A Line in the Sand

How Texas can keep Donald Trump out of the White House.

By Comments

Texas investigated Trump University, but then-Attorney General Greg Abbott appears to have pulled punches.
Andrew Harnik/AP

This year’s holiday season has probably, for too many Americans, been marred by the Dickensian caricature known as Donald Trump. In addition to the fact that he remains the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, he did his best to disturb the peace on Christmas. Taking to Twitter, he angrily denounced those who doubt whether he is qualified to lead the free world, or even capable of beating Hillary Clinton in the general election. As evidence, he noted that the most recent CNN/ORC poll showed him leading the Republican field, with nearly twice as much support as the next candidate, Ted Cruz.

The CNN/ORC poll also showed him losing the general election to Hillary Clinton, meaning that the long-suffering Trump was, in this case, being treated very unfairly by the poll that he had cherry-picked specifically to serve his interests. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another best-seller in his future: The Art of the Grievance. But it increasingly seems inevitable that Cruz will outfox him in Iowa, and I doubt Trump has the emotional resilience to carry on if he emerges from the caucus as an official, proven loser.

Many Republicans, however, think Trump will endure, and possibly even win the nomination. As Jeff Greenfield wrote last week, at Politico Magazine, this prospect has them nervously talking about what they would do in the event Trump secures the nomination, which would leave “significant slices of the party unwilling or unable to accept the outcome”:

Whether he’s seen as an ideological heretic for his views on trade, taxes and government power or as a demagogue whose clownish bluster and casual bigotry make him temperamentally unfit for office, the odds on massive defections are very high.

Some Republican operatives, Greenfield reports, are considering a particularly dramatic response. Trump himself has indicated, at several points, that he might run as a third-party candidate if the Republican Party denies him the nomination. Those threats have some resonance, because an independent Trump wouldn’t have to skim off many Republican voters to effectively doom the GOP nominee in the general. But the same would be true if Trump himself is the nominee. The only difference between the two scenarios is that Trump is self-obsessed, prone to snits and grudges, and has never shown the slightest concern for how his histrionics might affect other people. By contrast, someone like Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney would pause to consider the potential consequences of their actions. A third-party run would likely guarantee Clinton’s election, and a coordinated defection among party insiders might lead to the end of the Republican Party as we know it.

But if Trump somehow becomes the Republican nominee, I think Republicans need to take the risk. By doing so they might destroy their party, but Trump might destroy the country. Any party that would seriously nominate such a person for president is a party that should be put out to pasture, if not sent straight to the glue factory. Since June, Trump has caused more harm than most politicians manage in a lifetime. And if he had the power of the presidency? A few sweet nothings from Vladimir Putin and Trump would be tripping all over himself to give Alaska back to Russia.

Trump’s sheer awfulness has already made it virtually impossible for me to make fun of Obama. It surely casts the relative risks of a Clinton presidency in a different light. She likely wouldn’t repeal Obamacare, but she can hardly make it worse.

And the national GOP running a third-party candidate would show that some conservatives, at least, are willing to put the welfare of the country above party; that would be a worthwhile message and a first step toward renewal. With that said, getting an independent candidate on the ballot in fifty states would be logistically difficult, especially if the Republican Party infrastructure is theoretically committed to another candidate. So here’s something disaffected American conservatives might want to consider. If the goal of a third-party campaign is to keep an eminent domain enthusiast from seizing the White House, there’s no need to run in all fifty states: No Republican can win the presidency without Texas.

At first glance, the point may seem irrelevant, because Democrats apparently can’t win Texas. Last time they tried, in 2014, they ended up in an even deeper hole. It’s obviously ridiculous to suggest that Clinton could pick up a state four years after Romney carried it, 57-41. It’s aggressively ridiculous to suggest that Republicans would help her do it, in a state so ferociously conservative that a quasi-endorsement from Ted Cruz is enough to tip the scales in favor of the attorney general candidate who already admitted to committing a crime. But those details don’t really matter given that America’s vast right-wing conspiracy is considering whether to help Clinton win the presidency. The horse has left the barn.

At this ridiculous moment in American politics, the thing that reliably thwarts Democrats in Texas is exactly what creates an opening. The state has the country’s largest population of Republicans. We are absolutely crawling with conservatives. They come in all shapes and sizes, from all tribes and factions. And our Republicans lead the nation when it comes to intraparty kneecappings. The saboteurs we’ve seen in recent years, for the most part, have been seeking some kind of advantage—winning the primary, or racking up scorecard points. Such considerations wouldn’t apply in this scenario; an independent conservative running in one state wouldn’t even have a theoretical chance of winning the presidency. But other motives are legion.

The concerns that have national Republicans grumbling about defection obviously apply in Texas, too. They may even resonate more strongly here: it’s depressing how many Texas conservatives have swooned for Trump, but the state party nonetheless includes a lot of people who have been fighting for conservative causes and principles for years, and who have been watching self-proclaimed “true conservatives” discredit their party and dismiss their work, even before Trump lurched onto the scene. In addition to that, he has attacked a lot of his fellow Republicans this year, thanks to his unusually ecumenical approach to the politics of grievance. Many of them, as it happens, have ties to Texas. Trump has jeered at Rick Perry, the longest-serving governor in state history. He’s gone after Land Commissioner George P. Bush’s dad. He can only win the nomination by thwarting Ted Cruz, whose Texas campaign is being chaired by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and Baylor grad Rand Paul, who has a lot of support among the liberty lovers in the Texas Lege. A conservative who launches an independent bid for Texas’s votes may not get many endorsements from the state’s Republican leaders. But I bet a spoiler could count on a fair amount of quiet operational support.

And Texas could come up with a spoiler. In addition to our true patriots and eccentric rich people, I can think of two Texas conservatives who might actually do so out of principle. One, of course, is the aforementioned Perry. His 2016 campaign was widely dismissed without a hearing. But none of the Republicans who threw their hat in the ring showed more moral clarity about the issue at hand; he spoke out against Trump’s opening attack on unauthorized immigrants from Mexico, despite the obvious risk that he would pay a political price for defending such a popular scapegoat. And Perry, it’s worth keeping in mind, isn’t a born-and-raised Republican; he’s a conservative, and when he left the race, he warned that Trump was “a cancer” on his tribe.

The other option might be even more propitious, because if he ran as a spoiler, there would be no way for Trump’s sycophants to accuse him of sour grapes. Jerry Patterson, the former land commissioner, has never even toyed with the idea of running for president. This year, when he decided not to run for Railroad Commission, he issued a statement explaining that it would be awkward for him to run on a ticket potentially led by Trump, because he thinks the man is an idiot and is unwilling to pretend otherwise. Patterson, a Marine, surely has a sincere disdain for Trump, a draft dodger. He also would have no shortage of policy disagreements with Trump, which his core supporters would share. Patterson has longstanding commitments to gun rights and property rights, for example, which Trump seems unusually open to abridging. Patterson is one of the few Republicans who has already said in public—here at BurkaBlog, no less—that Republicans should skip the general election, or vote for an independent candidate, “even if Hillary wins as a result.” Our former land commissioner obviously remembers the Alamo. All Texans do. And if Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, we should once again draw a line.

Related Content

  • roadgeek

    I like that an outsider has come along to shake up the entrenched Beltway elites of both parties. I dislike that the outsider is Donald Trump. He says all the right things, but gives off a bad vibe. I can barely articulate it any better than that, but I don’t trust him at all, and will probably not vote for him. If he gets the nomination and enough conservatives such as myself sit out the election then Clinton wins. Some part of me believes that he is in cahoots with the Clintons and this is all a set-up to give her the presidency. Sound far-fetched, I know, but given what we know and suspect about Clinton ethics, not outside the realm of possibility.

    • Jerry Patterson

      Roadgeek, I agree with where you end up, but I don’t think he says any of the right things. I’m not sure how anybody that travels in their private 757 can be the “stick it to the man” candidate. JP

      • daehler-untermensch

        As opposed to the rented lear jet the Clinton’s travel in, paid for by their tax free charity-slush fund.
        I see the moral equivalent. NOT

    • Says all the right things! What reality do you live in? There is nothing right or righteous that comes out of that man’s mouth. He is the only candidate whom Godwin’s theory doesn’t apply.

      I’ve heard the spoiler for Hillary theory and while it is a fabulous bit conspiracy fiction, and would make for a better movie than “Wag the Dog” anyone with even a half functioning intellect realizes that it is just fiction. More like an elaborate bit of humor.

    • I agree, Trump stated the obvious when he called out illegal immigration. Then the establishment republicans and their clubby dem friends stuck it to the voters with the new budget. The voters sent a message to DC in 2014 and it was ignored by the insiders. They’re tone deaf and can’t or won’t get it. Trump is voicing their displeasure with DC. We’ll see who wins in 2016 those who live by law and order or those who strive to control.

      • phein39

        “Trump stated the obvious when he called out illegal immigration.”

        What a load of horse manure. Being an undocumented migrant isn’t illegal; hiring one is. The only criminals here are the farmers, ranchers, construction company owners, hospitality industry employers, and the wealthy who hire staff on the cheap.

        No Republican — not one — has called for the enforcement of that law: 6 months in jail, $10K fine per event. Why? Because all the crooks are Republicans. It ain’t bleeding heart liberals who are giving American jobs to foreigners.

        Being able to pay people next to nothing, and making sure that those folks have no vote, no voice, no recourse to the law: That is the Republican dream, and has been the conservative dream since before George III. It was the expressed goal of the Confederacy, and is the expressed goal of Trump (“The minimum wage is too high”) and all the other Republican candidates for office.

        • daehler-untermensch

          “Being an undocumented migrant isn’t illegal;” Right

          Tell that to the family of Kate Steinle or the millions of other American Citizens criminally victimized by a illegal criminal that has been deported 5 or more times.

          I know you and your ilk. A great American recognized your kind and had these kind words to say, in the face of such cognitive dissonance and lies.

          To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
          Thomas Paine, The American Crisis

          • phein39

            Why do you insist on giving amnesty to the people who brought Kate Steinle’s killer to this country? The Republican’s giving them American jobs are criminals, too, just as much as the shooter was, and yet you and your ilk defend them!

            We’ve seen your kind too many times: The kind of man who knows his wife is being raped by his boss, but is too cowardly to do anything about it.

          • daehler-untermensch

            I don’t insist on anything other than following the law as set down in our Constitution. Take your meds.

            build the wallS

          • phein39

            As in all things, the question is: Who benefits? Who benefits from having workers with no rights and no vote? It ain’t Democrats.

            “I don’t insist on anything other than following the law as set down in our Constitution.”

            Strange, isn’t it, how you don’t insist on following the law as set down in our Constitution when it would inconvenience the real criminals:

            Title 8, US Code, Section 1324a:

            (a) Making employment of unauthorized aliens unlawful
            (1) In general, it is unlawful for a person or other entity—
            (A) to hire, or to recruit
            or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien
            knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection
            (h)(3)) with respect to such employment, or
            (B)(i) to hire for
            employment in the United States an individual without complying with the
            requirements of subsection (b) or (ii) if the person or entity is an
            agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor
            contractor (as defined in section 1802 of title 29),
            to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United
            States an individual without complying with the requirements of
            subsection (b).
            . . .
            (f) Criminal penalties and injunctions for pattern or practice violations
            (1) Criminal penalty — Any person or entity which engages in a
            pattern or practice of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2)
            shall be fined not more than $3,000 for each unauthorized alien with
            respect to whom such a violation occurs, imprisoned for not more than
            six months for the entire pattern or practice, or both, notwithstanding
            the provisions of any other Federal law relating to fine levels.

        • mike2000917

          Corrupt Democrats want their votes. They could not care less about the massive costs they impose on our society.

          Deport the ILLEGAL ALIENS.

          • phein39

            You don’t want illegal aliens here? Very simple solution:

            QUIT GIVING THEM JOBS, YOU REPUBLICAN SCUMBAGS!

            No jobs, no illegal aliens.

            Or is it that you could not care less about the massive costs you impose on our society?
            Or is that like the untermensch, you’ve renounced the authority of law and the use of reason?

          • 6660splendidday

            phein39… It is discouraging talking with the brain dead, isn’t it?
            There are a few on this site who really, when God was giving out brains were locked in an outhouse. Keep trying to educate them, just don’t get too optimistic. They never heard of cause and affect.

    • borgerboy

      roadgeek…so, you would prefer to stay at home and ensure that the witch of benghazi wins?

      • Jeff Wyatt

        Just stop talking, I am sure whatever you got to say can wait until you are smarter,

    • mareshie

      Yup, well within the realm of possibility. I postulated the Trump/Clinton conspiracy when Trump announced. The Trump candidacy in what ever fashion it plays out will insure another Clinton presidency, that can be the only possible outcome.

      • BCinBCS

        If you guys think that Trump’s run for the Presidency is merely a ploy by HRC to ensure her election, then DON’T SUPPORT OR VOTE FOR HIM. Wouldn’t the fact that Repubs are, nonetheless, supporting such a candidate say something about their intelligence?

