66 thoughts on “News/Politics 10-15-16

  1. Something smells fishy about this one…..

    Yesterday she claimed she was assaulted, but in April she was contacting his office looking for his help. Do women who’ve been assaulted typically reach out to their alleged abuser for help?

    You know the answer is no.

    Like

  2. And another refuted….

    http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp-puts-forward-witness-to-refute-sex-assault-claim/

    “Donald Trump’s campaign says a British man is countering claims that the GOP presidential nominee groped a woman on a cross-country flight more than three decades ago.

    The man says he was sitting across from the accuser and contacted the Trump campaign because he was incensed by her account — which is at odds with what he witnessed.

    “I have only met this accuser once and frankly cannot imagine why she is seeking to make out that Trump made sexual advances on her. Not only did he not do so (and I was present at all times) but it was she that was the one being flirtatious,” Anthony Gilberthorpe said in a note provided to The Post by the Trump campaign.

    In an exclusive interview arranged by the campaign, Gilberthorpe said he was on the flight — in either 1980 or 1981— where Jessica Leeds claimed Trump groped her.

    Gilberthorpe, 54, said he was sitting across the first class aisle from the couple and saw nothing inappropriate. Leeds was wearing a white pantsuit, he said, while Trump was wearing a suit and cuff-links, which he gave to his British flight companion.

    Indeed, Gilberthorpe claimed, Leeds was “trying too hard” in her attempt to win Trump over.

    “She wanted to marry him,” Gilberthorpe said of Leeds, who apparently made the confession when Trump excused himself and went to the bathroom.”
    —————————–

    So it looks like she’s slandering him now because he refused her advances then.

    Like

  3. AJ, there is a long discussion of this on my FB page. I think it is suspect that all of this is coming out 3 weeks before the election but I am not buying this British man’s story. I don’t recall who I flew with 30 years ago and I certainly wouldn’t recall what was going on with two other people. 30 years ago Trump wasn’t a “star” he was a real estate developer.

    Like

  4. An e-mail where a guy says why he’s voting for Trump:
    Whoopi says she will leave the country
    Rosie says she will leave the country…
    Sharpton says he will leave the country…
    Cher says she will leave the country…
    Cyrus says she will leave the country…

    That can’t help but improve things.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Hillary is bad, and Trump may be worse. We don’t have to vote for the lesser of two evils, which would be voting for an evil. We don’t have to vote against one or the other. We can vote for someone who represents who we are and what America stands for. Here are two options for us as Christians who want a leader with high moral character: Evan McMullin and Darrell Castle. Vote Your Conscience, not what the media or a political party tell you to do.

    Liked by 5 people

  6. I’m still opting out voting for president this time around, sadly. None of the above (either Trump or Clinton will win, and I can’t vote for either as it stands right now; I still don’t get the 3rd party allure and generally haven’t been impressed by those candidates anyway, they’re too far out of the mainstream to be a logical choice in my view; but it’s everyone for himself this time around, there’s no clear choice that will fit or work for everyone).

    Part of me is tempted to stay home altogether on Nov. 8 (remember, we don’t have many Republicans, period, on our ballots in the LA region anymore, often our races pit one Democrat against another — I don’t vote in many of those races, either). But there are a couple Republicans on the ballot (I’m more prone to vote for any and all republicans I can find this year, just to try to counterbalance what’s going on especially in our state) — and we have a slew of propositions to weigh in on. Many of those would increase our property taxes (again) and I lean toward voting “no” on those mostly (though not always).

    This is not a joyful or hopeful election in any way. It’s downright painful.

    What to make of all the scuttlebutt and accusations against Trump? I don’t know. People will believe the side they want to believe when it’s a he said-she said kind of thing. But for now, it’ll dominate the coverage, we’ll be hearing about it all weekend. A raging fire. It’ll eventually burn itself out eventually and voters will either believe one side or the other.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. And just to counter the “voting for the lesser of two evils” lament — (and I’d add it’s pretty much always been that way, to one degree or another, we live in a fallen world with a whole lot of fallen people, like all of us 🙂 But remember: A “lesser evil” is still a “lesser” evil … You take what you can get, it’ ain’t pretty and it ain’t perfect, not on this side of heaven.

