home

Post Apocalyspse: Day Two

Rudy Giuliani campaigns for the job of Attorney General on TV. He's not in favor of prosecuting Clinton or pardoning her. (She doesn't need a pardon, she committed no crime. How about talking about Rudy and FBI leaks)?

Neither Rudy nor Christie should be AG. [More...]

My view in 2004: Rudy Giuliani, Could You Just Gag? and What Was Rudy Thinking?

2016: Donald and Rudy Sitting in a Tree: The Former Combover Twins;

2008: The Rigid Reign of Rudy Giuliani

2015: Rudy Giuliani Knows All About Love

2007: Giuliani's Son Admits Falling Out Over Judith Nathan

I haven't even started on Rudy and Bernie Kerik yet. (Yes that's a photo of Mikhail Gorbachev in Rudy's office. Rudy's back is to the camera.)

In 2008, here's why the New York Times endorsed John McCain over Rudy Giuliani in the Rebublican primary:

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges. (my emphasis)

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

Back to Trump: In the Washington Post, check out Garrison Keiller: Trump Voters Won't Like What Happens Next -- it's a heads up to all his under-informed white male supporters.

Alas for the Trump voters, the disasters he will bring on this country will fall more heavily on them than anyone else. The uneducated white males who elected him are the vulnerable ones, and they will not like what happens next.

Hard to believe we're only on Day Two. Obama does the unity shtick while anyone with a brain is still retching at the thought of Trump and his merry band of authoritarians that will soon be placed in positions of power at the highest levels.

< Thursday Open Thread: Hangover Edition | R.I.P. Leonard Cohen >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Crowds gathering right now. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 06:30:06 PM EST
    On the streets of Baltimore in opposition to Trump.

    President-elect Trump (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 09:00:17 PM EST
    is back with a Twitter:  Professional protestors, incited by the media, are protesting.  So unfair.

    Trump is trying to intimidate the media (sign of things to come) and, of course, as the law and order guy, has no use for the First Amendment(more signs, if we needed any).

    Parent

    If the protesters are "professionals" (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 09:41:05 PM EST
    I need to know where to direct my daughters to go pick up their checks. They're getting ripped off by doing it free, just on principle or some such unAmerican nonsense.

    Parent
    These protests (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 10:06:23 PM EST
    Must have republicans scared by their reactions and spinning

    Parent
    Nope, the Repubs are (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 05:29:58 PM EST
    rolling in laughter watching the people who demanded Trump accept the results of the election reject the results.

    Nothing like doing things that unite the Repubs.

    Parent

    Trump himself said (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 07:13:05 PM EST
    He wouldn't accept the results.and its not a out that. It is against what trump is proposing. When you have Hispanic children marching and crying you are a very ugly and hateful person

    Parent
    I have no doubt (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 07:52:18 PM EST
    that you are laughing at them.  But they are afraid Trump will deport them and their families.

    It doesn't surprise me that you find that funny.  

    Parent

    Methinks (none / 0) (#30)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 09:15:10 AM EST
    the inauguration could turn into a messy brawl. I'm sure there will be a massive anti Trump presence in DC that day. There will be clashes between them and the Trumpers.

    Parent
    Yes, there is a call for a strike (none / 0) (#50)
    by Towanda on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 05:03:56 PM EST
    on January 20 (see Facebook, and elsewhere).

    No work.  No school.  No shopping.  To the streets.

    Parent

    And for a March on Washington (none / 0) (#94)
    by Towanda on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 10:35:50 PM EST
    on January 21.  Too cold?

    Parent
    Dem bench (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 08:53:16 PM EST
    Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsome.

    Rather than run against each other for DiFi's seat, smart people had them split the spoils--Gavin will be next governor after Jerry Brown is done.

    Bright future for both.  Gavin is very talented but he can screw up royally.

    Barbara Boxer, not Dianne Feinstein, retired. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 05:34:23 AM EST
    I did get that backwards (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 08:06:27 AM EST
    for some reason.

    But those are the two rising stars.   I think Gavin is more talented.  But Kamala has a head start on a more high profile office.

    Parent

    Gavin Newsom is indeed very talented, ... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 04:29:52 PM EST
    ... extremely bright and quite charismatic to the point of inspirational. But that noted, he has also demonstrated in the not-too-distant past that he's lacked personal self-discipline, in a very Bill Clinton-like way.

    To be perfectly honest, I found Newsom's self-indulgent and very humiliating betrayal of Alex Tourk, his best friend / campaign manager-turned-public cuckold, to be nothing short of despicable. I've known Tourk personally since the late 1990s, when we were both senior political staffers serving on the Council of State Governments-West, and I find him to be a really good guy. So to be just as frank, Newsom's transgression has darkly colored my perception of him ever since.

    For that reason, and were I still a California resident, I'd be inclined to support someone else in the 2018 Democratic gubernatorial primary. Another major declared candidate in that race (as of July 2016), State Treasurer John Chiang, is just as progressive as Newsom and in my estimation, just as qualified for the office.