        • mareshie

          No problem, as a Republican this hybrid carnival barker/circus clown is not getting my support. There’s nothing to assure that it is only Republicans who are being polled and supporting him. Some news articles indicate that he’s getting support across the political spectrum, I assume from low information poll responders.

        • daehler-untermensch

          I’m a Trump supporter, a global warming denier, a clinger, a veteran, and a American.

          It’s not the GOPe Republicans that are supporting Trump, they’re on your side. Focused on keeping the folks enslaved as long as they can to get all the plunder they can get.

          Your lame comment about the intelligence of a person that doesn’t agree with your views implies more about you, than others.

    • daehler-untermensch

      Well, there was a great American, several hundred years ago that had some great advice for you sunshine patriots with channeling “a bad vibe”.

      If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility
      of servitude greater than the animating contest for
      freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your
      counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
      that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you,
      and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
      Samuel Adams

      build the wallS

  • Rules of Blazon

    “Any party that would seriously nominate such a person for president is a party that should be put out to pasture, if not sent straight to the glue factory.”

    Uh, ya think? And what’s the difference between this and a party where such a person is even in contention for the nomination?

    I think you’re finally accepting that the writing is on the wall for you Republicans. Baby steps…

    • pwt7925

      Too bad the Democrats in Texas have become so inept that they aren’t in a position to offer a credible response in Texas.

      • Rules of Blazon

        Our response is going to be wiping you out in Texas, just as we wipe you out pretty much everywhere else.

        • Jerry Patterson

          Hey Rules, You remind me of “The Donald”. But I bet you don’t have a comb over hairdo…JP

          • Jerry Patterson

            This comment should be on Rules of Blazons, not pwt7925s string. JP

          • Rules of Blazon

            If and when we meet — and you see how colossally inapt that comparison was — you are going to feel very silly indeed. At least you’re right about no combover 🙂

        • Let’s not go and start having delusions of grandeur.

        • pwt7925

          You’re going to get that wascally wepublican wabbit.

    • Jay Trainor

      Ditto to Dan Patrick and his tea party colleagues who support the Texas mirror image of candidate,of Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz.

  • dave in texas

    C’mon, Senator, go for it. I haven’t voted for a Republican in quite some time, but I’d sure be tempted to vote for you. I agree with you a helluva lot more than I do The Donald. I think we can all agree the ceiling for a Democratic presidential candidate in Texas in 2016 is probably around 40%, so it’s not like I’d be swinging the state’s electoral votes. It would at least make the presidential election Texas interesting for the first time in a long time.

    • Jerry Patterson

      With Trump as the R, Hillary as the D, and Jim Webb (or Perry or Patterson or etc) as a 3rd choice, that 40% would be very competitive. Perry won the Gov race w/less that 38% when Carol Rylander ran as an independent so Hillary could get all of Texas electoral votes and win the presidency. That is a better outcome than Trump being our next pres. JP

      • Richard Winger

        Carol Rylander??? Is that another name for Carole Keeton Strayhorn?

        • Jerry Patterson

          Its my short term v. long term memory…

        • You have to understand she changes her name like some ladies like to change outfits.

        • Kozmo

          Better known as Carole Four or Five Names.

        • WUSRPH

          That is one of “Carole of the Many Names” names…Mr. Rylander was her second husband.

      • I think you maybe right JP. I’m a confirmed, dyed in the wool, independent who has felt unrepresented and maligned by Republicans who would rather sling mud and indulge in name calling than have a reasonable conversation about policy and how to implement it in a practical and pragmatic manner.

        I have issues with Perry going all the way back to his run for Ag Commish. I grew up in the Big Country/South Plains so I know about some of the dirt from that; but I’d vote for Rick over Trump and Hillary.

        BTW I supported Carol over Rick in that election.

        • Jerry Patterson

          A pox on both parties! Statewide Texas is not competitive so the fight in the R primary is won by folks so far to the right they sometimes end up left, or simply conspiracy theorists. Lege/congressional races aren’t competitive in the general election anymore, so those slots are primary only races. Time for a 3rd party that will make November important again? JP

          • Most definitely – I currently reside in Williamson Co and I have to vote in the R primary if I want to have a voice in my local races. Which sucks because there have been some gems running for the Dems in State races that I would have loved to see in the general election but weren’t far enough left to win the primary.

            I would love to see local elections divorced from the state parties like it is in some states.

          • Rules of Blazon

            Which “gems” are you referring to? And who are the “far left” candidates they lost to in the primaries?

          • Good grief, you are asking me to remember who was running for state elections in the last 15+ years. There have been candidates in the primaries in all state offices that I thought were much more qualified than the winning candidate – Tony Sanchez comes to mind as a corrupt if not far right candidate that won over a better qualified primary opponent. Most end up never running again.

            I don’t vote for party affiliations I vote for people according to their public record and in lieu of one their business or professional practices. In the general election I voted for the best person qualified in spite of their party affiliation.

          • BCinBCS

            Shelly, I’m in the same boat here in Brazos Co. Voting in the Democratic primary is essentially having no say in city or county elections.

          • Shelly why you admit what everyone knows, you’re a democrat.
            The democrats could care less about the voters and most of us are smart enough to recognize it.
            The DNC has picked you’re nominee, Hillary.

          • *your

          • Jed

            *you’re

          • The second your in his reply was originally you’re. Unfortunately Disqus doesn’t note if one has edited a reply or let’s one quote previous responses which would be nice to be able to have a record of booksies editing of his posts.

          • Indiana Pearl

            He always corrects edits, complains about them, never admits he screwed up.

          • dave in texas

            yore?

          • dave in texas

            Just out of curiosity, would you support having districts drawn by a non/bi-partisan commission rather than the legislature? I really think that has to be the first step in making those races competitive instead of the walkovers they currently are.

          • Not only must it be non-partisan it must also make sense geographically and according to population.

            When I first moved to this area 30 years ago Ron Paul was my congress critter. How does a man whose life revolves Freeport know the needs and concerns of Eastern Williamson County?

          • Indiana Pearl

            How do we make it “non-partisan”?

          • By making sure that an equal number of members are from all registered political parties including some who have no political affiliations. Whether they are appointed by the Gov or the lege doesn’t matter so long as they are not currently serving in an elected capacity.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Canadians manage to do this. Why can’t we?

          • I believe the Canadians have a Parliamentary form of Government while we are a Republic. Without having a constitutional change and all it entails we have to work inside the current framework of a Republic as set up by the constitution. Which is why I didn’t answer the question discussing a parliamentary government in another reply.

          • Indiana Pearl

            We have a presidential system with fixed elections. Parliaments can exercise a vote of no confidence and choose a new prime minister.

            I liked the film clip from BCinBCS about what happens with multiple parties. It’s not a panacea. Our biggest problem now is the money in politics. Read Lawrence Lessig’s, “Republic, Lost.” We are losing our democracy.

          • We never had a democracy – we have a democratic republic. While that may sound like splitting hairs it really isn’t. We can not go to a parliamentary style of government without an overhaul of the constitution. Go back and re-watch the clip he posted it is talking about how most of our government officials are elected at all levels except the President.

            Changing how we assign districts and making subtle changes to the way we currently vote will fix a good portion of the problems without addressing the issue of money and contributions.

          • Indiana Pearl

            By “democracy,” I mean one person/one vote.

          • I don’t know of anyone who uses that definition for democracy. Can we stick with accepted definitions of the various terms?

            Except we don’t have one person, one vote. Many people are prohibited from voting – felons, minors, resident aliens (legal and illegal), those who are mentally deficient, etc. So even your definition if we were to accept it doesn’t hold true.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Unfortunately, that is the case when we have corporations who hold much more sway you or me.

            Felons who have served their time should be allowed to vote if they are citizens. Non-citizens – no. “Mentally deficient” covers a substantial portion of the populace judging from what I see posted on blogs these days! And who determines “sanity”? A slippery slope . . .

          • Rather than mentally deficient, I should have said mentally incompetent, but I drew a blank on the correct term and used a term far too vague for what I intended.

          • Indiana Pearl

            There is really no way to ascertain mental “competence” unless the citizen is institutionalized. Many elderly nursing home residents are not competent to vote, but do so anyway with the help of absentee ballots and party operatives.

          • donuthin2

            Unfortunately true for determining mental competence for gun purchase also.

          • A professional therapy psychologist or psychiatrist can make a legal/medical determination of mental competency outside of institutionalization. Regardless, many vote who should not, and many do not vote who should. And no, they don’t cancel each other out.

          • WUSRPH

            nnee

          • Jed

            “One person, one vote is a primary necessity for any kind of real “little d” democracy ”

            if by “any kind” you mean an electoral democracy. don’t need votes at all in a democracy that doesn’t use elections.

          • wessexmom

            Money is a huge part of the equation and the problem–Just ask your frenemy Rick Perry, aka the Gov who put the Crony back into Capitalism–in our state’s capitol building.

          • I never meant to imply that money wasn’t a part of the equation and problem. I said we could fix a GOOD PORTION of the election problems with out addressing that particular elephant.

            BTW a good portion doesn’t imply all or a majority, it’s just another way to say some.

          • Indiana Pearl

            I’m dead set against a constitutional convention at this time. The political class we have now, with a few exceptions, do not have the best interests of the country at heart.

          • Jed

            “We never had a democracy – we have a democratic republic. While that may sound like splitting hairs it really isn’t. ”

            that’s exactly what it is. the rest of your comment has to do with things which could be true under a democracy, a republic, or both. your talking point has zero analytic significance.

          • dave in texas

            I actually live in the tiny sliver of Austin that Lloyd Doggett still represents. The rest of the city (which went for Obama with 60+% of the vote, let’s not forget) is represented by four right-wing Republicans from districts stretching as far away as Fort Worth and Houston.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Yeah. I lost my neighbor Doggett to Roger Williams who lives 300 miles away. Representative government? What a crock!

      • vietvet3

        Problem being that Webb would also soak up many dem votes, defeating the whole plan. Remember him at the Dem debate? me neither.

        • Indiana Pearl

          I remember Webb in the debate. He was quite peevish.

  • The swipe at Obamacare indicates to me that some self-described conservatives see Trump as the problem without realizing how their own rhetoric and extremist stances on eminently moderate pieces of legislation (like Obamacare) helped create him. Trump is the symptom; for the problem you’ll need a mirror.

    • Rules of Blazon

      Yep. The talismanic invocation of “but but but Trump!” is the latest and lamest Republican attempt to avoid responsibility for awful choices. The Republicans have become the Ethan Couch of political parties.

      • pwt7925

        And the Texas Democrats have become the Elmer Fudd of political parties.

    • dave in texas

      Exactly. Obamacare is essentially the same as the plan the Heritage Foundation came up with to oppose the Clinton plan in the early 90s. Carbon credits were originally a Republican idea (back before Al Gore had the temerity to speak up about the environment and plunge the GOP into an anti-science frenzy) to control greenhouse gas emissions through a market mechanism. Both are now seen as insidious communist plots to enslave us all and take away our liberty.

      • Erica Grieder

        By some, perhaps. But I see Obamacare as a Frankenstein’s monster that maximizes the worst aspects of private- and public-sector approaches to the provision of health care, disproportionately burdens young workers, and has left millions of Democrats confusedly believing that “affordable” means “subsidized by the federal government”.

        • dave in texas

          Oh, I’m not at all an Obamacare fan, except in the sense that it’s a first step (albeit a very small one) toward future reforms that could lead to the US not having both the most expensive and the least effective health care system among the world’s developed nations. “Maximizes the worst aspects” might be a bit hyperbolic, but I find it hard to disagree with the Frankenstein’s monster characterization. Any system that allows insurance companies to be the primary determinant in the provision of health care instead of patients and their doctors is a bad system. At least Obamacare took away the insurance companies’ ability to refuse customers on the basis of pre-existing conditions and made it possible for young people to stay on their parents’ policy. Baby steps, I know, but at least it’s a start.

        • To the extent that Obamacare is a Frankenstein’s monster, it’s because it reflects the 1) the quixotic hopes that Charles Grassley would eventually provide the bipartisan support Obama so desperately wanted, and 2) the need to pander to Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman in order to overcome the Republican filibuster.

          That doesn’t make the law any less messy, of course, but that mess is largely a creation of the right — as is its demonization — and I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to see a connection between the hyperbolic and irrational criticism of Obamacare (“government takeover,” “death panels,” “socialist medicine,” etc.) and the rise of Trump. After all, when you spend enough time describing a law in apocalyptic terms, your constituents expect you to actually fight against it as if it were the apocalypse. Failure to do so leads to disenchantment with and rejection of “the establishment” and an attraction to anti-establishment characters who seem more willing to blow up a system that would allow such an abomination to occur.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Many businesses in the U.S. are heavily subsidized by the federal government.