    Like

  8. Kim,

    In the 80’s Trump was already famous. People tend to remember times in their life when you’re sitting in close proximity to someone famous. It tends to stick with you. It wouldn’t be unusual at all that he remembers the encounter, and the flirty woman (who was also aware of who Trump was) who played a part in it.

    Like

  9. I recently read a book called The End of America by John Price. Price believes that America is under God’s Judgment and will be destroyed. His reasoning is that he believes that America is “Daughter of Babylon” mentioned six places in the OT.
    I’m not sure I believe that. However his primary argument is that the US is turning away from helping Israel, mostly, but not entirely, by the Obama administration.
    But his other argument is the lack of constraint in our personal lives in America. He mentions:.
    1. Abortion Roe v. Wade
    2 Pornography
    3 Adultery/Divorce
    4 Same sex marriage 2003, Supreme court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas invalidated ,
    5, Violence
    6. Drug Culture
    7. Witchcraft
    8. Self indulgent lifestyles.
    We have to admit that we, as a country, have not only condoned, but promoted this. If it weren’t fro druggies in the US, there would be no warlords in South America.
    All of this came up because I was reading our SS lesson for tomorrow. I Peter 4:3 in the KJV says “…sought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness….
    Somehow, that never meant much to me. But the SBC version in our SS quarterly says:
    For there has already been enough time ….carrying on in unrestrained behavior , ……….”
    Unrestrained behavior is the phrase that caught me. It seems that today’s culture defines evil as trying to constrain whatever practices anyone chooses. Specifically those mentioned above.
    It may be that God has judgment in His plans for us. He has given us the leadership that almost assures it.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Kim, who would they speak up to? They may have complained to his organization. Getting the police involved may have sounded like way more of a hassle than they want–basically “this guy is scum, stay away from him” but don’t do anything beyond that.

    When I was a young teenager we once had a guest preacher who preached to our church twice, little church out in the country, and at the end he stood at the door and shook hands with all the men and kissed all the women on the lips. My sister and I shook hands with him at arm’s length, but he “got” my mom. On the way home we kids laughed about it, but Mom was annoyed and Dad was quietly furious. But really, what does one do about such an offense? Most of the time you just keep your distance from the guy and make sure it doesn’t happen again. If you work for him, you weigh whether it’s easier to just quit. If you don’t think you’ll ever see him again, you just get mad and tell your friends, and then let it go. I’m not saying one “should” do that, but if he has power and you don’t, sometimes it just isn’t worth the hassle–he’s trash and not worth that space in your head. If that preacher guy were to be running for office somewhere and he received such accusations and denied them, then I might be inclined to step forward and say, “Wait a minute–he did it to my mom! He’s a creep and a liar!” I don’t actually think he was a “creep,” just horribly wrong about what was appropriate (though I might be mistaken about that), but if he were to lie about it, it would make me mad. But if someone were to say, “Well, why didn’t you tell anyone when it happened? We don’t believe you, since you only came forward now, and didn’t tell anyone at the time,” I would say, “Who would we have told? It wasn’t something to have him arrested for, and there wasn’t anyone to tell. And anyway, we did tell other people; we just didn’t report it to the police.”

    In other words “They didn’t tell anyone at the time” is an argument from silence.