    In fact, Chiang actually has much more practical experience in an executive capacity than does Newsom, having also served two full terms each as State Comptroller and member of the State Board of Equalization, respectively. Further, he doesn't have the personal baggage that Newsom carries. What he may lack in political charisma, he more than compensates with quiet grace and humility, personal confidence, competent stewardship, and consistent and effective results.

    Former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also declared his candidacy yesterday. But in my considered opinion, while he's certainly well-respected, qualified and capable, he's also the sort of insider / wheeler-dealer pol that Democrats would probably be wise to first very closely scrutinize, before considering whether or not to support him in our currently volatile political climate. Of the three major Democratic candidates for CA governor, Villaraigosa has shown enormous potential to be the most polarizing.

    That's my take on that race, anyway. And in any event, I'll happily and without reservation support whoever wins the nomination. Any other alternative is inconceivable.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I ran into (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 10:35:48 PM EST
    Villaraigosa--literally--as he was exiting and I was entering the men's room in a downtown LA steakhouse.  He just looked at me and said, "Heh, how ya doing?"

    He has a good personality and is likeable.  He reportedly had to take Spanish lessons because he really knew little...

    His time has passed.  He was a bigger deal when he was Mayor in 2008.  

    The current LA Mayor, Eric Garcetti (Gil's  son,) is doing well, but it is crowded field.  If DiFi retires, he could take her seat.

    Parent

    Newsroom has some competition. (none / 0) (#38)
    by caseyOR on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 12:04:12 PM EST
    Former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villarigiosa has announced that he will be running for governor of California when Jerry Brown's term is up.

    Parent
    Newsome. Auto-correct (none / 0) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 12:24:24 PM EST
    is the anti-christ.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 02:01:08 PM EST
    But if history is any guide, Southern California Democrats, even Latinos, don't have the pull of Northern California Democrats.

    The power center of the California Democrats is Northern California.

    Exhibit A:  Kamala beat Sanchez for Senate.

    Parent

    Actually, although Jerry Brown was ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 05:08:36 PM EST
    ... born and raised in San Francisco, when he was first elected governor back in 1974 at age 36, he was a Southern California resident, having moved there in the mid-1960s after law school. He worked for the then-prominent law firm Tuttle & Taylor, and lived in L.A.'s Silverlake district. His very first elective office was at the city level, as a member of the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees. From there, he subsequently won election as California Secretary of State in 1970.

    Of other prominent SoCal Democrats, Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles served as Speaker of the California State Assembly (1998-2000), as have his fellow Angelenos who succeeded him in that post -- Robert Hertzberg, Herb Wesson, Fabian Nuñez, John A. Pérez, and Karen Bass. The current Speaker, Anthony Rendon, is from Long Beach. His immediate predecessor, Toni Atkins, represents San Diego.

    For the better part of a century, Southern California was primarily Republican territory, which is why Northern Democrats long held sway in Democratic politics. But that has since very much changed as Los Angeles County began to turn into a Democratic stronghold following the election of Mayor Tom Bradley back in 1973.

    Today, SoCal Democrats have just as much political influence within the party as their counterparts up north. In the future, they may even come to dominate, as Democrats consolidate their hold in that much more populous region.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Bet you a dollar (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 06:18:29 PM EST
    Gavin Newsome will be the next governor.  

     

    Parent

    I think that's a likely bet. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 08:39:13 PM EST
    But as I said, Newsom would not be my first choice in the Democratic primary for reasons already stated. My preference is John Chiang. I'll support Newsom if he's the nominee, which he probably will be -- but not before.

    Parent
    John Chiang? (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 09:17:18 PM EST
    Don't know him.  

    I can't help it, I really like Gavin.....

    Parent

    John Chiang is the California State (none / 0) (#90)
    by caseyOR on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 10:25:39 PM EST
    Treasurer. It is expected that he will run for governor in 2018, also.

    Since the Republican Party in California is so weak, and Califirnia has a top two system rather than a one from each party system, thecgovernor's race will probably been between two Democrats.

    Parent

    Well, Gavin could always screw up (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 10:27:24 PM EST
    That may well be the case. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 06:05:15 AM EST
    And FYI, John Chiang formally declared his candidacy last July. While he's not exactly the most dynamic or charismatic of personalities, like Gov. Brown he is a very competent administrator with a progressive vision and a solid work ethic. He can be counted upon to continue the course set by Brown, which in my opinion is exactly what California needs.

    The self-inflicted fiasco that was Gov. Schwarzenegger appears to have sobered up the state's electorate. They're not looking to be entertained. They're likely going to want someone who can actually govern responsibly and effectively, especially in light of what just happened on Tuesday.

    Gavin Newsom has a lot of personal charisma and charm, and he's articulate and well-spoken. He's a business-friendly political centrist who has also shown a capacity to be bold and even courageous, as he was when as San Francisco mayor in 2004 he ordered the clerk's office to start issuing marriage licenses to LGBT couples, which was a very risky political move at the time. He deserves every accolade thrown his way for having done so.

    But there's often a fine line between bold and foolhardy, and Newsom's affair with the wife of his best friend and campaign manager was way beyond a foolish move. Such impulsive and self-indulgent behavior represented a profound betrayal of those values which, as a Roman Catholic, he purported to respect. He had effectively destroyed someone else's marriage, humiliated and lost a longtime friend and close ally, and apologized only because he was caught and publicly confronted.