    • Erica Grieder

      I’m somewhat sympathetic to the argument that Obamacare represents an effort to improve the broken status quo that preceded it. And Romneycare, given the context (of Massachusetts’s demographics, regulatory environment, tax structure, etc), may have qualified as “eminently moderate”. But Obamacare? The only people who should be happy with that mess are insurance executives and their stockholders, whose investment in lobbyists sure paid off.

      • I think the millions of people who now have health coverage for the first time in their lives are probably pretty happy, too.

        If your argument is that Obamacare is based on a Republican idea but provides too many concessions to big insurance companies, then you’ll get no pushback from me. That’s Bernie Sanders’ argument, too. Of course, that’s not the argument made by conservatives for the past six years, and I apologize for assuming that your crack that Clinton “couldn’t make it worse” was based on a conservative critique of the law, rather than a liberal critique of it.

        • Indiana Pearl

          The folks I help with Obamacare sign ups are usually relieved to have coverage. Of course, it’s not free, unlike being uninsured.

          I’m hoping this is a step towards single payer – like Medicare.

          • wessexmom

            Ironically, Trump is a proponent of single payer. (Maybe that’s why he gets under Ms. Grieder’s skin so much.)

          • Indiana Pearl

            I know. And raising taxes on the rich.

        • That’s not a liberal critique it’s a moderate position. Believe it or not, but there are more sides than just conservative or liberal. Some of us are moderates who speak out here.

          The ACA which is as much a misnomer as Obamacare (BTW I loathe that name), it does have a few good points in it buried under tons of concessions to the Health Insurance industry. Congress let the fox play in the hen house when they wrote it… While I won’t say that the ACA shouldn’t have had input from Health Insurers they should not have had such unfettered influence so that the bill was pretty much written to benefit their industry and not consumers that it was sold to us as being.

          • I agree with everything you say. But criticizing the act as being too friendly to private industry, moderate as that position may be, is a critique from the left, not from the right.

          • It is a critique from the middle. If we can stop expecting everything to line up as left or right, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, we might be able to have rational discussion. As long as we use black and white definitions for positions we will continually remain divided and gridlocked.

      • wessexmom

        Give me a break! Who do you think broke the status quo in the first place, Ms. Grieder?!? The health insurance companies’ investments in lobbyists had ALREADY paid off handsomely 20 years ago–the minute W The Worst vetoed the Patient Protection Act as TX governor! Here’s what YOUR very own mentor had to say about the matter in a TX Monthly article titled:
        BAD MEDICINE
        BY VETOING THE PATIENT PROTECTION ACT, GEORGE W. BUSH PUT COST BEFORE CARE.
        “By blocking the act, Governor Bush SIDED WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES over
        doctors, employers over employees, and concerns about the cost of care
        over concerns about the quality of care.”

        Those are words written by Paul Burka in Aug, 1995.

    • Stogiebear

      Nerdy little pansy.

  • John Johnson

    What are the chances of a brokered convention with Romney being urged back? Why haven’t other candidates at least acknowledged what the Trump supporters like about his positions, even though he is an idiot, and embrace some of them themselves? Many of his positions that people like are not mainstream Repub positions. Neither are Cruz’s. People want change. They simply see more of the same in most on the debate stage. More promises; most unkept. I will never vote for Trump. I would write in Patterson’s name in a heartbeat. He is a man of principle; he is a straight shooter; he should have been Lt. Gov. All one needs to do is look at how he handled contentious issues while land commissioner. He held his line, answered his critics civilly and gained my utmost respect. One thing he failed to do was seek a bunch of special interest money. Unlike most, he refused to let anyone stick a ring in his nose.

    • While I like the idea of a brokered convention, many of the candidates have acknowledged and given tacit approval to Trumps outrageous statements. Only Rick Perry had the moral strength and courage to denounce Trump.

      There is nothing about Trump’s positions to like – not on the surface and certainly not when you look at them in-depth. Trumps supporter’s are blinded by his celebrity and supposed success as a businessman thinking that it is a virtue to “speak one’s mind”. Taking a courageous position and speaking out on it whether or not it is a popular stance is a virtue; spouting hateful stereotypes to any and all who will listen is not.

      Dan Patrick should be thankful that Bluebell had enough misfortune to be named bum steer of the year by TM. Patterson would have made a much better LtGov and the state would be much better off if he were.

      • dave in texas

        Taking a courageous position and speaking out on it whether or not it is a popular stance is a virtue; spouting hateful stereotypes to any and all who will listen is not.

        Just wanted to highlight that bit. Well said.

  • Texas Publius

    Just because Trump has an instinct for earned media doesn’t mean he carries the circus into real decision making.

    I’m pretty sure a billionaire is just as competent to make most huge, global decisions as a hundredsaire or a thousandsaire.

  • John Johnson

    Who’s your 2nd choice after Webb?

    • Jerry Patterson

      Hadn’t thought that far ahead

      • John Johnson

        This is going to be interesting. Look forward to your thoughts down the road.

  • Honestly, the best thing that could probably happen is for the Republican party to disintegrate. Those on the far right, those whose primary focus is on spending money to enact their moral agenda need their own party. Just like the democratic party has primarily become the party of the far left. Then finally, those of us in the middle who want to see fiscal responsibility, who want government to work like it should work can have a party and not be treated like red-headed step-children of either of the current parties. Heck why not let the Libertarians even have a bit of say as well.

    • Rules of Blazon

      The Democratic party is not just for the “far left” (whatever that is). I am a right-leaning centrist, and I feel perfectly at home in the Democratic party. Why? Because I think if you’re willing to work hard and play by the rules, you should get a shot at a great life here in the USA no matter who your parents are, how you worship or don’t, or who you love. And I seem to have that in common with everybody else who identifies as a Democrat.

      You say you’re in the middle? Well, you sure sound like a Democrat to me. Accept it or don’t — but please consider voting accordingly.

      • Let me tell you why I am not a democrat or a republican – I believe in a strong first & second amendments, not creating anymore social programs before we fix the ones in place, a strong military, and the fact that soldiers will die when they go to war. I also do not believe we need to outlaw abortion, give Christianity special status, prevent gays from marrying or adopting, waste money on ridiculous endeavors like building border walls either. Compromise is not the word of weakness either.

        I simply do not have the rose colored glasses required to buy into the democratic or republican parties as they currently are instituted.

    • BCinBCS

      Shelly, I know that this is a bit academic but I found this video interesting especially since it pertains to your desire for a third “center” party and why, in the end, it will not work.
      (My desire for a third party would be a socially moderate/liberal and a fiscally conservative “Practical Party” – and, yes that combination is possible.)

      .

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=player_embedded

      • I don’t believe it is impossible because many countries have 3, 4, 5, or more political parties in their systems. We are the only large western country that is stuck with a 2 party system that has stagnated like this.

        • That’s because they have parliamentary systems in which coalitions of legislators elect the prime minister. Our system isn’t designed that way; we’d need a pretty significant constitutional amendment, if not a convention, to give third parties a fighting chance.

          • No it’s because we have diluted the electoral system by allowing the two political parties to decide the rules of who gets to be electors in a presidential race. If state electors were chosen by lottery, or appointed by the governor, or another impartial system, without influence of either of the major political parties it would dilute some of the power of the current two-party system.

            The presidential election was never intended to be a popular vote or subject to the explanation in the above video. This is one area where the USSC has failed the constitution entirely. The VP was never intended to always be from the same party as the president.

          • Indiana Pearl

            “Appointed by the governor”? Whoa! That approach would be completely partisan.

          • That is one previous method that was used which is why I mentioned it. Here in TX that would most likely be partisan, unless rules were set into place giving each registered political party a percentage of electors. There are ways to keep it from being a partisan exercise.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Not with a partisan governor making the appointments. That applies to both sides of the aisle.

            How would you determine a percentage? Based on how many of a particular party voted in the previous election? We already have egregious voter suppression in most red states.

            I like the idea of a mail-in ballot as Oregon and Washington state have. Of course, the GOP hateshateshates that exercise of democracy.

          • There are any number of ways to equitably decide percentages. Since I am not a mathematician I will leave it up them to determine what would be considered equitable and even then, this is merely a suggestion of a way to have a check on overreach of gubernatorial authority if it were to be implemented.

            I’m not saying that allowing the Gov to have this power is ideal; just that it is a possibility and how it could be done.

          • BCinBCS

            Whoa there Shelly. You’re right about the VP originally not being from the same party. But because we originally elected a President from one party and a VP from another it resulted in a VP that was frozen out by the POTUS resulting, essentially, in the VP going back to his home once sworn into office. That’s why the system was changed.

          • Actually, the reason it was changed had more to do with Andrew Johnson abusing the Presidency when he ascended to power after Lincoln’s assassination than with a lack of power or being frozen out by POTUS. The thinking being that it would prevent the retaliatory actions of a non-elected President if he was from the same party as the President he was replacing.

          • I have no idea what you’re talking about. The Constitution was amended after the 1800 election to allow the VP to run on the same ticket as the president.

            The two-party system evolved naturally and has generally represented the same two broad streams of thought about how strong the federal government should be — Federalists and Anti-Federalists, then Federalists and Democrats, then Whigs and Democrats, then Republicans and Democrats, then the reversal in the early 20th century to Democrats and Republicans. When there have been more than two parties in play (as when the Whigs were dying and the Republicans rising in 1856, or when TR led the Progressive Party in 1912, or when Ross Perot just went for it himself in 1992), the result has usually been to throw the election to the least-attractive candidate from the perspective of those voting for the third party (Buchanan won in 1856, Taft in 1912, Clinton in 1992). Which is why it doesn’t happen that often.

            No doubt the dominant parties now use the resources they have to make a third-party candidacy particularly difficult to imagine, but the republican system itself is simply not set up to make multi-party democracy the norm.

            There’s also this matter of practicality. Exactly where is the space in the current political system for a third party? What would their platform be?

          • I will need to look it up but I’m pretty sure you are incorrect about the VP. Andrew Johnson was Lincoln’s VP elected from the Abolitionist party. He was not a Republican and was not on the same ticket as Lincoln.

            What you are intimating did not happen till after 1865.

            A system of greater than two parties is possible in a republic it requires a more regulated voting structure than what we have currently.

          • Yep, Paul A, you are completely incorrect on the 12th amendment. In article II section 1 of the Constitution the VP was the runner up for president. The 12th amendment established that the VP was a separate office which one ran for separately from president as well as clarifying electoral practices which was amended again by the 20th amendment section 3.

            In fact, the constitution does not designate that the president & vice president must be on the same party ticket in any way at all. That didn’t become common practice until the mid 19th century.

            I was incorrect in stating that Lincoln & Johnson were not running mates – they were the first such in 1864, even though they were from different parties, they ran together in the hopes of bringing the war to a close sooner in a peaceful manner since Johnson was a democrat and the south favored democrats. It was after this election that it became common practice to have running mates from the same party for president and vice president.

            So to sum up there is no legislation in place saying that POTUS & VPOTUS must be running mates. It has simply become common practice and could possibly be challenged in court as being unconstitutional.

          • WUSRPH

            Johnson and Lincoln were elected on the same ballot….Johnson had been a Democratic US Senator…Neither of them ran as a Democrat or as a Republican…They ran on the fusion ticket of a party formed solely for that election, the National Union Party.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1864#National_Union_Party_Presidential_candidates_gallery

          • BCinBCS

            Thanks Paul, you beat me to it. As has been mentioned many times the election of 1800 was a “make or break” time in U.S. history.

            You’re also correct about the dominant parties trying to suppress third parties. In 1980, I was one of the tri-chairpersons for the John Anderson campaign in my county. Even though I recognize him as one of the nicest and most moral person in the world, I will always have a feeling of antipathy toward Jimmy Carter because, instead of allowing the voters to decide, he did everything in his power to thwart our efforts to get on the ballot.

          • BCinBCS

            After writing my reply to Paul A., I began to have second doubts so I did a little research. It turns out that Paul and I were wrong and Shelly H. was right. The 12th Amendment, adopted primarily because of the election of 1800 fiasco, states that the Electoral College must vote *separately* for the President and for the Vice President. The Presidential nominee with the most electoral votes becomes President and the Vice Presidential nominee with the most electoral votes becomes the Vice President. Since in our modern system the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates run as a ticket, they will always(?) get the most electoral votes and thus assume office together. I hope this makes the matter clear.

            This is what happens when our historian WUSRPH isn’t around to keep us straight. BTW, where is he?

          • Indiana Pearl

            He is away for a week.

          • WUSRPH

            Vacationing in Houston until this afternoon.

          • BCinBCS

            Oooh, how exotic. 😉

          • WUSRPH

            Family stuff.

          • WUSRPH

            I am sorry but everyone seems to have gotten a little confused here.
            First of all, there has NEVER been a time when the President and VP were not, at least officially, members the same party. There have been occasions on which the two had very different views on issues, but in each case they were elected as members of the same party.
            You may have gotten confused because there is nothing in the Constitution about the roll of political parties in the election of any person. In fact, the constitution was written by men most of whom who hated the idea of political parties which they referred to as “factions” not as parties.
            The question of which party a candidate for president or VP belonged too never came up in the first three elections for president since there was only one party. Parties that nominated opposing candidates appeared only with the election of 1800 when the two major factions in the one party split into two.
            Everything dealing with parties and their roll in the electoral process is outside the constitution and has developed by practice and tradition over the years.

