I do not support limiting the number of weapons that a person can own.
    10) I do not support back ground checks on ammunition nor limiting the ammunition by law. Many stores limit the ammo but that is up to the store.
    11) I do support that it is a state right and not a Federal right to establish local gun laws that are constitutional. For example, New York cannot outlaw weapons in the state for ownership but they have every right to say where they are allowed and pass any rule or legislation they wish as long as it does not violate the 2nd or 14th Amendment.

    Now, where I run into a conundrum is background checks other than criminal background checks. Example, a persons credit history does not mean he can be barred from ownership.

    I am having a problem with medical background checks…..I do not know how to proceed with that…..until I stopped and thought about my pilots license. In order for me to fly, I have to pass a full physical examination which includes eye tests, color blindness, and mental exam. And I have to pass a test every two years to fly a plane.

    Since most of the mass murders are not done by normal individuals, I wonder how to check to make sure a mentally weak or impaired individuals are not given a chance to procur any type of weapon. Certainly, medical history has to be released and placed in a data bank for the same access the FBI has to criminal background checks.

    I will stop there….anyone can chime in, I guess.

    • Mass killings and accidental deaths all come down to someone not being RESPONSIBLE. Not always, but almost always.

      Again, I say focus on the individual not to the weapons. Mentally impaired and cannot have a gun should be a court order. Just as it is for those who require guardians or who have other limitation placed on their citizen’s rights. This prevents the left wing doctor from putting you on the NO GUN FLY list.

      Hold people liable for leaving guns around and being used by nuts to kill dozens of people. If you don’t take responsibility for locking up the guns, or the ammo then you should have some liability.

      • Yes and no JAC…..unless you identify not being responsible as a parent or friend not calling it to the attention of L/E that someone is nuts.

        I thought I was saying focus on the individual as I proclaim that I have no problems with what type of guns are owned and size of magazines. Guns do not kill people. People kill people.

        • d13thecolonel

          Yes, you were focused on the person. I was just elaborating a bit.

          And YES, the parents for sure should have liability regarding ACCESS to weapons. Making parents liable for lack of diagnosis, however, is not proper.

          The one thing I did not bring up again is my idea of Licensing Individuals to own and carry weapons. Training and display of proficiency required to own and carry. Even long guns.

    • As a good and proper NCO, I salute you and proclaim….Out Fucking Standing 😀

      Now, for my dissertation on the matter, LOL 🙂

      I’m very well aware of SCOTUS rulings and also well versed on the history of militia’s and the intent of the 2nd Amendment. That said, here are my thoughts on some things.

      We have lots of laws. Laws that criminals won’t follow nor care too, when it comes to guns. We don’t have a gun violence problem, we have a violence problem. Taking guns from good people will only make it worse. Trying to keep them from certain people will not work, it never has. I could care less about background checks, they don’t stop violence or crime. More good people with guns stop crime, period.

      Om the militia. I’m in full agreement with you. I have had many debates with those who claim militia’s are illegal. Nonsense. WE are the militia. Despite my military training, as a civilian, I am part of the last line of defense of this country, whether the fight is against a foreign enemy or an internal one. TODAY, as I write this, I am but one of many people who are prepared to protect my fellow citizens against terrorists. Maybe the “last line of defense” is off a bit, we are also the first!!!!!!!

      Concerning your numbered post, here goes:

      1) I support back ground checks

      I don’t see background checks as a useful tool to curb violence. I do see it as a useful tool for the government to solve crimes (and maintain a ownership list). If anyone thinks that the FBI don’t maintain a registration list of people who buy guns after going through a BG check, they are niave. That is it’s only true purpose.

      2) I support back ground checks at gun shows.

      The gunshow loophole is fairytale nonsense. There are limits on the number of guns one can sell without a license. Most gunshow folks are licensed and do BG checks. At least this is true in OHIO and PA where I’m up on the laws. Texas may be different.

      3) I do NOT support selling of weapons over the internet.

      There are two parts to this. Dealers selling and private citizens selling. When a dealer sells, the gun MUST go to a local dealer and buyer must pass a background check. That is Federal Law. As far as private sales, many States have laws against selling out of State, period. The logic of the whole thing is lacking, criminals don’t follow laws. Yet, I can’t legally sell to a relative out of State, but I can gift it! Stupid.

      4 and 5, in agreement.

      6) I do not support the trading of weapons or the selling of weapons between individuals at gun shows without back ground checks.

      Mostly covered. Most of the gun show stuff is Liberal fantasy. They keep claiming a loophole, and have for many years. It will be talked about in 2056 too.

      7-10, In agreement 🙂

      11) I do support that it is a state right and not a Federal right to establish local gun laws that are constitutional. For example, New York cannot outlaw weapons in the state for ownership but they have every right to say where they are allowed and pass any rule or legislation they wish as long as it does not violate the 2nd or 14th Amendment.

      Most local laws are in violation of the 2nd Amendment. SHALL NOT INFRINGE is quite simple. Laws are useless…until after the fact when they are used to bring people to justice who have done harm to others. Ask a Liberal how far they would get raping an armed trained college girl. Empower people, not disarm them!!!!!!

      • Gman,,,,,right this very minute in Texas….I can take as many weapons as I want into the gun show and I can trade or sell to an individual without any type of check whatsoever any type of weapon. I can even take a fully automatic machine in there. We have a large gun show coming up next month and I am going to set up outside with a camera and post it on here….you will see dozens of people with weapons slung over their shoulders and handguns, cross bows, everything walking into the gun show…….the only requirement is going by a booth where the police are set up and they check the magazines to make sure nothing is loaded. This is weird because you can then take an empty weapon into the gun show and buy ammunition and load it. Weird.

        But to my point…….if I wanted to trade a weapon, there is nothing stopping me. If I go in empty handed and I see a weapon being carried by an individual, I can bargain with him, pay for it and walk out with it. No check…nothing. I do not like that.

        • What is the difference, really, in giving it to your nephew? I’m playing devils advocate here because i mostly agree with you.

          What I am afraid of is “creeping”. They just nibble and nibble and nibble until there is nothing left.

      • Now NYC bans all rifles or shotguns that are semi-automatic or that are capable (including bolt actions) of taking a detachable magazine. It also bans tubular magazines that can hold more than 5 rounds. Your opinion on constitutionality? Been this way for over 20 years.

    • You have to clarify, “selling guns over the internet”. I find most of the things I want to collect on the internet. Just bought that French Semi-auto. On the hunt for it for a year. Found it through Gunbroker. ONLY guns produced prior to 1898 are available as “antiques” for direct sale and that does not include handguns.

      Now, Law REQUIRES that it be shipped to a licensed dealer. Licensed dealer charges me 35 bucks to run a background check! What’s the problem? This is not 1963 and you cannot do a Lee Harvey Oswald. Not going to find that rifle in my local gunshop.

      • Sorry….i thought that selling guns in he internet was established through certified gun dealers. I was speaking in general terms like on E bay, etc.

        • Nope. The sad thing is when you talk to the anti gun crowd is that they think you can still send a check and get a Thompson SMG in the mail!

        • I don’t do EBay or Craigslist, but to my knowledge, in State private sales are legal without a background check. I have never understood the issue with this, since private gun sales have been advertised in print newspapers for ever. The internet is just an extension of that.

          With that said, why should a law abiding citizen be restricted from buying and receiving a gun from a private seller in any manor? Why should a law abiding citizen be subject to a background check ? We have laws that criminals don’t follow anyway. Just more police state bunk.

          Question for Buck 😀

          Back to your common sense gun control laws. What are they and why do you think criminals will abide by them?

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Sir….In NC one can buy a gun via the internet. However, it CAN NOT be delivered to you. It must be delivered to a certified and licensed gun shop and they have to make sure all the background checks are made and licensing is correct as required by law from the sheriffs dept who actually do the checks , before you can pick it up.

  10. Classic questioning to show Hitlary’s idiocy. Let’s save the Toddler’s, but only if they survive Planned parenthood!

    • Or the bombs in Alleppo! He missed a great opportunity on that one, should have shoved it right down her throat! She felt so badly about the photo of the kid. “Well Hillary” says Trump, “you should, you caused it”. Would have brought the house down.

      Remember how willing the dems were to accept the Florida count in `2000. Something to do with this surfer guy, “Hanging Chad” I think.

      • Yep, I was screaming the same thing. Another time, I was screaming Look at the ME and tell me She knows what she’s doing.

    • Yea, she just loves children as long as they aren’t a problem for the mother-then kill them-How dare you question a woman’s so called right to kill their child-and BS to late term abortion’s only happens when something bad is wrong with the child. Mothers kill the children many times passed the legal time limit -just because.

  11. On immigration….Hillary IS READING! That is not debating, it’s prepared speech!

  12. Listening on the radio. Much better. He is doing well. Surprisingly Wallace is doing ok.

  13. Radio is great! Trump got in at least a dozen zingers. She got in one.

    Right now she is pushing a no fly zone.

  14. Jesus…

    Thank god I’m drunk..

    • Radio was better!

      • I knew the second the words were out of his mouth that Trump’s refusal to accept election results is going to be the big take-away.

        Nothing else matters from tonight’s debate. That’s going to be the narrative take-away.

        Clinton +1 nationally over the next three days.

    • I was screaming a couple times-this is what you should say-he didn’t say it-then he would say it to another question. My way would have been better. Hillary has a tell-she smiles every time he says something that could hurt her.

      I think Wallace did a great job. Except for the question about accepting the election results-it should have a qualifier-if the election isn’t so close that it’s reasonable to contest the results.

      • Your job, my dear, when that is harped on for the next week, is to remind folks of 2000 and Al Gore. Somehow I think they will say it was “different” and that will be true because it was a democrat and their excrement does not ever smell.

        • Please help me remember-some question was asked and Hillary said I was talking about energy-I remember my mouth dropped open in confusion and I was absolutely astounded at her answer-like when she said she was talking about Lincoln.

        • Ummm, 2000 was different.

          In 2000, I don’t recall Gore trumping (see what I did there) up claims of a rigged election if he were to lose prior to the actual election.

          Post-election there was a legitimate issue that needed to be addressed. The issue went to court, it was addressed, and Gore subsequently conceded and accepted that result.

          Here, you have a major party candidate fanning the flames of the radicals in his party to the point that many actually believe that the ONLY way for their candidate to lose is if the whole thing was rigged and stolen from him.

          How is that the same thing?

          • Gore went around afterwards and gave speeches in which he implied the election was stolen. In those speeches he actually became unhinged and went into tirades of anger proving he was unfit for the office. After 9/11, one of my favorite sayings was if you want a nightmare just think President Gore.

            • From Gore’s concession speech:

              “Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new President-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.”

              As for speeches he gave afterwards on the issue, I cannot comment.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Maybe we should talk about how people react to the election results after they are tallied. There is an assumption that Trump will lose, yet RASMUSSEN poll this morning has Trump leading by 3 points. I think the results will sho c k the Left, who are in denial that they have a seriously flawed candidate who is pure establishment. The majority of the voting populace are fed up with the status quo and corruption. The Left wing media has no credibility any longer. Their ratings are the tell tale. The silent majority will speak loudly on election day. 🙂

          • gmanfortruth says:

            It s obvious that the question was inferring Trump losing. Who cares at this point.

    • You needed to be drunk for that debate. Geez.

  15. Wallace did a lot better than all the previous moderators. I thought HRC hogged the mic. I did not think either party did very well. During some of HRC’s presentations of the more seamy of her behavior I watched her eyes. They were down, did not look at the camera. In her closing remarks she eyed the camera. Trump could have done much especially on the SCOTUS question.

  16. Rizzo for President!

    Class act!