    As political scandals go, it was both perception-altering and definitely not a shining moment. What was surprising, though, was while polls showed that women were much more understanding and willing to forgive, Newsom had seriously hurt his standing among married men for the exact reasons I articulated above. He had slept with his friend's wife, and thus proved that he respected no personal boundaries.

    Hopefully, now that he's stopped drinking, gotten re-married and has a family of his own, he's learned a lesson from that experience and is a better man for it. While anyone can make a mistake, that one was a real whopper.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Sheriff Clarke (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 02:37:05 PM EST
    Possible  leading candidate for DHS.

    Ben Cardon leading candidate for Dept of Education.

    Sarah Palin leading candidate for Interior.

    Goldman Sachs vet Steve Mnuchin leading candudate for Treasury.

    Newt leading candidate for  State.

    Surprised, (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 02:57:56 PM EST
    no mention of Joe Arpaio.  He will be having less to do soon, and likely meets the Pence transition team's goals.

    Parent
    Ok lawyers! (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 04:32:48 PM EST
    The Trump U fraud case goes to trial in a couple of weeks (Nov 28). The Trump team filed a motion a week or two ago to suppress any statements made by Trump in the course of running for office.

    The parties argued:

    In an Oct. 20 motion, Daniel Petrocelli wrote, "The media have reported on every aspect of Mr. Trump's life from his long background and history in business and his work in television, to his wife, daughters and sons, charitable foundation, taxes, and even the Miss Universe pageant."

    The attorney went on to argue that matters concerning the candidate's character and controversial behavior carry a danger of "extreme and irremediable prejudice," potentially tainting Trump's right to a fair trial.

    Brian Cochran, the attorney who will be arguing the case that Trump made misrepresentations by among other things vouching that Trump University teachers were personally "handpicked," objected and even compared the logic to Alec Baldwin's imitation of Trump on Saturday Night Live.

    "Trump cannot be allowed to bar from trial, without reference to a single specific statement or grounding in precedent, his own well-documented melange of misrepresentations, falsehoods and flip-flops, as such statements are textbook impeachment evidence appropriate for trial," wrote Cochran.

    Today the judge ruled (tentatively):

    "Defendants have not identified specific evidence that they wish to exclude," states the tentative order. "Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a blanket ruling at this time and is prepared to DENY Defendants' motion without prejudice. Defendants may renew their objection to specific testimony at trial."

    Thoughts?  Will this ruling stand as an exception to the hearsay rule? Isn't it allowed to introuce lies and false statements made by a party, even if those statements were not in connection with the case bfore the court specicially in fraud cases? Will the judge tailor it?  More importatnly, what are the odds that this case gets settled or will they plunge ahead and Donnie will actually have to testify?  And how are they going to seat an impartial jury?

    Trump Statements are not Hearsay! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Michael Masinter on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 08:32:41 PM EST
    Statements by a party opponent (Trump) are not hearsay per Rule 801(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and are admissible subject to objections on relevance and the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect.  That's why the judge denied the motion; it is not possible to balance prejudicial effect and probative value in the abstract; each statement would have to evaluated separately for that purpose, and the judge indicated he would conduct that balance at trial when the plaintiffs proposed to offer specific statements.  There's nothing out of the ordinary in that ruling.

    Parent
    Not sure about the mechanics (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 08:53:38 PM EST
    of how this could be done, nor, it's legality, but,

    wouldn't the quickest, and, smartest thing for Trump to do to get past this law suit:

    Form a group of (rich) Trump supporters (and, maybe, Trump himself, also)and group their money together into a fund for the purpose of pleading, "no contest," then, simply, paying off all the plaintiffs?  

    Parent

    He could do that (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 09:08:38 PM EST
    But he's said he won't and also he has said something to the effect it would be admitting guilt to fraud. He's also got federal racketeering charges

    Parent
    No, not "charges" (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 09:44:27 PM EST
    It's not a criminal case. A private civil suit alleging racketeering and fraud, and seeking an award of money damages. Serious, yes. But not criminal. Not brought by a state or federal prosecutor, need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, cannot result in a prison sentence.

    Parent
    "no contest" is a criminal plea - (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 09:39:43 PM EST
    and thus an irrelevant concept here. The "Trump U" case is a civil suit. All he has to do is offer the plaintiffs the money they're asking for, or enough of it, to settle the case. Happens all the time. Does not in any way imply, much less legally establish, guilt (or even liability) to settle a civil case. A "no contest" plea in a criminal case, by the way, results in the judge entering a finding of guilt and a conviction. It just doesn't constitute an admission by the defendant.

    Parent
    O.K. got it, thanks (none / 0) (#21)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 09:55:16 PM EST
    My point was, were I a Trump advisor, I'd want to get this awful distraction out of the news as quickly as possible. Even if Trump didn't want to be involved (on principal) I assume there would be nothing to stop an outside group of supporters doing it on their own.