          • WUSRPH

            But would you then allow an elector to be what is called “an unfaithful elector” and not vote the way the voters wanted? This would certainly run counter to the 200 plus years of efforts in the country to democratize (little d) the political system by making it more responsible to a larger electorate.

          • Nebraska also divides them according to congressional districts. BTW W would have lost to Gore if electors voted according to congressional districts.

            My thinking is that rather than a simple majority of >50% take all the electors that to get all one would need 75% or more to take all below that apportion the electors accordingly.

            And FTR electors are not required to follow the popular vote as it stands they are allowed to vote their conscious – actually I do not know if that is still true or not.

            I am saying that we need to make sure that the electors are as neutral as possible and not elected from party membership. They should not feel obligated to vote according to party dictates.

            For purpose of example only; say in TX Bush gets 50.5% of the vote and Hillary gets 48.5% with the 1% other. Electors could vote all for Bush (winner take all) or what if only half vote for Bush and half for Hillary – say a 20 – 18 split. Which is not counter to how the voters spoke – it is right in line with the vote. But if say Bush did get 75% then he would get all 38 electoral votes.

      • That is a pretty simplistic and easy to understand way to explain voting but it completely forgets to take into account anything beyond State and Federal elections not including the presidential election. It also assumes that one only needs a simple majority vote to win a race.

        If primaries are closed to all but party members, we do away with the simple majority wins all in a general election, we divorce local elections from party affiliations, and fix the electoral vote so that a simple majority doesn’t automatically get all the electors for a state, then we have the system that the Founding Father’s mostly intended us to have.

    • Phil Perspective

      Just like the democratic party has primarily become the party of the far left. ….

      Far-left? That term doesn’t mean what you think it means. Sanders is basically an FDR/New Deal Democrat(with out the racism).

      • Bernie is more of a middle left populist than Hillary & President Obama.

  • wessexmom

    Hey, Erica, if Texas is truly “crawling with conservatives” then why did the majority of voters in Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and El Paso (5 out of 6 of the largest cities in Texas) vote FOR Obama in BOTH 2008 and 2012? Fort Worth voted GOP both times. After all, Texas, is the MOST metropolitan state in the nation by far.

    (And don’t answer by citing the TX Tribune piece about TX trending right. Obama still won in all the cities listed above even if his winning percentage went down. He also gained voters in some counties where he lost both times.)

    • dave in texas

      The problem, for Democrats anyway, is that the ring suburbs of the metro areas end up swamping the cities themselves. All the voters in the Irvings, Arlingtons, The Woodlandses, Round Rocks, et. al. combine to significantly outnumber the voters in the cities. I’m not necessarily agreeing with the Tribune piece (which I haven’t read), because I think the overall trend is moving left, if for no other reason than I don’t really see how it could get much further right than it is right now.

      • Indiana Pearl

        Gerrymandering . . .

        • …should be outlawed since does not serve the people but the parties. This is why we have such a corrupt two party system.

          • Indiana Pearl

            I agree it’s corrupt, but we are helpless to change it. Would a parliamentary system be better?

            Discuss . . .

          • WUSRPH

            “A parliamentary system? This is not Canada or even England…..Such a system only works with strict party discipline….Without it, it makes the current US House of Representatives look like a well-functioning machine. We don’t have that…..Plus in a parliamentary system there is no check on the executive because it is the same as the parliamentary majority. I could go on and one, but just forget any talk of a parliamentary system in the U.S. and work to make our system work better.

      • BCinBCS

        DIT: “…I don’t really see how it could get much further right than it is right now.”

        Oh, if I only could believe your opinion. Remember Dave, this is Texas; a way will always be found.

  • Carabec

    Wow, this too long, very negative article, was too long and too negative.

  • Terry Saulsbury

    Burkablog appears to be a mouthpiece for Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz as this BS looks as it came directly from her piehole.

    • BCinBCS

      One of the underlying points of the article is how far to the right that the Republican Party has moved. This shift has resulted in the emergence of candidates like Trump (and Cruz) and the problems that their radicalism has caused.

      You stating that Burkablog (and by extension Erica Grieder) is a mouthpiece for the Democratic National Committee is a perfect demonstration of just how far right you and your party have moved.

      • and the dems haven’t moved to the left?

        • BCinBCS

          No, they haven’t.
          Don’t believe me?
          Were you alive and paying attention in the ’60’s, 70’s and 80’s? Today’s Democratic Party is not nearly as liberal as it was then.

          • Phil Perspective

            John and Terry don’t seem to realize that Sanders is really an FDR/New Deal Democrat(with out the racism).

          • WUSRPH

            I am not sure that I fully understand you. The Democratic Party of the McGovern period may have been more populist (power to the people) than it is now…..(even with Bernie)…but, except for the hippies and yippies, its economic and social beliefs were more towards the left center then than they are now. We thought Medicare and Medicaid were wonderful…but single payer was not even in the picture back then….nor was any of the advances in the treatment of minority groups like gays, etc. We were still fighting to get acceptance of Blacks and Hispanics in many parts of the party….some of which went Republican because of it….So I’d have to say, I disagree. Today the party is more liberal if only because so many who were not liberal have died or “gone over to the dark side”.

          • BCinBCS

            I take issue with your disagreement about how liberal the Democratic Party was in the 60’s – 80’s.

            Ted Kennedy, McGovern – I’m writing from memory so I don’t remember all of them – prominent liberals who couldn’t get elected today.

            Sure we didn’t have the “liberal” gay rights movement, instead we had the “liberal” civil rights and women’s rights movement. There was also the widespread Viet Nam war protests (reluctantly taken up by the Democrats). Democrats were also the party of labor – and labor unions.

            I remember the era as much more liberal than today.

          • WUSRPH

            I think you confuse activity and noise with liberal commitment. The party is less boisterous than then, but no less liberal on social and most economic issues.

  • Indiana Pearl

    GOP voters are searching for a savior to redeem their party from forty years of bad decisions. Can one be found?

    Most of us are being jacked around by a medieval system:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/business/economy/for-the-wealthiest-private-tax-system-saves-them-billions.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region%C2%AEion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

  • devan95

    The reason the media spends so much time on Trump is to divert attention away from the fact that Democrats have gone so far to the extreme left that they are running open Marxists for US president! In my lifetime, Commie thugs with Sanders ideology vowed to bury us and the US Govt trained us to kill them and sent us overseas to do just that. While Reagan and GHWB were waging a brilliant war to defeat the evil Soviet Union, Sanders took his bride there on their honeymoon! If you thought Howard Dean was crazy – and he is – then Bernie Sanders belongs in a padded cell….along with much of the rest of the Democrat Party! Instead of promising a chicken in every pot….Sanders promise is a fruitcake in every closet! And Hillary Clinton is so corrupt she makes John Edwards look ethical!

    • Indiana Pearl

      This sounds like a post from a Joe McCarthy acolyte.

      • devan95

        McCarty was right. You, are wrong. And your ideology has murdered 100 million people worldwide.

        • Indiana Pearl

          You sound like a very old person who doesn’t get out much.

          • Who don’t you hate? Stop personally attacking everyone.
            It is ok to be a fruit loop just try being agreeable when you disagree, if you can.

          • Indiana Pearl

            I hate no one. I do hate lies and dishonesty. If you don’t like my opinions, stop reading TM.

            You are in a rage from the middle of the night when you arise to spew your venom until you collapse in exhaustion. Do you ever sleep?

    • BCinBCS

      You must be new to BB because if you had been reading it for any length of time you would have seen WUSRPH explain time and time again the difference between socialism and communism.

      Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. And if you think that all socialism is bad then:
      don’t call the police when you encounter crime;
      don’t call the fire department when you have a fire;
      don’t call EMS when you get sick;
      don’t drive on the roads;
      don’t use the internet;
      don’t fly in airplanes (air traffic controllers & FFA);
      don’t send your kids to public school;
      don’t drink the water or use sanitation services;
      don’t partake of the medical breakthroughs funded by the government;
      don’t use the innovative technology funded by the government;
      etc…

      • I think what you meant to say is our taxes pay for services and socialism gave us the unions that make these service twice as costly.

        • Indiana Pearl

          States that have right-to-work laws are states where workers make less money.

          • devan95

            And live better because their taxes are lower.

          • Indiana Pearl

            By that logic poor people are happier than Trump!

          • BCinBCS

            Have lower taxes because their wages are lower.

        • BCinBCS

          No JBB, I wrote exactly what I meant. Just because they are paid through taxes does not mean that they are not socialized programs. Essentially, socialism is people working together for the common good – at least almost always it’s for the common good.

          • I’m sure you believe what you wrote, however doesn’t make it gospel.

          • BCinBCS

            And the same can be said for you. Lack of learning on your part should not be a reason for insisting that you are right when you are so obviously wrong.

      • devan95

        Like I said, you belong in a padded cell.

        • Phil Perspective

          So, you support Trump?

  • Hcalla

    I found his Christmas communication refreshing not disturbing. What a difference to have a fighter with a work ethic. Sheer awfulness? Author sounds like a middleschooler. We need Trump and his unique brand of political toughness to beat the Clinton machine

    • WUSRPH

      A “work ethic” that included at least four bankruptcies.

  • randy008

    The truth has come down to this> While Donald Trump may not be your guy, would you honestly stay home and not vote. Take a look at what we have now. Do you want more of this BS. If he is the Republican nominee I would definitely vote for him. The thought of Hillary in the WH just gets me sick..

  • Madrigalian

    Hey TM, how do we stop Hillary Clinton? Or is that not something TM wants to discuss? Maybe you just don’t have enough glossy pages left to cover that discussion after all of the hit pieces on every Republican besides your boy Rubio. (Clinton Lite)

    Does TM have even one conservative writer? Editor? Just one?

    TM is a liberal rag with an agenda.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Then don’t read it . . .

      • Madrigalian

        It’s after 12 noon, shouldn’t you be passed out drunk?

        • Indiana Pearl

          Oh another sexist member of the Women’s Christian Temperance League! Was your grandma Carrie Nation?

          Baggers are such phonies . . .

        • Indiana Pearl

          Should ‘t you be reading porn?

    • Vik Verma

      That is your problem

      • Madrigalian

        Not a problem for me if TM just want’s to be a liberal, ideological rag as apposed to a valuable source for balanced news and fair commentary. But I will continue to point out that it clearly is not, when it suits me. If that bothers you, then that is your problem.

  • Art Chance

    I am not a Trump supporter but I have just as mush respect for him that I do for

  • Art Chance

    I am not a Trump supporter but have as much respect for him as I do Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell or John Cornyn , all who have sold us out on the Omnibus bill.

  • OdinsAcolyte

    Trump is better than ANY Democrat.
    Our next President? Anyone except a Democrat (socialist/communist).

    • wessexmom

      Yeah, right. Because we all yearn for the good old days of W The Worst!

  • BCinBCS

    I don’t know where they came from but I’d like to welcome all of the new commenters. It’s nice to have new blood. I hope that they will stick around.

  • donuthin2

    I am certainly not a Hillary fan but she is far less dangerous than Trump, Cruz, Rubio o Carson. I hope I don’t have to vote for her but will before voting for either of the top four. But crap, I’m not sure I could vote for Perry even if it was to derail Trump. None of them scare me as much as the idea that we have a population that understands so little and does so little critical thinking and are so insecure that they would support either of them.

    • devan95

      The Clinton’s are far more dangerous than all the above put together: Bill and Hillary Clinton should be in prison for crimes against humanity for what they did to their fellow citizens at Waco, TX, on April 19, 1993. The Waco Massacre and church burning (it was not a “compound,” it was their church),was the most brutal, heinous violation of civil, human and Constitutional rights in this nation’s history. Without due process, innocent men, women and children were attacked with tanks, poison gas (CS gas turns to cyanide when heated) and burned alive. Those who ran from the church were machine-gunned as documented in the movie “Waco, The Rules of Engagement.” If you doubt how bad this was consider that you never hear the left stream media talk about it.
      And if that weren’t bad enough, Clinton’s thugs then stuck a machine gun in the face of a 5 year old boy and sent him to the communist gulag known as Cuba.

      • Indiana Pearl

        You are confused: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

        I knew a man in IN who was raised in David Koresh’s “church.” It was a nightmare.

        • Don’t waste your time on the tin foil hat brigade. They have their theory and in spite of facts to the contrary they will never believe any different.

          • Indiana Pearl

            So true. But facts matter . . .

      • BCinBCS

        Devan, do you have any children? If they were separated from you, say in Canada, would you believe that it would be O.K. for Canada to keep them from you because Canada doesn’t like our gun control law?

  • Lets talk about a dirty little secret….