    I don’t know how many of these accusations hold water. But I’d be more surprised if he always kept his hands to himself than otherwise–there simply is way too much evidence of his being a cad to think that he always kept his hands to himself. He ogled openly, committed adultery brazenly, spoke with contempt about women repeatedly, bragged about sexual assault . . . BUT had the self-control never to make a pass without permission? He seems too much like Bill Clinton for that to be a strong likelihood. That itself isn’t evidence of guilt, but this is a man who has done nothing that would bring him character references when it comes to his relationships to women. I don’t buy the saying “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” because I think that Herman Cain was likely innocent of the accusations against him. Accusations can build on accusations against an innocent person. But I’m inclined to think that someone with Trump’s reputation cannot be defended, and is most likely guilty of at least some of the accusations.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. It’s impossible to prove a negative “No, I didn’t accost those women.” But that’s part of why character and reputation matter. Develop a reputation that it’s more than possible that you did something reprehensible you are accused of, and you have put yourself in a bad spot, a spot where you’re unlikely to earn much sympathy or trust. I don’t know what he did or didn’t do, and I’m past caring. His character is way past the point where he is a legitimate presidential choice, so the exact details don’t matter. They matter to those women, of course, but they don’t do much to say he’s not a good candidate, because that part was already clear.

    Like

  12. This is a scary line in that first piece: “While 94 percent of Evangelical pastors believe American Christians have a biblical responsibility to vote . . .” It seems to me that “biblical responsibility” should come with chapter and verse, or at least the biblical principle involved.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Thanks for those links, Peter L.

    Weighing in on the comment about not seeing the allure of voting 3rd party, I’m not speaking for anyone but myself, but the advantage I see in voting 3rd party over abstaining from voting, when neither the D nor R candidate is one an individual can in good conscience support, is this:

    Third parties frequently have to jump through many difficult hoops to get ballot access in the first place, taking steps that Republicans and Democrats do not have to do. But there are ways we can help ease that burden, which I’ll get to in a bit. First, though, this link gives some examples that show the difficulty 3rd parties face when trying to get ballot access in each state. http://www.constitutionparty.com/get-involved/election-central/ballot-access/

    WHO IS IN CHARGE OF BALLOT ACCESS?

    Ballot access is defined by each state legislature. The rules and regulations are put into place by each state’s Secretary of State, then filtered down to the county, parish, or borough auditors, who run and monitor each election in their respective jurisdictions.

    IS BALLOT ACCESS EQUAL FOR ALL POLITICAL PARTIES?

    No. Ballot access is generally free and open to all candidates running as Republicans and Democrats. Alternative parties and independents have other steps they must follow which vary from state to state. These steps are often expensive, time-consuming, and convoluted.

    I found the above at the Constitution Party website, and if you click on the link, you’ll also see a map and a listing of all the states and their current ballot access statuses. Darrell Castle for the Constitution Party is on the ballot in about half the states, and most of the rest of the states are listed as write-in. (I don’t understand the distinction between “write-in” and “not on ballet” designations — the latter pertaining to Massachusetts, North Carolina and Oklahoma — do those three states not recognize write-in candidates of any party? Not sure.)

    Anyway, in past research, I discovered that in my state (and perhaps others), if 3rd party candidates get a certain percentage of the total vote in one election, then they are guaranteed ballot access for the next election, without having to submit to the onerous burden of starting completely from scratch again to get on the ballot for the next election.

    So a vote for a 3rd party candidate in that case goes beyond being helpful in the present election, by also helping to facilitate future ease of access, among other benefits.

    For those who are disillusioned with the current state of politics with the top two parties — and many have been for a while, especially this year — and are wishing another party could gain a foothold, I think it makes sense to consider voting 3rd party rather than abstaining, to help make it easier in the future for alternative parties to arise and gain some much-needed visibility.

    I encourage everyone to at least check out ballot access requirements in your own state to see what could be done to ease the burdens faced by non-D and non-R candidates. These top two parties have been in a downward spiral for so many years now, getting increasingly far from the values of many people in this country. If there’s a 3rd party candidate who is relatively on the same page, values-wise, as you are, consider voting for him, whatever anyone else is doing. It’s a vote for not only the present, but also the future. Abstaining doesn’t do anything for the future.

    My two cents. I’m not trying to convince anyone. Just presenting some food for thought.