    Parent
    Well he doesnt (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 10:02:23 PM EST
    Seem to be good at listening to advisors. This seems to be an ego thing with him and he could be judged harshly in the court of public opinion by settling

    Parent
    I know you (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 09:56:02 PM EST
    Are legally correct but I think this is about the court of public opinion that he would be considered committing fraud

    Parent
    Did I Hear Impeachment? (none / 0) (#4)
    by RickyJim on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 06:33:15 PM EST
    "Trump cannot be allowed to bar from trial, without reference to a single specific statement or grounding in precedent, his own well-documented melange of misrepresentations, falsehoods and flip-flops, as such statements are textbook impeachment evidence appropriate for trial," wrote Cochran.

    HaHa.  Of course Cochran was talking about impeaching Trump on the stand. But as for the other kind, my thoughts are that the Republicans would rather have Mike Pence as President and would gleefully remove Trump from office if given a good excuse - solid proof of fraud or tax evasion, say.

    Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
     It doesn't say they had to be committed while in office.

    Parent
    It would (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 07:09:18 PM EST
    Have to be something like fraud or tax evasion so serious that they could explain it to their voters. Otherwise the trumpets would riot

    Parent
    53 senators is not enough for removal (none / 0) (#6)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 07:26:11 PM EST
    Even if the house impeached, they would need democratic help with removal.  I'd rather see them embarrassed by Trump I think

    Parent
    And I'd certainly rather not see... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 09:20:00 AM EST
    President Pence...that's worse than Trump.

    Then again, if my suspicions are correct and Trump is interested in nothing more than the fancy title and the pomp and circumstance, we already have President Pence.

    Parent

    Google Jared Kushner (none / 0) (#33)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 10:36:10 AM EST
    A real estate developer, publisher and Trump's son-in-law.  He seems to have emerged as one person to whom Trump listens and trusts.  I have no information that Trump pays any attention to Pence.  I disagree that Pence would be worse than Trump.  He doesn't seem to have the extreme personality disorder.

    Parent
    Pence has extreme (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 11:20:29 AM EST
    anti-gay views and extreme religious views and boiler-late right-wing economic views...Trump's personality disorders are worrisome but I think the seemingly normal and soft-spoken psychopath is always more dangerous than the psychopath who wears their afflictions on their sleeve...at least with the latter it's clear what you're dealing with. Pence is stealthy.

    Parent
    I completely agree with you (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 03:15:45 AM EST
    On this.

    Nothing terrifies me more than "rulers" who perceive themselves to be without blemish and believe their mission is to be the finger of God. Such people in my experience are capable of horrible atrocity and they don't even blink. At least Trump desires to be admired and adored and he's an acknowledged sinner...there's something to work with there even if it's precious little. Pence doesn't care if you hate his guts. If he believes it to be his God's will he will choke you to death staring right into your eyes, and if you hate him while he does it, he doesn't care.

    Parent

    Agreed. Trump (none / 0) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    has no core values.  When offering, unsuccessfully, the vice presidential running mate to Gov. Kasich, the job description was to take charge of domestic and foreign matters.  So, what was left?  Trump would take the role of pr man.

     The weaknesses of Trump have been seized up by Paul Ryan and Republicans already--they see all their wet dreams coming to pass. They can hardly believe their good luck.

    Paul Ryan has announced that part of repealing Obamacare will be the phase-out of Medicare and replacement with Ryan's long-held plan to replace Medicare with coupons.

      Phase-out/reduction in social security benefits will surely follow.  Trump has spoken of protecting Medicare and Social Security, but with no core values, these social programs will just be bargaining chips in "making a deal."  (note: compromise is off limits with Republicans, but deals are OK).

     If Trump wants his wall, he can have it; but we must, of course, balance the budget in so doing.  The most ready source of big money, is to go after Medicare and Social Security.  The first, great deal.  Made on the backs Americans, including Trump's ardent supporters.   But, then, those Trump supporters knew or should have known that would be the case.  But, it did not make any difference--a price to pay for everything else they would get, such as.....

    Parent

    Do you really think (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 05:26:12 PM EST
    the House will vote articles of impeachment?

    Parent
    It would have to be (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 07:20:10 PM EST
    Big of enough charge but remember many in the GOP do not like him

    Parent
    Would that be orange or grape (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 07:47:06 PM EST
    kool aid?

    ;-)

    Parent

    Would being (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 08:53:57 PM EST
    Judged a fraud be enough? You tell me. He's going up on fraud charges in a few w÷is. Most laughable thing is his lawyer wants to suppress everything he said in his campaign. Maybe racketeering? Maybe. Harity fraud? Maybe he'll be found guilty on all three

    Parent
    I think the impeachment calls ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 08:46:12 PM EST
    ... are no less silly coming from hyperbolic Democrats and anti-Trump GOP dissidents now, then they were when they were being offered by their pro-Trump Republican counterparts prior to the election.

    Parent
    More Impeachment Talk (none / 0) (#105)
    by RickyJim on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 09:35:23 AM EST
    Alan Lichtman and David Brooks. Lichtman thinks that the excuse to impeach will come from Trump's so far undesclosed foreign business dealings which might be considered to undermine national security.  Brooks says, "After all, the guy will probably resign or be impeached within a year. The future is closer than you think".