    “It’s a phenomenon I call “the Bill Clinton effect.” President Clinton isn’t just another example of a prominent pol who habitually cheated on his wife with many women, including those on his staff. Clinton showcased how those who normally police behavior and work to penalize men for mistreating women will excuse men aligned with them politically. In other words, Clinton revealed that liberals can expect to get away with a lot more in terms of abusing women than conservatives.”

    http://acculturated.com/bill-clinton-effect/

    • wessexmom

      Trump has no right calling anyone out for cheating on their wife or for degrading women! Trump is nothing more than a giant piece of white (light orange, to be exact) trash with money. Just a spoiled classless brat with a limited vocabulary of about 15 words and an ego that has no bounds!

      • Hard to believe some women defend Clinton. One woman’s take on why they do this…..

        “The horrible truth is that the feminist establishment in the U.S., led by Gloria Steinem, did in fact apply a double standard to Bill Clinton’s behavior because he was a Democrat. The Democratic president and administration supported abortion rights, and therefore it didn’t matter what his personal behavior was.”

        http://www.salon.com/2015/07/28/camille_paglia_how_bill_clinton_is_like_bill_cosby/

        and have no credibility.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Tell us about Trump’s feminism . . .

          • I didn’t know he wore lingerie…..

          • Jerry Patterson

            Crap. I find myself agreeing with Indiana Pearl. JBB et al, can we still be friends? JP

          • I have a lot of dem friends, we just don’t always agree on their tactics, policies etc.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Mr. Patterson is not a Democrat. I might even vote for him! Last time I voted for a Republican was when I voted for Dick Lugar until he got seduced by the dark side.

          • Indiana Pearl

            And you have no friends . . .

          • Why are you so full of rage? I like you I find you amusing and silly.

          • Indiana Pearl

            No. You hate women, especially ones who contradict you.

          • WUSRPH

            And they accept you labeling them as liars, thieves, crooks, corrupt and 47%. If so, those aren’t friends. They are intellectual masochists.

        • Please explain how calling out similar and worse behavior of Trump is the defense of Clinton?

          The intellectual dishonesty you engage in is simply breathtaking in its magnitude.

          • Why do democrats like you lie?

            ““I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension,” the 66-year-old Czech-American told CNN in response to an article that said Ivana once accused Donald of ­raping her.

            “The story is totally without merit,” she said in a statement Tuesday.”

            http://nypost.com/2015/07/29/ivana-trump-donald-didnt-rape-me-and-hed-be-a-great-president/

            ?

          • How did I lie? And WTF does the rest of your response have to do with the explanation I asked for? How does pointing out the equally bad behavior of Trump – a serial philanderer who treats marriage as disposable as a paper cup, lying? How is that a defense of Bill or Hillary?

            Whether or not the rape allegation is true does not invalidate the physical abuse, nor does it excuse the infidelities Trump regularly engaged in and probably still engages in.

            Yes Ivana has denied it – she probably has to so that her settlement is not invalidated. One lukewarm denial without explanation from her spokesperson doesn’t validate or invalidate the story.

          • So you’re willing to believe Bill over Ivana? I find that interesting.

          • Where did I say that? Oh wait, I didn’t. I said that Trump is equally as bad as Bill. I also stated why I think Ivana’s denial is disingenuous. How is that believing Bill? Or am I using too many big words for your tiny intellect to comprehend and that is why you are trying to put words into my mouth that I did not say?

            One nice thing I can say about Bill is that while he may be a philanderer, at least he isn’t into serial marriage/divorce. I can’t think of one thing to praise Trump for.

          • “I can’t think of one thing to praise Trump for.”
            Now part of that I believe.

    • Indiana Pearl

      It is well known that Trump cheated on Ivana with Marla Maples.

      • Indiana Pearl
        • I support Mr Trump’s right to be just as much a “pig” as Bill is.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You love pigs.

          • you wish

          • Indiana Pearl

            You have et way too much . . .

          • BCinBCS

            If you support Trump being “as much a ‘pig’ as Bill”, then quit condemning Clinton.
            Man, try to be consistent.

          • bazinga.

          • Quit condemning Clinton? You wish…..
            2016 is gonna be fun…..bazinga.

      • The article isn’t about cheating on a wife its about abuse of women. Why would you defend a man doing that?

        • Indiana Pearl

          His first wife, Ivana, reported that Trump raped her, tore out her hair. Do believe that’s acceptable?

          Trump is no saint. Stick to Hillary’s policies to critique her, not Bill’s infidelities.

          • devan95

            Not reluctant to “judge” when it suits your cause…..

          • I love when the far right thinks that pointing out their fallacies is defending someone they dislike. The cognitive dissonance is epic.

            To be clear…
            No one is defending Bill’s abuses of power, his infidelities, or his marriage to Hillary. They are pointing out that Trump is equally as abusive and unfaithful and the hypocrisy that is being engaged in by Trump’s supporters in defending his record. You can’t have it both ways.

          • ” They are pointing out that Trump is equally as abusive and unfaithful”
            not true. I remember when Bill was running and the first bimbo eruption happened. Bill and Hill both said, “well Bush had an affair, too.” It wasn’t true but if democrats can drag an opponent down to their level somehow that makes it ok with their supporters.
            That is just sad.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Hahaha! Just like Trump does now!!!

            Your thought processes are really distorted this morning. Too many deep fried Twinkies???

          • never touch twinkies or gin.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Your glucose is probably out of control. Fat diabetic . . .

          • So you’re saying that Trump has never been unfaithful to any of his wives or mistresses? That somehow because of this lack of infidelity on his part he can take the moral high ground and attack Hillary because Bill was unfaithful?

            BTW abuse can be verbal, not just physical, and infidelity qualifies as abusive behavior.

          • Indiana Pearl

            But Trump WAS unfaithful!

            The important question is: what difference does it make? People in other countries laugh at our fixation on the marital fidelity of our politicians. We should focus on policies, experience, work ethic, and success

          • eggxactly what difference does it make.

          • pwt7925

            A couple people I’ve asked when I’ve pointed out Trump’s infidelities really don’t care; they tell me that the Donald doesn’t try to hide them, so no problem.

          • Indiana Pearl

            But they care about Bill Clinton’s infidelities.

          • pwt7925

            They do. But Clinton and Trump share some of the same Teflon. I think personal peccadillos are a hook to complain about someone one doesn’t like anyway. If people like the policies or the person, they’re willing to overlook some personal shortcomings. And if they don’t like the policies, anything positive that person may do is seen as hypocrisy or is irrelevant. Look how the right complains about Obama and the left about Bush.

          • Nope I’m axing why are you giving Clinton a pass by says Trump did it too….thats disingenuous.

          • Where did I give Clinton a pass? I don’t think any of us who has called you and the others out about Trump are defending Clinton – that is your pitiful defense since you can not find any rational way to defend Trump. You obfuscate, distract, name call, and use ad hominem attacks because you know there is no way to defend Trump’s actions.

            Pointing out Trump’s hypocrisy is not defending Bill Clinton regardless of what you believe.

          • BCinBCS

            Got a real chuckle: “…Trump has never been unfaithful to any of his…mistresses”
            Now that’s setting the bar pretty low.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Booksie has reading comprehension problems.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You are sad.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Discussing policy is important. Everything else is a red herring.

          • Why do dems lie?

            ““I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension,” the 66-year-old Czech-American told CNN in response to an article that said Ivana once accused Donald of ­raping her.

            “The story is totally without merit,” she said in a statement Tuesday.”

            http://nypost.com/2015/07/29/ivana-trump-donald-didnt-rape-me-and-hed-be-a-great-president/

            I dunno they just do….

          • Indiana Pearl

            Her $25 million divorce settlement says it all.

    • WUSRPH

      As I said, above, what makes all this even more remarkable is that despite Bill Clinton’s behavior toward women, etc. if he could have run again in 2008 he would have won. Somehow the man’s charm and nature gives him the power to break all the so-called “rules of politics” and still win. It was something none of the so-called professionals could explain or understand either then or now. It is just a reality. Garry Hart appeared to fool around, and it killed his campaign….And the only evidence anyone had were rumors and a photo of a young woman in a bikini sitting on his lap. John Edwards got caught and the world fell on him. But Bill Clinton sailed along from “bimbo eruption” to “bimbo eruption”….It has nothing to do with him being a Democrat or a liberal…It is because he IS Bill Clinton. It is like prior to JFK when the press (other than when the opponent’s camp made it an issue) just did not talk about womanizing…..but with Clinton they talked about it, and it made no difference. I cannot explain it. I can only marvel at it.

  • Trump is popular with voters because he says what the media won’t.

    “This week Donald Trump pulled off yet another remarkable political feat: While several of his rivals have tried and failed to turn Bill Clinton’s decades-old scandals into a 2016 campaign issue, Trump is actually making it happen.”

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelli

    I was worried about TM they almost had me believing they were not a left leaning rag anymore, but I see they are still deleting comments damaging to Hillary.

    • Indiana Pearl

      I’m guessing TM is deleting your comments about Hillary because they are sexist, tasteless, and have no intellectual content.

      • and you’d be wrong

        • Indiana Pearl

          Not opening your attachments . . . never do.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Then why do you whine? Fat baby . . .

      • Indiana Pearl

        If you don’t like TM’s policies, you can:

        1) post on the Ft. Bend Conservative all you wish

        2) pay for a subscription to TM instead of being a moocher

        3) go to American Renaissance or some other white supremacist site

    • BCinBCS

      JBB, you can be assured that the only people that see Clinton’s scandals as a present day campaign issue are already Trump supporters.

      • WUSRPH

        What makes all this even more remarkable is that despite Bill Clinton’s behavior toward women, etc. if he could have run again in 2008 he would have won. Somehow the man’s charm and nature gives him the power to break all the so-called “rules of politics” and still win. It was something none of the so-called professionals could explain or understand either then or now. It is just a reality.

  • wessexmom

    8th Grade? You flatter the man child.

  • devan95

    The leading Democrat candidate for US president declares she is most proud to consider millions of her fellow citizens the enemy….and your problem is Donald Trump?!!! My, my, my, how bizarre.

    • Indiana Pearl

      What are you talking about?

      • Mrs Bill Clinton proudly declared “republicans” as her enemies

        http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/the-enemy-hillarys-most-proud-of-republicans-video/

        • WUSRPH

          You say worse things about her and All Democrats at least five times per day.

          • Your friend was clueless so I clued her in.

          • WUSRPH

            I note that, unlike you, she did not call them “anti-American” or traitors. That is the difference between someone who can have a foe without denying their right to exist.

          • Indiana Pearl

            What you need to do, Booksie, is buy yourself a treadmill. Everytime you have the urge to get on BB and make a fool of yourself, get on the treadmill, set it for about 3 mph and waddle away for awhile. Start with five minutes, then work your way up to half an hour. You’ll lose weight and it will clear your mind.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Mine too!

  • I suspect Mr Trump entered the prez race when the Clinton’s axed him to.
    It has backfired on them bigtime.
    I support Mr Trump’s right to be just as sleazy as Bill Clinton.

    • BCinBCS

      JBB wrote: “I suspect Mr Trump entered the prez race when the Clinton’s axed him to.”

      I see that the tin foil hat is working for you.

      • Just because WAPO said it doesn’t make it true….

        “Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.

        Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

        • BCinBCS

          Oh, JBB, JBB – you didn’t read the entire article (again). If you had, you would have read:

          “People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation.” … “Trump is a longtime acquaintance of the Clintons, both of whom attended the businessman’s third wedding in 2005.”

          and

          “The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said. Rather, they said, Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.”

          • BCinBCS

            O.K. JBB, let me show you how easy it is to join the tin foil hat crowd:

            I propose that the idea that Trump is in the presidential race to help elect Hillary was planted by the RNC in order to discredit him so that an “establishment” candidate will win the Republican nomination.

            See how easy that was?

      • Indiana Pearl

        Booksie only believes trashy publications that support his biases.

  • borgerboy

    Erica Grieder…Damn, you’re three for three with bad logic and bad articles this month!

  • Susan

    Why does Paul Burka just assume that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee? The Democratic party also has a race in progress!

    • Where? Clue us in, please.

    • Paul Burka is retired from TM.

      Most assume that Hillary will be the nominee because she currently has a commanding lead. Yes Bernie is gaining ground, but will it be enough to win key primaries? I personally would like to think so, but realistically I don’t think he will win the nomination. I think he will end up being VP.

      • Indiana Pearl

        As a lifelong liberal, I like what Bernie is saying, but he can’t win.

        • dave in texas

          If the GOP nomination goes to Trump or Cruz, he could.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Possibly.

  • Jerry Patterson

    For all y’all that say Trump is better than any Democrat, actually support him with enthusiasm, or believe that folks like me who haven’t voted for a Democrat in 20 years are traitors for not supporting Trump, I’ll give you my bottom line reason I will vote for the Libertarian candidate or Jim Webb if Trump is the R nominee – Major Travis Patterson USMC. My son is our families 5th consecutive generation with overseas wartime service and he leaves in February for his 5th overseas tour. He has 4 more years before he retires from the Marine Corps. The young men and women in uniform deserve something other than a narcissistic buffoon with the maturity of a pubescent middle schooler as their Commander in Chief. Trump is a clueless draft dodging dumbass whose mouth and ego make him unqualified to send anyone into harms way. JP

    • I agree, I have a nephew and cousins who are currently serving in all branches of the military. The thought of Trump as their CIC is frightening in the extreme.