    God is in control. He has it all in hand. His will be done.

    Liked by 6 people

  14. I’m inclined to believe most if not al the accusations for the simple reason Donal Trump confessed. These women are merely confirming what Trump already bragged about. As for why they didn’t come forward earlier …. Cheryl provides a very good rationale. And as for why now? Well, Trump admitted it, so why not confirm it and not let him weasel his way out with the silly nonsense about locker room talk. 60 year old men don’t talk that way. Maybe 20 year olds at work and in the locker room but the older more mature men put them in their place not actually do the bragging. Billy Bush was fired by the Today show. Apparently NBC has higher standards than some Republicans.

    As for Bill Clinton’s behaviour …he’s not running for president nor is Malina. We don’t talk about Malina’s nude modelling career, so why bring Bill’s behaviour up? I actually believe most if not all of Bill’s accusers or consensual partners (i.e. Monica) but that’s not as relevant. In the case of Trump we have a personal admission of sexual assault complete with confirmation from the victims.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Chas,

    Looking at your list I think the US may be a lot better than your author suggests;
    1. The abortion rate is down to its pre Roe vs Wade rate. Pro-life won the battle just not the legal argument. It will continue to go down for various reasons — pro-life, birth control, sex ed.
    2. I never really had a problem with porn as long as its consenting adults and in the pre-internet days, it rarely affected adolescent sexuality. However, the easy access to porn for children is a problem; one I address in my health lessons. With proper sex ed and parenting, we can limit the ill effects of porn on adolescents.
    3.Adultry and divorce have always been here — the former more than the latter but at least we are honest
    4. Same sex marriage actually provides constraints to behaviour. Marriage can force gay couples to settle down and embrace middle class values.
    5. Violence has never been lower. Read Stephen Pinker’s book on the decline of violence
    6. Just legalize drugs. Prohibition creates crime as we learned in the 20s and 30s. Regulate drugs like alcohol and violence will decrease even more.
    7. Witchcraft?? Huh?
    8. Self-indulgent lifestyle — now that is a problem. And that has to do with emulating the idle rich…capitalism at its finest.

    Like

  16. Self-indulgence is part of our sin nature. It’s not new and certainly didn’t appear with the rise of capitalism. 🙂 It takes many forms.

    I’m not surprised if Trump took advantage of women and crossed lines he shouldn’t have (even to the point of assault). I guess if you’d suggested he did that a year ago, I would have thought, well, yeah, probably — the guy is famous, rich and makes no pretense about being conservative in his lifestyle (other than in not drinking, I suppose). He’s loud and kind of a jerk, clearly full of himself.

    But Trump was always an outlier candidate who didn’t (and didn’t try to) to fit the mold. He was running for office for the first time at age, what, 69 — after a celebrity career that certainly took in that kind of a lifestyle.

    Not defending it — and the stories are disconcerting, to say the least, as was the tape that was released a week ago. But he’s not Mitt Romney and I don’t think anyone ever thought he was particularly pure.

    Now flat-out denying ANY of it happened is another potential issue with regard to truthfulness that is fair game.

    Like

  17. Interesting, the window person who came to my house for a 2-hour consultation today seemed semi-warm toward Trump (without coming out and saying so).

    I have a feeling there are a lot of people who will still vote for him — but may not be saying that aloud.

    Like

  18. Interesting article from the Guardian. The writer points out that journalist have it wrong. Trump supporters are not the so called white trash that liberals elite can make fun but they come from the same class — white middle class — as most liberals.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/13/liberal-media-bias-working-class-americans?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1

    George Carlin once said of the class structure; the rich get all of the money and pay none of the taxes, the middle class pay all of the taxes and do all of the work and the poor are just there to scare the middle class. Essentially Trump supporters are the middle class who are scared.

    Like

  19. hwesseli – I can’t say why others bring up Bill Clinton’s immoral behavior, but I do to point out Hillary’s hypocrisy by enabling him to do it, then bullying the women who came out against him. And she claims she is for women. Ha!