    Parent
    If Tr*mp chooses to testify at the trial (not) (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 09:50:24 PM EST
    - or is subpoenaed and compelled to testify (somewhat more likely) - then he can be asked on direct or cross-examination (subject to the judge's discretionary control) about specific instances of lying on issues separate from the subject-matter of the trial. But if he doesn't testify, evidence of his pattern of untruthfulness is generally inadmissible. This is one of the most complex and oft-misunderstood of the rules of evidence.

    Parent
    Custom and practice (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 08:16:27 AM EST

    Intent.  Knowledge.  Motivation.  

    Hearsay not a bar.   All depends on your judge.  

    Parent

    So I'm raising a political junkie (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 07:38:14 PM EST
    And he's pissed at us "adults" tonight. He sneaks Cenk. Josh says Cenk called the reality on the ground in Michigan and the rust belt weeks ago.

    And now I am going to watch Trumpland. Meant to do that, but Michael Moore and Cenk, they started getting on my elite nerves. I really do want to know what the hell happened here.

    Van Jones says the little people have been ignored for a long time. I'm solidly middle class, and too smart financially to have gotten hurt in the crash. I really don't know how it is for everyone else.

    They told me growing up I had to take care of myself in this country financially and I believed them to the 9th degree. I never felt safe, I don't feel safe now, I probably never will. But that mindset shielded me, I am not normal. I'm not the norm.

    Election night wasn't an upset (none / 0) (#8)
    by McBain on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 07:52:51 PM EST
    The entire election cycle was a huge upset win for Trump. No one really thought he would even get the nomination, but election night should not have been a shocker.  There were several signs pointing towards a very close popular vote.  

    And now it's 2, so far 2 white Trump voters (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 08:02:48 PM EST
    Have said within earshot of me, "People are saying I'm racist, I'm not racist, why are they saying I'm racist?"

    God do they (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 09:04:21 PM EST
    Not know what they noted for

    Parent
    I have no clue Ga6th how they can't (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 10, 2016 at 09:39:56 PM EST
    Understand....they are dead serious too. Dead serious!

    Parent
    Your retort is simple: (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 05:33:00 AM EST
    "Of course, you're not a racist. But you sure don't seem to have any problems voting for a candidate who is not only a racist, but also bragged about committing sexual assault. Why is that?"

    Tell them that you're dead serious, too.

    Parent

    I wish I could Donald (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 06:26:53 AM EST
    But if you enabled this guy, in my book you're a racist.

    Parent
    What I offered is really ... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 11:06:30 PM EST
    ... a distinction without a difference, because their insistence that they're not racist is based entirely upon an illogical and faulty premise.

    Similarly, if you supported the candidate who promises to construct a wall along the entire 2,000-mile length of the Mexican-American border, then by logical deduction you also support the construction of a wall along the entire 2,000-mile Mexican-American border. There's no "Yeah, but" here. You really can't have it both ways.

    Further, if you like to tout the concept of "traditional family values" as many of us have come to understand that term's pop-culture meaning, yet you voted for the candidate who openly bragged about being able to "do anything to [women]" because he was a star, including "grab 'em by the pu$$y," then logic dictates that:

    (a) Your purported family values notwithstanding, you condone that man's sexual predation upon and serial abuse of women because you believe him to be special; or

    (b) Your concept of traditional values include the right to unilaterally grab others by their genitalia for one's own immediate amusement and gratification.

    As the late humanitarian Jane Addams once observed, "The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Then your book needs an editor (none / 0) (#32)
    by McBain on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 10:04:44 AM EST
    You're not looking at the big picture. There were several reasons why people voted for Trump and/or against Clinton.  

    Parent
    If you vote for a racist, (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 11:42:38 AM EST
    then you are supporting racism, no matter how pure you motives allegedly are.  

    Parent
    Motives not really (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 11:47:02 AM EST
    all that relevant.

    Voting for a racist for other reasons does not matter--the same result ensues: a racist is elected.   In some ways it is worse.  If a calculated decision is made to support a  racist because he is supposedly good  for the economy, then you have sold People of Color off for money (assuming the promise was not fools gold.)

    Racism and equality just do not matter to those who voted for a racist  for so-called other reasons.  Very ugly.

    Parent

    Thanl you for explaining this (none / 0) (#41)
    by vicndabx on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 12:34:53 PM EST
    a lot of people can't seem to grasp this simple and obvious fact.

    Parent
    sold people off for the good (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 03:42:46 PM EST
    of money and the economy..

    Why does that sound vaguely familiar?

    Parent

    It's almost as if you can't vote... (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 03:53:30 PM EST
    in this country without damning somebody.  

    I'm fine with owning your vote and all, but to let a person's vote define their very being almost exclusively is a bit much.  As is defining a human being almost exclusively by their gender/race/sexual identity.

    We're all much more complex than that.

    Parent

    kdog: "I'm fine with owning your vote and all, but to let a person's vote define their very being almost exclusively is a bit much.  As is defining a human being almost exclusively by their gender/race/sexual identity. We're all much more complex than that."

    ... with the fine adult arts of situational rationalization and moral relativism, which are but two small parts of those complex cerebral processes.