  17. Hillary can not say she is for the second amendment-she has pushed for the right of people to sue manufacturers of guns-suing the manufacturers would make being a manufacturer of guns impossible.

  18. I saw a news site tag line that late term abortion was addressed during the debate.

    Anyone care to tell how they think that went for both?

    • Hillary tried to portray it as an issue associated with the life of the mother or a pregnancy that has gone wrong. Trump got graphic and said they were ripping 9 month fetuses from the womb in pieces. His counter should have been a C-section solves the problem w/o killing the baby. On Roe, Trump did say he would appoint pro life justices and if Roe got overturned then it would be up to the states to regulate abortion.

      On the 2nd amendment, HRC threw out the 33K/yr gun deaths. DJT did not correct that. He should have countered with but 2/3 are suicides. What we really have is a violence, gang and drug problem in the democrat run inner cities.

      • Agree, but I would like to point out that Hillary used the late term abortions are only for serious problems with the pregnancy to support partial birth abortions. Which I figure T-Ray is alluding to when he says c-sections would solve the problem. Which was the question-why do you Hillary Clinton support partial birth abortions?

  19. So far I’ve seen 3 O’Keefe videos, tried to post a couple of them but for some reason they haven’t shown up. Wondering what people think about them.

    • It actually is devastating since it is clear where the violence comes from. Trump was right about the Chicago riot being instigated by HRC’s campaign staff. But it will not get the press that it should. If it was the RNC or Trump’s staff, we would not here the end of it.

      • The left has made the argument over and over again that it’s fair that they covered the tape of Trump 24/7 because he kept talking about it and that it is video. Now they aren’t covering this video-wonder why. Trump should talk about it everyday from now til the end of the election-see how their excuse holds up.

    • The knee jerk left is pulling the same thing they did with O’Keefe’s abortion tapes, “They are edited”. Bottom line is there are cuts but they are irrelevant to the narrative.

  20. Nothing much was said by Trump that hasn’t already been said over and over. HRC did what HRC does, reads from talking points, repeat talking points, nothing new here.

    Telling HRC to give the money back to country’s who treat woman poorly was a good move. She had no answer to that. She also lied about how much CF money is spent on charity work. She said 90% but it was widely reported that CF documents showed 5.6%

    Trump and the election results. First who cares if he accepts them if he loses? Why should that matter in the big picture? It don’t and won’t, nobody will care by Thanksgiving anyway. On a better note, Trump can use this to his favor. Trump ” I Hate To Lose, which is what this country needs because we have losers running things and we are losing”

    The media is, as usual, focused on stupid stuff that matters not one wit. His comment on them is spot on, they are corrupt and in the bag for Democrats.

    HRC is going to get us into a war with Russia and her economic policies will put the nail in the coffin of the Middle Class (at least those who live through the war).

    Who will hold Press Conferences leading up to election? Not HRC. Great way to debate without the smug looks leading up to debate, let’s see if Trump’s campaign has some smarts.

    • On the Clinton Foundation and the “percent going to charity” issue…

      The claim that only 6% goes to charity is deeply flawed. Based on the Clinton Foundation’s tax records, approximately 6% goes towards grants. But the CF is not an exclusively grant-giving foundation; most of its charitable work is done by the CF itself; it is more along the lines of an ‘operating’ foundation so to speak, unlike most other private foundations.

      I’m not saying that Clinton’s 90% number is necessarily correct, but the numbers I’ve seen from reports on the CF are much closer to that 90% figure – depending on the year as much as 89%, but typically hovers around 80%.

  21. Question to the Colonel.

    Did HRC release classified info by stating the response time of a Nuclear order?

    • Yes…..response times on everything is classified information. That is the short answer.

      Everything has a response time. Everything. Even the medical response times are classified. I do not know nor have seen the exact quote but given the context of your question….yes, the nuclear response time is the highest classification even ….SSIR.

  22. I have a question for Buck and Mathius, etal.

    If the Podesta statement is true….does this not constitute election fraud?

    • By the way…I did not watch the debates so I cannot render opinions on debate styles or answers.

      • I did.

        They were both pretty solid.

        Trump won – hands down – the “Most Improved” award. He stayed (mostly) under control and on topic. He wasn’t snorting like a bull. He avoided any major gaffes (except for his refusal to accept the results, which is going to be the main take-away).

        I’ll call it a draw – but I’ve consistently rated Trump’s performances higher than the consensus. He scored some solid hits and she was well-scripted. It showed when she was reciting rehearsed lines and when she was speaking freely (the later was always more effective). He got lost in the weeds a few times with conspiracy theories. He also missed a few golden opportunities, I thought, to stick it to Clinton. And his interjections continue to come off as juvenile. He told a few outright lies which made me wince – and I was surprised when she didn’t call him on it (especially his repeated claim to have been endorsed by ICE). She twisted the question on open borders (wiki leak) into something about energy policy and Wallace had to smack her around repeatedly before he gave up and moved things along.

        On that last note, Wallace did a fantastic job. He was tough and fair and held both candidates accountable and forced them to answer the questions. When they refused, he made it clear (if not in so many words) that he was moving on for time reasons and that the candidates had refused to answer the question.

        All that said, the main factor – as I’ve been saying – is that Trump needed a huge win. Not a marginal win, not a small loss, and certainly not the big loss that the narrative is shaping up to be. He couldn’t afford another negative cycle – or even a neutral one.

        She’s leading by a huge margin and he needed this last chance to narrow that. The only way to do that was to blow her out of the water, and he didn’t. His refusal to accept the results is going to be the big story of the next two days and the clock continues to tick away. From a horse-race perspective, nothing else matters.

        His only chances now:
        1. Massive and unprecedented polling errors.
        2. Clinton dies.
        3. Massive new Clinton revelations of a far more damaging nature (read: juicy, not dry – eg sex scandals).
        4. God himself descends from heaven and endorses Trump.
        5. Deus ex machina in the form of a major world-event that favors Trump (eg illegal Mexican immigrant who happens to be Muslim commits act of domestic terrorism).
        Really, at this stage, he would probably need two or three of these to make it up.

        This game is basically over and we will all be able to go back to living our lives soon.

        • Mathius

          Great analysis based on traditional thinking. But this cycle is not traditional.

          So we will indeed see in a few weeks. It is going to be interesting to see how close reality comes to the polling data. And Silver doesn’t have a perfect record either. He admitted a couple months back this cycle was not fitting his models. He is trying to address this with new prediction tools, apparently.

          What is of more interest to me is IF anyone was actually moved by the debates and to what extent and in which direction. CNN is busy this AM declaring a Big Debate victory for Clinton, based on what they admit is NOT a scientific poll. Sure enough the poll shows Clinton winning the debate by about 6 points. But she wins with 50%.

          But if you look at the other info produced by CNN we see Clinton winning in several categories but Most people NOT CHANGING their minds based on the debate. Furthermore, of those who had not made up their minds, but will not vote T or C based on the debate, Trump WINS by 1%.

          I am not sure we have a good handle on how people are reacting anymore. The echo chamber affect of alternate media and now the MSM could be distorting our perceptions. Most people assume everyone else is going to react the way they are. Because they don’t talk to anyone else.

          Now there is one very critical thing you overlooked in your analysis. Something I am not sure Silver accounts for. That is TURNOUT. And more importantly, turnout in KEY States.

          • He admitted a couple months back this cycle was not fitting his models. He is trying to address this with new prediction tools, apparently.

            His predictive model isn’t doing so hot because of how wild and how much news there’s been. But his “now cast” is just fine. And there’s just no way to shake the facts that, by the best scientific methods we know, and aggregated and controlled by a statistical genius, Trump is getting his ass handed to him right now. So, if nothing changes, we should expect that he will get his ass handed to him on Nov 8 (with maybe some regression to the mean).

            But if you look at the other info produced by CNN we see Clinton winning in several categories but Most people NOT CHANGING their minds based on the debate.

            Most people have already made up their minds. The real affect will be enthusiasm and who actually bothers to show up to the polls.

            Some borderline Likely Voters for Trump may – may – shift into the Registered Voter category and just stay home. Or the opposite. And likewise for Clinton.

            The undecideds are either “too cool to admit to having a preference” or aggressively checked out. This debate won’t move them. The lines are drawn baring a major event (see above). The only question left is turnout.

            Did that debate convince any Trumpies to sit this one out? Did it convince any Clintonites to drag themselves to the polls and unenthusiastically punch the hanging chad for her? Time will tell. I think maybe Clinton +1, tops – depends on how the media plays last night’s gaffe.

            Now there is one very critical thing you overlooked in your analysis. Something I am not sure Silver accounts for. That is TURNOUT. And more importantly, turnout in KEY States.

            Damnit. I really should read your whole post before commenting rather than responding in-line as I read. C’est la vie!

            Ok, so he absolutely does account for it, but it’s a notoriously hard thing to account for.

            That said, Clinton supposedly has a very strong get-out-the-vote ground game, especially in the swing states.

            Trump’s core is pretty damned enthusiastic (I don’t know anyone who is actually enthusiastic about Clinton).

            But it doesn’t really matter. His list of “must wins” is very long and hers is very short (outside of the obvious deep-red / deep blues.. obviously, Texas is a Trump must-win, but that’s not what I’m talking about – of course he’s going to win Texas).

            He needs to land: Georgia, Iowa, Arizona, Ohio, N. Carolina, Florida, Nevada, AND Pennsylvania (all of which except Georgia) are currently leaning or solidly Clinton). And, yes, that was an “and.” He needs them ALL.

            Clinton needs to keep her safe states and land any one of those. Everything else is gravy.

            Now, yes, there’s some correlation – if Trump somehow picks up PA (+7), he’s probably moved the needle enough that he picks up Arizona, too. But baring a huge national move (tick, tock), the chance that he “lucks out” via turnout enough to pick up every single one of those states is pretty darned slim.

            Just pure horse race here: his goose is nearly cooked.

            • Mathius

              I know Silver tries to account for turnout, but as you said it is much harder to adjust for, as it is not as predictable.

              Point of order. The election map would be the same for any Republican.

              We assume that if a better R had run they would win some of those “swing” states. But only because Clinton is so awful.

              Put up another D against another R and I am pretty sure your polling map would look the same.

              Trump does have a good chance of losing a traditionally R state, however. Or maybe shocking the world and winning a blue one.

              Question to you: Is Clinton going to win with less than 50% of the votes counted?

              • It’s actually a tricky question to answer (you knew that, of course).

                But in a “generic Blue Shirt vs generic Red Shirt,” the blues generally have a slight edge. But it wouldn’t be nearly this big. You can tell by looking at the House. If generic v generic were so Blue-biased (Blue +7-10), the House would deep-blue. Instead it flips around the middle with the reds currently holding the majority.

                Certainly, in a generic-generic contest, Georgia and Arizona wouldn’t be swing states.

                Demographics and time are on the side of the Blue Shirts. Latino populations are on the rise and they lean heavily Blue. Young people (millennials) who grew up with President W or the jobless Great Recession that followed him (and who, fairly or not, blame him) and who endured the culture wars of anti-gay rights and bathroom bills etc are all belligerently hostile to Team Red (even if they’re not exactly gushing over Team Blue). And the loyalists for Red Team – the boomers – aren’t getting any younger.

                In 10 years or so, unless Team Red can get its act together (or, more likely, Team Blue splinters), Texas is going to be a lovely shade of purple.

                Bush, his wars, and the anti-gay rights movement coupled with Trump’s (perceived) hostility to Latinos cost Team Red an entire generation of young people. That’s not going to be an easy thing to come back from in the future. But here, today, Team Blue only holds a slight generic edge.

    • If the Podesta statement is true….does this not constitute election fraud?