    Liked by 2 people

  20. hwesseli: “Apparently NBC has higher standards than some Republicans.”

    How high are Hillary’s standards (and those of her supporters)?

    Like

  21. Bill Clinton is helpful as a point of comparison–look, we see what “that sort of man” does when given a chance, and also we see how it can prove distracting to a president to have no sexual self-control. But also, Hillary’s reaction at that time does make her “I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you” now to be a bit hypocritical. She’s not actually as pro-victim as she claims to be.

    And I say that with care, because for most of us, having our husband exposed to the whole world as an adulterer would be about as painful an event as is possible. But she treated it not as a threat to their marriage, but a threat to their political careers, and as such, the others involved (the women) were enemies to be neutralized.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Ricky, frequently I see your gravatar with nothing showing up below it (as 6:18 and 6:38 above). I assume you’re posting links I can’t see?

    Like

  23. Smoke and mirrors; this is what the conversation is about instead of Russia bringing home the families of diplomats and Obama threatening a cyberwar via NBC nightly news.

    Squirrels galore and we’re worried about , , ,

    “Some trust in chariots and some in horses but we will trust in the name of the Lord our God.”

    It’s our only hope.

    Liked by 3 people

  24. Sorry, Cheryl. The links are to Facebook posts. I always broaden the privacy settings on such posts, but sometimes it doesn’t work.

    Like

  25. Anonymous (hwesseli?): So Hillary needs to admit to something similar toTrump before her standards can be questioned? What about her actual deeds, and what she’s been involved in? Such as…

    Passing over 2000 classified emails on an unsecure, unauthorized server – the known evidence is conclusive. She also committed perjury. If the same exact evidence were applied to anyone else that person would already have been criminally charged. One can conclude that the fact the FBI director did not recommend charges means that he is either in the Clinton’s pocket, or afraid of them. Either way, he has lost all credibility even among the agents under his command.

    The Clinton Foundation took in funds from foreign entities in exchange for access to the State Department. This Foundation has taken over $1 billion dollars, of which only about 5% went to so-called charities in the form of contracting companies owned by friends doing projects in places like Haiti. Ask the Haitians if they have seen a penny of that charity. The other 90% has supposedly gone to “administrative costs.” While the Clintons do not pull a salary, the Foundation does provide them free travel on chartered jets and first-class airline seats and hotel stays. It should also be noted that the Foundation has been placed on Charity Navigator’s watch list.

    Then there’s the rest of her history: Benghazi, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, removal of files from Vince Foster’s office, lost Rose Law Firm billing records, Commerce Department’s pay-to-play Seats on CD’s international trade missions, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, Pardongate, and the Bosnia airport sniper lie.

    Is that what you call high standards?

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Cheryl — I think you are correct. Hilary isn’t innocent — she choose to cover her husband’s behaviour for political expediency. I do think she also developed a “circle the wagons” mentality after years of politically motivated investigations by her Republican opponents both in Arkansas and especially in Washington. In both cases, we have a woman who chose to stay with her husband, keep the family intact, and keep both careers intact. The repercussions to others may not have been positive but without knowing her motivations I do think we need to recognize her desire to maintain the family and their livelihood.

    Her opponent choose to change wives as they aged, publicly commit adultery, brag about groping women, and walking around the change room gawking at half naked teenage girls. And then sees nothing wrong with it. I often wonder if Hilary had the baggage of Donald, how the Republicans would react — Imagine Hilary standing on stage with 5 children from 3 different fathers when she accepts the nomination, imagine Hilary bragging about grabbing men’s privates and then dismiss it as mere talk, imagine Hilary using her foundation to pay a politician to drop an investigation, purchase two full length portraits of herself and make a profit, etc etc. And to top it off imagine if Hilary had no public experience and started her life with a small million dollar loan.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same.” Ronald Reagan

    Liked by 3 people

  28. Tychicus,

    I am anon. I didn’t say she had high standards just higher than Trump. Her behaviour and character is far better than Trump as is her ability to be president.

    The Clinton Foundation has an A rating from Charity Watch. Only 12% of the foundation money is used for overhead. And it has a five star rating from Charity Navigator ( I just looked it up) scoring 94.7 out of 100. Any linkage between foreign donors and favours from Hilary as secretary is weak at best according to Politfact. The Donald J Trump Foundation, however, is the one on the watch list.

    Both the emails and Benghazi were found to be careless but not criminal by Republicans and the FBI who’s lead investigator was a Republican. This has been par for the course for almost any investigation of the Clintons — the Republicans have spent millions to investigate all sorts of promising scandals only to have them fall apart. When it comes the Clintons, the Republicans are the party that cried wolf — no one listens anymore. Quite simply other than the Republican faithful people have scandal fatigue when it comes to the Clintons — nothing ever pans out so why take the next accusation seriously.

    Like

  29. The press has failed to do it’s job. They are even complicit in the cover-up.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press-buries-hillary-clintons-sins-1476401308?emailToken=JRr8cPh7Z3iQitI9b8wg1FBtdrMFEPTMTE7NLX3Rf0jNsHjcu/PkzKE0gcewp3jqXkd8/JVdszFhGWWI2zI6

    “If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.

    But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.

    It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.”
    ———————–
    “The entire progressive apparatus—the Clinton campaign and boosters at the Center for American Progress—appears to view voters as stupid and tiresome, segregated into groups that must either be cajoled into support or demeaned into silence. We read that Republicans are attracted to Catholicism’s “severely backwards gender relations” and only join the faith to “sound sophisticated”; that Democratic leaders such as Bill Richardson are “needy Latinos”; that Bernie Sanders supporters are “self-righteous”; that the only people who watch Miss America “are from the confederacy”; and that New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is “a terrorist.””

    Like

  30. Hillary’s nemesis again – Benghazi.

    “U.S. law also requires the secretary of state to ensure that all U.S. government personnel assigned to a diplomatic post abroad be located at one site. If not, the secretary — and only the secretary — with the concurrence of the agency head whose personnel will be located at a different location, must issue a waiver. The law, which states specifically that the waiver decision cannot be delegated, was passed after the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa, when deficient security was blamed for that debacle under Bill Clinton’s presidency.

    When asked about security at Benghazi on Sept. 11, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly asserted her lack of responsibility. Initially, she said that she never read any of the reporting on security conditions or any of the requests for additional security, claiming that “she delegated security to the professionals.” More recently, she stated that “[I]t was not my ball to carry.” But the law says otherwise. Sound familiar?”

    No consequences for breaking that law, or lying about it. What difference does it make?

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/11/what-benghazi-attack-taught-me-about-hillary-clinton.html

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Like

  32. Wikileaks — i read some of the Clinton leaks and wasn’t surprised other than by its bluntness. I would think people would be more professional in e-mail and blunt with texts. The lack of media exposure is due to its somewhat boring content and likely an agreement between journalists and the Clinton camp of many of the opinions expressed. Simply put, they dont see the big deal.

    Wikileaks promised an October surprise and thet delivered but its obvious now the Clinton camp had their own surprise. Nothing like sex and scandal to divert attention from emails.

    Benghazi — I often wonder why similar hearings and investigations weren’t conducted when embassies and consulates were attacked in the Bush admin. Yes she could’ve been perfect but…..

    Like

  33. HRW, I heard today that Trump said there is a conspiracy (no doubt right-wing) to accuse him of being a sexual predator. Apparently, Trump himself is a member of that conspiracy since he was the first to raise the allegation that he had committed multiple sexual assaults.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Bruce Bialosky is as non-partisan as they come. He is the author of Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison and Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets. Two clear attacks on the bipartisan graft and crony capitalism being done at the highest levels of our federal government.

    He has a few choice words to say about the Clintons. He is primarily talking about sections of the book Clinton Cash, and how the Clinton corruption is much worse than we thought.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2016/10/16/clinton-cash-worse-than-you-thought-n2231807?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

    Like

  35. Tychicus, You know this is like watching a Texas Tech game. You can keep scoring at will against Hillary, but HRW and I can always bring it right back down the field against Trump.😄

    Like

  36. Tychicus, I was in Austin to visit my mother this weekend and I can report that Austin is still weird. I saw something I had never seen before: A pickup with a Hillary sticker on it. My wife asked what the driver looked like and I had to confess I didn’t get much of a look at him. He was driving 45 mph in the middle lane while I blew past him going 80 in the Mustang.

    Like

  37. rw: The job growth in Austin, San Antonio and in-between has been incredible – nowhere else is growing faster. That’s all my old stompin’ grounds!

    (p.s. Be sure to read the comments in the Townhall article…)

    Liked by 1 person

  38. HRW, Like Trump, I have no impulse control. If you post an article that references a “dress rehearsal for fascism” I am going to have to do this:

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Now I have read the Hedges article. I agree with some of his points. I disagree that half of the nation is in poverty. I deal with the poorest half of the population regularly. Let me tell you about them:
    1. They all have smart phones.
    2. They have giant TVs.
    3. They drink $10 beers at Dallas Cowboy games. My son sat with them there last week.
    4. They still buy houses they can’t afford.
    5. Many are receiving disability benefits under false pretenses.
    6. They don’t pay income tax.
    7. They have illegitimate kids that we feed at their schools.
    8. If they are white, they like Trump.
    9. Too many of them don’t like to work.

    Like

  40. The Trump sexual assault case is essentially the OJ case for white people.

    OJ essentially confessed by riding around in a Bronco with a gun to his head. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence, blacks refused to believe he was guilty.

    Trump actually confessed on tape to multiple sexual assaults. The confession has now been supported by statements from 12 victims. Yet, (largely white) Trumpkins still attack his victims and assert his innocence.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. Try reading the Death of a Liberal Class. Hedges can be a moralizer and whiner but he accurately analyzes the façade that is the two party system and its weakness in facing right wing populism.

    Like

  42. I may do that, HRW. I think I sort of see where Hedges is coming from. I think he really cares about the very poor. I don’t think he is particularly open to the idea that free enterprise and free trade helps the poorest of the poor.

    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

    I have some respect for Obama for the same reason that Hedges is disappointed by him. Despite decades of liberal indoctrination, Obama understands some of the benefits of free trade.

    You have led me to say something that will offend most conservatives. Though I view Hillary and Trump as equally horrible, I prefer Obama to both Hillary and Trump. Obama has dignity. Though we disagree on almost all issues, I do not believe Obama is corrupt like Hillary or an amoral lunatic like Trump. Obama doesn’t really understand or trust free markets domestically, but he has been solid on the international trade agreements.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Tychicus, Here is good news for you. There is a young woman from our old church that has a ministry to foreign students at UT and other Central Texas colleges and universities. This weekend they had 250 students from 58 countries attend a seminar. I was one of the adults on her first mission trip to Memphis 18 years ago. God has used her mightily.

    Like

  44. PS The father of the missionary (a good friend of mine) is for Trump. However, the young missionary (who worked for Campus Crusade in the Middle East for several years) is for McMullin as is my sister and brother-in-law and my oldest niece. I may persuade my youngest niece to vote for Arnold the Dog.

    Like

  45. Obama looks alot better now.

    Trade is only one part of the equation. More importantl is science and technology in reducing poverty and making things more life sustaining.

    Like

  46. hwesseli,

    Since so much of poverty is a choice, science and technology will have little to do with reducing poverty and making things more life sustaining.

    If you think poverty in the US (and Canada) is not a choice, why do you know so many emigrants who did so well?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s