    While I would nominally agree that very few issues in this world can or should be starkly defined in terms of black and white, racism just so happens to be one of them. Pun intended.

    Look, you can't say that you oppose bigotry and discrimination, and then rationalize with any real degree of moral coherence why you then voted otherwise for an avowed racist and misogynist to be our president. Trump didn't even try to hide any of that. In fact, he openly appealed to it.

    In just such cases, kdog, you're either all in or all out. Either you oppose racism, or you don't. Either you oppose misogyny, or you don't. Either you oppose xenophobia, or you don't. Either you oppose homophobia, or you don't. There is absolutely no room for "Yeah, but" here.

    To attempt to land somewhere between Point A and Point B is to accede to the personal expediency of a given moment, rather than act resolutely upon your own purported principles.

    And that renders the latter subject to malleable interpretation and subsequent negotiation, and thus proves that your feet are planted firmly in  mid-air, rather than grounded on bedrock.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Hell yes!!!! (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 02:04:08 AM EST
    Not on all things (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 06:01:06 PM EST
    But the racism and misogyny of Trump was well beyond tax policy.

    Parent
    If you voted for him you're okay (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 12:16:40 PM EST
    With some racism, that makes you a racist!

    This $hit is on YOU GUYS. I did not do this $hit. You drank poison, chose to. The democracy is in crisis. YOU DID IT. Elections have consequences.

    Parent

    Wrong in so many ways (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by McBain on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 02:41:32 PM EST
    The left needs to come up with something better than the continual misuse of the race card.  It has completely lost it's value.  

    There also needs to be a better assessment of why Clinton lost. Insults against those who voted against her aren't helping.  

    Parent

    The right nominating for Higher Office (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 04:11:37 PM EST
    people who dismiss the findings of 21st century science in favor of the words of Holy Scripture written two thousand years ago, isn't an unfair attack or a smear, it's hideously stark reality.

    Are people going to start talking about others "playing the science card" or "playing the reality card" now?

    Parent

    Yes, racism, misogyny (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    xenophobia, and homophobia are not the only factors. Let's consider Comey into that assessment as well.  And, Russian hacking of DNC and publication by Julian Assange. And, no Russian hacking of Trump. And, what was the nature of those Russian interactions with the Trump campaign that the Russians acknowledge.

     And, no plausible explanation as to why just about every poll has been way off, including the model of Nate Silver--the most conservative giving Mrs. Cl;inton 79 percent chance of winning the day before the election, and climbing. Trump's internal polling showed that he would lose.

    The reason "people were lying to pollsters," is not convincing.  Pollsters are aware of that and factor it in. Yes, we need a better assessment, and even, an investigation into possible hanky panky in vote counting and recording.  After all, it was Trump, himself, who said the election was rigged.

    Parent

    Where did you hear Trump's (none / 0) (#54)
    by McBain on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 05:32:15 PM EST
    "internal polling" showed he would lose? Do you have a link?

    I'n no expert in polls but what I heard was most of them were oversampling democrats.... basically assuming an Obama-like turnout. When they were adjusted for a realistic Hillary turnout, the numbers were pretty even. I'm curious if anyone in TL knows how polls really work?

    I wasn't sure how the individual states would turn out but I thought Trump had a decent chance of winning the popular vote.

    I didn't put much stock into the theory that people wouldn't vote for Trump because they were offended by his comments.  

    As for Hillary, I'm not sure people knew what she stood for?  

    Parent

    The last time I checked (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 05:55:52 PM EST
    Trump has lost the popular vote by .2%.

    That's POINT 2%.

    A look at the map shows a red country with dots of blue.

    NYC, Boston, Chicago, Memphis, Atlanta, NO, LA, etc and etc.

    It is not "fly over country." It is non urban country.

    Parent

    Update, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 06:13:20 PM EST
    California still has 4.3 million votes left to count, and still does not include San Diego County.

    Link

    And that also does not include ballots still in the mail.  The ballots arriving today in the mail will also be counted.

    Hillary should net another 1.5 million votes from California alone.  And then there is the rest of the West Coast too.  Hillary should up with a popular vote lead of over 2 million.

    Parent

    Hes still a minority (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 07:24:30 PM EST
    President but yet when the final count is done the estimate is that he will probably lose by at least a million votes

    Parent
    No Ga (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 08:03:19 PM EST
    Trump won't "lose" and your accuracy is just as good as your claim that GA would go blue this year and elect a Demo senator in 2012;

    The difference is 395,595 or .3%. Take a dollar bill. Change it into 100 pennies. Take a hatchet. Chop it into 3 parts.

    Keep one of the 3.

    That'll give you a better idea of what your numbers mean.

    But even if you don't the facts are that President Elect Trump is the real deal, not sour grapes.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 08:47:19 PM EST
    But the numbers tell the truth.polling had us as a swing state.

    The final count is not in but the majority did not vote for trump and that majority is only going to increase.

    Why the beck are you so angry? Realized you've been fleeced? Trump is a minority president however as we saw with Bush that never stops radicals.

    Parent

    Jim, Orange County California (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 06:29:08 PM EST
    went Blue this  year.  Hillary won the County by 5 points.