      Sorry, which statement was this one? I can’t keep up with all the allegations.

      • The e mail that says: If an immigrant shows up with a driver’s license and attests that they are a citizen, they have a right to vote in Federal elections……

        This calls into question the 7 states that allow illegal/unlawful immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, does it not?

        By the way, not an allegation…there is nothing alleged about it.

        • Let me ask it this way….would you support the issue of illegal/unlawful immigrants the right to vote in a Federal or State election? This is a simple yes/no question.

        • I’m not really sure what the laws are. I would need more context. It certainly sounds bad.

          This calls into question the 7 states that allow illegal/unlawful immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, does it not?

          As a matter of policy, it is a very good idea to let illegal immigrants obtain licenses. For starters, it means they have to take a road test. Beyond this, their names and faces are in the DMV registry.

          I do think it should be stamped “NON CITIZEN” or some such, if it’s not already. But from a legal standpoint, licenses establish identity, not citizenship. That’s why, when you start a new job, you have to provide a passport or a SS Card, etc.

          By the way, not an allegation…there is nothing alleged about it.

          There is unless or until their authenticity is established. I don’t really trust Podesta, but I trust Wikileaks about as far as I can throw them. They’re clearly trying to manipulate the narrative here (or they would have just dumped the whole pile on the NYT and been done with it).

          I’d also find it odd (not impossible, but odd) that someone as senior as Podesta would be explicitly talking about enabling voter fraud via email. He should know better. People forget and make mistakes, but this would be a rookie mistake. It’s probably legit, but it’s still.. I don’t feel like I have 100% of the puzzle yet. I’ll do some research and revert.

          • Mathius

            There is good reason to string out the release of information that has nothing to do with manipulating or trying to steer the politics.

            If you dump it all at once the media will be buried. The media will then decide which items withing millions comes to light. By stringing it out, the volume is small enough that much more of the information gets to the light of day.

          • Mathius

            A foreigner in the USA does not need an American drivers license to drive in the USA.

            If a visitor is here legally, then they will have documents proving that. If these folks want a drivers license then I am OK with that, provided they have never had one from their home country.

            If they are illegal then they should be exported back to their home country. They sure as hell should not be given a drivers license. As a matter of policy it is outright stupid.

  23. President Hollande of France today has said that the Obama administration is responsible for the rise of ISIS. The Obama Administration is responsible for the immigrant propblem in Europe.

    He further went on to say that the establishment of the religion of Islam in France has turned out to be a major problem that we ( France ) needs to remedy. The fact that Islam refuses to assimilate is a problem that can no longer be ignored.

    Interesting comments from the GREAT SOCIETY of France….should have taken a closer look at the failed GREAT SOCIETY of Lyndon Johnson.

  24. Since I did not watch the debates, I just caught a snipet on the news of CNN. They are hammering Trump for not saying that he will accept the election results….and then I saw a snipet where Hillary has said that everyone knows that the Russians are trying to change the election….sure sounds to me like a set up to deny election results if she does not win…..

    Did I miss something?

    • Yes.

      You’re missing that

      (A) she has (apparently) 17 intelligence agencies supporting her assertion whereas he is pulling this out of his ass

      (B) she’s currently crushing him and is using the Russian manipulation talking-point to hurt him. She is not using it as a reason to deny a loss because she’s not currently likely to lose. He IS likely to lose and has been claiming that the whole thing is rigged and now he refuses to agree to accept the result of what is an almost certain outcome. So he is setting himself up to claim the election was stolen from him and that she’s not legitimate. She is not. In fact, when asked the same question by Wallace last night, she unequivocally stated she would accept the results (but of course, that’s easy to do when you’re ahead by 7+ points).

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The agencies in the Federal government are run by Liberal appointees. With yhat I call Bullshit on her c l as im.. Federal Agencies are as trustworthy as the Lib e rally media.

      • Mathius

        Those same agencies that were claiming all these hacks were by the Chinese. Seems I remember you saying that was unlikely. Now they are correct? Why? Because Clinton and Obama say so!

        Looks from here like your objectivity has a leftward lean to it.

      • Mathius

        Prove to me that Trump actually claimed this: “and now he refuses to agree to accept the result of what is an almost certain outcome. “

        • “and now he refuses to agree to accept the result

          WALLACE: But, sir, there is a tradition in this country — in fact, one of the prides of this country — is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying that you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?

          TRUMP: What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. OK?

          CLINTON: Well, Chris, let me respond to that, because that’s horrifying.

          Here we see Wallace asking Trump (after a few previous attempts (see transcript) to pin him down on the issue. Here you can see that he refuses to “commit to that principle [of conceding if he loses]” instead saying he’ll keep us in suspense.

          Thereafter you see Clinton smelling blood in the water and pouncing.

          […] of what is an almost certain outcome. “

          FiveThirtyEight is the gold standard of bias-free, data-driven analysis. Nate Silver, if you remember, called 50-for-50 states in the last election at a time he was publicly getting pummeled by the joke that was “unskewed statistics.” (this time around, there was a brief effort called LongRoom (I think) which was discontinued after Silver tore them limb from limb). In any event, Silver is calling the election for Clinton by the mid-80’th percentiles depending on the day. The logic is hard to escape, but, short of a MAJOR turn of events, Clinton has this thing locked down.

          • Mathius

            Why can you not simply say “he did not say that”? Because he did not claim he would not accept it. He said “we will have to look at it”.

            Exactly what Clinton will do if somehow she ends up with the short end of the stick.

            Trump is making a broad point about the corruption in our system, to which most lefties agree. Yet now he is running all that focus is on him somehow damaging the tradition of “accepting the outcome”. Which of course is just another myth propagated by the elite.

            Did Teddy Roosevelt simply “accept the outcome”?? How about those in the Whig party that created the Republican party?

            Yet you don’t seem willing to acknowledge the dishonesty of this line of quesitoning and argumentation aimed at Trump.

            As for the rest of your post, I have never said Trump was going to win. Only that I wish he would at this point in time. Because the entertainment value of watching the ELITE int his country wet themselves publicly would be worth it.

        • I feel I should take a moment and clarify something.

          Trump is a businessman. He is not a politician.

          Further, he is a rich and powerful businessman.

          And he has been for a very long time.

          He is very used to negotiating from a position of power. That is, he sits at the head of the boardroom table and issues edicts. He’s not used to being on the receiving end of judgement. He is not used to having to care what people think of him.

          That frees him to utilize some tools that aren’t readily available to the rest of us – and the tool I’m talking about here is positioning. As the business mogul, he can position himself however he wants, and there really is no repercussion.

          As President, he would have the power and position to use positioning again. If he starts out with “we’re going to build a 30ft tall wall across the entire Mexican border that Mexico is going to pay for, believe me, they’ll pay.” that gives him a lot of maneuvering room to end with something more realistic or, even, reasonable immigration reform which Mexico gladly cooperates with because it’s better than the loco alternative.

          If President Trump starts out with “we’re going to bomb Iran into the ground,” that gives him a lot of leverage to force Iran to the negotiating table on nuclear proliferation and terrorism, etc. Because he has positioned himself as just crazy enough that he might actually do what he says.

          But as a candidate, he doesn’t really have this tool. And I don’t think Candidate Trump has figured this out.

          Candidate Trump seems to believe that there are no consequences to saying outlandish things because, at the end of the day, he’ll settle (make a deal!!) in reasonable territory and (hopefully) his opening bid will result in a better ending position.

          This is no different than making a ridiculously lowball offer on a house you’re trying to buy. Sure you’re not going to get it, but it sets the stage for future negotiations where you might get it for less than you otherwise would.

          It’s just good business.

          But Candidate Trump doesn’t seem to have figured out that he’s auditioning and the public and the media are taking him at face value. If he says something nuts, they are reading it as him saying something nuts. I think the proper interpretation, frequently, is that he says something nuts so that, when the dust clears, he gets 90% of what he wanted instead of 60%.

          I think, viewed through this lens, much of what he says (including his refusal to commit to accepting the election results) makes a lot more sense and is – ultimately – far more benign.

          But that’s just my take. What do I know?

          • Mathius

            You know quite a bit. You just don’t act on all of it.

            I think your analysis is spot on with one addition. Much of Trump’s problem stems from his arrogance. Note, I did not say ego. After his success in the primary doing what he does, he failed to heed advice that he needed to change his TONE for the general election.

            When he tried he started making up ground. But then when he got attacked he responded in the same old way.

            His arrogance about his own brilliance I believe go in the way of constructing more useful responses to the attacks.

            There is also the issue of his delivery. I think most regular folks understand him better than the highly educated or elite trainees. They know what he means when he says build a wall. The elite are so stuck on themselves all they hear is wall.

            Once nominated Trump failed to recognize he needed a big chunk of the “moderate” or at least uncommitted intellectual types. He did not change the way he talks. That whole thing of “sounds presidential” is very important to a lot of people.

            Which is one reason Clinton can get away with her empty stuff. She sound presidential when she says nothing. Trump sounds like an oaf when he says something. No matter how spot on his point, it is the delivery style that is heard. Just as happened with Bush II.

            The difference was Bush II came across as a nice person. Trump grates on far to many people. Which again goes to his arrogance.

      • Which 17?

        Ya know, if British and French intel agencies back it up (as they have in the past) I would believe it but this crew, no way. So far what I have heard is agencies saying “It is possible” or “it is likely”. That, is no smoking gun.

  25. Wow. Joe Scarborough went off on the hypocrisy of the media over its reaction to Trump not jumping on board with making a “vow”.

    Not sure why Mathius and others on the left think this is so damaging. I hope Trump does vow to continue the fight even if he loses. Stop doing business and continue this movement he claims to have started. Fight the good fight.

    Reveal the corruption for all it is worth. Expose it, ridicule it and rub it in their faces.

  26. Interestingly, I read a lengthy article the other day on why a “no fly zone” over Syria would result in thousands of innocent deaths and push Russia and the USA to the brink of a shooting war. It was written by some foreign policy expert type and seemed to be aimed at criticizing Trump for calling for a no fly zone some time back.

    I see during the debate that Mrs. Clinton called for a ……… No Fly Zone.

    Can’t wait to see the media excoriate her for that……………….. never mind.

    • Bwahahahahaha…………. Found some of the stories on the article. It was quoting Mrs. Clinton’s speech to the Wall Street Bankers.

      Seems she was explaining why a no fly zone was not practical, although she was obviously trying to cover her bets with a long circular discussion of “oh my god it is so complicated”.

      • obviously trying to cover her bets with a long circular discussion of “oh my god it is so complicated”.

        I mean, to be completely fair, this stuff is MINDNUMBINGLY complicated.

        That’s one of the things I loathe about Trumpiness. Everything is so simple. Two-dimensional. Every problem has an easy answer that fits nicely on a bumper sticker.

        Didn’t we learn this lesson with W?

        The world doesn’t work like that. The world is just not that simple.

        And for all her failings, Clinton does recognize this fact.

  27. gman

    What is wrong with your fellow Pennsylvanians? How can this “person” be close in the polls? I thought I warned you to get your troops organized to keep her away from D.C..

    Ya gotta love it. Working to protect the environment and create jobs. This woman helped orchestrate the demise of the timber industry in the pacific nw. She participated in the deliberate political override of a scientific report on the impacts of the “New World Mine” near Yellowstone. The science found NO significant impact. The scientists were told “you got the wrong answer”. The NYT carried the story the next morning claiming that the govt. had found the mine WOULD have negative affects. Oh, did I mention the meeting was in Denver and did not conclude until AFTER the NYT deadline in NY? That’s right, the NYT had the story before the scientists had the story.