    • gordo

      True dat.

  • Garrett Menard

    I fear Cruz the most he is Coolidge reborn with a Dominionist’s mind set. We all remember how his ,Coolidge, administration’s hands off approach brought us to the precipice of destruction. Further: if you fear Sharia Law, take a look at what Dominionists believe. It is the Christian version of Sharia !

    • Cruz and Trump are equally terrifying as CIC. I can’t imagine our country surviving either one of them.

      • WUSRPH

        I, too, am pessimistic….but we have survived very bad situations in the past…..The Civil War, the Great Depression, the various Red Scares and Joe McCarthy and even the “long national nightmare” (as Ford called it) of Vietnam capped by Richard Nixon. One has to hope that somehow we will, as we have in the past, at least find a way to muddle through.

        • We may survive it but the country as we know it will be changed in ways I do not wish to contemplate.

          I can easily imagine either one of them ordering a nuclear strike without any contemplation of the consequences of such an action on our troops much less anyone who is not an American.

    • WUSRPH

      The problem is that Cruz is not Coolidge….Silent Cal kept his hands off of most everything….not being that much of a believer in an activist president….Cruz is an ideologue who would try to force thru many things, including changes in the state and religion relationship, but also on health care (he says “ANY” federal involvement in health care is unconstitutional), etc. Give me a choice between a Coolidge or a Cruz and it is Coolidge every time.

      • Garrett Menard

        Welcome aboard to those who think Cruz is our societies most clear & present danger ; at least politically .

  • Welp judging by the rancor here Cruz i snot the most hated republican. Of course I could be wrong all republicans could be equally hated.
    I want to wish all my good dem friends a Happy New year and if you’re in the gin don’t be posting or driving.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Get on the treadmill. You’ve made a fool of yourself again.

      • What do you know about making a fool of yourself….oic.

        • Indiana Pearl

          I – and others – observe your deteriorating mental condition every day. Too many cookies have raised your glucose level to the hyperglycemic stage.

  • Phil Perspective

    And Webb would raise money, how? Who is going to give Webb money for a vanity candidacy?

    • Jerry Patterson

      Thats not the point. Electing Webb is secondary to stopping Trump.

  • Gather round dems they’re gonna need your willful ignorance.

  • WUSRPH

    Did anyone see PJ O’Rourke on TV last night? He was asked to explain what was happening in the GOP this year. His comment was that we can automatically assume that 50% of the population has an IQ lower than the average. Seems to be as good of an explanation as most of the others I have heard this year including my own feeble attempts to applying logic, reason and historical knowledge to the situation and to the poling data. But then, who has believed that man is a rational or logical being since the French Revolution put an end to all that kind of talk?

    • Indiana Pearl

      That is a given. Now, what to do about it?

      • WUSRPH

        Hope and work (and, if you are into that kind of stuff, pray) that the structures the Founders built to protect the nation from the “momentary passions of the mob” work as they have in the past with the possible exception of 1860.

        • You’re advocating the Obama administration is for law and order or control?
          You really believe this propaganda don’t you?

          • WUSRPH

            As usual, your comment had nothing to do with what I said.

    • devan95

      Democrats have gone so far to the extreme left that they are running open Marxists for US president! In my lifetime, Commie thugs with Sanders ideology vowed to bury us and the US Govt trained us to kill them and sent us overseas to do just that. While Reagan and GHWB were waging a brilliant war to defeat the evil Soviet Union, Sanders took his bride there on their honeymoon! If you thought Howard Dean was crazy – and he is – then Bernie Sanders belongs in a padded cell….along with much of the rest of the Democrat Party! Instead of promising a chicken in every pot….Sanders promise is a fruitcake in every closet! And Hillary Clinton is so corrupt she makes John Edwards look ethical!

      • WUSRPH

        I doubt that Bernie Sanders is a Marxist and definitely not the kind of Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoists you are talking about….Many socialists (and particularly the Social Democrats of post WWII) were never Marxists and certainly not Leninist-Stalinists-Maoists…In fact, social democrats have been some of the fiercest opponents of (and first victims of) Marxists for most of the last 200 years. (Go read what Lenin said about them to see what a true Marxist thought about social democrats.)

        A large amount of what you would call “socialist” thought comes out of different political AND RELIGIOUS (especially Christian) doctrines and traditions and has nothing to do with M-L-O isms of their various kinds. Your inability to distinguish between a “social democrat” and a Marxist is an unfortunate result of the failure of our educational system and your own intellectual laziness. Go read something about the subject before you go around labeling people. (P.S. I am neither a Marxist or a Socialist myself, but I know the difference.)

        • Indiana Pearl

          Devan95 watched “I Led Three Lives” in the 1950s too often. Perhaps he still watches it on youtube.

          • Indiana Pearl

            He also reposts the same message again and again.

          • WUSRPH

            The problem with “I lied Three Lives” and its ilk was that the Soviet Union was engaged in espionage against the US and had been for years. And, it used the American Communist Party as an element in that spying. But nothing like that adventure show was real.
            What is tragic about the situation with Joe McCarthy and his famous “list of names of (x, y or z number which kept changing) communists in the state department (or some other agency)” was that the Truman Administration had already removed (by firing or “retiring”when there was not hard proof) almost all of the Soviet agents BEFORE McCarthy began his crusade. He was talking about situations that HAD existed, but no longer did. And in every case, he was exaggerating the danger.

          • dave in texas

            This was also the case with the so-called missile gap in the late 50s. Thanks to the U2 flights, Eisenhower knew that the USSR wasn’t getting ahead in missiles, but to reveal he knew that for sure would reveal the existence of the U2 program.

        • I believe there is hope comrade…..

          “An even more recent poll, from June 2014, found that 47% of Americans would vote for a socialist,”

          http://www.marxist.com/usa-bernie-sanders-and-the-2016-presidential-election.htm

          Where have we heard 47% before?

    • I did not – busy doing family stuff.

    • I’ve heard other dems say that minorities have lower IQs but not this century.
      Isn’t that racist?
      Oh wait do you think he was referring to 47%ers?
      he could be right yanno….

      • WUSRPH

        His words, in context (a concept you do not understand)( were clearly aimed at the Trump vote. There was no question about it. His comments were not racist, because he did not attribute this lower IQ to any particularly racial or ethnic group but only to the members of a political faction which could include members of many races and ethnicities. If you want to characterize that group by race and ethnicity go ahead.

        • as my old dad used to say that fella thinks highly of himself.

          • WUSRPH

            I assumed you knew who and what P J O’Rouke is…but now I am not so sure.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Naw.

          • she a feminist?

          • Indiana Pearl

            “She”? Hahaha!

          • so dense its embarrassing….PJ is a funny conservative unlike Stephen Colbert a not so funny liberal.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Then why did you refer to him as “she”?

            Get on the treadmill.

          • why do you always take the bait…..I dunno.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Endorphins will help you. Lay off the Christmas cookies.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You throw so much chum.

          • Indiana Pearl

            PJ is funny. So is Colbert. Baggers have no sense of humor.

      • Indiana Pearl

        You claim to be in the 7%. I assume that’s the bottom of the IQ pool.

        • You think veterans are the bottom of the gene pool? You are a democrat so that explain the denseness

          • Indiana Pearl

            “Tell us what you did in the war, daddy.”

          • who’s yo daddy?

          • Indiana Pearl

            He be dead.

  • WUSRPH

    In working on an entry on the selection of VPs for a post below I realized that I had made an error. As such, I have corrected (and so marked) that entry. My error was to forget the unusual circumstances of the election of 1824 which, for the only time in American history, resulted in the president and vice president being from different political parties.

    • Actually they were both from the same party.

      • WUSRPH

        You are correct that officially Adams was also a Democratic-Republican in 1824, altho he was not the party’s nominee. This was a period of flux in the party’s with the Whigs beginning to emerge in opposition to Jackson. By 1828 the split was complete with Jackson running as a Democratic against Adams who ran as a National Republican. The two major parties then settled down into Democrats and Whigs until 1856 when the GOP was created.

        • Political novices especially the ones posting here think it is acrimonious now, it was life or death back then giving us the Civil War.
          Why anyone could ever be a democrat is a mystery to me. But then I’m a producer not a looter.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You have your snout in the government trough so deeply you can hardly breathe. And I can prove it . . .

          • WUSRPH

            Don’t worry about him…..The simple answer—which is what you have to limit yourself when you are trying to explain something to him—-is that

            Republicans put their property above all other things…

            Democrats consider people to be of more value than property.

            Teddy Roosevelt tried to put the two into proper balance explaining that:

            “My position as regards the monied interests can be put in afew words. In every civilized society property rights must be carefullysafeguarded; ordinarily and in the great majority of cases, human rights and
            property rights are fundamentally and in the long run, identical; but when itclearly appears that there is a real conflict between them, human rights must
            have the upper hand; for property belongs to man and not man to property.”

            But then the Troll refuses to recognize him as having been a Republican.

          • Indiana Pearl

            The Putney Debates . . .

  • Pope urges Christians to remember what it was like “post Obama.”

    “In the final hours of 2015, Pope Francis is encouraging humanity to hang on to recollections of good deeds, so that gestures of goodness can be seen triumphing over evil.”

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_VATICAN_NEW_YEARS_EVE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-31-11-51-18

    Hows that Hope and Changey thangey working? Or you better off than you were 8 years ago?

    Happy New Year to all my dem friends there is hope after all Cruz/Perry 16

    • Indiana Pearl

      In your dreams . . . The pope said nothing about “post Obama.”

    • WUSRPH

      Am I better off than I was 8 years ago. Things are about the same for me…but things ARE better for the millions with jobs and the millions with health care. Many more jobs have been created under Obama in 7 years than Bush did in his entire term. But you would like to forget the Great Recession of 2007 under Bush and the millions who lost their jobs and the millions more who lost billions of their net worth because of it. After all, as you prove every day, you do believe 12 impossible things before breakfast.

  • Dem George Soros admits Obama was a mistake
    “Clinton emails: Billionaire Soros said he regretted backing Obama”
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/264542-liberal-billionaire-soros-told-clinton-ally-he-regrets-backing-obama

    Soros one of the biggest dem donors of all time admits what most of us have known for years.

  • Indiana Pearl

    Here’s an article from a minor press reporting a victory for citizens in FL who want to draw their own districts:

    http://news.groopspeak.com/judge-hands-democrats-a-huge-win-in-florida-just-in-time-for-elections/

    • That was interesting but even more interesting was the embedded link to the article about the USSC ruling.

      What would be the process to create a citizens commission for the purposes of drawing sane and practical districts?

      • Indiana Pearl

        Perhaps Mr. W knows. I’m an outlander from the midwest.

        I asked him awhile back if Texas had any kind of good government structure. He referred to the so-called “ethics commission.”

        • I don’t think the TX constitution currently allows for such a thing outside of the legislature. But I am not 100% certain. It will probably require someone or a group to file suit to get one in place.

          • WUSRPH

            There is no initiative or referendum in Texas at the state level. The Constitution does not allow it. There have been attempts to add it, but—altho they once favored it–the Texas GOP now officially opposes it. They changed their view after taking power. Bills to create a redistricting commission have been introduced in the Legislature in recent years, but none has come close to passage. It is unlikely that legislators can be convinced
            to give up control over their own destinies.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Control over their own bank accounts is more likely.

          • WUSRPH

            Initiative and Referendum ( or I&R which are the power of the voters to initiate proposed laws and the power to force a vote on a law passed by the leg., respectively) were one of the main goals of those “progressives” that the Troll hates so much. The idea was to give the voters power to by pass or overturn acts by the legislatures that were seen to be dominated by “special interests”, etc. The are a form of “direct democracy’….Whatever chance they had of being adopted in more places has probably been greatly reduced by the experience of California where the basic governmental structure has been basically undermined by I&R gone wild.

            http://www.economist.com/node/18586520?zid=311&ah=308cac674cccf554ce65cf926868bbc2

          • Indiana Pearl

            This article is from 2011. CA has improved under Jerry Brown or so our CA friends tell us. I’m interested in learning how a non-partisan citizens’ group can implement change in access to the polls.

          • WUSRPH

            In Texas the only way is to get the Legislature to authorize the change. Your non-partisan citizens group can lobby and campaign for whatever changes they want, but the decision is up to the Legislature. (IF a constitutional amendment is involved the voters do get a voice, but only to the proposals submitted to them by the legislature.)

            As to California, Brown in fact used initiative to get his tax changes implemented.

          • Indiana Pearl

            That’s what are friends report. He also cracked heads together on both sides — unions, Richey Riches.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Here’s a national organization:

            http://www.pogo.org/

            Have you heard of it?