    Parent
    The last time I checked (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    Trump has lost the popular vote by .2%.

    That's POINT 2%.

    A look at the map shows a red country with dots of blue.

    NYC, Boston, Chicago, Memphis, Atlanta, NO, LA, etc and etc.

    It is not "fly over country." It is non urban country.

    Parent

    We do not weigh votes, nor should we (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 09:55:21 PM EST
    by the square mile. One person, one vote. Lots more individual people live in those blue states than in the "red" states, lots more are registered Democrats than are Republicans, and lots more hold liberal to progressive opinions on issues than hold conservative views. But due to gerrymandering and 18th Century rules, the opposite forces hold power. You might even say the system is "rigged."

    Parent
    cow votes (none / 0) (#89)
    by linea on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 10:20:24 PM EST
    Most of 'Red Country' is sparsely populated. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 12:23:23 AM EST
    Nearly one-third of the U.S. population is concentrated in two relatively compact places -- the Northeastern urban megalopolis between Boston and Washington, and the California coast between the Sacramento River delta and San Diego Bay.

    At 663,267 square miles, the State of Alaska certainly looks much more impressive geographically in comparison to the relatively small State of Hawaii, which is only 10,931 square miles in area. Yet Alaska's entire population (738,432) is roughly half that of Hawaii (1,441,896).

    We don't elect our public officials based upon square mileage.

    Parent

    I have to come up with tasty distractions (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 10:35:12 PM EST
    So people will be compelled to not get their racism on? Kiss my a$$... seriously, kiss it!

    I need to hand out donuts so you won't fantasize about lynching people?

    Parent

    Oh, shove off, McBain. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 01:50:41 AM EST
    As a white person who has shown little or no reticence yourself in engaging in race-baiting, particularly when it comes to the "Black Lives Matter" movement, YOU have absolutely no business whatsoever defining the issue of racism for everyone else, never mind dictating to them how they should or should not think and / or feel about the subject.

    You've been repeatedly heedless of any real due regard for the feelings of people of color, yet Heaven forbid that your own should be hurt.

    If you're offended, good. So am I, and so are many others here, I daresay including our host, given her own justifiably angry posts these past three days.

    You brought it. You own it.

    Parent

    You're quite obviously not seeing ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 12:34:52 AM EST
    McBain: "You're not looking at the big picture. There were several reasons why people voted for Trump and/or against Clinton."

    ... the big picture yourself, McBain, when you tout the right's moral relativism as a virtuous rationale in voting for an emotionally immature and manifestly unqualified candidate, who by his own words and deeds is both an avowed racist and admitted sexual predator.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Can you name me one thing that (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 05:33:18 PM EST
    Trump has done that proves he is a racist?

    .

    a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

    adjective
    1.
    having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.



    Parent
    I defer to Speaker Ryan (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 06:02:23 PM EST
    who said Trump's comments regarding Judge Curiel were classic racism.  His words, not mine.

    But you think using racist stereotypes is not racist behavior.

    Parent

    I disagree with Ryan on many things... (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 07:43:05 PM EST
    such as health care insurance... does that mean I am supposed to agree on something else???

    Trump, pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper more than 20 times on whether he was invoking racism in his attacks on the judge, continued to point to his plans to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and renegotiate trade agreements between the two countries as justification and validation of his critiques.

    The presumptive GOP nominee said U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, a federal district judge in the Southern District of California, has made "rulings that people can't even believe."

    snip

    At the end of a lengthy exchange, Tapper asked: "If you are saying he cannot do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism?"

    No, what that does is put Trump into the position of claiming that the judge is bigoted towards him because of Trump's position on immigration.

    a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

    Racism is:

    the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

    prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

    CNN

    So what Trump did was call the judge a bigot. Is he?? I don't think so. I think Trump has a reason to fear that his statements have pi$$ed off the judge and was trying to insulate himself.

    The Left's continual attempts to call racism on any criticism by any political opponent has worn thin.

    Parent

    Trump said Curiel (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 07:48:45 PM EST
    could not be fair because he was a Mexican.

    That you don't see the bigotry in that is not surprising.

    Parent

    Oh I see your point (1.50 / 2) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 08:21:37 PM EST
    What you are claiming is that Trump is a bigot because he claims that the judge will not be fair because of some of the associations he belongs to and some of his rulings.

    "[Judge Curiel] is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine," Trump told CBS's John Dickerson. "But I say he's got bias." The club Trump was referring to was La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission "to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state."

    Translated, "la raza" means "the race." Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a a legal association called "The Race" with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity.

    Link

    He may be wrong. But stating a concern...that the judge won't be fair because of the group the judge belongs to doesn't make him a bigot or a racist.

    Parent

    Wrong quote (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 09:06:49 PM EST
    This is the clear direct quote that you missed:

    "He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico."

    Link

    He wasn't voicing concern; he was attempting to intimidate a federal judge.

    Parent

    So you're a racist if you (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 10:34:10 AM EST
    attempt to intimidate a federal judge with a Mexican heritage ???

    One more time.

    That may be mean. It may be nasty. It could even be illegal if expanded a bit. But it isn't

    racist

    a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
    synonyms:    racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist More
    adjective
    1.
    having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.

    or bigoted for that matter.

    Parent

    You are being (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 10:57:32 AM EST
    deliberately obtuse and misleading.

    It is not just that Judge Curiel's parents are from Mexico, or that Judge Curiel is "Mexican;" Trump said Judge Curiel could not be fair because he was a Mexican.

    But you know that.

    You never detect racism short of a lynching or a burning cross.

    Parent

    You agree with Ryan (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 10:51:04 PM EST
    on health care insurance?  And you keep saying you are for single payer??

    Ryan is not for single payer.

    Parent

    You didn't read (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 10:35:42 AM EST
    I disagree with Ryan on many things... (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 06:43:05 PM CST
    such as health care insurance... does that mean I am supposed to agree on something else???

    Parent
    Not being politically correct equals racism (none / 0) (#56)
    by McBain on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 05:41:02 PM EST
    sexism, homophobia and a bunch of other things right now. The more people throw those claims around, the less serious they will be taken.


    Parent
    True. I got my knuckles (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 05:58:27 PM EST
    rapped for bring the subject of corruption up even though I included both groups.

    If you can't discuss the problem you can't fix it.

    Parent

    Or his attempt to belittle Obama (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 06:03:36 PM EST
    by demanding to see his birth certificate.   And then still questioning him.  

    Parent
    Some do not like being (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 06:06:05 PM EST
    "politically correct" because it inhibits their ability to use racist stereotypes.

    Politically correct is another way to say civility.  But if you really want to post photos of Obama with a bone through his nose, then you do want civility, but do not want to let go of racist slurs.

    Parent

    "do not want civility" (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 06:06:54 PM EST
    If you do not like equal insults (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 07:11:31 PM EST
    that's fine. But until you defend people's right to do things that insult you you haven't demonstrated that you believe in free speech.

    Parent
    trading insults is one thing (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 07:27:53 PM EST
    resorting to a racial slur is another thing.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 07:50:32 PM EST
    Glad to know you condemn all those pics of Bush as a monkey.

    Parent
    You changed the subject (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 09:09:43 PM EST
    You used a racial slur against Obama.

    The monkey thing did not have the racial context that you used against Obama.  The "monkey" was not a comment about his race--but his intellect.  

    Parent

    The only one who visits this site (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 10:09:42 PM EST
    whoever stooped to that level was you, Jim.

    Though, in your case there's no stooping involved.

    Be sure and take some pictures for us at the upcoming KKK victory parade.

    Parent

    How about calling for the death penalty (none / 0) (#97)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Nov 11, 2016 at 11:19:11 PM EST
    for teenagers accused in the Central Park 5 case BEFORE they even went to trial. And   he refuses to acknowledge their exoneration. I think that was an act motivated by racism and just generally being a d*ck.

    Parent
    So he was wrong and he was nasty (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 10:40:34 AM EST
    but just because the people were not white doesn't mean he is a racist.

    Parent
    "nasty" is quite a euphemism (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 10:59:07 AM EST
    Not "nasty."  Try despicable.  Depraved.

    Parent
    Oh, sure, of course not. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 01:19:18 PM EST
    ""He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings -- rulings that people can't even believe."
    - Donald J. Trump, CNN (June 3, 2016)

    And just because Trump questioned the professional integrity of U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, with his sole criteria being the man's Mexican heritage, that doesn't make him a racist, either. Right?

    "Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment."
    - Paul Ryan (R-WI), Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives (June 3, 2016)

    I'm sorry, but when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'd offer odds of slightly better than even that it's probably not a f*cking eagle.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Words have meanings (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    racist

    noun - a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

    adjective - having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.

    No place did Trump claim that whites are superior.

    Give it up Donald. You've stretched a word that use to be of great help in defining and shaming into a device to try and use as a political club against anyone who disagrees.

    Doesn't work anymore.

    Parent

    Non-hypocrites say actions have more meaning (none / 0) (#113)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 12, 2016 at 04:33:25 PM EST
    such as desriminating against blacks searching for housing.

    such as publicly demonizing young black men who have been falsely charged in a high profile rape case

    such as being the most inspiring candidate klansmann and white supremacists have discovered in decades. Enough to pull them all out of their rat holes..

    Btw, as you well know, the Klan is honoring Trump with an upcoming parade, which we expect a full report on once you get back. So don't forget us, Jim.


    Parent

    Well, his transition team has a (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 13, 2016 at 08:23:30 AM EST
    female, a gay and a black.

    Guess he didn't get your memo. ;-)

    Parent

    and A latino and A disabled person (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 13, 2016 at 10:04:27 AM EST
    I'm sure it does..

    Does he have any social liberals yet?

    lol

    Parent

    Ivanka and Her Husband, Maybe (none / 0) (#116)
    by RickyJim on Sun Nov 13, 2016 at 11:07:39 AM EST
    They seem like decent (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 13, 2016 at 12:26:59 PM EST
    intelligent people.

    Hopefully they can exert some influence that counterbalances the all too sizable, new information averse, Abraham-rode-a-dinosaur contingent..

    Parent