    The Clinton administration then went to work to buy out the mine.

    This lady, after working with Gore/Clinton to stop mining on federal lands had the gaul to stand before a convention of miners and ask “I don’t understand why you think we are against you. We need mining to keep our economy running”.

    Mathius: And you wonder why I don’t want another Clinton near the white house.

  28. Question to the audience.

    When did it become the media’s role to place candidates on the hook over “pledges” and “vows” of any kind?

    That used to be a stunt used by the other candidates in debates. Because it is just that, a stunt.

  29. So if we assume that Hillary is correct that Russia is trying to help Trump, why do they prefer him? Anyone?

    • Jennie, the only reason that Hillary is trying to blame Russia would be an attempt to have an election thrown out if she loses.

    • Hillary has played a role in Syria and Libya. Putin isn’t stupid and know that Hillary is a war hawk, not much different than a neocon. Putin probably feels he can negotiate with Trump and find a path to peace. Trump has said that peace with Russia would be good. Putin gets it. Frankly, I think war with Russia may occur if Hillary is elected.

    • It looks bad. She did, I believe call him a “traitor” last night. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it used to be the kiss of death to be called “soft on communism”. Throughout the 1950’s the R’s made hay out of “who lost China” pointing to a somewhat corrupted (and infiltrated) State Department. Same game now, just different players.

  30. G man…..I saw the the clip of what Hillary said about the “spin up” time. No one cares and quite a few people think that this is common knowledge. It is not….but she was wrong anyway. What it does point to is that, like Trump, she wanted to look important and looking important to her is more important than classified information and just points to the fact she can not nor do I expect her to, keep her mouth shut on classified information. She simply does not care at all and I do not expect her to defend the USA.

    • Just a quick question: wholly separate from whether Clinton should have said what she did or not.

      I – a lay civvie – was fairly confident that that number was sub-10. Whether it was 4 or 6, I couldn’t have said, but I was pretty sure it was less than 10 and absolutely less than 30.

      With that in mind, there is no situation I can think of which would require a missile launch faster than 30 minutes. It’s not like Russia can nuke us before we can react. And, even if they tried, and could somehow hit all our silos, they still couldn’t hit all of our subs. MAD is assured.

      So my question to you is this: Does this information (regardless of whether it should have been shared or what it might say about Clinton herself) actually matter?

      • Nope….but that is not the point, is it?

      • Mathius and the Colonel

        I told you guys a week ago that our own Def. Dept. people let the cat out of the bag. Well at least it appear they did. It could be a diversion. But I still maintain that CBS should have NEVER been given the access and the officers and Dep. Sec. Def. should have just said, “fast enough”, or “I am not at liberty to say”.

        I find it interesting, however, that following this piece the timing of our response would come up in a debate with Clinton. Anyway, read and weep.

        • I know you are not surprised but what ails me the most…..and as much as I like Mathius and Buck….they do not see through the smoke screen. I do not think that many people do. Blowing off the security violations as no big deal….well, they clearly do not understand the implications.

          There is another general that has lost his job, lost his pension, been demoted and career ruined for leaving a closed file on his desk that no one read. Clinton revealed CIA assets, in which two were killed, had an illegal server with classified information on it up to and including codes, ( that is why Texas does not give up its codes any longer in cooperation with the State Department. They are on a need to know basis. They were compromised right off her server ). It is clearly a double standard….and everyone laughs.

  31. Very interesting…..I could tell you but I want everyone to take the time, when they can, to look at who owns You have to follow it though several corporations and it takes about one hour to get through them all….but you will be surprised. ( Remember, howm many people believe Snopes is a non political fact check ) I eagerly await your disconvery.

  32. Very interesting…..Saudi Arabia is floating 140 billion in bonds…..they are broke.

    • Of course they are. You of all point should know what’s happening with oil prices / oil supplies.

      Saudi Arabia is the… err.. Saudi Arabia of oil.

  33. Just out…..Iran is asking for 50 billion dollars to release two more American captives. But we all know that Obama’s midnight cash deal was legit and not for ransom…..what now?

  34. The following predictions are not in any particular order.

    1. Hilary Clinton will win in an electoral landslide, although the voter turn-out will be low. Credit for the victory will go in large part to the turn out of the black vote and minorities mobilized by the Democratic machine. Trump’s gaffs will keep many away from the polls.

    2. The Black Lives Matter movement will fade away. Like the One Percent / anti wall street sit-ins when Romney was running, it will be recognized by some that the BLM movement was nothing more than a creation of the Democratic machine, with support from George Soros and others, to mobilize a segment of the population to get them to the polls.

    3. The Democrats will most likely take control of the Senate, although they may not have the 60 votes needed to pass everything they want.

    4. During the Obama administration, when the Democrats had less than sixty senators, they changed the 60 vote rule on certain key issues. They may expand this “nuclear option” to give them even greater control of the Senate.

    5. The Republicans will hopefully keep control of the House, but that is in doubt.

    6. Following Obama’s precedent, Hillary Clinton will implement a host of executive orders to circumvent Congress. Like Obama, hers will be an “imperial presidency” where Congress will be relegated to little more than a whipping child being blamed for all the ills of the country, unless the Democrats take control, in which case changes will be made legislatively to reduce the chances of a judicial rebuke.

    7. Hillary Clinton will appoint one or two Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court will take a sharp turn to the left locking in a liberal agenda that will continue for the rest of our lifetimes. The decisions will so alter the plain language of the Constitution, that many observers will acknowledge that it a document of historical interest with no real significance in the coming administration.

    8. The Second Amendment will be effectively repealed by the Supreme Court. It will be determined that the right to bear arms is limited to the military (“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State . . .” to reference the language in the Second Amendment).

    9. After the Supreme Court does the foregoing, laws will be passed both by states and the federal government outlawing ownership of certain types of guns, likely starting with military style AR-15 and similar weapons. Owners will be required to turn them in or face stiff consequences. Additional restrictions will be added over time. Semi-automatic hand weapons will be next, and so on. By taking away guns gradually over time the resistance from gun owners will be kept under control. Ownership of certain guns used for hunting will be permitted, but the guns and the owners will have to be registered with the government.

    10. The incidence of violent crime with guns will not be affected by the gun bans.

    11. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons was delayed by Obama’s massive cash payments to Iran until after he left office, Iran will likely acquire such a weapon during Clinton’s administration, sparking further unrest in that region and an arms race with Saudi Arabia and others.

    12. Israel will cease to exist during our lifetimes. Clinton will continue the pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel policies pursued by Obama. Ironically, the Jewish minority in this country will continue to vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

    13. The US military will continue its decline, unabated. Fewer carrier fleets be on active duty due to budget cuts. The standing army will be cut further to the lowest levels in nearly a century. Obama’s purge of the top leadership in our military will be continued, leaving only “yes” men loyal to Clinton’s political agenda. Russia and China will be emboldened by these cuts and continue their aggressive policies

    14. The Baltic States and Ukraine will, once again, become subjects of Russia either directly or indirectly. The Chinese will continue to militarize the South China Sea, using the recently created islands as military outposts for intimidating the surrounding countries including Vietnam and the Philippines. The US will do nothing significant to stop this action. China will become recognized as the dominant power in the south Pacific.

    15. The few remaining insurance companies still affiliated with Obama Care will pull out. The Democrats will finally realize their dream: nationalized, government controlled health care. Consequences will include:

    a. A continuing decline in the quality of health care started by Obama Care

    b. Continuing and dramatic increases in costs

    c. Government access to your most private information through centralized medical record keeping

    d. Restrictions on health care. For example, cancer treatment will not be permitted if the patient is over a certain age, details of which will be determined by government bureaucrats (previously described as ‘death panels.’)

    e. Long waiting lists for non-emergent care, such as knee or hip joint replacements

    16. Massive numbers of Muslims and other non-Christian, non-white, immigrants will be brought into the country. Clinton will quietly advance her open borders policies. Obama’s closest advisor is Valerie Jarrett, who was born and grew up in Iran. Hillary Clinton’s closest advisor is Huma Abedin, who grew up in Saudi Arabia and served as an assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1996 to 2008. The media will never connect the background of these advisors with these policies.

    17. Sharia Law will flourish in Muslim enclaves in this country. Law enforcement will stand by and not interfere with what occurs in those enclaves, following the French example. This situation will grow gradually over time and will affect our children much more than us.

    18. During the Obama administration, white Christians moved from the majority to the minority in the US. This trend will continue, the Clinton administration recognizing that the strength of the Democrats comes from government dependent minorities. Clinton’s abandonment of white Christian working class voters, manifested in the election campaign, will continue.

    19. The Guantanamo Bay detention center be shut down, and Hillary will return the US Naval base on the east end to Cuba in an act of “reconciliation” with the Communist dictatorship, further diminishing American influence in our hemisphere.

    20. Russia will increase its military presence in Cuba, perhaps taking over the former US Naval Base at Guantanamo.

    21. Several countries in the south Pacific will pivot towards China since the lack of support from the US will be apparent. The Philippines, a historical ally of the US, will be among the first.

    22. Taxes will increase dramatically, and the increase won’t be limited to “the rich.” Not only income taxes, but numerous less visible taxes will also be raised to conceal their effect on the middle class, following the pattern established by Obama.

    23. The dramatic increase in government regulation in our daily lives will only continue to increase. Small business growth will continue to diminish and many small businesses will shut down because of the burdens imposed.

    24. The economy will continue to grow at the lowest pace in decades due to the tax burden and over regulation.

    25. Efforts to nationalize the local police forces, already started by Obama in specific locations (such as Ferguson, Missouri) will continue, further expanding the Federal Government’s control over the states and localities. Executive orders will be used to further expand federal control over local police forces.

    26. Federal government control of elementary and high school agendas will be increased. Charter Schools may disaapear. Obama’s efforts to shut down private colleges outside of direct government control will continue under the HRC presidency. Increased federal funding for government colleges will provide the basis for increased control over state colleges.

    27. There will be direct assault on fracking, since carbon based fuel sources will remain a target of the Clinton administration, just as coal was a target of the Obama administration. Onerous federal regulations will be imposed by the EPA, outside of congressional control, sharply curtailing oil production by fracking, assuring American dependence of foreign oil.

    28. During the Obama administration, the power generating capacity of the country has decreased due to the war on coal. Although the power generating capacity has been able to keep up thus far, rolling brown outs and blackouts will begin to occur as demand surpasses supply. When this happens the majority of Americans will fail to see the connection between Obama and Clinton’s war on coal and oil as a factor.

    29. The national debt, which doubled during the Obama administration, will continue to grow, unabated. The stage for a major economic collapse will be set. Whether the collapse will occur during Clinton’s administration remains to be seen.

    30. Expect military adventures by Clinton, despite her comments to the contrary. They will be meager and poorly conceived, much like the air campaign on Libya which opened the door for ISIS. Or the cruise missile attacks by Bill Clinton on the eve of the impeachment vote. The possibility of a major conflagration is, however, growing given the increased global instability created by America’s withdrawal from the world stage, started by Obama and likely to be continued by Clinton. There are three forces for war: the growing militarization of China, Russia and Muslim radicalism.

    31. Crony capitalism will remain a hallmark of the Clinton administration. Certain business leaders will have favored status and their businesses will thrive, such as the Wall Street banks and General Electric. Special favor will be given to “green” industries. The Clinton administration will continue to insert itself into many aspects of business, interfering with the free market system to the detriment of the American people.

    32. President Hillary Clinton’s administration will take vindictive action against Donald Trump. It may be an aggressive IRS assault, quietly prohibiting the use of Trump properties for government business, criminal charges based on his university or charitable organizations, or something else. What specific reprisals will be taken is hard to predict.