          • Indiana Pearl

            The Lege? That’s the group who should be monitored by an independent commission! A nest of vipers . . .

          • The Lege would be the defendants in the suit.

          • Indiana Pearl

            So who brought the initial suit against Texas about egregious redistricting malfeasance after the 2010 census?

          • WUSRPH

            The various lawsuits were filed by various people and merged into one…Included in the plaintiffs were the Legislative Mexican-American Caucus. None of the suits were true “citizen” initiatives. The latest case, (challenging the use of “people”‘ rather than “voters” that is now before the SCOTUS was brought by individuals, outside any party group altho the GOP will benefit the most if it is decided against the traditional method.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Evenwel v. Abbott — amicus brief in the current case:

            https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/evenwel-v-abbott

            Who is Sue Evenwel?

          • Indiana Pearl

            Who? Give me some names.

          • Maybe the ACLU or perhaps a grass roots organization filing suit on behalf of Texas voters.

        • WUSRPH

          You have to be careful when you talk about “Good Government” groups. In this part of the country, most of them have been fronts for “the establishment” trying to keep “those other people” in their place. We, or course, have our Common Causes and League of Women Voters, etc.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Are you implying that “good government” groups in the south are racist organizations.

          • WUSRPH

            That is what they were in the 40,. 50, and 60s when those in Dallas, San Antonio, etc. were “downtown businessmen” trying to protect their interests.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Ancient history . . .

  • My democrat friends say it is no fun being a loser so they want to change the rules. Unable to win a statewide election in over 20 years they want to take the power to legislate away from the legislators and give it to “citizen committees.”
    Democrats did this in Calif and packed the “citizen committees” with paid democrat staffers. This was of course illegal but who cares what the laws are when you tired of getting your azz handed to you.

    • Indiana Pearl

      The GOP is devoid of ideas and a moral conscience. Voter suppression is all that’s keeping it alive:

      http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/24/voter-discrimination/

      • democrats cheat lie and steal…

        “To get around that, Democrats surreptitiously enlisted local voters, elected officials, labor unions and community groups to testify in support of configurations that coincided with the party’s interests.

        When they appeared before the commission, those groups identified themselves as ordinary Californians and did not disclose their ties to the party. One woman who purported to represent the Asian community of the San Gabriel Valley was actually a lobbyist who grew up in rural Idaho, and lives in Sacramento.”

        http://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission

        What bozos like you don’t get is I’m wise to your tactics.

        • Indiana Pearl

          You are a dull normal who wants Ted Cruz to invite you to his birthday party. Ain’t gonna happen.

          You are like John Bolton who was famous for kicking down and kissing up.

        • Indiana Pearl

          You don’t pay for a subscription to TM. I call that mooching, cheating, sponging, dishonest.

  • Here’s an article from the Boston Globe about how Iowa handles redistricting in a fair and unbiased way.

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/12/08/iowa-redistricting-takes-partisanship-out-mapmaking/efehCnJvNtLMIAFSQ8gp7I/story.html

    • Indiana Pearl

      Interesting, but Iowa is a small, very white state.

      • Yes it is; but if all bias is taken out of drawing the maps and basing it solely on population density first, then geographic location, I’d be willing to bet that minorities end up with more representation than the current minimum demanded by the Court. IOW minorities would get true representation vs the court mandated minimum. It would be worth the time and effort just to draw up the state in this manner to see how the districts fall.

        • Indiana Pearl

          I’d like politicians removed from the decision making process.

          • WUSRPH

            Find me a person who has no interest in shaping the future (thru politics) and I’ll agree. There is no such living creature or at least none with an IQ over 60. It includes billions who have never held or never wanted to hold public office….In fact, it is everyone.
            Your definition of “politics” is hopelessly limited.

          • Indiana Pearl

            I didn’t say “politics.” I said “politicians.” Mucho importante . . .

          • WUSRPH

            You will never be able to assemble some panel without political bias….even if you ban any “politicians” from being members. The members will take politics into consideration and that will include protecting the incumbents and creating new seats that reflect their bias. The only close to un-biased panel would be a computer and then you have to deal with the programmers bias. I would rather know the bias of those involved in the first place than have to worry about the unintended consequences resulting from a bunch of biased amateurs trying to “do the right thing”.

          • Indiana Pearl

            A quixotic hope that those whose incomes and jobs are at risk are not included in such a hypothetical panel . . . . letting the fox in with the chickens. I’ll take a computer.

            Not all non-politicians are amateurs.

          • Jed

            austin had a citizens’ committee draw its new city council districts. the committee was chosen through a remarkable multi-stage process that included some winnowing and some randomness. what was especially impressive were the qualifications of all the finalists, none of whom held office but all of whom were clearly experienced public contributors.

          • Are you saying that one can not put aside their biases to do a job like drawing a redistricting map? Or are you saying that it would be impossible to keep politicians from having influence over redistricting? Or both?

          • WUSRPH

            Both…….bias can be limited, but not eliminated.

  • Who cares what the voters wants….

    “The losers in this once-a-decade reshaping of the electoral map, experts say, were the state’s voters. The intent of the citizens’ commission was to directly link a lawmaker’s political fate to the will of his or her constituents. But as ProPublica’s review makes clear, Democratic incumbents are once again insulated from the will of the electorate.”

    http://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission

    Like a lawsuit democrats say it isn’t about whats right or wrong or fair, its all about winning.

  • Wait for it…..

    “If you’re a Trump fan, here’s the smoking gun that he really is a new Reagan, the guy who’s going to broaden the tent and sweep to victory in November by bringing centrist Democrats into the GOP.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/31/trumps-strongest-republican-supporters-registered-democrats/

    Only 29% of republicans while 43% of democrats support Trump.
    The DNC has told their voters you don’t need to vote just do as you are told. But will they? Will democrats give us Trump or will they give us Cruz?

  • PlayingRootsBackwards1

    Cruz is a nobody who has done nothing. He talks a lot. He voted against a lot of bills that passed anyway. He voted for a lot of bills that didn’t pass. He authored 25 bills, but only two were signed into law. One of them created a reward for information about a kidnapped and murdered Israeli Jew. The other other created and unenforceable law that prohibits other countries from appointing terrorists as diplomats to represent their nations in America. A real man of action.

  • Happy New Year from the democrats

  • WUSRPH

    For JJ and the Troll:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/02/3-charts-that-challenge-the-political-conventional-wisdom-of-2015/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_fix-data620pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

    “There’s a certain subset of Americans who absolutely and almost reflexively claim that anything they don’t agree with and that anything they have not personally experienced cannot possibly be true. For these Americans, news is part of a grand conspiracy. And today, some of the biggest proponents of these ideas hold or are running for public office.”

    • Do 47%ers understand the concept “Smoke and mirrors. “

      • WUSRPH

        Oh, you mean like the supposed benefits to the economy from the RR & Bush tax cuts that no one could ever see because of all the BS smoke they were blowing?

        • no

          • WUSRPH

            Funny, there sure seemed to be a lot of smoke and mirrors being used to hide the fact that both of their tax cuts were almost immediately followed by recessions.

          • Yes and Obama’s tax increases lowered the debt, you truly live in a fantasy world.

          • WUSRPH

            The only one who said anything about Obama’s tax increases lowering the debt is you….BUT they did at least keep it from growing that much larger. That sounds like a degree of fiscal responsibility we did not see under GWB or RR who increased the deficit throughout their entire terms.

          • The debt doubled under Obama, through deficit spending. That is fiscal responsibility we don’t need.

          • WUSRPH

            The debt increased under Obama because of the Great Recession, which you seemed to have forgotten started under your party because of your party’s policies.

          • BCinBCS

            and the wars…don’t forget about them.

          • We’re aware of Obama’s Afghanistan war and his botched mid east policies.
            Democrats learn how to win wars instead of thinking they can be settled by courts, tribunals, or playing footsies with our enemies.

          • Our debt is due to deficit spending for entitlement spending to buy votes.

    • Indiana Pearl

      The intellectual hardwiring of many conservatives is inflexible, fearful, resistant to change.

      • Indiana Pearl

        And there is this problem – angry white people who don’t like change:

        http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/poll-whites-republicans-rank-angriest-americans-n488636

      • John Johnson

        Come up with a new word. “Fear” and “fearful” don’t fit. “Fed up” does. I should also point out that many of us have been waiting on “change”. In fact, we were promised changes that never materialized, and that is the bulk of my gripe with the pompous, hardheaded, angry, unqualified President we’ve had around for the last 7 years.

        • Indiana Pearl

          “Fear” is correct. “Fed up” would produce ennui.

          Whatever it is, it’s been around a lot longer than 2008.

          • John Johnson

            Boy, when those Muslims get upset and really feel strongly about something, they get out and show that outrage, don’t they? How many do you think are demonstrating physically, publically and verbally over the Saudis executing that cleric? Never seen anything like it here, have you? Muslims butchering women and children, raping, and blowing up innocent people in the name of Islam, but nary an inkling of an uprising by those Muslims incensed by these actions by their brothers and sisters??? It would be nice if they would “declare war” on these renegades and aid in apprehending those who would promote or carry out such atrocities, wouldn’t it?

          • WUSRPH

            If you were paying attention to the world you would know that Saudi Arabia has lined up more than 30 countries with large Muslim populations to fight ISIS. Sounds like “declare war” has already happened.

            http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/saudi-arabia-forms-muslim-anti-terrorism-coalition-151215035914865.html

            First “some black woman” and now more Anti-Muslim rants. You are getting much too close to that line again….stop and think what you are saying before you write it.

          • John Johnson

            Quit preaching to me. I’m just not into all that political correctness stuff you hold so dear.

          • WUSRPH

            I have little or no use for what you call “political correctness”. I find it is usually fairly stupid. But I have less use for RACISM. Saying that Black’s have certain views because they are Blacks is about as racist as you can get. People have beliefs because of what they have learned, etc. not because of their skin coloration. You can call it “calling it like I see um” but that does not make it any less racist. Next thing you’ll be spouting that stuff about some races being superior to others.

          • John Johnson

            That’s exactly what I am saying. Blacks have certain viewpoints because they were raised black; I have certain ones because I was raised white. To deny otherwise is ignorant. Where in the world would a seemingly otherwise cogent, reflective person spit out some goofy statement like you just did?

          • WUSRPH

            The problem begins when you attribute some belief or attribute to ALL or virtually all persons of a race/ethnic/religious or other group no matter what their different circumstances may be. You too often come too close to doing just that. That crosses the line into racism and other forms of bigotry.

          • John Johnson

            OK, I’m a racist bigot. I have strong opinions. I have a handful of friends of various ethnicities and one mixed race couple who I have talked with about racial issues on more than one occasion. My best friend in grade school was black; my other two, Japanese. I am godfather of a mixed race Philippina; two young Bangledeshi’s call me dada (grandfather). I am one mean white bastard!

          • WUSRPH

            None of those friendships change the fact that you attribute beliefs and characteristics to people based on their race, nationality, ethnicity and religion. That does not mean that you are a raving KKKer or that you cannot be friendly to those who differ from you. It does means that you prejudge them based on a false premise. It also can mean that you consciously or subconsciously view them as not up to your level because of their race, etc….You see to believe that you have to be a raging fanatic to be a racist and, since you disapprove of such behavior, that means that you can not have racist tendencies. However, It is the more subtle forms of racism that plague our society most.

          • John Johnson

            Here’s the bottom line. We all have prejudices, biases and pre-conceived notions based on same. It is natural. The same with racial profiling. One can lie to others, and themselves, about having a totally neutered frontal cortex that can be flushed at will and filled and refilled with what someone tells you, or by what someone has written, or by what political correctness dictates. Stop preaching to me about all the noble qualities you enlightened, intellectuals possess. It’s b.s.

          • Indiana Pearl

            This is nuts. The Iranians are livid. Get with it, JJ. You’re getting as bad as Booksie!

          • John Johnson

            My entire point is lost on you. Time to move on.

        • WUSRPH
          • John Johnson

            Did you read through that list? I read about half of them. The review is biased. Terribly so. Most of his “kept’s” are Ocare related and they are shown as “promises” made somewhere prior to being written into the law. He never made those “promises”. They just showed up as part of the package. He didn’t know what was in the bill anymore than Pelosi did when it got voted on. The really big ones like “You can keep…”and “I’m going to save a family of four…” are bright red and stick out like the proverbial sore thumb”. The one about Wall Street reforms does too. He’s a loser; Congress is nothing but a bunch of pandering money raisers. I’ve had it with all of them.

          • WUSRPH

            Sounds like a lot of Germans in the late 20s and early 1930s….Well, if it has come to the situation where you believe democratic govt. no longer works or can work, there is a candidate for you this year.

          • John Johnson

            Quit misrepresenting me and what I profess. I never said that democratic govt can’t work. I feel the same way Teddy felt when he took on the puppets in Congress that the Big’s were buying off. Do we even have anyone anymore that is studying these buyouts and mergers at the mega corp level? Banks, insurance, pharmaceuticals, transportation, chemicals, hospitals, energy, and, and…
            Furthermore, you have no idea who I will vote for, or even who will be left standing. I don’t eitherTheir name might not even be in the mix yet.