    33. There will be significant scandals. They will involve events occurring both before and after she becomes president. How much we learn about those scandals will depend on whether the House remains in Republican control.

    Not D13’s predictions but interesting and not far fetched at all.

    • So when does Texas succeed? After 8? Oh, 21 seems to have already happened.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      # 12….sooner than you think, unless you plan on an early demise. If Syria falls, a direct conduit will be attained for Iran and they have continued without let up have continued Khomeinis promise and goal to destroy Israel no matter what……HE also said the US will NOT and I repeat WILL not intercede. Look at the activity off of Yemen the pincer is closing.

    • The Philippine President has announced he is re-aligning with China. They have hashed out a deal on the South China Sea. Another Obama WIN!

      • Talk about not letting the door hit you on the ass on your way out!

        Philippine President Announces “Separation” from US
        Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, speaking in Beijing Thursday, declared a break in the historic relationship between the US and the Philippines in favor of a new alignment with China. “In this venue, your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States,” Duterte said at the Great Hall of the People, according to Reuters. “Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has lost.” Duterte’s trip to China also involved negotiations on trade deals worth $13.5 billion and talks on disputed territories in the South China Sea. Duterte’s speech comes after weeks of insults aimed at President Barack Obama and promises to end joint military exercises and patrols between US and Philippine forces. “I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to [President Vladimir] Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world—China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way,” Duterte said during his speech Thursday. “I will not go to America anymore. We will just be insulted there…So time to say goodbye my friend.”

        White House spokesman Eric Shultz said Thursday the US government hasn’t received an official request from Philippine officials to alter cooperation between the two countries. “I will tell you that we continue to be the Philippines’ strongest economic partner,” he said. Shultz said the government believes it’s in the US’ interest for the Philippines to have a strong relationship with China as long as it’s consistent with international norms. “We don’t consider this a zero-sum game,” he said. Last week, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel said he was “not aware of any material change in the security cooperation between the US and the Philippines” despite Duterte’s recent comments. “There’s a difference between talking about these things and actually stopping,” Russel said. “I’m not saying that it won’t happen, it couldn’t happen, merely that there’s a distinction to be made between general, high-level pronouncements and considered policy decisions and actions.”

        • Oh noes.. not the Philippines!

          The Philippines was the #1 supplier of high school girlfriends for Mathius!

  35. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Even though so many states have a lot of computer voting and the DNC keeps saying that Russia is the deep dark villian trying to disrupt our elections and keeps pointing at Trump as a tool of Russia….but then Hillary’s and Bills ties not with standing,,, the bigger risk is the undocumented and the normal voter fraud. Double voting , dead people voting alla Chicago. recount after recount after recount with court interjection interpreting or allowing boxes of votes that miraculously turn up that all voted for the comedian months after the election and months into several court cases and they were just enough to swing the election, that all precious recounts and interpretation were for the RNC incumbant not by much but the DNC knew just how many votes were required to flip the election…..or a scandal like Stevens in Alaska…..

    • You mean, like the boxes that showed up in the trunk of a car in the Gore case….those boxes? Not to mention “Hanging Chad”…..that was miraculously still hanging after being out into boxes and transported all over the place…..or a ballot that was “dented”? Those??

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        This was Al Franken. Lost on the ballot by a couple hundred votes. Challenged, recount numbers changed but not by much, took it to court, recounts still lost by a close margin and the just before the courts months later in the spring were to make their final decision a box of votes that 100% were for Franken that were just sufficient to beat the margin that after several recounts consistantlt been for the incumbent. Courts ruled they count, even though they shows up in the trunk of a car from some place….Al Franken in.

  36. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I hope preople noticed that another General bit the dust. “Mis Handling of classified information. DOJ went after him and he plead guilty. He was Gen Cartwright either former JCS or active……Yet Hillary got a total and complete pass. With her server also shared with the clinton foundation, so much is redacted after intelligence reviews the doc are black, yet the FBI says only a few.

    Just go back to the days under Bills WH and the Chinese espionage at Los Alamos. Berger and others told Bill months and years after. Even the DOJ went after companies like Hughes for selling high tech stuff , Bill signed off on the sales of equipment and space, and nuclear technology, and took millions from China into his campaigns. and the spy who ultimately was caught sued the US and won a lawsuit of invasion of his privacy for millions in 1999.

  37. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I went out to my local for a bite to eat tonight. I did not sit in the bar, but in the restaurant side. Nice and quiet. They had several TV’s going….one had Seinfeld, one the VT game and the last had CNN. Their logo….”We ditched the circus for substance” The loop was the Trump comments about the rigged election and all the piling on, by Obama, Michelle, Bill Kristol, Gurgen etal. Why the hub bub. it’s rigged totally and completely. 1) Hillary should not be standing there with her national security violations, totally proven, yet not charged, for political reasons. E-maols show her campaign and the DNC colluded to insure Hillary winning the primaries instead of Sanders. She may win by vote sometimes, but even if Sanders won the super delegates went for Hillary. Podesta conspiring in Colorado for illegal votes to swing to Hillary……why would Trump feel otherwise?

    The other blurb was that the Philipenes have broken off totally and completely from the US. Over the encroachment of China by the contructed islands and the US has done NOTHING. The UN did nothing….World Court did nothing The PI President says, I think I’ll talk to Putin.

    The other was body language…..mostly pinging Trump and looped just one snarky and nose rubbing event by Hillary.

    Lastly oh my god this is important, Trump and Hillary will be seated near each other at a dinner.

    Welcome to the brave new world where the people do not matter. Especially here when the Progressives have openly said since Wilson that they have no use for the congress and the constitution……I still like the cartoon film of “The Animal Farm”

    • Remember, I warned about the Phillipines and China has actually moved on one of the Phillipines remote island.

      • I might mention that this is by design….the US knew of China’s encroachment plans before the bases were built on the reefs….the US and the State Department also knew, in advance, that China was going to claim a Phillipine Island. Convince me that this is not deliberate by the Obama administration to do nothing and sanctioning the encroahment. It is just amazing how all this happens and no one cares.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Been following the moves right along with you. The one thing I truly can not comprehend is all the “mistakes” our government has made over the past several decades. We can not be so unbelievably stupid unless it’s in the overall script. Why would anyone or country come to us for help anymore…..If we think that geopolitics is the ultimate match game….we are not even the JV team, but the red shirts…..I refuse to believe we’re that dumb. But are aiding and abetting the concept of a one world government.

        Look at the nuclear thefts from Los Alamos by the Chinese during Clinton’s time. Look at Clinton signing off on tech sales by Loral and Hughes to China enhancing their space and missle programs. Paying millions into Clintons campaigns. Berger not telling the president, same with Panetta, Freah tried to do something about the known spy Lee, but was stomped on. Only to be proved correct 19 months later. Then Lee successfully sued the US government for invasion of his privacy, even after all the spy business was proved and he was fired. I saw nothing that he was arrested for espionage, just fired….Clintons have it down pat. Just do not tell me and I have deniability. Put into full procedural practice by the Obama administration.

  38. This is what you get when the “greater good” moral standard of the left becomes part of business ethics. Don’t report on Joe getting killed by my techs failure when less people will die over all with my new tech. I wonder how Joe and his family feel about that??

  39. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I’ve noticed a lot of new electric vehicle recharging plug in consoles popping up all over downtown. One meter with every concievable plug receptacles surrounding it. Are we going to have extension cords running all over the lots or across the street to reach a plug or along the sidewalks……have to make sure they place their “trip hazard” warning cones out….I have to contact the board to see who is paying for the electrical charging. I suspect us residents in the downtown historical district. I have seen at boat yards that when you want to use the power outlets you plugged into a meter 1st then that into the outlet. It records your usage, then you pay the cost of the power used right then and there to the yard manager. Maybe when they fully are installed there will be a meter maid standing at each one…..make a job program….I doubt that though……the electric cars will be even more subsidized by the people instead of the owner.

    If this proves to raise our rates for us downtown, I can see a Paul Newman scene coming up with a pipecutter.

    • Wait for the accidental dog electrocutions!

    • Go Cool Hand…Go

    • Well in Oregon there will have to be someone to plug the car in. It is against the law for you to pump your own gas, unless it is diesel.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Look at the employment opportunity handling a large gas station. Instead of DIY and only one employee handling the stop and cash gas sales.

        I just remember all the electric vehicle owners out west bragging on how they scored FREE electricity to recharge their cars. Oh their so green….thieves also.

        It’ll be fun see the handicap scooters plugged in outside of the court house blocking the sidewalks.

        I’ll contact my friend on the city council and find out how they plan on “charging” pun intended, the users of these outlets. But then the city will do what they want anyway. They built a welcome center, including bathrooms, to the historical district right next door, in a piece of land they retained after moving several city services out of a building on the corner. There will be NO parking available because all that space went with the larger building and the condos being built inside. These people are spending serious bucks for living space hovering at 4000 sp ft per condo. They intend to put up a brick and iron security fence with electonic gates surrounding the welcome center except on our side. The city was supposed to build and have NO part of the facility within 5 feet of the line. They currently are 2 feet over. We have a looped driveway going behind the house and I can see people will pull into the driveway…Oh we’re just picking up brochures or junior has to go bad….we’ll just be a second. then drive through. An iron gate with electronic openers is being considered…..or also the city vows to close it at 1700. People empty out from the late bars at 0200 and many have to go. “Does a bear shit in the woods” sound familiar. I can just smell now the bushes between us.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      End of mystery on the power outlets that popped up. They’re used for the vendors during our street fairs. Our fall festival was rescheduled due to “Matthew” blowing through. They weren’t removed because the new date is in a few weeks, in November……warning by my source was do not call the city, it may give them ideas.

  40. search for the IDB TIPP poll.


      Sample bias.

      Search for my comment elsewhere on this page regarding polling.

      Also, national polls, while interesting, are nearly irrelevant to the actual outcome of the election. So, while she’s going to win the pop-vote anyway, the real important part is that she’s going to wipe the board with him in the electoral college. Hell, Georgia is in pay – GEORGIA! What does that tell you?

  41. Mathius

    You will love this:

    loved that show.

    • You’re correct. I did enjoy that.

      A little flimsy in places, but fun. Is Zarek supposed to be Sanders or Johnson?

      And that show was great until it jumped the shark in the last season. It was excellent as hard science fiction – even with the “all this has happened before” mythos. But then Starbuck starts getting visions and she dies and comes back and it veers in to science fantasy. The difference is, say, Star Trek vs Star Wars. Both are good in their own right, but if you started off watching Star Trek and then Picard started getting visions and having magic powers, it’d be a little offputting (yes, yes, I know: Q). Anyway, speaking of Patrick Stewart..

      Adding, Johnny Cash killed it with this cover.

      • Mathius

        Funny, Zarek is obviously the precursor to Trump. The funny part is the explanation is in fact what that election included, with respect to the two candidates.

        Agree, the sudden change in Starbuck’s experience was weird as much of the last season. I liked the twist that it had all happened before, that is they were really from earth orginally and nobody remembered. Not the same as visions and time loops though. It seemed like the show ended suddenly without finishing the story.

        Starbuck has recovered a little and is now a deputy Sheriff in Wyoming, in case you didn’t know. Still a lot messed up in the head but at least not having the same visions. Her boss has the visions instead……


    Some highlights:

    For starters, the notion of nationwide elections in a country as large as the U.S. is absurd on its face. Consider that one person — based only on his or her ability to 1) con people into believing that he thinks like they do and has their best interests at heart and, 2) persuade corporations and millions of people to fork over their money in exchange for benefits real or imagined – will be appointed to make decisions affecting 324 million Americans and 7.3 billion people around the world. Never mind that the only thing that person has in common with 99 percent of the voting public is the fact that they are breathing. And that one person this cycle turns out to be – if you believe the establishmentarians and their polls – Hillary Clinton.

    Yes, the same Hillary Clinton whose policies were rejected eight years ago by Democrat voters and Republican establishmentarians is now the candidate for both Democrat voters and Republican establishmentarians. That same Witch from Chappaqua who is in poor health, is widely derided and reviled, is corrupt to the core, has no significant accomplishments under her Mao suit and who just dodged a federal indictment over the email/classified info scandal, is the chosen candidate of both the political class and the propaganda media – in order to maintain the status quo.

    Obama tells us there’s “no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig elections.” Oh really, let us count the ways:

    The so-called nonpartisan debate commission prohibits anyone other than candidates from the two main parties from participating in the debates, which denies them equal access to the electorate.
    Many states set an extremely high bar for ballot access that keeps potential third-party candidates off the ballot.
    As Trump secured the nomination, instructions were sent out by the GOP establishment that Republicans in elected office must run away from Trump or, as Pat Buchanan wrote, “cease to be seen as morally fit partners in power.”
    The Obama Department of (In)Justice just gave Clinton a pass on numerous flagrant and blatant criminal acts regarding mishandling classified information and pay-to-play schemes, which maintained her viability as a candidate.
    Obama’s Department of Homeland Security said last month it may classify the election system as “critical infrastructure” because of the danger that hackers may tamper with (i.e. rig) the election. DHS is part of the same regime that recently cleared the table in order to keep Clinton’s election prospects alive.
    WikiLeaks has shown us that Clinton and DNC operatives have been working with a complicit propaganda media to misreport on Clinton’s health, the disruption of Trump rallies and the Benghazi/email scandal.
    WikiLeaks has shown us that the DNC and Clinton campaign conspired to steal the election from Bernie Sanders.
    Undercover video shot by Project Veritas shows that the Clinton campaign and DNC funded criminals for the expressed purpose of disrupting Trump rallies and admitted they have been rigging elections “for 50 years” and were intentionally registering illegals to vote. And the criminal heading up the operation was a frequent visitor to Obama in the White House.
    A company connected to George Soros, who has contributed millions of dollars to Clinton, Obama, Black Lives Matter and progressive organizations backing Clinton and Obama and their policies, provide electronic voting machines to 16 states.
    The propaganda media and moneyed interests prop up from the outset of the campaign cycle their favored candidates from each party with money and fawning media coverage in order to set up two Council on Foreign Relations/bankster-approved candidates for selection by the people.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Bush II the worst President in the modern era…..Uh Obama, CARTER, Johnson, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson,…..What a joke that Kerry complained. He was pure BS and no way he could win. He has proven his negotiating accumen and qualifications during his tenure as SOS and also enriching himself on big pharma stocks during the Obamacare hearings……fingers are tired….Nixon, Taft, McKinley

      • Kerry has no credibility in my mind. As an officer in Vietnam, he put himself in, and signed the paper work, for his three purple hearts. Never wounded from enemy action…the only wound he really received was from blowing up a rice bin and he did not get out of the way…had imbedded rice in his butt. That, alone, makes him a scourage.

  43. I don’t care what Bloomberg says, this was hysterical:

    • Yes, that was hilarious 🙂

    • Let me add, he probably will pardon her. Those who protected her may not fair do well.

      • No he won’t.

        A) She’s not going to be prosecuted, let alone convicted.
        B) He’s not going to be elected, so he won’t even be able to pardon a turkey.

        • Your dreaming!

          Donald Trump held onto a 1-point, 41%-40% lead over Hillary Clinton as the IBD/TIPP presidential tracking poll showed little impact on either candidate after their third and final presidential debate Wednesday night. Libertarian Gary Johnson ticked up 1 point to 8%, while the Green Party’s Jill Stein dropped a point to 4%.

          But in a head-to-head matchup, Clinton continues to hold a two-point edge over Trump, at 43% to 41% for Trump. With a bit more than two weeks until the election, just under 12% of respondents said they still weren’t sure which candidate they favored.

          The national poll of 789 likely voters has a margin of error of +/- 3.6 percentage points.

          Rasmussan also has Trump leading, so the polls are dependent on who is conducting (and skewing like CNN to favor Hillary). The Left Wing media bias has been fully exposed, FOX news is by far the most watched news channel and the alternative media is more popular than ever.

          In addition, MORE email leaks will be coming out, up on the docket….Tim Kaine, her VP choice, along with Donna Brazille. With Trumps YUGE rally’s and Clinton dealing with her extensive nap schedule (due to very small rally’s, which is a waste of her low amount of energy) to writing has yet to be completed on the wall, and continues to change. In addition, Clinton is a non exciting establishment candidate and Trump is just the opposite. In case you missed the Primary season, this is an anti-establishment election cycle, past rules simply don’t apply. Beware of false confidence, it usually gets one in trouble.

          • I’m such a junkie for this stuff…..

            Interesting choice of polls.. very interesting… IBD/TIPP and Rasmussen, you say… interesting indeed.

            Shall we take a quick survey of the last dozen major national polls?
            Poll: number of likely voters: Result
            Morning Consult: 1,395: Clinton + 6
            Rasmussen: 1,500: Trump +2
            IBD/TIPP: 789: Trump + 1: Trump +1

            USC: 3,001: Trump +1 (two-way / omits Johnson)
            Times-Picayune: 1,822: Clinton +12
            Google: 22,826: Clinton +5 (huge sample-size!)
            Quinnipiac: 1,007: Clinton +7
            YouGov: 925: Clinton +4
            Fox News: 912: Clinton +6
            Selzer: 1,000: Clinton +9
            Ipsos: 1,187: Clinton +5
            Rasmussen: 1,500: Clinton +1
            PRRI: 692: Clinton +15 (two-way / omits Johnson)
            Adjusted for bias (see here and here), only the recent Rasmussen shows a Trump lead with +1. But even without adjusting, that’s 3 polls showing a 1-2pt lead vs 9 polls showing a 1-12pt lag.

            But, of course, that’s only part of the story. The real meat is in the state polls because the popular vote doesn’t determine the winner (even though Clinton’s gong to win the pop vote as well – 90.7% likelihood). And in the electoral college, Trump is screwed.

            As I’ve pointed out before, Trump needs to win Pennsylvania, Nevada, Florida, N. Carolina, Iowa, and Arizona (all of which lean or are solidly Clinton), while not losing any states he currently leads in. He needs to win every single one of them without losing any other state he’s safe in (*cough* Utah *cough* Georgia *cough*). If Clinton lands a single one of them, she wins.

            And, probably more telling, is a map of the US scaled by electoral vote.

            It ain’t lookin’ good for Ol’ Trumpy.

            • Nope…perhaps it is time to change the electoral college and base it on states. as votes a state…so goes the vote.

              • But, we all know, that will not happen……our fathers are rolling over and that is sad.

              • base it on states. as votes a state…so goes the vote.

                Can you try saying that again? I’m not sure I can parse out what you’re saying…

              • Yes sir…..what ever the state votes…..if the state is a red state, you put a check mark in the red column….if a state is a blue state, you put a check mark in the blue column…..if the states tie, the tie breaker is the popular vote.

              • So you would have Wyoming (population 584k) get the same voting power as California (population 38.8mm)?

                So, if you live in Wyoming, you get 0.0000034% of the total vote. (3.44×10^-8)
                If you live in California, you get 0.000000052% of the total vote. (5.15×10^-10)

                In other words, if you live in Wyoming, your vote counts 67 times more than a Californian’s? (and 46x a Texan’s).

                By the way, even with the electoral college, a Wyomingite’s vote counts 3.65x what a Californian’s does according to my back-of-the-napkin math. (And 3.67x a Texan)

                What makes people who live in low-population states so much more important that the rest of us? Aren’t we all supposed to be equal?

                I propose an alternative: Screw the states and elect by direct popular vote.

            • Thanks for exposing the problems with polls. The difference in results shows how inaccurate they are. The polls are easily manipulated. Calling certain area codes more than others. Over sampling Democrats (CNN has been caught 3 (that’s THREE) times already). Let’s not forget that email leaks show that many media outlets are in the tank for HRC. Let’s also not forget that the six major news outlets, including FOX are owned by establishment elites. If you have noticed, I rarely link FOX or any other major media outlet. I also don’t link those that are totally Left, like HuffPo and The National Memo. Can’t trust any of them, or the polls.

              • Over sampling Democrats (CNN has been caught 3 (that’s THREE) times already)

                Citation, please?

                And sometimes the random sample oversamples on group or another. It evens out. That’s why you do several surveys with different methodologies by different groups at different times and combine them. That’s why I can look at the above and say that, net-net, Clinton is up. Because the preponderance of evidence suggests she is as opposed to cherry-picking the one or two outliers that support the answer you want to hear.

                You are positing a massive conspiracy involving thousands of individuals at dozens of different companies. Jefferson famously said that three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead. Yet, you sit there as suggest that every news outlet, even Fox(!!), is somehow in the tank for Clinton and secretly manipulating the polls for her benefit and no one has come forward with evidence to support this enormous conspiracy? I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy it. That many people cannot keep a secret. They just can’t.

                Polls have random error. Sometimes they overstate, sometimes understate. Taken collectively, they average to a representative picture. I spent a lot of time studying statistics, you’re not going to convince me that polls are worthless because of the occasional outlier one or two sigmas out.

              • Mathius, Averaging 20 skewed polls only gives you an average that is also skewed. To claim otherwise is….a skewed view of reality 😀

          • No, she will not be prosecuted no matter how guilty she is….and if Trump does win, he will not prosecute her either.

            If Clinton wins, Trump is toast. You will see the Clinton machine in action.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              That I agree 100%. Clinton will be vindictive for have been put to so much trouble to attaining the brass ring. Trump will be harrassed to no end, destroying his business.

            • d13thecolonel

              I think that totally depends on whether he stays politically active. If not then he is home free. If he does then yes, they will destroy him if they can. However, they run the danger of confirming everything he has said if they go after him. People like Podesta are evil, but not completely stupid. Please note I said “completely”. 🙂

              Ever notice how all these scandals levied against Republicans just disappear after an election, especially if the R loses. Same for Dems sometimes. Clinton is the exception so far. The scandals never go away. Will be interesting to see if elected POTUS if they will diminish or get even louder.


    • I have no idea what I’m looking at here. Is that The Wall™?

      The Election Can’t Be Rigged! […] except by white people

      I’ll remind you that both Clinton and Trump* are, in fact, white people.


      *or Orange

      • This link was just an example of Liberal hypocrisy and their constant racism. Believe me when I tell you that I can post link after link proving both, quite easily.

        • I can post plenty of links showing “Conservative hypocrisy and their constant racism” as well.

          Perhaps its time to accept that there are assholes on both sides and they are not representative of the whole in either case?

          You see, you (and others here) see the most offensive/stupid/obnoxious stuff from the left and somehow interpret it as representative of Liberals (writ large), yet when you see and hear about comparable stuff from the right, oh, no… no that’s just a small subset who don’t really represent us. Well that’s how we feel when we hear our side saying stupid things.

          Do you see what I’m saying? Is it really so unreasonable that here – SUFA – in this one isolated bastion of intelligent political discourse – that we refrain from maligning and entire subset of the population because of the cherry-picked actions of the few?

          It’s not Liberals who are hypocritical and racist – it’s jerks who happen to be liberal.
          Similarly, it’s not Conservatives who are hypocritical and racist – it’s jerks who happen to be Conservative.

          If you can write-off the idiots on your side (*cough* Duke *cough* LePage *cough* Coulter *cough*), then it’s only fair that you return the favor when considering your political opposition.