          • WUSRPH

            What this country needs, of course, is a strong leader who answers to no one…..Who will fight the corrupt elements and defend the little man….Now, if in the process he just happens to dramatically expand the powers of his office and bends and breaks the Constitution to do good….Well that is just what we will have to accept for the greater good.

          • John Johnson

            Nor me. I want a President who works with what he’s got and negotiates and compromises to move things forward, all the while conveying through word and action why others should support him and others like him.

          • WUSRPH

            Sound good…And it might even work if you don’t have an opposition that announces to the world even before the president takes office that it will not work with him and will not compromise with him. Even WPE might have been even more successful than he has been without that kind of an opposition. Too bad he had one that made just that pledge and which has lived up to it.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

          • WUSRPH

            He made basic promises for what would be in a national health care act. Those promises were kept. It is interesting that you stopped reading after only about half of them. Guess you mind, as usual, was made up before hand.

          • John Johnson

            Did you scroll through all of them? Try that on an iPhone. But you are right…I saw the pattern of bullshit and moved on. How long do you have to stand in a pile to realize what it is?

    • John Johnson

      We’ll that sure makes me feel better. I will wake up tomorrow morning with a smile on my face, and perpetual optimism, because some black woman named Janell Ross, who I have never heard of, points at some Pew reports and makes some loose observations. With regards to immigration, I have never said we are experiencing record numbers of illegal border crossings under Obama; I did say that he made more unkept promises on the subject than any other President. See if you can dig up something to prove this wrong. The other two “reports” are skewed, too. You just don’t get it, Professor…all of them are. Start with how the inflation rate is now figured. When it was determined that food and fuel costs were going to really produce some really bad numbers, they were, in essence removed from the formula, and the Feds moved in to keep interest rates down. This all made things seem much more palatable to the ignorant masses. We are fed bullshit at every turn and it is wrapped in all sorts of “official” packages.

      • WUSRPH

        “There’s a certain subset of Americans who absolutely and almost reflexively claim that anything they don’t agree with and that anything they have not personally experienced cannot possibly be true. For these Americans, news is part of a grand conspiracy.” Nuf said.

        • John Johnson

          Unlike many, you will not find me posting a bunch of links to prove my point. I have, on occasion, but not often.You, Pearl and JBB load us up with them. I read biases into almost everything read or heard. Knowing that money influences biases and often even buys positions (nowhere is this greater than with Big Oil), I choose to read as much as I can from more than one perspective and then come to my own conclusion. You guys put your faith in “birds of a feather” “reports” and “reporting”. Have at it…just don’t expect me to follow you.

          • WUSRPH

            An educated person assumes there will often be bias in comments and reports, but is capable of identifying and discounting what bias produces. You apparently believe you are the only person in the world capable of doing that.

          • John Johnson

            I believe that you have the capability to do so, but when something strengthens your position, you chose not to. That b.s. evaluation on Obama’s unkept promises is a prime example.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Booksie? He’s stark raving mad.

            Lots of opinions up there in Tarrant County . . . You know what they say about opinions. Everybody’s got one.

          • John Johnson

            I’ve had a hard time telling you two apart the last couple of months. You are beginning to sound alike.

            Yeah, mine is just one of many. It doesn’t mean much, but I’m so self centered, I like to throw it out there anyway.

          • Indiana Pearl

            “Smug” would be a better word.

            If you can’t differentiate between my philosophy and Booksie’s, you’re asleep at the wheel.

          • John Johnson

            Yeah, that probably fits, too….but you need to read what you two throw back and forth at each other. Purely juvenile.

          • Ask yourself does she just act silly around me? Of course not, she acts silly all the time and wants attention. I merely poke fun of her childish actions.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You got that right. I won’t be bullied, even by a crazy guy. Why TM allows us to do it escapes me. I keep pushing the envelope with the hope that the editors will exercise responsibility one day.

          • John Johnson

            You know what happens when you keep poking a stick at an angry dog? He jumps up and bites you. When you walk away, what happens?

          • Indiana Pearl

            He chases you and bites you in the butt.

            It is interesting that you blame me, but give Mad Dog a pass.

          • John Johnson

            I don’t “blame just you”: I address my statements to you. He is not going to change. Dog barks. You throw a rock. Dog barks louder. You quit throwing rocks, dog quits barking. What about this do you not understand?

          • Indiana Pearl

            Dog keeps barking. Your apathy empowers the dog.

            What about this don’t YOU UNDERSTAND?

          • John Johnson

            Hahaha…I don’t understand!?!? I will just leave you two to your junior high sh*t slinging. Read Erica’s new thread about the “mistreated”. I think of you.

          • Indiana Pearl

            When you chide Booksie for bad behavior, I will take you seriously.

          • I think he meant you and WASSUP. looneytunes.

      • WUSRPH

        P.S. Your dismissive attitude toward the author as “some black woman” is getting close to the edge again. Her race has nothing to do with her findings.

        • John Johnson

          That is your opinion. I think her color produces an obvious bias, like I find in many of the WPO’s most heralded black columnists.

          • WUSRPH

            Sorry but that IS A RACIST STATEMENT. It attributes something as based on color only.

          • John Johnson

            And I stated several months ago, you can call me a racist if you want to. I call’um like I see ‘um, and I am not bound by any goofy political correctness code that you hold so dear. It’s a joke.

          • Indiana Pearl

            With all due respect, how do you reconcile your “dislike” of those who do not share your race, religion, and national origin with the teachings of Jesus?

            A massive disconnect . . .

          • John Johnson

            How do I “reconcile??? First of all, who said I did not like people do not share the same color, religion and nationality with me? I have said, for the most part, various races have biases; that various religions, for the most part, have biases; that based on circumstances there is nothing wrong with racial profiling. I don’t hate blacks or Muslims. Why do you hate Christians? Conservatives?

          • WUSRPH

            As I said below, you seem to believe that to be racist one has to be a raving fanatic waving a Swastika flag. You say you do not “hate” blacks of Muslims…and, with your definition, that it is probably true. But you certainly look down on both–as a group–and hold yourself to be better.

          • John Johnson

            I dislike some Muslims, some blacks, some Hispanics, some women, some men, some kids, some dogs, and some intellectuals who enjoy telling me what I think, how it’s wrong, and how to make corrections. I am totally comfortable with how I view and treat people. I have no doubts that others have differing viewpoints. I can live with it.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Good Lord! Evasive maneuver . . .

            I don’t hate Christians, but find many have forgotten the teachings of Jesus.

            I don’t hate conservatives either, but disagree with their views. Even Booksie is an object of pity, not hate.

          • John Johnson

            My dislike comes from watching and listening to how people think and act. I do not dislike entire classes of people I am a sinner. Not very Jesus like. He was into turning the other cheek; I have a real problem with that.

          • Indiana Pearl

            But your color prevents you from being biased?

            Giggle . . .

          • John Johnson

            Certainly not. I’m beginning to think I am the only one who will admit it.

      • Indiana Pearl

        Forget Janelle. Think about Pew. Very reliable. She’s just the messenger.

        • John Johnson

          Keep reading.

  • For the 47%ers where do we draw the line on entitlements for illegals?

    ““The Tax Inspector General of Treasury says that the extra child tax credit, in a single year, doles out $4.2 billion a year to illegals,” said David North, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. “Based on that number I would assume that other tax credits for illegals runs well over $5 billion a year.”

    In addition, illegal immigrants are eligible for the earned income tax credit, which allows low-income families to receive a refundable tax credit even if they do not owe any taxes.”

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/illegal-immigrants-eligible-for-up-to-eight-refundable-tax-credits/

    The 47%ers tells us we’re racists if we don’t let them buy illegals votes.

    • This is one of the biggest lies you support – that illegal aliens can vote. Yet you will call anyone who doesn’t fall lock-step with your half-truths, misdirections, and flat out lies, as liars cheats and thieves. Which leads me to believe that either you have no comprehension of what you are saying, or you do and are willfully and knowingly lying.

      • dave in texas

        Which leads me to believe that either you have no comprehension of what you are saying, or you do and are willfully and knowingly lying.

        These things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I’ve seen both things be true in many of his comments.

      • My comment had nothing to do with voting but instead was about entitlements.

        But if you want to go there…welp ok.

        “How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.”
        http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/391134/jaw-dropping-study-claims-large-numbers-non-citizens-vote-us-jim-geraghty

        • This comment had nothing to do with saying illegal aliens vote…

          “The 47%ers tells us we’re racists if we don’t let them buy illegals votes.”

        • and again you have deliberately misconstrued the meaning of an article nor seem to have the ability to understand math.

  • WUSRPH

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/

    An interesting article on the GOP and the rise of the discontented whom I still view as right-wing populists. What concerns me most is that these people, while claiming to be defenders of the constitution, etc., really do not believe or accept representational government unless it represents THEM. This continuing undermining of the basic structure of our government just feeds the possibility of a strong man who will solve our problems for us..

  • WUSRPH

    So far the only really “mean” comments in the GOP race have come from Trump, but it appears things are about to change as the various candidates launch attacks on the issues and on each other.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/gop-race-is-about-to-go-massively-negative.html?om_rid=AAXQ58&om_mid=_BWitPzB9JauI-R

  • daehler-untermensch

    Well, what a ode to obfuscation and un-moral equivalents.

    “Dickensian caricature known as Donald Trump.” when compared to a 75 year old communist independent from Brooklyn, elected as a Socialist Senator from Vermont or a woman; disabled by stroke, unable to sell her no accomplishment governing ability, fields a serial sexual predator she is married to; to campaign for her, when she is not accepting bribes and payoffs to the family slush fund so called charity(for tax purposes). Talk about “Dickensian caricature”. At least Donald Trump made his fortune the old fashioned way. Hard work, buying politicians and regulators and paying taxes on his earnings.

    “meaning that the long-suffering Trump” has suffered a lot less than Hillary. All positions she has ever had have been earned by a man that is a serial sexual predator, co-founder with her in a so called charity that has spent more on personal lifestyle, travel, and hotel expenses that has been shuffled to help anybody other than themselves, with charity.

    “Many Republicans, however, think Trump will endure, and possibly even win the nomination. As Jeff Greenfield wrote last week, at Politico Magazine,” So a lawyer from Yale, that bastion of conservatism, whose job is with NPR. A organization so in the tank for the democrat party, they use donations (freed up by taxpayer funding) from “members” to fund democrat candidates and progressive organizations; is the source for what “many Republicans…think”. LOL at the juxtaposition.

    “Whether he’s seen as an ideological heretic for his views on trade,
    taxes and government power or as a demagogue whose clownish bluster and
    casual bigotry make him temperamentally unfit for office, the odds on
    massive defections are very high.” This statement is so ludicrous it exudes cognitive dissonance when compared to the ideas-spoken policies of both the corrupt, immoral, and fraudulent democratic candidates and the GOPe.

    “Some Republican operatives, Greenfield reports, are considering a particularly dramatic response.”

    This man again as a source for what any Republican is reporting. Using a to the bone progressive as a source in this instance; is disingenuous if not literary malpractice.

    “By contrast, someone like Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney would pause to consider the potential consequences of their actions.” LOL. Jebito “would pause” only long enough to wait for someone to write out his response and Romney would pause, and pause, and pause again, miss the deadline for the papers and news programs and

    then defer to his opponent.

    “A third-party run would likely guarantee Clinton’s election,…..I think Republicans need to take the risk.” Donald Trump has signed a pledge not to run as a 3rd party candidate, if he is treated fairly. Jebito and the GOPe have, since then, both petulantly declared their consideration of cranking up a 3 party. Oh, Hillary will be indicted for violating her oaths, her mishandling of Top Secret information, or, in a just world, Treason.

    “Any party that would seriously nominate such a person for president is a
    party that should be put out to pasture, if not sent straight to the
    glue factory.”

    What was that Joy Behar said: “I would vote for a Rapist as long as he is a liberal”. So rather than elect a self made man, that speaks truth to power, and is channeling the disgust and fury of millions of Americans; the author is advocating the election of a party hack that is a serial liar with health issues, a hatchet woman for a serial sexual predator she only keeps around so she can advance on his coattails (such as they are); uses a fraudulent charity for family tax free bank, and whose failure for not answering the 3 am phone call caused the deaths of some Great Americans at Benghazi.

    That’s enough. Biased Polemics for low info voters haven’t entertained me since, well since the corruption of the LBJ administration.

  • 6660splendidday

    What Kind of Man Spends Millions to Elect Ted Cruz?
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2016-01-20/what-kind-of-man-spends-millions-to-elect-ted-cruz-
    Mercer is the co-chief executive officer of one of the country’s largest
    and most secretive hedge funds, Renaissance Technologies
    Robert Mercer is one of the wealthiest, most secretive, influential, and reactionary Republicans in the country.