          • Mathius

            Not liberals but those who are running the “liberal” or “progressive” brand.

            This of course sticks to those running the “elephant” brand as well.

            Knowing both I do have to say the corruption on the D or P side is greater right now than on the other side. But that is today. Tomorrow the “other side” will probably catch up.

            I do think you are blind to the powers in play in this country. Either due to lack of time or an unwillingness to see it.

            The number of organizations and opinion leaders aligned on the Progressive side far outnumber those on the “right”. Both in number and influence. I bring you back to Soro’s comment when Obama was first elected and the Dems took Congress. “We bought it, we own it”. Now as I have offered here many times, part of the reason they are so numerous is because they represent a “majority” opinion. At least in a general sense. When you get down to some specific goals they lose support.

            Which is part of how they function. Only announce the generally acceptable things, do not discuss the others. Like globalized banking, doing away with money, diminishing US Sovereignty.

            I get a laugh out of how the “left” is always going after the Kroc brothers or some rich casinoe owner in Vegas for supporting political groups. For God’s sake, the “left” has the United Nations in its pocket, along with many world Governments. They hold control of most Universities and daily media commentary. And who owns major news outlets does not change the reality of who is doing the reporting or editorializing.

            People get to distracted at times on the small things or individuals making stupid comments or getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The bigger problem or “infrastructure” goes unnoticed. The Wikileaks and recent Varitas tapes are revealing the bigger picture. But notice the initial reaction. It is to attack Wikileaks and Varitas in order to discredit the information. Yet anyone paying attention already knew this stuff was going on. That it is in fact real.

            I saw comments on left wing sites claiming the Wikileaks emails were fraudulent because “Podesta would be so stupid as to use emails”. Ah em……. I remind everyone of the emails and other correspondence by Karl Rove when in the White House. He was every bit the same type of person as Podesta.

            I totally agree with you on the cherry picking and we should either attack or dismiss certain individuals equally. However, this approach ignores or covers for the more powerful things going on, including the corruption. You in essence rationalize the garbage going on among the “liberal” side by criticizing the attacks as unbalanced because it is only “a few individuals”.

      • I’ll remind you that both Clinton and Trump* are, in fact, white people.

        You should remind all the Liberal’s who are racist then, since the linked tweet was from a Liberal.


    I fully believe that if Clinton is elected, current wars will continue and new ones will begin. Will we see another draft in our lifetime?

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      In at&t’s headline news….Huma….Hillary’s close confidant says that the Hillary was closely involved when she was SOS by being asked by the Moraccan leaders to ask Bill and his foundation to have a conference in their country. This was followed by a $12M donation to the foundation. The money was conditional, gone if the conference was held elsewhere….Why go to State…..go to the foundation directly…..also conditional was the places to rent and stay at.

      The lawyer that rents the downstairs says don’t waste my vote by voting for anyone but Hillary. In other words he and his wife are voting for Hillary because it is a forgone conclusion that she’ll win….I’d rather have my arm broken than pull that lever. Sounds like the elections in the former USSR and Iraq…..everyone voted “yes” and that legitimized the government……If a lawyer who has sworn to uphold the law votes for a candidate that has publically flaunted the law at least for the past 26 years….we’re screwed.

  46. Keep your eye on APO Island in the Phillipines…the Chinese navy is already there. They are extending the reef, as in the South China Seas, and lay claim to it. Apo Island is a popular diving reef and the divers and the commercial dive companies have been given their notice.

  47. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I’m going to go out on a geopolitical limb here. The dispute between Russia and the US is a smoke and mirrors diversion. The US and Russia will in all likely work together more often than not as the worlds policemen, in the pursuit of a common socialistic/progressive world government.

  48. Based on Saul Alinsky’s 8-steps from democracy to a socialist society. If you read Obama’s books, he quoted Alinsky quite often. If you read Hillary Clinton’s thesis, he was the subject.

    So, I took Alinsky’s book and followed it last night.

    1). Under healthcare he said ” Control healthcare and you control the populace “.

    2). Under Poverty he said ” Increase the poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control and will not fight if the government is providing everything for them to live.”

    3). Under debt he said ” increase the national debt to unsustainable levels. That way you are able to increase taxes and this will produce more poverty.”

    4). Under gun control he said ” Remove the ability for people to defend themselves from the government. That way, you are able to create a police state – total local conrol.”

    5) Under welfare he said ” Take control of every aspect of their lives ( food, livestock, housing, and income ).”

    6). Under education he said ” Take control of what people read and listen to and take control of the schools.”

    7). Under religion he said ” remove faith in God and remove it from government and schools.”

    8). Under class warfare he said ” Divide the people into the wealthy versus the poor. Racially divide the peoples. This will cause discontent and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with the full support of the voting poor. ”

    So, I have read his three favorite books: Dreams From my Father: A story of race and inheritance, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American Dream, and Of Thee I sing: A letter to my daughters. I suggest that those who are voting for Hillary Clinton read these books in their entirety. Hillary is an extension of Obama. I also suggest that you read her thesis, if you can now find it. I think that it has been taken down everywhere. It will scare you. They both quote Alinsky.

    Bu let us move forward.

    Item number one from Alinsky: Control the healthcare…90 percent completed. With the dropping out of the major health insurers, and the administrative order where states cannot compete across state lines, you have effectively eliminated competition and when everyone drops out, then you have complete control

    Item number two from Alinsky: Increasing the poverty level 95%. No POTUS in history has increased the poverty more that Obama and Hillary will continue it.

    Item number three from Alinsky: Making debt unsustainable…I think we are there 100%. And, as the governments own stats show, poverty is climbing to historic levels never before seen….including the great depression era.

    Item number four from Alinsky: Under gun control is not doing so well for Alinksy….however, it is a continuous I grade it about 30%.

    Item number five under Alinsky: Welfare is increasing as the poverty rate is increasing. 90% there. According to the governments own stats, the middle class reduced by over 35% just last year alone and it was not middle class moving up.

    Item number six under Alinsky: Under education, they are trying through common core using educational funds as a leverage. This is about 75% done. There are some states, like Texas, that have refused it and refused Federal funds.

    Item number seven under Alinsky : Religion being removed from government and schools. 98%…private schools are being targeted now.

    Item number eight under Alinsky: Class warfare…..a 100% increase over the last 8 years and Clinton will continue it.

    Do not take my word for it….look it up yourself.

  49. Mathius….to answer your question, yes. Let me turn it around….do you think that people in massive urban areas should have a greater say simply because more people live in those areas….so yes, I have always thought the electoral college procedure is flawed.

    You can throw any statistics you want…you live by statistics. I do not. Statistics, like you provided, can be made in any way. You have 50 states and territories. Wyoming gets the same vote as California, New York, and Texas.

    I will go with popular vote if you take out the obvious present fraudulent vote.

    • I did not like how Bush won his election. Just like I do not like the election, media, electoral college, that is in the bag now. The procedure is corrupt but it is the procedure.

      • The ONLY thing I remember worth remembering is that AL Gore wanted only THREE counties in Florida re-counted! Why’s that!

        The other less memorable thing was the minute examination of un punched “chads” to determine if human hands ever touched them, then calling on the Delphic Oracle to determine what they would have pushed. I am sure Dale, being an old time computer guy would be happy to explain to the young uns that when you “punch out” a chad it is more than obvious.

    • States, like countries, are fantasy lines on maps. They are meaningless.

      I could throw a stone and it would land in another state*. Why does the guy I just hit with a stone get a different say in who runs our shared government than I do?

      States are made up.

      People are real.

      One person, one vote.

      You don’t get 66x my vote just because you live in the middle of nowhere.

      And, yes, urban / populations centers should get a greater say than rural areas because there are more people there. More people means they get a greater say. That’s called democracy.

      California, Texas, New York, and Florida. These are where people live. Not Wyoming, not Alaska. They aren’t equal. More people equal more important. Period.


      Like you, I’m from a big state, so the idea of it being so close to other states feels… weird. It’s like how Europeans take casual trips to other countries. It’s just.. weird.

      • Mathius

        Well if boundaries are not real then neither is the US boundary. So I guess all the people of the world should be able to vote for our offices as well. Right?

      • The fundamental demonstration of your lack of knowledge about the Constitution and the whys. As demonstrated by the 17th Amendment you can change it! Give it a shot!

        • Well, hell…..forgot about the 17th amendment……take the electoral college out of the deal, let the Senators decide by vote of the State….so if New York, for example, elects two Democratic Senators, they get two votes as elected by the people….everyone gets a vote? intersting.

        • SK

          It is not his lack of understanding, it is his disagreement with the concepts.

          He has previously stated his desire for a SINGLE Federal Govt. With States being nothing but administrative areas, that are part of the Federal Govt. system.

          He supports True Democracy, supposedly. I say that because like most people claiming they want Democracy, I am guessing he would digress if he found himself in the minority.

      • Sorry Mathius….Texas is not New York…..our values are totally different. I feel that NewYork nor Texas nor Florida nor California should have a greater say…and quit throwing that 66x crap and I both know that is just a number like your imaginary lines.

        Let me throw this out….for example…..minimum wage. Minimum wage should be based on area not based on population. It is far cheaper to live in Texas than New York and you should have no say……like Social Security should also be a state issue….as should all taxes. But remember, I am NOT and never will be a GREATER GOOD person. That is where you and I differ somewhat. I believe in individual perspective and you are a BORG. Pretty simple…..excpet for the DPM, of course….his ship sails a different universe.

        So an eastern seaboard has no say to the midwest and vice versa. Sorry, sir, but other than fighting for your freedom, I have no other moral nor ethical obligation to you nor anyone else.

        But, I still luv ya man….you are fun and I would drink a DP with you***

        *** you can drink anything else.

        • We enjoy gasoline prices down here… it is available for $1.65, which I think is still too high….but just got back from Arizona and Nevada where the prices were well over 2 bucks.

          Three bed room flats down here rent for $800 per month and average 1200 sq feet… about Manhatten?****

          **** dont try to throw numbers at me…I have a nephew that lives in Manhatten and loves it. Do not know why but he does….but he is in the movie making business and, well, they are questionable at the very least….shit, he even used to live in Hollywood, California….he is infected with Liberalitus.

        • Minimum wage should be based on area not based on population. It is far cheaper to live in Texas than New York and you should have no say

          I actually agree.

          Some baseline number x a cost-of-living index for the given region, perhaps?

          It’s not really reasonable to expect people to live on the same amount in my area as they do in Oklahoma. Either you’re way overpaying the Oklahomans (Oklahomians? Oklahomites?) or you’re way underpaying the New Yorkers. Even within a state, Manhattan is very different from Schenectady.

          • Minimum wage should be decided by the employer and employee. Good GAWD, what passes for freedom in Texas anyway?

            • Merely an example, my firend…..I am bilingual in many languages, including liberalese. I have to talk to Mathius in Liberalese and he would never understand Freedom-ese…and damn sure does not speak Texican. I mean,….he does not even drink Dr Pepper, for crying out loud.

              Of course, all wages should be between employer and employee. Period…end of sentence. And not by and/or between union representatives. We are a right to work state and that is a different language than up in yankee-ville.

              • he would never understand Freedom-ese

                I’ll have you know I speak Freedomese just fine:
                Eagle Eagle ‘Murica Cheeseburger Freedom Eagle Yeehaw Ranch Dressing Eagle Strategery A-10 Warthog!


                (Recuerdes, soy de Los Angeles, asi que tengo que ser multilingue. Si vivas en Texas – cerca del Mexico – creo que tendrias que hablar otros idiomas, tambien.) (Mathius is too lazy to figure out how to type all the accents in, so you’ll have to supply them on your own).

              • Sí, es agradable ser multilingüe, pero no es necesario.

          • Okies 🙂

    • d13thecolonel


      I would like to remind you that if the POTUS powers were restored to the original intent it really would not matter so much how we elected that person. Not as many would care, for starters.

      And if done so, the States electing the President is more appropriate. The President and Governors form the “executive” branch of the united States.

  50. SUNLIGHT IS THE BEST DISINFECTANT: Woman Backtracks on Assault Claim After O’Keefe Video. “A woman who accused a Donald Trump supporter of punching her outside a Trump rally in North Carolina is backtracking after James O’Keefe and Project Veritas released video showing Democrat operatives claiming she was a trained activist. 69-year-old Shirley Teter of Asheville now says it is possible that 73-year-old Richard L. Campbell merely touched her accidentally, as his attorney had claimed all along.”

    How about that.

    97 Posted at 10:13 am by Glenn Reynolds

  51. Mathius

    Lets explore your Democracy theory. One person, one vote, majority rules. Right?

    Given: Not 100% of eligible voters will vote. No matter the reason, the actual vote will be south of somewhere around 60%. Almost all the time. This means that it is possible for no more than 30% of the people to get to rule over the remaining 70%.

    And since it is a majority of the popular vote, The only way for a minority viewpoint to be represented in Govt. is for the minority to find ways to become that 30%. They will have to do things like manipulating the media, spreading propaganda, gaining control of the education system, etc. etc., in order to gain just enough support to get that 30%.

    Of course they will not have to get this vote from every state. They will be able to focus on only a few places where the total will get them to that magic number. And they will not need all the votes in those areas, because they will get some elsewhere. No, they only need enough to drown out the other side so the “weighted average” gives them 30%.

    Now why, once elected, would any POTUS claim or try to represent ALL THE PEOPLE when he/she knows who the 30% were that elected them? And of course WHERE they come from, for the most part.

    I hope you get your wish quickly, before my tribe becomes insignificant. Because my tribe will get the 30% and first thing we will do is amend the Constitution to remove the voting power of those who lost. Sorry ladies of SUFA. Your just going to have to sacrifice your franchise for the greater good.

    • Well that sucks since females are the majority. Booooooo

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        My Mom was very Machivellian and devious when it came to analyzing the candidates and their words and deeds or lack of thereof. Generally she was correct. There was NO knee jerk vote that she ever cast.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Just wondering….If women generally did not have universal sufferage until the 19th Amendment…..were they allowed the right to vote on that amendment when it went to the States for ratification?

    • Ok, let’s play:

      Given: Not 100% of eligible voters will vote. No matter the reason, the actual vote will be south of somewhere around 60%. Almost all the time. This means that it is possible for no more than 30% of the people to get to rule over the remaining 70%.


      If you can’t be bothered to vote for your own interests, you abdicate to those who do show up.

      With the caveat that we don’t do anything resembling what I, liberally, might consider to be voter suppression.

      And since it is a majority of the popular vote, The only way for a minority viewpoint to be represented in Govt. is for the minority to find ways to become that 30%. They will have to do things like manipulating the media, spreading propaganda, gaining control of the education system, etc. etc., in order to gain just enough support to get that 30%.


      There’s coalition building. Horse-trading. Obstructionism. The filibuster. Et cetera.

      A simple majority wouldn’t, for example, give the majority power to amend the Constitution.

      Democracy doesn’t mean tyranny of the majority. It means rule by the majority with protections for the minority.

      Of course they will not have to get this vote from every state. They will be able to focus on only a few places where the total will get them to that magic number. And they will not need all the votes in those areas, because they will get some elsewhere. No, they only need enough to drown out the other side so the “weighted average” gives them 30%.

      Then that other side better bother to show up.

      You seem to assume that, because the most effective vote-getting will be through targeting the urban centers, that the rural swaths will just be forsaken. They won’t. They’ll have an opposition government which protects their interests. It will just be less powerful than the majority because – wait for it – it represents fewer people.

      But if you consider that – whichever side is in the minority – the minority gets around 40-50% of the national / total vote, so it stands to reason that that would still be the case and that the minority party would control about 40-50% of the government and would therefore be a very powerful opposition party.

      So the new Red-Blue divide wouldn’t be along state lines, but rather 90% of the area of the country would be red with “blueberries” representing most of the population centers.

      Now why, once elected, would any POTUS claim or try to represent ALL THE PEOPLE when he/she knows who the 30% were that elected them? And of course WHERE they come from, for the most part.

      Why, by that logic, would a current President try to represent anyone rather than just the states that voted for him (or her!) or are likely to do so in the next election. Why doesn’t, for example, Obama raise Texas’ tax rate to 95%?

      Because he can’t. Because Texas still has a voice in the government.

      Similarly, while TEXAS wouldn’t have a say, the PEOPLE OF TEXAS would. The 50-ish% who are red/rulal would still be red/rural and have a proportionate say in the government. To suggest that they don’t matter would be to suggest that opposition is futile in the present system and that the minority is automatically steamrolled on everything. It isn’t the case.

      To pass a bill, we still need 60 votes to get it out of the senate.

      The Census bureau says about 80% of the population lives in “urban” areas. That feels about right. So the rurals would control 20% of congress. But semi-rural and hick-towns would get another 20% or so. And then the rare Red-cities would get another 5-10%. All-in, you get your 40-50% control of the government. It’s not like 100% of every city and suburb automatically go one way and vote en masse.

      It’s also a safe bet that Team Blue would split because there’s a big difference between urban and suburban and between northern urban and souther urban. So you’d probably wind up with a coalition government.

      But I’d be amenable to talking about raising the filibuster requirement if necessary.

      I hope you get your wish quickly, before my tribe becomes insignificant. Because my tribe will get the 30% and first thing we will do is amend the Constitution to remove the voting power of those who lost. Sorry ladies of SUFA. Your just going to have to sacrifice your franchise for the greater good.

      Again, you seem to think that there are no protections for the minority. But we could have a deeper conversation about how to ensure the protection of minority (read: rural) interests.

      But right now – today – about half the country votes and about half of those voters win. So right now – today – the entire government is controlled by about 25% of the population. Right? So why would it be any different? The only difference is that states would be removed from the equation and everyone would get treated equally. But still, about half the government would be controlled by the opposition party representing rural, non-urban, and urban-but-rural-at-heart.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        I will go back and read your post more thoroughly. However, Our current President had no such thought about the majority protecting the minority. He always said we won suck it up. If he didn’t get his bill through without the current and past congresses, he just did his own thing and said F!!! you, try and stop me. Even though to overturn his unilateral EO.s would take an Super Majority. Why not a simple majority? He passed his thing without congress and legislation…… changing ONE word in by all stretches of anyones imagination was a treaty that needed to be submitted and approved by the Senate. From Treaty to Agreement and never submitted the Iran deal for approval. I believe the Climate Change BS in Paris was the same. The UN and the climate advocates said to Obama, you have to figure out a way to NOT submit the accord to Congress or the people.

        • Democracy doesn’t mean tyranny of the majority. It means rule by the majority with protections for the minority.

          NOW, there is a contradiction in terms.

      • Mathius

        Oh, so now State boundaries matter? Representatives? I thought you wanted a popular vote? I thought you wanted State lines to disappear.

        Your argument that a majority cannot impose upon a minority is FALSE. Now under our current system it is hard to be to egregious. But if you go to a simple popular vote, majority rules then all bets are off.

        And as I have said before, a 2/3 majority could reinstate Slavery anytime it wants.

    • Now why, once elected, would any POTUS claim or try to represent ALL THE PEOPLE when he/she knows who the 30% were that elected them?

      I doubt we have had one POTUS that has represented more than .00001 % of the people. Maybe that’s why so many are fed up with the establishment.

      As for voting for POTUS. Look at how many have no voice in the various States. As an example, Conservatives may as well stay home in California and Liberal’s may as well stay home in Oklahoma. These people have no voice in what is becoming a revolving dictatorship. We shouldn’t have “battleground States”, because it gives a minority of voters the final decision in who is Potus for the next 4-8 years.

      The two party system is a disaster.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        I’m actually coming around to the parlimentary system way of thinking. You see many different parties in the UK parliment. Of course there is two majors but to get to decide who rules depends on how many of these disperate groups they can cobble together to form a government….piss them off and they may withhold their support and the government falls and a new PM may be chosen…like Cameron backing the wrong horse and he lost his prime minister position. He lost the confidence and resigned. No matter how much the people object here we’re stuck. I’d like to see a bit more fluidity in our national government.

  52. Media collusion with Hillary is worse than anyone previously realized: staffers are directly working with mainstream “journalists” to develop news stories favorable to the campaign, according to latest batch of Clinton campaign emails released by Wikileaks.

    “Peter Nicholas (Wall Street Journal) is doing a story for Friday on caucus organizing efforts and the Sanders campaign’s theory that caucuses will be good for them in the same way that they were for Obama,” said campaign communications staffer Jesse Lehrich in a 2015 email. “We’ve pushed back with our theory of the case, including our strong organizing effort in Iowa and beyond.”

    The email also includes these little gems:

    [New York Times reporter] Maggie Haberman is doing a write-through of her story on Hillary Clinton’s claim that she had never been subpoenaed for tomorrow’s paper which will include the statement we put out this afternoon.

    Steven Holmes (CNN) is working on a piece with the premise that the black vote is the firewall for Hillary Clinton and Sanders is unlikely to make major inroads there.

    Annie Linskey (Boston Globe) is writing for Friday about new fundraising hosts getting involved in this campaign, specifically females.

    Huffington Post is doing a piece on our treasurer Jose Villareal — will likely focus at least partially on him sitting on the Walmart board.

    Other outstanding stories include: [Buzzfeed correspondent] Ruby Cramer on our grassroots organizing, Anita Kumar (McClatchy) on where we have organizers and how we’ve spent our money during Q2, and [Washington Post reporter] Phil Rucker on HRC talking about gun violence prevention.

    This is a campaign email? It reads like a reporter assignment list at a major newspaper.

    In short, the mainstream media is no longer the news media; it’s now simply a propaganda arm of the Clinton campaign deceptively posing as objective journalism to manipulate public opinion in Hillary’s favor.

    In another leaked email, Politico’s chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush asked Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta to approve his story prior to publication.

    “Because I have become a hack I will send you the whole section that pertains to you,” Thrush wrote to Podesta. “Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this [and] tell me if I f*cked up anything.”

    And other emails reveal the New York Times granted Hillary Clinton veto power over articles and the ability to retroactively determine which of her statement they could print.

    “Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says ‘I’m with her’ for this to be readily apparent,” LA Times contributor Justin Raimondo wrote. “The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.

  53. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    If one watches the facial expressions of most of the commentators of either party…..they all seem to have a snarky grin on their faces. That always leads me to believe that they are lying and really do not believe in what they are saying. Sort of like an inside joke where they know the punch line and how gullible the people are for sucking up their drivel.

  54. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I wish that a ballot would have a “None of the Above” choice….or just vote “present” like Obama did as Senator……at least show up and vote and that selection will be tabulated. Maybe that might get some attention to the candidates to vividly show that they do not rule but a fraction of the people and therefore we in fact have a minority rules government not a majority rules. And with the EO power of the president, damn near a dictatorship.

    • I proposed that on here several years ago. If NoA gets 50%, then all candidates are disqualified for 1 term and the election is done over.

  55. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    If healthcare is a “Right” as proposed by the democrats…..why did they not submit it to the people as an amendment to the “Bill of Rights” in our Constitution? Of course I know the answer…it would never have passed. They could not be bothered.

%d bloggers like this: