Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

The Election Is Not Rigged

And Donald Trump’s struggles in Texas are the proof.

By Comments

Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images

A pair of polls released Tuesday provides further evidence of a scenario I posited would be conceivable back in December of last year, and predicted was possible in May: the Republican Party’s hilariously disastrous decision to nominate Donald Trump for president means that Texas is now in play. According to the Washington Post/Survey Monkey poll, he leads Hillary Clinton by a mere two points. The University of Houston, similarly, puts Trump’s lead at three.

These are not the first polls to find Trump with a surprisingly narrow lead in Texas, but my impression, from the reactions they’ve received, is that many people are just now starting to suspend their disbelief. The explanation for that would be, I suppose, that the evidence is aligned with the narrative that has emerged in the past several weeks. In 2012 Mitt Romney carried Texas by a nearly 16-point margin. But then Romney didn’t spend the final weeks of the campaign flailing around furiously, as Trump has been doing lately. It’s been a tight race in Texas all summer, but now the close margin makes sense to many people.

The narrowing Texas polls made sense to me even before Trump spent a week lashing out at the numerous women who’ve stepped forward to say that he assaulted them in precisely the way he bragged about doing, back in 2005. In fact, I predicted, in May, that Clinton could be the first Democratic presidential candidate in decades to put Texas in play. I thought that because I subscribe to the old saw: character is fate. Most Texans are decent people. On that basis alone Trump was bound to underperform Romney and the 2008 nominee, John McCain. Plus, as I noted in December, the same factor that made it hard to believe Clinton had a chance in Texas this year explains why she had a chance of doing so if Trump became the nominee: Texas is a red state. The Republican coalition runs the gamut from temperate pragmatists to principled fighters. Trump, by contrast, is gratuitously vitriolic and ideologically inconsistent at best; with him as the nominee, I wrote, many Texas Republicans would have cause to defect or abstain.

I point all of this out because the current Texas polls, and my ability to predict them, put the lie to Trump’s assertions that the election is “rigged.” He means that both metaphorically and literally. Over the past week, he’s repeatedly asserted that the media is actively colluding with Clinton and the DNC to make him look bad. He’s also insisted that voter fraud is endemic and widespread. As I wrote in August 2015, such arguments have ominous implications, in part because they are inevitably nonfalsifiable:

It’s no coincidence that [Trump] keeps casting himself as the victim. His supporters have already succumbed to the premise that Trump is a conservative outsider—a noble underdog, determined to fight the establishment and to speak truth to power. Having accepted that premise, they are predisposed to take any criticism or disagreement as further evidence for Trump’s claim that he is surrounded by powerful enemies who are determined to thwart him for their own selfish or corrupt or ideological reasons. His ultimate failure will be taken as proof that the game is rigged—against the candidate, but also against people like themselves, his supporters.

That prediction, too, seems to be playing out. The target audience, at least, is receptive to Trump’s claims. A poll taken last week found that 41 percent of voters, including 73 percent of Republicans, believe that the election could in fact be stolen from him at the ballot box. The more nebulous argument, about media bias, is even more intractable, as illustrated by this column by Breitbart’s Joel Pollak.

So I’ve been quite gloomy about Trump’s assertions and fatalistic about the prospects for debunking them. But it occurs to me that the tight race in Texas is evidence against Trump and his apologists. No one’s rigging anything here, in any sense of the word.

Our election laws, and our elections themselves, are largely under Republican control. Further, Republicans have carried all recent statewide elections by whopping margins; Greg Abbott was elected governor, two years ago, by roughly 20 percent. Voter fraud happens occasionally, as I noted in August, but it is vanishingly rare, especially in states like Texas, where Republicans have taken precautions against it. In other words, even if we assume Texas elections are vulnerable to large-scale fraud, it beggars belief to suggest that such shenanigans would be sufficiently common to obliterate the Republican margins we’ve come to suspect. Nor would impending voter fraud explain why the University of Houston poll, which put Romney’s lead at 17 points four years ago, now shows Trump and Clinton in a virtual tie.

Similarly, the fact that I’m in a position to spike the football the way I did above gives the lie to the idea that the media is rigging the election, either by directly colluding with the DNC or, more generally, by having helped prop up Trump thus far. People like Pollak, at Breitbart, can make a plausible argument that the media, writ large, has helped Trump get this far, if only by giving him so much airtime during the Republican primary. But Trump’s boosters can’t make that argument against me: I spent most of this year’s primary trying feverishly to warn Republicans against his nomination.

And in May, when I laid out my reasoning about why Trump’s nomination could put Texas in play, no one took it too seriously. Nor did people believe Clinton, later that month, when she mischievously posited that she saw a chance of winning Texas. And her campaign has, thus far, allocated its resources elsewhere; on Monday it announced its first ad buy in Texas—worth, at most, $100,000, as Abby Livingston explains at the Texas Tribune. Texas Democrats have, meanwhile, been characteristically subdued about the opportunity Trump represents. Even now, with the general election about three weeks away, many of them are surprised by the fact that Trump is struggling here, and reluctant to even get their hopes up.

Texas, in other words, is about the last state that anyone would even try to “rig” on Clinton’s behalf. Republicans have put plenty of precautions against voter fraud in place; they also swept the 2014 statewide elections by blistering margins, and Democrats effectively ceded the state’s electoral votes to them before this year’s election even began. And yet the new polls are in line with the prediction I made months ago. The only explanation that makes sense is the one I offered. Trump is struggling in Texas because he’s an incredibly weak candidate. And if he loses the election next month, that will be why.

Related Content

  • WUSRPH

    But in this world of “post truth politics (The Economist) all that matters is what someone wants to believe…..We see it here everyday…..

    • José

      Trump will reprise his portrayal of all Seven Dwarves: Nasty, Sniffy, Gropey, Fibby, Cheaty, Whiny, and Daft.
      My prediction is that Clinton will keep her cool while Trump will interrupt, complain, pout, and then brag that he “won” the debate based on an instant poll of a few Breibart fans.

      • WUSRPH

        You forgot their cousins, Slimy and Sleazy.

      • Wilson James

        Well, you nailed it.

    • jadedhaven

      “Secretary Clinton, you won the coin toss and will speak first.”
      “Thank you, Chris. This election…”*
      *Trump opens jar of bees*

  • texwildlifeguy

    It is quite apparent that you and another biased editor don’t like Trump or the republican party. Then please explain Scott Fovals actions? https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY — I heard what I heard. What say you?

    • Jerry Patterson

      And your point is? What does this have to do with fraudulent votes or stealing an election? This appears to me to be some scumbags with big egos and small hands who have a high opinion of themselves, without justification. Assume its all true, it proves collusion btwn the DNC and the campaign, but not fraudulent voting. It isn’t even related to Ms Grieners column. I’m confused…JP

      • texwildlifeguy

        My point is that the DNC machine and the Clinton cartel stoop to all kinds of lows to get what it, they want!!

        It starts at the bottom Jerry, there is a trail of lies and cover-ups by the DNC. The comment the election is NOT RIGGED is laughable. “Voter Fraud Proof – 18 Million Invalid Registration & 2 Million Are Dead ” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Ybzr6QNUY

        • Unwound

          the only way this election is being rigged is by people who think like you do in office who keep trying to pass laws intended on keeping people of color from voting.

          • texwildlifeguy

            That’s an ignorant comment seeing as how you know nothing about me or my culture! I am a guy of South American Color. So I want to stop people like me from voting?

          • Unwound

            if theyre voting dem and youre supporting voter ID laws, then yeah.

          • SpiritofPearl

            South Americans come in several colors.

          • texwildlifeguy

            AMEN!

          • WUSRPH

            And in my experience can be some of the worst racists…..especially toward “Indios”.

        • Jerry Patterson

          I agree with the “they’ll stoop to all lows” assertion-they will and they have. I simply do not believe there are 2 million dead people voting. This is the problem with selective use of “facts”. For example: every time a registered voter dies they remain on the rolls until that roll is bounced against the SS rolls by the county election registrars and/or the SOS. If that’s done annually, 2 million dead people on the rolls in the US is quite possible, actually likely. It doesn’t mean 2 million dead folks are voting (only the really spry dead people vote like they did in box 13 in Jim Wells county in 1948). Invalid voter registrations includes millions of people who’ve moved and registered elsewhere so they show up as registered twice until the voter rolls are merged. Voter fraud cannot steal this large turnout election on Nov 8th, unless the electoral vote is so close that one state, and maybe even one precinct in that state, is the difference. This electoral vote is not going to be close. Trump will lose, not because of stolen or fraudulent votes. He loses because he’s an idiot and a pig. JP

          • Shelly H.

            JP you and your pesky logic and facts. Must you ruin a highly entertaining rant by someone who is obviously part of Jim Jones’, excuse me, I mean Alex Jones’ cult?

          • Jerry Patterson

            Jim Jones, Alex Jones either way it involves koolaid…JP

          • Sam Jacinto

            Koolaid gets a bad rap. I think it was actually a knockoff called Flavorade

          • texwildlifeguy

            I am amazed at the disdain people have for Trump. He is highly intelligent and has a massive company that employed tens of thousands of people. He’s a business man. So by saying he is ignorant is in itself an ignorant statement. We all are ignorant about things (whether or not we want to admit that!) and by saying he is a PIG, well he’s a guy and most of us guys are PIGGISH in one way or another. We aren’t all saints!

            On the other hand, Clinton, has lied, stolen money (via her foundation- they (Clintons) treated Haiti well huh?), Travelgate, she got disbarred, tried to strip President Nixon’s constitutional rights, supports countries that kill homosexuals and keep women oppressed, she has aided and protected Billary with his sexual escapades, she stated in a private speech that she fears jihadists will enter the U.S. amongst refugees (BTW: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/hillary-worried-about-jihadists-entering-with-refugees-in-private-speech). She is the quintessential Alinskyite! She is EVIL INCARNATE. Wikileaks, while as Sec. of State -pay to Play occurs,(not a guess but a paper-trail shows this), Benghazi, 33000 emails deleted, she has lied to Congress, she laughed about getting a rapist off when he raped a 12 year old girl, lied to the families of the Fallen heroes in Benghazi regarding “a video” that caused the Benghazi attack and she ignored 600 requests for better security and the list goes on and on and on. GC

          • Beerman

            To say and/or suggest that Hillary Clinton’s flaws are in any way on a level with Trump’s con game and his moral weakness as a candidate is absurd and unbelievable.

          • Unwound

            im so glad we have another conspiracy theorist on here. theres always room for more.

          • Sam Jacinto

            Idjit again. Racial discrimination in housing (contrary to law),failure to pay suppliers and daring them to sue,use of undocumented workers,failure to pay other creditors and declaring bankruptcy while earning exorbitant “management fees”,consorting with russian oligarchs,inviting a foreign government to interfere in our election,using a “charity” for personal gain,using a “charity” to pay business expenses,using a “charity” to bribe government official,defrauding customers of his fake university,subscribing to fake conspiracy theory to challenge the legitimacy of an election,lying about his TV show being #1,fomenting rebellion,masquerading as publicist,misogyny,condoning sexual assault,committing sexual assault,overt racism and xenophobia,ignorance of the constitution,threatening nuclear proliferation and/or war,insulting gold star family,insulting all POWs,body shaming,ignorance of how the government works,lying about polls,misrepresenting opponents’ positions,lack of self control,complete narcissism,emotional instability,extreme hubris,flirting with anti-semitic views,flirting with white nationalists,imitating Mussolini’s expressions, and wearing a dead squirrel on his head. Just to name a few, He’s not a successful businessman – he is a predator.

          • texwildlifeguy

            Ignorance is bliss

          • Sam Jacinto

            If so, your candidate should be very happy

          • texwildlifeguy

            There you go, thinking, guessing, using a crystal ball or you may have even called Ms. Cleo via your physic. You’re making a BIG ASSumption who I am voting for. You are seriously FUBAR!

          • SpiritofPearl

            I’m blocking yet another RWNJ.

          • Wilson James

            ditto

          • Sam Jacinto

            Well excuuuuuuuuuuse me for inferring that you will vote for the nutjob after reading your post.

          • BCinBCS

            Idjit – “Derived from the Irish Slang word “Eejit”, which means a person who is exceedingly Stupid or an Idiot. It was americanized and made “country” and slowly was changed into “Idjit” by southerners.
            As in: That guy’s an idjit.”

          • WUSRPH

            What is particularly dangerous is the fact that there are people like TWLG, above, who literally believe that Hillary Clinton is “EVIL INCARNATE”……a “Demon from Hell” and a “Devil” (as Trump called her). As well as those who have convinced themselves that this is “the last chance” and all is lost if Clinton wins….People who can believe that are people who can do horrible things—like murder—in their battle against “Evil Incarnate”….

          • texwildlifeguy

            it is a shame there are people like WUSRPH (afraid to use your real name?) that THINK (I use that term THINK loosely) that they know what I am thinking or what I am inferring by a reply. Did I indicate ALL IS LOST in my replies or comments? I want to be clear you actually believe that if TWLG believed ALL IS LOST if Clinton wins that I can do a horrible thing like MURDER????? Your statement is stupid, ludicrous and frankly disturbing. I have been in more countries than I can count and have seen some HORRIBLE stuff, that is what one sees when he SERVES his country! WUSRPH I really feel sorry for you.

          • WUSRPH

            I know nothing about you…and, based on your comments do not want to…..but I do know that people who call others things like “Evil Incarnate” have done very monstrous things in fighting what they consider to be that evil. Even if they would not do it themselves, people who can call other people such things, perhaps without realizing it, give a sense of justification to those who would do such things.

            P.S. Someone who calls himself “texwildlifeguy” should not say anything about the fact that others also choose to use a pseudonym.

          • texwildlifeguy

            You must lead a very sheltered life WUSRPH. You are naive and quite frankly illogical.
            What is blatantly apparent that there is a person WUSRPH (afraid to use your real identity?) that actually believes there are people like TWLG (if I believed ALL IS LOST IF CLINTON WINS) can do horrible things like MURDER??????? I have traveled to many countries and have seen things I never want to see again – all in the service of my country! But to throw such a statement out there like I can do HORRIBLE things like murder??? WUSRPH — Evil incarnate could be a guy getting ready to kill or hurt you or your family, would I defend you and yours and do what it would take to keep you safe –damn right I would! I feel sorry for you MUSRPH. You know there are alot of great people in our country!

          • SpiritofPearl

            What’s YOUR real name, wild man?

          • Shelly H.

            You might want to lay off the monster drinks and wipe the spit off of your chin.

          • Jerry Patterson

            No matter if you vote for Trump or Clinton, when you’re done voting your cleared to go out in the parking lot and puke. JP

          • Shelly H.

            TWLG said **I am amazed at the disdain people have for Trump. He is highly intelligent and has a massive company that employed tens of thousands of people. He’s a business man. So by saying he is ignorant is in itself an ignorant statement. We all are ignorant about things (whether or not we want to admit that!) and by saying he is a PIG, well he’s a guy and most of us guys are PIGGISH in one way or another. We aren’t all saints!**

            Highly intelligent? Please provide an example of his intelligence – and being a businessman is not a sign of the intelligence needed to be the leader of a country. People who claim that they are experts on everything and that they know more than the real experts are foolish. They may be smart enough to get by in life and have enough money to make more money but truly intelligent people know what they don’t know and are wise enough to admit it.

            To call Trump piggish or a pig is an insult to pigs.

            As to your second paragraph, you’ve drunk the alt-right, conservative kool-aid.

          • Wilson James

            And I wonder why anyone would think a businessman would make a good President….businessmen make profits by reducing jobs, avoiding taxes and competing for their own profit motive. They seek legal advice, not a knowledge of law. International relations to them is about cash flow. Trump is a sort of businessman…the gasbag side show barker.

          • Beerman

            Tomorrow’s copy of the National Enquirer will have the headline, “Hillary is a Nasty Woman, Grab Her by Her Whatever.”

            TWLG, you better rush out to the Super Market checkout stand and get your copy, which appears to be your main source of information.

          • BCinBCS
          • John Bernard Books

            I’m sorry you have so much disdain for us republicans. I’m curious how do you describe Hillary?

          • Erica Grieder

            JBB: I can’t speak for JP but I would note that, unlike Trump, he’s spent years serving the Texas public as our (Republican) Land Commissioner.

            And for my own part I would say that there’s no one I respect more this year than the Texas Republicans who aren’t supporting Trump–the voters & also the elected officials, who come from across the ideological spectrum, from Joe Straus to Konni Burton. They certainly did not expect to find themselves with serious qualms about the Republican nominee, especially in a year that began with a crowded field & so many qualified candidates. Nor are they excited about Hillary Clinton becoming president.

            And, fwiw, I don’t disdain Republicans voting for Trump either. He is the Republican nominee. The only people I disdain, are the ones trying to browbeat my fellow Texans into voting a certain way–it’s a free country. Well, and also outright David Dukes etc, and angry people yelling at me on Twitter for no good reason 🙂

          • SpiritofPearl

            The anti-Semitism on Twitter directed at Jewish journalists is appalling as well.

          • John Bernard Books

            People are gonna yell thats what makes politics such a warm family tradition in Texas. Put on your big girl panties, wipe your nose and soldier on….
            JP knows I’m just funnin him.

          • Jed

            “I agree with the “they’ll stoop to all lows” assertion-they will and they have.”

            this is irresponsble nonsense peddling from someone who has an (undeserved) reputation for probity.

          • Jerry Patterson

            Jed, I don’t know what “probity” means. Should I be pleased? JP

          • Jed

            well, it doesn’t mean “resourceful,” or you would have looked it up.

          • Shelly H.

            that was unnecessary

          • Wilson James

            but funny.

          • Shelly H.

            Probity – the quality of having strong moral principles; honesty and decency

            from Dictionary.com – integrity and uprightness; honesty.

            And I needed to look it up too.

          • Shelly H.

            Jed, disagree with the statement all you want but could we please stop with the endless unnecessary ad hominem attacks?

            They don’t add anything useful and just create or inflame the rancor and divisiveness that is eroding our government.

          • Jed

            i am pretty sure that nothing i have typed here is creating or inflaming rancor and divisiveness “that is eroding our government.” if anything, it is *reflective* of our government.

            witness the very comment i was responding to, in which a former government official accuses the leading presidential candidate of doing anything and everything to win (cheating to rig the election, perhaps?).

            how is *that* not ad hominem? and how is it ad hominem for me to call him on it? in fact, that is the very opposite of ad hominem. i was criticizing his *argument*.

            is it ad hominem to point out how absurd it is for trump to make the exact same claim that i criticized from patterson? have you not criticized trump for making the exact same claim? because in that case, the entire article we are commenting below (and everything erica has written in the past year) would count as ad hominem …

            your *point* is weak.

          • Shelly H.

            My point is that this part of your statement “from someone who has an (undeserved) reputation for probity.” was an ad hominem attack on JP. If you had stopped your comment at peddling I wouldn’t have called you on it.

            FWIW I agree with you that comment of stooping to all lows was unnecessary and incorrect as well, but it was pretty mild and typical of those who dislike Hillary and the Democratic party when compared to JBB and JJ’s typical comments. JP is a man of reason and while I do not agree with many of his positions I can and do respect his thoughtfulness and usually he will take the time to explain his reasoning.

            We’re all weary of this election so forgive me for being tired of the unending attacks on everything but the issues.

          • Jed

            the (ad hominem) attacks from such “thoughtful” leaders as jerry patterson certainly aren’t going to end when clinton is elected in a couple weeks.

            you can look forward to at least four more years of it.

          • BCinBCS

            Hear, hear Jerry P., hear, hear.

    • Sam Jacinto

      Idjit. Just dirty tricks pioneered by republicans decades ago.

    • Jed

      you have to be biased to dislike trump.

      you could just be correct.

  • Beerman

    The USA election is rigged, according to DJT and Putin, and that BS on top of numerous insulting rhetoric rants and stupid blunders is why DJT will get less than 38% of the vote. Typical bully and his surrogates making early excuses for getting his behind whipped and embarrassed by a little old lady in a pant suit.

    The GOP will go through a major change over the next few years. The Tea Party created the fear/hate form of politics, and will have to answer for the mistake of letting Trump use those tactics to take over the Republican Party. The moderates will bring the Republican Party back to reality after a brief battle with the extreme characters that stole their party. America is Great, no matter what these conspiracy theorists keep screaming.

    • Unwound

      i have my doubts. the “alt right” as it were is probably here to stay, and they’ve already proven that they can get a movement going based on white supremacy. I think the establishment will take what they can out of this smouldering ruin and tack further right.

      • Beerman

        I hope that you are wrong about the GOP tacking further right after the election. However, it is a valid thought that the panic screams of Trump and Steve Bannon about a “rigged election” may be a big old “dog whistle” advocating the idea of insurrection when they get blown out in this election. They could be setting the stage for civil disobedience, government shutdown, etc by the Trumpeters and Trumpettes. It certainly could put our Republic, as we know it, in a dangerous situation.

        You are making a valid point, the “alt right” movement should not be sold short. Their tactics are alarming to the majority of Americans.

        • José

          Let’s just say it simply and bluntly. Alt Right is un-American.

          • Unwound

            theyre as american as bigotry, which has a long and deep history in the nation.

          • BCinBCS

            Amen

          • Wilson James

            Very much so. If a Democrat had said the things Trump had said conservative heads would have exploded and the “outrage” would have been outstanding. The alt-right is a treasonous bunch of traitors.

        • Unwound

          never ever underestimate the GOP in texas’ ability to mover further rightward. if he sees something to be gained from blatant white supremacy, i dont necessarily see patrick passing that up.

        • WUSRPH

          They can—and perhaps will—challenge the legitimacy of a Clinton presidency without the necessity of an “insurrection” or at least as that term has been understood in the past. There’s will be a continued vocal challenge to anything she does, repeated filing of law suits, refusal to obey laws and maybe pay taxes, hacking of govt. computer systems and attempts to pass “non-cooperation laws” in the various states and localities combined with efforts to defeat any and every officeholder who is as much as willing to sit down and talk to the president. In short, a modern effort to make it impossible for the society to function. (On second, thought much of that sounds like what the GOP has been doing for the last 8 years.)

          As far as it goes in Texas, I suspect you will see a number of attempts to get the Legislature to pass “non-cooperation” laws in a number of areas—with the support of Gov. Abbott, Lt. Gov. Patrick and Atty. Gen. Paxton (when he is not busy in his trial.)

          • SpiritofPearl

            In a word, anarchy.

          • WUSRPH

            That is certainly what they will try to produce…..

          • formerlyanonymous

            We’ll clearly we will at least sue for no clear reason.

          • WUSRPH

            Harassment is a clear reason.

          • John Bernard Books

            yeah like redistricting where SCOTUS said…aw hell no…..

    • BCinBCS

      Less than 38%?
      Oohhh.

      • Beerman

        It may be less than 38% after his “reality show” debate performance last night. Trump is a shameless con-artist and it is unbelievable that there is anywhere near 38% of the voters that support this idiot, and believe his bull-manure.

        • BCinBCS

          I’ve alway believed that his “floor” was around 40% but I certainly take 38% (or less).

          • BCinBCS

            I guess that I should never underestimate his ability to alienate his supporters.

  • donuthin2

    I’m think your observation is logical. The trend in TX flies in the face of any argument that the election is rigged. If the momentum continues, she might just prevail. If doubt it will but certainly a possibility if trump keeps us his foolishness.

    • Jed

      what am i missing about this argument?

      texas is usually very red. this time, it looks close, meaning a huge shift in favor of clinton.

      this is evidence that clinton isn’t cheating? in what way?

      as usual around here, i feel like i missed the argument on behalf of the thesis.

      • WUSRPH

        But in what way is it evidence that Clinton is cheating?

        • Jed

          it isn’t. but you don’t write an article that says “here is a thing that doesn’t prove me wrong, so therefore i must be right.” bananas are also not evidence that clinton is or isn’t cheating, but they got no mention at all.

          • WUSRPH

            The next thing you will ask for is that we diagram our propositions like in Aristotelian Logic.

          • Jed

            i don’t think asking for an argument in defense of the headline is quite the same as requiring a degree in philosophy.

            them’s some pretty low expectations (sort of like encouraging former statewide elected officials to make fun of words they can’t be bothered to look up, eh shelly h?).

      • pss1

        The argument is that if either campaign really wanted to devise a scheme to rig the election, the place to put your “thumb on the scale” would be in some county in suburban Ohio or the Florida panhandle.

        The fact that polls, even in Texas (a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat in a statewide election in multiple decades) are reflecting a Trump freefall, is evidence that there is something larger here that can’t be explained by some implausible “rigging” scheme.

        Clinton has dozens of paths to victory that don’t include Texas. “Rigging Texas” is not a plausible conclusion to the facts of the polls are now close.

        • BCinBCS

          Bingo!

          • Jed

            bingo, indeed. this is a much more effective presentation of the argument than what we got from the author.

            that said, the argument as presented here suggests that the election is not being rigged *in Texas.* there is no basis here for concluding whether or not the election is being rigged elsewhere. which unfortunately was the claim of the article.

            yahtzee!

          • BCinBCS

            Jed, Erica is, essentially, using the transitive law. In mathematics, the transitive law states that if a=b and b=c then a=c. It can also means that if a≠b and b=c then a≠c.

            She is saying that if Trump is losing in Texas and it is not being caused by “rigging” then it is reasonable to say that if Trump is losing in other states it is not being caused by rigging.

          • Jed

            but that is of course nonsense.

            all states are not equal, and that aside the logic is circular: if the “bingo!” point was that texas would be a stupid place to cheat, then that claim can hardly be used as a basis for arguing that no one is cheating anywhere else either.

        • Wilson James

          There it is.

  • Wilson James

    Charges of election fraud are the last dying gasp of a campaign, party, candidate and its followers that have no relevance, no message and no chance. It is sorta like the aggies setting up their excuses before a big game, expected and predictable. Most of the fraud involved in Texas politics has to do with the actions of the GOP: voter ID, voter suppression and the DeLay gerrymandering. Trump will probably take Texas and what that says about us is shameful.

    • Jewel Sheffield

      Please do not sully the name of our good school by comparing it to the putrid lies spewed by a campaign on its dying breath.

      • BCinBCS

        I second that.
        Maybe next year is this year…we’ll know this Saturday after the Alabama game.

        • Wilson James

          What good school? 🙂

          • BCinBCS

            Oh, pray-tell what good school you attended? 😉

          • Wilson James

            Harvard.

          • Wilson James

            Well, Harvard on the San Marcos River…..

          • BCinBCS

            😉
            My youngest brother is also a graduate of your alma mater.

    • janice kraczon

      So your calling the voters that are complaining that their votes were changed today liars?????

      • Jed

        that claim comes up seemingly at every election.

        it’s never happened to me or anyone i know. i’ve never seen it reproduced in any of the coverage of the same claim in previous elections. i take it to be apocryphal/user error.

        if they were going to change your vote electronically, why would they let you see that? wouldn’t they just show you a fake confirmation screen instead?

  • José

    Not so fast, Erica.
    The election is rigged when one party successfully suppresses the registration of certain groups of eligible voters simply because they think they will vote for the other party.
    The election is rigged when municipalities allow their law enforcement officers to campaign for a particular candidate, while they are on the job and being paid by all taxpayers.
    The election is rigged when one party works in cooperation with a belligerent foreign nation to commit crimes of espionage and acts of propaganda directed at the candidate of the other party.

    There’s a lot of rigging going on, all right. Let’s try to overcome it.

  • Roy Lewis

    Texas Republicans have attempted to rig the election through gerrymandering and by imposing the most restrictive voter registration laws in the nation. Despite that, Texas is in play this fall. Bravo! I encourage voting a straight Democratic ticket this year. Congressional obstruction, birtherism, and Trump have earned the GOP a time out. I write this as a lifelong Republican forced to change parties this year for the sake of integrity.

    • WUSRPH

      I have never voted a straight ticket in my 51 years of voting…There have always been a candidate or two on the ballot whom I found unacceptable (like my state rep.) and I do not always vote in unopposed races…BUT this year is likely to be different.

    • donuthin2

      Unless we see a lot more elected Rs step up and denounce Trump, I may do the same. Too many of the better Rs, show no integrity or courage and are partially responsible for the debacle we are in.

      • janice kraczon

        The reason I’m voting Trump is BECAUSE of these morons that say they care about the country that are in there now. Love Trump. He is exactly what this corrupt calamity we call a government needs… Here there are already people complaining about rigrd machines. Switiching Trump votes to Clinton. Its not a surprise though….that’s the only way she can win…..

  • John Bernard Books

    Just so we’re clear, there is no voter fraud?
    Lolololololololol!
    What do we know?
    well we know illegals are voting.
    we know there is vote harvesting.
    we know dead people are voting.
    we know dems cheat……aye gawd Woodrow isn’t that enough?

    • Unwound

      no we dont

      • John Bernard Books

        I wasn’t referring to the low information voter….

        • Unwound

          youre the one voting for trump…..

          • John Bernard Books

            I am?

          • Unwound

            What you dont like the idea of a border wall and internment camps for Muslims?

          • John Bernard Books

            No why would I?
            FDR built the internment camps during WW11 and Hillary voted for a wall.
            “At a campaign event last night, Hillary Clinton bragged about something she does not usually mention: her votes for a border fence to keep illegal immigrants out of America.”
            http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-i-voted-for-border-fence-to-keep-out-illegal-immigrants/article/1061753

            These are dem ideas….Trumps is only appealing to his base the dems.
            I will follow Buckley’s rule, vote for the most conservative in the race.

          • Unwound

            so youre a clinton voter then.

          • John Bernard Books

            Hahaha….I love my dumazz dems….

  • SpiritofPearl
  • John Bernard Books

    Now I’m really shocked….Robert Creamer is a convicted felon?
    “Earlier today we wrote about a new Project Veritas undercover video that uncovered several democratic operatives openly discussing, in explicit detail, how to commit massive voter fraud. One of the operatives was a person by the name of Robert Creamer who is a co-founder of a democratic consulting firm called Democracy Partners. Within the video, an undercover journalist details a plan to register Hispanic voters illegally by having them work as contractors, to which Creamer can be heard offering support saying that “there are a couple of organizations that that’s their big trick” (see: “Rigging Elections For 50 Years” – Massive Voter Fraud Exposed By Project Veritas Part 2″).”
    yep…..a felon
    “But voter fraud isn’t Creamer’s only criminal specialty. A quick look at Wikipedia reveals that Creamer spent 5 months in federal prison back in 2006 for a “$2.3 million bank fraud in relation to his operation of public interest groups in the 1990s.”
    340 visits with the WH…..wink wink community organizers…
    “So, with that kind of history, you can imagine our surprise when we discovered that a Mr. Robert Creamer showed up on the White House visitor logs 340 times beginning in 2009 when Obama took office and culminating with his latest visit in June 2016. Moreover, in 45 of those instances, Creamer was scheduled to meet with POTUS himself. Perhaps this is just two old Chicago “community organizers” hanging out?”
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-18/robert-creamer

    seriously if you’re still on “there’s no voter fraud kick……I have something somewhere to sell you.

  • WUSRPH

    One of the reasons JP is not in public office today is that he had this tendency to tell it as he believed it to be….even when that was not politically popular.

  • John Bernard Books

    So bottom line to my question….Can Hillary steal this election?”
    We will know Nov 8 at about 3 pm……the MSM will be exit polling showing a huge lead for Hillary much like they did for Kerry.

  • John Bernard Books

    Yes JP has been around politics awhile and he knows as I do how dems reported “newly found votes” for weeks after the senate race in 1948 giving LBJ the race. BTW this wasn’t the first race he stole, it was his second in two attempts. Dems have a long history of stealing races dating back to 1828 when the party was formed. They stole the presidential election from JQ Adams, using illegals to vote, money to buy votes and destroying republican ballots and replacing them with dem ballots.
    This is all documented in case you’ve don’t know history.

  • WUSRPH

    Talk about being overly optimistic….Did you see what former Speaker Pelosi is projecting that the Democrats may pick up as many as 25 seats in the U.S. House? The only problem with that possible outcome is that it would still leave the GOP with a majority (of about 9) while defeating a number of the less crazy Republicans—maybe making the remainder even harder to work with.

    • José

      I still wonder if there is some threshold at which a few pragmatic Republicans might decide to work with Dems in order to allow the government to work again.

      • Unwound

        ive got a better solution. beat them in elections so you dont have to negotiate.

        • Shelly H.

          Except that is what got us into this mess to begin with – the refusal to negotiate. Negotiation and compromise is the lifeblood of government.

      • Sam Jacinto

        There are no”pragmatic republicans” in Congress

    • John Bernard Books

      Pelosi guaranteed a win in 2014…she was wrong then too.

  • Having read several of Grieder’s writings, I now tend to pass on her prejudiced pieces. A liberal Burka, Jr. (I imagine she takes that as a compliment).

    • BCinBCS

      Having read only a few of Erica’s pieces, I can see how you mistakenly believe that she is a liberal. I suggest that you dig a little deeper.

      • Thank you. I will follow your suggestion. I was a student at UT in the early ’70’s when TM was getting started, so I have to recognize my own bias toward things Austin.

        • BCinBCS

          I was at A&M in the early 70’s.
          Those were heady times.

          • I should have written, “my bias AGAINST things Austin.” I returned to my roots after leaving that bubble for my home on the southern Texas coast. Perhaps I’ve become so conservative that, along with my expectations for TM’s bent, she seems solidly liberal.
            I will, however, follow your advice for more research.

          • BCinBCS

            I grew up on the coast, as well – the next coastal town south of Galveston. Where are you from…Corpus, Port A?

          • Portland. Born and raised in Corpus Christi.

    • John Bernard Books

      It appears Erica is a liberal, she support women over men, skin color etc. But she tells me she only leans left 90% of the time.

      • BCinBCS

        Apparently mthncc is new to this blog but you, JBB, should know better.

        • dave in texas

          …but you, JBB, should know better.

          Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

          • John Bernard Books

            ah dave the government worker…..posting on the clock for dems.

        • Wilson James

          Somebody teach mthncc how to block JBB.

          • John Bernard Books

            “Somebody teach mthncc how to block JBB.”….why we agree.

    • Wilson James

      She is a columnist and blogger, not a reporter. And if you think she is liberal then you do not have any idea of the meaning of the word 😉

      • Oh, great. A name-caller and character assassin. I suggest a read of the thread.

  • John Bernard Books

    Third debate a charm, Trump wins big. he absolutely dominated her.
    Big win.

    • Jerry Patterson

      I disagree. Except for the compulsive lying, HRC did well. Trump did well also, except for his petulant stupid comment about accepting the results of the election. JP

      • SpiritofPearl
        • Jerry Patterson

          I didn’t read the whole transcript, but NPR GOT IT WRONG when they claim HRC doesn’t want to take away our guns. Both OBAMA, and HRC have definitively referred to Australia as an example to emulate when we enact “sensible gun laws”. Australia confiscated and destroyed all semiautomatic firearms, regardless of magazine capacity (or if they even had a detachable magazine) , as well as semiautomatic shotguns, AND pump shotguns (must be cocked each time you fire it). Thats her example, and it clearly would require her “coming to take our guns”. Confiscation of firearms in the US would result in the most extensive acts of civil disobedience in our countrys history. It is a radical proposal. I suspect that like most reporters, the NPR reporter is so clueless on the subject of firearms She just bought in to the idea that Australia only confiscated so called “assault weapons”. and she wouldn’t know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semiautomatic weapon. Don’t smugly promote the idea that the gun bubbas are paranoid about HRC wanting to take our guns. She does. JP

          • BCinBCS

            Jerry, I know you to be a sensible, thoughtful man. To entertain that HRC wants to confiscate all guns, as in Australia, is so fanciful that it can only be used as a scare tactic.

            If gun nuts and the NRA would go back to their original purpose of promoting gun safety, hunting and target shooting, I believe that the other side would also assume the attitude that was prevalent back in those days.

          • Jerry Patterson

            I agree it is hard to believe, but those are her words! She said Australia is the example we should follow, and did so on more than one occasion. She can’t be any more clear. And BTW, I didn’t say HRC “wants to confiscate all guns” and the Aussies didn’t confiscate all guns either. As to the NRA going back to being a promoter of hunting and target practice, I remind all that I have no constitutional right to hunt or target shoot. I have a constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending myself and my family against criminals, foreign invasion, or an oppressive government. Do I think that during my lifetime, or my childrens or even grandchildrens lifetime the need might arise to defend against my government? No I do not. However, neither you or I know what circumstances might exist in these 50 states in 100 years. We preserve liberty more for future generations than for ours. JP

          • donuthin2

            Your right to bear arms against foreign governments or an oppressive government, in the context of today’s world, is pretty ludicrous.

          • SpiritofPearl

            Yeah. Orville Faubus at Central High School got smacked down in 1957 by Ike and the National Guard.

          • Jerry Patterson

            That event is not even related to our discussion. Our discussion relates to citizens, not members of the national guard. And btw the courts and current law define the militia as able bodied citizens who are not members of the armed forces or the national guard. Faubus called out the national guard to stop integration. Ike nationalized (put them under federal not state control) them and reversed their mission.

          • SpiritofPearl

            My point is that citizens armed with guns no longer have the power to defend against an unjust government. That train left the station decades ago.

          • Jerry Patterson

            Your assumption might be correct only if the military forces of the regime will carry out their orders to engage in combat with an armed citizenry, a citizenry of which they are a member. This is particularly on point now that we have a non conscript all volunteer force. If the citizenry are not armed, that question never arises, and the regime wins. In the late 70’s there was a Russian pilot who defected with a MiG-25 Foxbat. During his debrief he was asked if the Russians would ever consider an invasion of the US. He said absolutely not, “there are too many cowboys with guns”. I have first person knowledge of this. Thats another reason for the 2nd Amendment. JP

          • SpiritofPearl

            Your tale about the Russians is anecdotal, not prescriptive.

            I’m not debating the second amendment. Americans will never give up their guns. What I seek are fewer days when I read that a toddler shot his mother or his playmate. I would respect your view more if you advocated less for open carry and more for getting guns away from crazies, domestic abusers, gang bangers, and alt-right nut jobs.

          • Jerry Patterson

            I don’t open carry, but I see no reason to outlaw it. I am absolutely with you that there are folks that shouldn’t have guns, and you listed them well. This country has a nut job problem, not a gun problem.

          • BCinBCS

            Jerry P. wrote: “This country has a nut job problem, not a gun problem.

            This is exactly the problem.
            If the U.S. could get rid of the gun nut jobs and the lack of training and safety problem, the gun controversy would largely cease to exist.

          • SpiritofPearl

            When I moved to Texas, I recall you were quite active in the “open carry” movement.

            I believe gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. I believe that some white Americans have become increasingly fearful of people of color as they assume their rightful place in society and I believe the NRA and the gun industry have made a lot of from that fear.

            The last person in my family to live on a farm was my great grandfather. My husband’s parents were New Yorkers. We don’t do guns.

          • Jerry Patterson

            I think you recall incorrectly about me being “quite active” in the OC movement, and we have a bill of rights, not a bill of privileges. “White Americans have become increasingly fearful of people of color…”? Good grief… JP

          • SpiritofPearl

            I recall you demonstrating in San Antonio. Is that incorrect?

            About white racial fear and guns:

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/21/heres-the-surprising-reason-some-white-americans-oppose-gun-regulation/

            I can post articles like this all day . . .

          • SpiritofPearl

            The members of the guard are also citizens.

          • Jerry Patterson

            You should read again what i wrote. “In todays world..” as you said, I agree with you, it is. You’ll note my concern was 100 years from now, not in today world. JP

          • BCinBCS

            I am NOT advocating taking away anyone’s guns. Because of the Heller decision, the ability to restrict guns is nearly impossible now but if I was king of the U.S. I would allow anyone to own any gun that they want but before they could get a hunting license, a carry permit or go to a shooting range, they would have to take a gun and/or hunting/shooting safety course, demonstrate proficiency, prove that they owned secure storage for any firearm in the home and pass a background check. If they did not pass any of those requirements, because of Heller, they could still own a firearm but they couldn’t have it outside of their residency.

            Seems reasonable to me.

          • Jerry Patterson

            None of what you suggest is unconstitutional. In fact, when you say “own any gun that they want” you’ve become more 2nd Amendment friendly than the NRA! JP

          • BCinBCS

            I’d put limits on hand grenades, mortars and explosives but, with a special permit, if you could afford the ammunition, you could have an automatic.

          • Jerry Patterson

            I’m a anti 2nd amendment wimp I guess. Even though I own a fully automatic weapon (yes a machine gun!) I don’t believe I have a constitutional to own it. I had to get permission from the ATF, and the local sheriff, and pay a $200 tax. You’re the 2nd amendment absolutist if you believe we have a right to won fully automatic weapons-congratulations! The courts have ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to weapons commonly held by the citizenry. Tanks, battleships, machine guns, grenades aren’t commonly held. The National Firearms act of 1934 essentially outlawed the right to own machine guns. JP

          • BCinBCS

            I’m O.K. with that too.
            When I was growing up in the 50’s and early 60’s, everyone had a gun and almost no one shot each other. As a matter of fact, about every third pick-up truck had a varmint rifle in the gun rack behind the seat – and no one ever locked their vehicle. Now, everyone is scared and crazy.

          • SpiritofPearl

            The interpretation of “well-regulated militia” has not been adjudicated to the satisfaction of many Americans.

            Too many crazies with too many guns . . .

          • Jerry Patterson

            I agree there are too many crazies with guns. Thats why I always say we don’t have a gun problem we have a nutjob problem. I differ that well regulated militia hasn’t been adjudicated. It has, many times, going back to the Dred Scott decision. But, lets agree to disagree ’cause I don’t have the time today to argue it! Later? JP

          • SpiritofPearl

            Dred Scott? The slave who attempted to gain his freedom in 1850 in St. Louis, my home town? Missourians are raised on the history of Dred Scott, the worst SC decision in American history before Citizens United.

          • Jerry Patterson

            Yes. SCOTUS said that Dred Scott shouldn’t have the rights of citizenship because among other things he would have the 2nd Amendment right to arms and of course that was preposterous for a black man. free or not. JP

          • SpiritofPearl

            So you think Dred Scott was all about the second amendment? I was taught that it was all about a miscarriage of justice.

          • Jerry Patterson

            No. Thats not what I said. Prob best if you google “Dred Scott and 2nd Amendment” or “Dred Scott and gun rights” I’m sure you can find a summary and it won’t be necessary to read the whole opinion.

          • SpiritofPearl

            Read it.

            That’s quite a stretch from the original intent of the Dred Scott case.

          • Jerry Patterson

            It has nothing to do with the intent, it has to do with the reasons given why Dred Scott couldn’t be a citizen.

          • SpiritofPearl

            But said nothing about the meaning of “well-regulated militia” . . .

            I’d be interested to know how constitutional law scholars interpret Dred Scott as a defense of gun ownership.

          • Jerry Patterson

            Dred Scotts petition for full rights of citizenship as a free Black man was was denied by SCOTUS in part because doing so “…would give persons of the Negro race the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went…”. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 417, 450-451 (1857) No interpretattion by “constitutional scholars” is needed. The plain language of the decision prevails. JP

          • SpiritofPearl

            When I took constitutional law in the 1960s, the Dred Scott decision had nothing to do with “gun rights.” The NRA has resurrected a widely discredited case to support its position.

          • Jerry Patterson

            Here’s the deal. Neither of us need the “excercise” nor have the time for this continued exchange. I will close by suggesting you read Sanford Levinsons “The Embarrassing Second Amendment”. Levinson is a liberal UT Law professor who dislikes the NRA and personally opposes the idea of the 2nd as an individual constitutional right not associated with service in the “militia”. He agrees with me, not you. Take the time to read it carefully. JP

          • SpiritofPearl

            I will. I’ll be back . . .

          • Shelly H.

            JP, I think you may be reading more into what she said than what was intended. I did not hear her speech(es) where she said that we should follow Australia’s example so I can’t say for certain without the context. Too often her statements are taken out of context. There are those who are already taking what she said in last night’s debate out of context and twisting them into meaning horrible things that she did not say and not just on gun control but on abortion, foreign policy, etc.

            This has to stop. This whole democrats are evil and republican’s are righteous crap, Has. To. Stop. We have to quit letting the JBBs, Bannons Limbaughs, Coulters, et al from polarizing and dividing us. I know there are equivalent person’s on the left as well. We’re all Americans, and we all want what is best for the country but we have to accept that we aren’t going to agree on everything and we can’t have everything we want. Both sides have to learn the art of compromise again or we will end up with another four years wasted and Trump or someone worse running for President again.

            Maybe it’s time to stop focusing on the differences and start trying to find common ground.

          • Jerry Patterson

            Common ground? What an interesting concept! JP

          • Shelly H.

            Yes, we need the statesmen, or grownups, if you will, to step up and not just be the examples but take charge, to start the process. We have to be willing to hold out the olive branch and stop waiting for the other side to offer it first.

            For instance, her proposal on background checks, education and storage requirements for firearms. Those are reasonable and constitutionally sound limits on our 2nd amendment right. Banning “assault” rifles and other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns is a non-starter.

            I think she is smart enough to recognize the difference between what she ideally would like to do and what is realistic. Kind of like her open borders comment that was taken out of context that when read within the context of her speech was an ideal to strive for not an absolute policy point that she was going to try to enact.

          • BCinBCS

            Absolutely, Shel.

          • SpiritofPearl

            If you won’t read the NPR evidence, read one from WaPo. Prolly won’t read that either.

          • Jerry Patterson

            I only read part of it, and the only thing I know to be wrong in what I read was the fact check on HRC wanting to take our guns. Again, Australia confiscated millions of firearms. HRC uses Australia as a example of what we should do here in US. How do you not get that is advocating seizing firearms? How do you not see that the gun bubbas, however lacking in sophistication they may be, are justified in saying she wants to take our guns? Thats what she said, several times. Actually she’s also said “nobody wants to take your guns, but Australia is an example of sensible gun laws”. She even lied in that contradictory sentence construction! She also lied about DC gun laws were to “protect toddlers”. JP

          • BCinBCS

            JP, I agree with Hillary when it comes to gun safety. If we would become as draconian about punishing those that abuse their constitutional right to bear arms safely as the draconian clinging to the right to have them unrestricted, we could begin to save many of the unnecessary unintentional gun accident deaths, including the deaths of, on average, one child every other day.

      • Beerman

        And, except for his “Nasty Woman” pout?

        • SpiritofPearl

          I’m hoping to find a bumper sticker that says “I’m with the Nasty Woman.”

      • John Bernard Books

        JP read what you wrote “Except for the compulsive lying, HRC did well.”
        As far as what Trump said, Al Gore did exactly that in 2000. Is Trump not allowed the same recourse as Gore?

        • Jerry Patterson

          It’s not about what others have done or not done, its about what Trump did, and did stupidly. That comment lost the debate for him. It showed him to be a petulant, whiny, egomaniac with a chip on his shoulder. But of course we already knew that. Did he have a right to say it (it makes no matter what Gore did), of course he did. Problem is he’s too stupid to understand what helps him and what hurts him. Thats why he will lose to the most damaged D nominee in modern history. It takes a special man to lose to HRC this year, and we picked the only one that could pull off the loss…JP

          • John Bernard Books

            “It showed him to be a petulant, whiny, egomaniac with a chip on his shoulder.” yes but he our petulant, whiny, egomaniac with a chip on his shoulder and she is their’s.
            I know this is where we differ, I can never support a clinton and you can.

          • Jerry Patterson

            How did you conclude i am, or i could support HRC? And responding with “if you dont vote for Trump youre voting for Hillary” is not an acceptable answer because its not true. JP

      • Wilson James

        And the compulsive lying and ignorant blathering interruptions.

  • WUSRPH

    Question: What was the only presidential election in America’s 240 years in which the loser refused to recognize the legitimacy of the winner? What happened afterwards?

    Hint: It wasn’t 1800 or 1824 when the election was forced into the US House of Representatives because it was that close or in 1876 when a special commission had to determine the outcome. Nor in 1960 when many people thought Nixon would have won accept for fraud in Illinois or in 2000 when, if anybody had an justification to complain, it was Al Gore.

    Question: When was the second time in American history when a major candidate for president refused to pledge to recognize that tradition—which has been proudly proclaimed “the Miracle of 1800”?

    • BCinBCS

      Q #1 The Republican party in 2008 and 2012 refused to recognize the legitimacy of the winner; birtherism and other things after the 2008 election and failure to accept or reject Supreme Court nomination and other things after 2012 election.

      Q #2 I have no idea.

      • WUSRPH

        Answer:1860. The civil war.

        Both McCain (2008) and Romney (2012) recognized the legitimacy of Obama’s election…..Niether challenged his right to be president.

        Answer: Last night.

        • John Bernard Books

          You mean when Al Gore got slapped down by SCOTUS doesn’t count? Learn some history old man…..

          • BCinBCS

            Don’t you ever tire of being wrong, JBB?
            Al Gore conceded not once but twice!
            In his second concession speech he said:
            “Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College.”

        • dave in texas

          Yes, McCain and Romney recognized the legitimacy of Obama’s election. It’s too bad Congressional Republicans never did.

      • BCinBCS

        I was going to proffer John C. Breckinridge but I googled him and it implies that he conceded. So I guess the correct answer must be John Bell?

  • Shelly H.

    So the orange one claims he will leave us all hanging in suspense as to whether he will concede the election. Honestly, I don’t know whether I should laugh at his childishness or be afraid that we will have an insurrection and constitutional crisis on November 9th.

    His answer on Aleppo – I’ve read the transcript and he literally just strung random words together and yet he thinks that he should be CiC?

    And for the third time he claimed Hillary was the Great All-Knowing and All-Powerful Oz who refused to use her power.

    “No one respects women more than I do.” Then 30 minutes later, “Such a nasty woman.”

    And lastly, someone needs to do a welfare check on Gov Pence – after that scene at the end of the debate where Trump tried to reenact the scene from the Godfather…

    • José

      That business with Aleppo was weird. In a post-debate discussion conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt defended and supported Trump with a rather generous reinterpretation and expansion of what he wanted to believe that Trump meant. Maybe Hewitt really does think that Trump understands the situation there but I thought that his defense was unconvincing. Nothing that Trump has said leads one to believe that he has a grasp of the situation. It’s all just a mishmash of phrases that he was taught to recite.

    • WUSRPH

      Trump’s refusal (for now) to honor one of the most basic traditions in American politics—-a tradition that underlies the legitimacy of our government—means that his defeat must not be close, it must be overwhelming……The outcome must be overwhelming. He must loses states no Republican has lost since 1964 so that even his most ardent supporters will have no doubt that the American people have clearly repudiated him.

      • John Bernard Books

        You hypocrital gasbag….
        “Gore, speaking from the White House the week after having lost the general election, explains why he refused to concede the race:
        “The effort that I have underway is simply to make sure that all of the votes are counted, and when the issues that are now being considered in the Florida Supreme Court are decided, that will be an important point. But I don’t want to speculate what the court will do.”
        Even after facing a number of lower court losses, Gore said he remained optimistic. ”
        https://news.grabien.com/story-flashback-gore-refuses-concede-election-demands-recount-ensu

        • BCinBCS

          I’m going to repeat my earlier post about your comments that Al Gore did not concede the 2000 election:

          Don’t you ever tire of being wrong, JBB?
          Al Gore conceded not once but twice!
          In his second concession speech he said:
          “Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College.”

          • John Bernard Books

            Yes Gore conceded twice because the first time on Nov 7th he lied.
            He then had to do it again on Dec 13th. The recount showed Bush winning.
            The most despicable thing about the 2000 election Gore tried to block the military vote from counting.
            “He said: “It is a very sad day in our country when the men and women of the armed forces are serving abroad and facing danger of a daily basis . . . and are denied the right to vote for the president of the United States who will be their commander in chief.””
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1375024/Gore-campaign-trying-to-block-military-votes.html
            Dems see our military men and women as a basket full of deplorables….

          • Wilson James

            BCS, you are correct as all political scientists and historians agree the 2000 situation was completely different. Some of the wackos can’t quite make the leap of logic to figure that out.

      • SpiritofPearl

        The rats are leaving the Trump ship.

  • Wilson James

    Well, this one is over. Trumps performance at the debate was terrible. The question every GOP candidate will hear for the rest of the cycle will be “will you accept the election results”….and it does not matter whether the dingbats do or not, no one will hand them the keys. This election has exposed to scary truths: what the GOP has become and who/what the hell a Trump voter is.

  • John Bernard Books

    Have we seen the last of Hillary?
    “In an Oval Office ceremony on Wednesday morning, President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring the loser of the 2016 Presidential election to leave the country forever.”
    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/obama-signs-executive-order-requiring-loser-of-presidential-election-to-leave-country

    Best thing he has ever done….

  • John Bernard Books

    Hillary was desperate last night. She claimed she supported the 2nd amendment and that SCOTUS was wrong about its Heller decision because babies are being killed by guns…..this is a woman who supports partial birth abortions up until the last day.

    • BCinBCS

      Or you could look at it from the other direction:
      Trump was so desperate last night that he opposed abortion but supports no restrictions on 2nd amendment rights resulting in a child being killed by a gun, on average, every other day.

  • John Bernard Books

    Hypocrisy alert…..dems have their panties in a wad over Trump’s stance on the election results.
    “Al Gore, speaking from the White House the week after having lost the general election, explains why he refused to concede the race:
    “The effort that I have underway is simply to make sure that all of the votes are counted, and when the issues that are now being considered in the Florida Supreme Court are decided, that will be an important point. But I don’t want to speculate what the court will do.”
    https://news.grabien.com/story-flashback-gore-refuses-concede-election-demands-recount-ensu

    Dems are simply low information voters are are clueless…..

    • BCinBCS

      And for the third and (I hope) final time I’m going to repeat my earlier posts about your comments that Al Gore did not concede the 2000 election:

      Don’t you ever tire of being wrong, JBB?
      Al Gore conceded not once but twice!
      In his second concession speech he said:
      “Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College.”

  • SpiritofPearl

    For the third and final time, Hillary trounced Trump. She studied, worked hard, and had a comprehensive strategy that played him like a boss. This is the difference between an infantile playboy and a serious public servant:

    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13340828/hillary-clinton-debate-trump-won?wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

    • John Johnson

      You mean “lying crook”, don’t you? She serves no one, but herself.

      • John Bernard Books

        pearl is old set in her ways and cannot admit she is wrong.

      • donuthin2

        I absolutely do not understand some of the things she has done, especially the email server issue. I especially don’t understand why she would have done it since I see nothing that she had to gain by doing it. I don’t know why the IT guys allowed it to happen or if she simply over rode their suggestions.
        But Pearl is right, she clearly showed that she was the superior of the two. She has well thought out responses even those that I don’t agree with but he just rambles and is never coherent. At least I have seen no indication that she is a pedophile, him maybe so.

    • Wilson James

      It was one of the most dominating debate performance ever. Won all three. Poll number variance even higher than when Bill Clinton rolled Bush.

  • John Johnson

    Erica, this has turned into being all about you, hasn’t it? I read your piece twice to go over how many “I’s” were in it.

    Your track record on picking winners, at least since you joined BB, is horrible. Thus far, everyone you have annointed has crashed and burned.

    Superstitious Hillary supporters might be cussing you right now for hexing her, but I guess this is more about your disdain for Trump, and has nothing to do with any kind of love for Hillary.

    Trump pushed your boy, Cruz, around and you didn’t like it.

    You keep mentioning the “buying in” to Trump’s promises of change, yet never once told us how Cruz was going to flip things in D.C. His own colleagues literally hated him.

    I wish Pence was at the top of the ticket. Maybe he will be in four years. The seeds have been planted; more of the same is not acceptable to millions of us. Without Trump, millions of us would never have realized that we were not alone in our thinking about about trade, globalization, anti-trust laws, and the bi-political’s who yank us around through bought votes. We have him to thank for that.

    • John Bernard Books

      John you were young once don’t be so hard on her.

    • WUSRPH
  • John Bernard Books

    Will you ever believe anything the Clintons or their surrogates say again…..
    “Brazile did not give a coherent explanation other than to say she won’t respond to content that was stolen, the hacked emails, and that she will not let herself be “persecuted” by Megyn Kelly who grilled her for an explanation. She also accused Kelly of being a “thief.”

    “As a Christian woman, I understand persecution,” Brazile told Kelly. “Your information is false. What you’re — well, for suggestive e-mails were stolen. You’re interested and you’re like a thief that wants to bring into the night the things that.””
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/19/megyn_kelly_vs_donna_brazile_did_you_receive_debate_question_beforehand_brazile_i_will_not_be_persecuted.html

    The Clintons corrupt everything they touch….then lie about it.

  • John Bernard Books

    Finally a fair and balanced debate…
    “Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each delivered impressive performances on Wednesday night, but the night belonged to the Republican challenger, who stuck to a repeated theme: that Clinton is to blame for the very problems she promises to fix.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/19/donald-trump-wins-third-debate-finally-fair-fight/

    Trump shouldn’t have to debate the moderators and Hillary. Last night he didn’t and he won.

  • David

    You’re right – the entire “RIGGED ELECTION” narrative is ludicrous. But I don’t understand why it is significant that you predicted a close race in Texas between the Donald and Hillary. Millions of Texans will vote for the Donald. Why? Obviously, some people will just vote for whoever the Republican Party nominates out of loyalty and some will refuse to vote for Hillary (though there are other options). But this guy is RIDICULOUS. He reminds me of a classmate in high school who was always in trouble and not at all serious about school who ran for class president and won. The school administration ignored the vote and gave it to a nerd with good grades who wanted it on his resume. That option would not exist if the Donald won. It was funny then – this would not be funny. Are Conservatives going to accept any responsibility for this guy? The embarrassment will not end on Nov. 8 if the narrative is not changed. People can agree to disagree without all of the charged rhetoric that led to the current debacle. All of the hyperbole that you see in the comments to every article you write is not healthy. It’s not even funny except to political junkies. Frankly, I’m tired of hearing about corruption and dirty tricks (which is the subject of most of the comments). There will always be corruption in our system. Even if you change the rules to allow no political contributions from individuals or entities, money will find it’s way into the system. Similarly, there will always be spin and obfuscation and dirty tricks. People, including the candidates, have to rise above the pond scum instead of allowing the pond scum to be the issue. Whether you agree or disagree with her, there is only one serious candidate in the presidential race. That’s unfortunate. There should be several, not just two, and definitely not just one. As an institution, the Republican Party should be worried that it is becoming irrelevant, not because of demographics, but because of ideas. “Think tanks” that put lipstick on a pig are still just producing pigs. But it also should be worried that a serious candidate is going to have a hard time winning the nomination of a Party that nominates the Drumph and whose leaders don’t have the political guts to disown him.

    • donuthin2

      “Are Conservatives going to accept any responsibility for this guy? The
      embarrassment will not end on Nov. 8 if the narrative is not changed”?

      That is the big question? They have to own this disaster and the grownups will have to stand up and take charge. Will they? I doubt it as they haven’t shown much courage as of yet. My congressman has a lot of political capital he could use, but he is too spineless to confront the situation. I am not aware of anything that Sen. Cornyn has done. And Cruz? He looks at every day wondering how he can further his game. The solution will certainly not be him as a candidate. Hopefully Paul Ryan will step up even more this week.

    • WUSRPH

      Glad to see that someone understands the impact of human nature (and/or “original sin” to some) on human activities.

    • Shelly H.

      I really like and agree with what you wrote here but may I offer a tip for the future – divide your thoughts into smaller paragraphs, it makes it easier for people to read when they may not be on a large screen. I ended up copying and pasting and separating it just so I could read what you wrote.

  • donuthin2

    Was Clinton’s use of a private email server just a dumb mistake or did she have something to gain by it? Anyone have a clue?

    • José

      I always sort of figured it was to maintain control over her private correspondence. Any emails to and from the office email server would always be logged there, of course, but any private correspondence would remain isolated on a different system. It makes sense, as long as no one can force you to cede control of your private system.

      In retrospect that backfired big time. Not only was she unable to keep her private system private, the mere fact that she went to the trouble of setting up such a system raised more questions and suspicions than if she had stayed on the DoS system. But any observant person must concede that it was entirely valid for Ms. Clinton to be concerned about how even innocuous things can be twisted and amplified by the forces who want to bring you down. Erica pooh-poohed the idea of a “vast right wing conspiracy”. I don’t see how anyone can honest person can deny that it has existed. I can’t blame Clinton at all for being overly cautious and guarded.

      • donuthin2

        I can understand why she would like to have private correspondence with close associates, but it seems awfully naive in retrospect to think that anything could ever be private in today’s world. But having said that, I haven’t seen anything terribly damaging.

        • José

          Naïve in retrospect, correct. Nothing that awful, also correct. Despite the entirely predictable phony outrage and hysteria from Clinton haters, when you see what was actually written, and understand the context, it’s all rather mundane. Yes, some material is a bit embarrassing but there’s a big difference between impolite and illegal, especially when it pertains to private discussions.

          Let this be a lesson to all to think twice before sending an email or an IM or a digital image. Ask yourself how painful it would be if the material became public. Because the ONLY reason it is not public is that no hacker has deemed you worthy of exploiting. Yet.

          • WUSRPH

            In fact, the my fifth rule of politics in my infamous rules is:
            Never put anything on paper (and that includes an e-mail, tweet, etc.) that you would not want to see on the front page of the Dallas Morning News.

    • SpiritofPearl

      Hillary has been under attack by the right since the beginning of her career. She and her family have been dragged through the mud for decades. Her desire for privacy is understandable.

      Rice and Powell both e-mailed aides. When Hillary does it, it gets distorted into a criminal act. She is correct about a “vast right wing conspiracy”:

      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181

      • John Johnson

        She lied about it; destroyed emails after they were told to hand all of them over; she used the old “I don’t remember” ploy when anyone else using it would be pilloried in the sane situation. The excuses for all this from her supporters is telling. You just chose not to believe it or block it out. It is all there in black and white. Add in her speeches…the actual words…and then listen to her weak manufactured explanations. I’m not going to change any of your minds,but refuse to just let you keep repeating the “poor, old Hillary” lines without retort.

        • WUSRPH

          If there was any thing that she did that was actionable in a court of law (or even a Congressional witch hunt) your GOP friends would have taken some action….such as a censure motion. They did not. They have much more evidence available to them then you can ever assume…..but, again, you are not concerned with the truth..

          • Shelly H.

            If their goal was to actually censure her or was it just to smear her, to try and make her unelectable? It might have worked if they had nominated anyone but Trump.

          • WUSRPH

            It was always to smear her….as a major GOP leader admitted….but they could not find anything that would work……as hard as they tried. But you are right, she would have had more trouble from an opponent other than Trump……But the GOP has cried “If only….” for three elections now.

          • John Johnson

            This has nothing to do with Trump.

          • WUSRPH

            It has everything to do with Trump in his role as the GOP nominee. They tired to smear her because they did not want their candidate–whoever it was–to have to run against a person with all her qualifications. They spent better than two years on this and failed…Just as Trump has…..

          • John Johnson

            Yeah, OK. She is the epitome of integrity; the role model we want all our daughters to emulate….but you are right about one thing…politics stink…and I am right about another…for years, you were right in the middle of it.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, you want Hillary to be Caesar’s wife yet you’re O.K. with a member of the Three Stooges.

          • John Johnson

            And you are spinning. You have no idea what they have, nor will you take into account that they are fighting then entire administration.

          • WUSRPH

            Come on…..if they had it…they would have used it….

          • John Johnson

            Who? The FBI? They have it; just chose not to prosecute. Go figure.

          • Shelly H.

            The FBI doesn’t prosecute, the Justice Department does.

          • Shelly H.

            You don’t understand the checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches do you?

          • John Johnson

            I understand that it isn’t working. Did you pull a Rip VanWinkle the lady 7 years?

          • BCinBCS

            W: This.

    • John Johnson

      Let’s go ahead and call it a dumb mistake. Let’s start from there. A General is going to jail for telling a congressional committee a lie under oath. If you occupy a slot above the General in the pecking order, you get to testify not under oath, bring along some compadres so you can all get your stories straight, secure immunity for your cohorts, get caught in lies about all sorts of things, and use the excuse “I don’t remember” over and over again. If I had a grandkid prone to lying, deceit, and a history of other questionable morals, I would encourage them to try and get nominated for the Sec of State position where it would seem they would be above prosecution and jail time for all their stinky actions and activities.

      • pss1

        I’m not an expert on this, but this is my understanding.

        Petreaus intentionally gave information marked as highly classified to his mistress who was writing a book, and then he lied about it to FBI agents.

        Clinton had conversations over an insecure email server. After all of this came out and the FBI reviewed the emails, some of those conversations were *retroactively* deemed as containing information that should be considered classified.

        Big difference between intentionally giving known classified information to a mistress, versus having some of her communications declared classified after the fact, due to the fact that she is Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State’s internal views on international situations by their nature should be kept secret from our enemies.

        • John Johnson

          Wrong General.
          http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/obamas-favorite-general-charged-for-leaking-cia-op/

          It’s the lies. It’s about trying to get a classification changed after a supeona was issued. It’s about everything else I listed. Please don’t cherry pick; address all of my gripes as a whole.

          • Shelly H.

            Well there’s an unbiased news source. (rolling my eyes at the hypocrisy)

          • John Johnson

            Hell….they all are, so knock off this crap. Do you read the WaPo? They might be the worst. The fact remains that this General is being hung for the same thing Hillary is getting a walk for doing. Dispute that.

          • WUSRPH

            No he is not. He lied about his role in a major leak that could have had the effect of undermining our efforts to keep Iran from getting the bomb. There has been no evidence of such a lie by Clinton.

          • John Johnson

            A lie is a lie as far as the law goes. He lied under oath; she just lied because they did not put her under oath. Go figure.

          • WUSRPH

            Again. You are wrong…..There is a clear and major legal difference between a lie told under oath and one not under oath. That is why the penalty is so much greater. There is also a clear difference between someone admitting that he lied and your allegations that Clinton lied. The GOP spent more than $3 million of your taxpayers money on the Benghazi investigation and found no proof of any chargeable actions by Clinton. They would have proclaimed it from the top of the Trump Tower had they been able to do so….but they could not. There is also a clear difference between your total lack of objectivity and the truth.

          • Shelly H.

            No. Just stop with the false equivalencies. Just because some alt-right conspiracy site says it’s a duck doesn’t mean it’s a duck, it is very likely that it is a goose, a flamingo, a booby, or even a platypus instead of a duck.

            The rules that govern the handling of classified material are exceedingly complex and what applies to the military will differ from what applies to a civilian contractor, to what applies to a government worker to what applies to a high level position like SoS or President. Trying to say that they are even remotely the same and should be treated the same is incredibly naive.

          • John Johnson

            You offer up this sophmoric retort and are calling me naive? That’s rich.

            If you are in the upper thros of government…and I think a General and the Sec of State fall into this category…and are called before a congressional committee or the FBI to testify…and one is sworn in and the other is not required to…something is wrong. And then it is determined that both have lied, and one gets hung and the other takes a walk…then something is wrong.

            Her hubby had to take the oath and it cost him his law license. This over having sex in the Oval Office with an intern. Does the shredding of subpoenaed emails not at least reach this level of importance; does asking the FBI for a classification change of a document before it is turned over not reach this level of importance? Do inquiries involving both not call for oath taking instead of an “interview”? I know the answer; you obviously don’t. Pull your head out…you and all the rest of the enablers.

          • WUSRPH

            All I can say is that it was the REPUBLICANS who ran the congressional hearings. It was REPUBLICANS who made the decision about whom to take sworn testimony from and who not. (One minor little point…no one other than you and Donald Trump has “determined’ that Clinton lied…..No congressional committee has made that charge—as much as they would have liked to do so—nor has any judge or jury made such a determination..)

          • John Johnson
          • WUSRPH

            And, after his complete year-long investigation, what did the director say: NO ACTIONABLE CHARGE.

          • John Johnson

            Oh, I read what he said. That is the crucst of the problem. She lied, just not to him. The story she told him, and what she told the committee were not the same. Regardless of the reasons for the committee not putting her under oath, the facts are that she lied about passing around classified documents on her personal server. They gave her a walk.

          • WUSRPH

            I’m sorry but I finished exchanging with you on this…You will allege and allege and make up and misinterpret again and again because you are desperate to find some justification, no matter how weak, for your HATE.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, it’s the height of hubris to think that you know better than the FBI, the Attorney General, countless lawyers and the REPUBLICAN SUBCOMMITTEES.

          • John Johnson

            It is the epitome of ignorance to think that the fix is not on in DC at most all levels. Do you truly think you get the unadulterated truth from anyone up there? It would seem so. Not me. I don’t swallow everything told me by anyone just because they are wearing my team’s jersey; nor do I discount everything I hear from those who aren’t. You on the other hand…

          • BCinBCS

            “You on the other hand…”

            Me?

            JJ I’m risking expulsion for telling you this but I’m a card carrying member of the Illuminati so I can assure you that what you say is true. There is a group of us controlling everything from the White House to the Treasury, from Downing Street to the Kremlin. All I’m asking is that you please tone down your rants against our control or you will have an unexpected “heart attack” or fatal “traffic accident”. JJ, your ideas are not crazy and it is unfortunate that you were able to stumble upon the truth that “the fix is in at all levels” but you must not disseminate that information because it could result in the loss of your life. If you do not heed my warnings, please be sure that you have purchased adequate life insurance so that your loved ones can survive after your “unexpected” death.

            Oh, and don’t tell or let anyone else know what I have told you as my life would be in danger too.

          • John Johnson

            Hahaha! Good one.

          • SpiritofPearl

            My husband worked in the defense industry in the sixties. When he was first hired, his clearance was “classified.” His dossier was reviewed and after a couple of months, it was raised to “secret.” Eventually it was raised to “top secret” based on “need to know.”

          • Shelly H.

            Yeah my dad was in the AF in the 50’s, 60’s, & 70’s retired with 30 years. When he retired he ran the “shop” that kept the radar, targeting, and radio equipment on the various planes in his SAC command he was assigned to. His primary plane though was the B-52. As a child even though I could list all the planes that he worked on if anyone asked I was only allowed to say that he was a mechanic. I nor anyone of the group of kids I ran with truly understood that we were privy to “restricted information” just that to anyone outside the base our dads were just mechanics, pilots, or “cargo” specialists. We were told never to divulge that they were SAC, squadron numbers, ranks, etc.

            Most of that info was easy to find on base – it was listed on the door to their “shop” so it wasn’t anything that they hid from dependents but it wasn’t info they wanted us to just not talk about outside of our AF “family” as it were. We were always stateside we never went overseas, dad was TDY a lot but was never transferred overseas after I was born. The OPSEC rules may have been more stringent for if we had been.

          • donuthin2

            I don’t think so.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, there’s a tremendous difference between releasing classified information that is labeled Confidential and releasing classified information that is labeled Top Secret, especially if the Confidential classification is attached to the information retroactively.

    • Shelly H.

      It is my understanding that she she used the same procedures, set-up, and protocols that her predecessor’s had used even though she voiced concerns about the security of them. She was reassured in some way and they set it up the way they did. Trying to compare her to anyone but the previous SoS is not even remotely reasonable because even if one has an equal level of security clearance, that doesn’t mean that the information she is privy to is the same info a general or admiral would have or even an ambassador. Classified information isn’t a one size fits all label, there are different levels of classification and it is all done on a need to know basis.

      Then there is the issue of intent – did she deliberately, knowingly, and willfully, disseminate classified information in a way that she knew would be compromised and/or violating the law on handling classified information. The FBI said that no, she did not.

      Of all those emails only a few dozen had information that was either classified at the time of the email or was retroactively classified and it was all of a low level.

  • John Bernard Books

    See Hillary does have principles….
    “Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation. If hrc was not part if it, meeting was a non-starter. CGI also wasn’t pushing for a meeting in Morocco and it wasn’t their first choice. This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting. It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months.
    She created this mess and she knows it.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/10/20/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-stood-morocco-cgi-meeting-despite-kings-12-million-donation/

    Now that takes balls to accept $12 million in payolla and then back out on your commitment…..or a cracked head.

  • donuthin2

    Trump’s debate was bigly bad.

  • John Bernard Books

    Will you still support Hillary if indicted?
    “Hillary Clinton may have perjured herself when answering questions under oath through her lawyer about whether she had previously communicated with Bryan Pagliano, the IT aide who set up and maintained Clinton’s private email server.”
    http://freebeacon.com/politics/new-clinton-emails-appear-belie-sworn-testimony/

    The quickest way to nail a liar is to put them under oath. That is why the FBI couldn’t put her under oath. But she is now….

  • John Bernard Books

    I’ll bet money WASSUP and Pearl will vote for Twanna…
    http://www.khou.com/news/local/texas/report-state-rep-dawnna-dukes-to-retire/326264498

    straight ticket kool aide drinking dems….

    • John Johnson

      I suggest we get a new PAC formed specifically for buying hearts, lungs, kidneys and the like for SCOTUS judges if they should need them….or pull a Weekend at Bernie’s for four years if needed. The epitome of contingency planning.

      • John Bernard Books

        Good idea JP you want in?

      • WUSRPH

        It would be a lot simpler if the U.S. Senate simply lived up to its responsibilities.

  • John Bernard Books

    Looks like you’ll be vindicated JJ….
    “On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace reacted to his sit-down interview with GOP front-runner Donald Trump, who said he is now “beginning to believe” that Trump “could be elected president of the United States.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/10/18/chris-wallace-im-beginning-to-believe-trump-could-be-elected-president/

    I’m curious how many of the Trump haters will accept the election and him as their prez……

    • PatBryanTX2

      That article was 18 Oct 2015, a year ago. Anybody ask Chris for his opinion lately?

      • John Bernard Books

        Why after last night its obvious.

    • BCinBCS

      JBB posted “…Chris Wallace reacted to his sit-down interview with GOP front-runner Donald Trump, who said he is now “beginning to believe” that Trump “could be elected president of the United States.

      I made a fortune on popcorn futures. If only I had been clever enough to put money into Kool-Aid futures.

      • John Bernard Books

        But you’re not…clever or as smart as you think you are.

        • BCinBCS

          Maybe so but I can write in clear, complete sentences with proper punctuation and I’m very good at research and fact-checking, unlike some I know.

  • SpiritofPearl
  • Jim Colter

    So, YOU trust state and federal government ? I have this bridge …………LOL

  • WUSRPH

    She was allowed to testify under oath because the REPUBLICAN chair of the committee allowed it. He could have demanded she appear under oath….But he did not. Ask him why? I suspect that he did so because he was afraid she would not appear–and would contest a subpoena forever—had he not. But he had that option. He also may have thought that she might say something he could “prove” was a lie. If that was his bet, he was more than wrong because he and his fellow inquisitors tried again and again for more than 13 hours without being able to prove or even allege anything. To me—who, unlike you, who can, at least can recognize objectivity when he sees it, that strongly suggests there was nothing to find in the first place.
    As to whether others have been able to take people with them to an FBI interview. I have no way—nor do you–to demonstrate whether that has happened before or not. You, as always, “ASSUME” the worst….

    • Shelly H.

      Everyone has the right to the presence of an attorney in any legal proceeding whether it is an FBI interview to appearing before a congressional committee.

      • WUSRPH

        Now, now….we should not let things like constitutionally guaranteed rights stand in the way of one of JJ’s conspiracies.

        • Shelly H.

          But it’s so much fun to see him froth at the mouth when one points out the corner he has argued himself into. You know he’s going to insult your intelligence or mine after he tries one or two more attempts at a logically fallacious argument.

          • WUSRPH

            As usual, you were right. He has fallen back into my being corrupt and a habitant of a cesspool….as he always does….

          • John Johnson

            Hahaha…you run off in tangents. You want to address the Benghazi hearings when the entire situation has grown much bigger than that. That is what a professional obfuscator does. As for Shelly…she’s just clueless.

          • WUSRPH

            Basta….You allege and allege and allege with no proof or evidence but your overwhelming need to find some justification—as weak as it is—for your HATE. It is not worth my time or space on this blog to feed that need.

      • John Johnson

        Her attorney was employed by the government, if I’m not mistaken and was involved with the handling and destruction of emails. I don’t think a co-conspirator is normally allowed into an FBI interrogation with another. She was also afforded immunity. Try again.

        • Shelly H.

          Just keep grasping JJ. Just keep grasping.

          • John Johnson

            Oh, I’m through. When I start getting these type comments back, I’ve done my job.

          • Shelly H.

            SMDH. You’re grasping a straws and you think you won the argument because I stated that. The mental gymnastics you have to employ to discount her lawyers and the government’s lawyers, must be exhausting. You just keep on coming up with the fantastical excuses so you can continue to feed your unwarranted hatred of Clinton.

            If anyone had told me two years ago that I would be voting for Hillary, much less defending her I would have laughed my ass off. I’m thankful for one thing though – Trump’s running spurred me to thoroughly research all the candidates, to find the truth amongst the lies and realize that most of what I believed about several of the candidates was partisan lies from both sides.

          • John Johnson

            See…you’ve just chosen one liar over another. None of my choice’s lies and bad decisions have put the country in harms way.

          • Shelly H.

            So being in debt to a foreign power, stating that he would not honor treaties, putting forth an economic plan that would crash the US and global economies is not putting the country in harm’s way? Your definition of harm is vastly different from mine.

    • John Johnson

      And you keep spitting out spinmeister bullshit. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. It was the FBI’s handling of the subsequent investigation that I question much moreso than the early committee hearings. You keep wanting to pick and choose what you want to defend. I have this entire picture in my head of the entire mess. Hillary has been protected all along on this by the entire administration. It stinks…but again…you can’t smell it. You spent your life in the cesspool spinning about how fresh the air was.

  • John Johnson

    The entire blowup over his failure to say he would not pledge to admit defeat under any circumstances is a big red herring. It would have been easy for him to just say “yes”, but why should he? Elections are contested all the time. They always will be. Several in Tarrant County are being investigated extensively by the state, and mail in ballots by the hundreds appear to have been solicited, handled and submitted improperly. The county has admitted that there really is no oversight once they are received back. There appears to be both smoke and fire here.

    • WUSRPH

      In fact, a true election contest is very rare…..when compared to the number of races on the ballot there are practically non-existent…..but the facts of the situation do not concern you. Such contests almost always involve races with a smaller number of voters where a handful of votes would make the difference. Statewide races are usually won or loss by enough votes that it makes no difference. The only exception is recent years was Florida in 2000 where Gore accepted the outcome for the good of the nation. And that is exactly what is at stake.

      • John Johnson

        Only after it was contested?

        • WUSRPH

          Wrong, again. Gore, as BC has posted several times, conceded and recognized the legitimacy of the Bush presidency TWICE—once on election night and again after the SCOTUS decision.

          • John Johnson

            Again after the SCOTUS decision??? So he wasn’t involved with the chad issue? He told them that for the sake of the country, he didn’t want to pursue it? Funny stuff from you…and BC

    • donuthin2

      Irrespective of your argument, it was a dumb statement by the candidate. His judgement is horrible, his temperament is worse, he is embarrassing, and a total nut job. I think he is narcissistic enough to be considered mentally unstable.

  • John Bernard Books

    Yanno that Obamacare thingy….
    “He complains that too many reporters spend more time discussing premium increases than explaining why he isn’t responsible for them.
    “No, I had nothing to do with that,” Obama said, calling it “complicated” despite the “hysteria” that was growing.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/20/nothing-obama-dodges-blame-skyrocketing-premiums/

    After 8 years its still Bush’s fault…..what a bozo.

    • BCinBCS

      JJ, explaining the subtleties of politics to you is like explaining calculus to a second grader.

      • SpiritofPearl

        You are casting pearls before swine, Mr. B.

        • BCinBCS

          I refute his constant inaccuracies only when I have spare time. That’s why only about 50% of his posts get corrected rather than the 80%-90% that should be refuted.

          • John Bernard Books

            Who are you to correct anyone…..you’re a crooked dem.

          • WUSRPH

            Dealing with the Troll reminds me of a famous statement by Mary McCarthy describing her opinion of Lillian Hellman’s veracity.

        • John Johnson

          How do they taste?

  • John Bernard Books

    Trump will accept election results…..
    “Trump: I will totally accept the election results — if I win”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/20/trump-will-totally-accept-election-results-win/

    hahaha…….

  • BCinBCS

    Christ JJ, you accuse W of obfuscating? Do you not see how you are exactly the opposite? You cling to an idea and refuse to let it go even when it makes no sense, even when it has been repeatedly proven false.

    • SpiritofPearl

      He never cites his sources. I suspect they’re talk radio and TV.

      • Shelly H.

        You’re probably right about that. And when he does offer up something it usually is from an alt-right source.

        • SpiritofPearl

          “Fair and balanced” . . .

    • John Johnson

      Where is the false narrative? Who has supplied the “truth”? What is the “truth”? Is the “truth” what the WaPo tells us? The NYT’s? Chris Matthews? Bill O’Reilly? Erica?

  • BCinBCS

    I have a question that I haven’t been able to find the answer so I am hoping that someone on BB like WUSRPH or Jerry Patterson may have the answer.

    Assuming that Hillary Clinton is elected President and that the Senate flips Democratic the confirmation of one or more Supreme Court justices will probably come into play. The Republicans may continue to refuse to do their duty to advise and consent which might cause the Democrats to change the Rules of Order? (the rules adopted at the beginning of each session that govern how they will do business) so that a simple majority is necessary for conformation rater than the customary 60 votes.

    If the Republicans, realizing that they will be unable to block nominations either way, decide to play a little inside baseball by agreeing with the Democrats that they will not interfere with the process as long as the conformation vote rules are not changed all the while with their fingers crossed behind their back, they can get the 60 vote rule passed, change their minds and then obstruct any nomination until the next election when they may win back the Senate.

    My question is: Are these Rules of Order(?) allowed to be voted on only once or can they be modified and adopted later in the session? (This would make the above scenario moot.)

    I realize that most here at BB involved in government are at the state level but I would assume that Robert’s Rules are the same no matter the level.

    • John Bernard Books

      Where were you the last 8 years? Harry Reid changed the rules as needed to ram Obamacare down our throats. The Senate cannot make law but that didn’t stop dems. They then pushed their boigus bill through the US House giving us a bill designed to fail. There is no rule or law dems will not bend or break to push their socialist agenda.
      Rep Rangel said it best, “why read the bill we just malke up the rules as we go along.”
      and yes he did say that about Obamacare…..
      and yes Rangel is a crook…as most dems are.
      “Beginning in 2008, Rangel faced a series of allegations of ethics violations and failures to comply with tax laws. The House Ethics Committee focused on whether Rangel improperly rented multiple rent-stabilized New York apartments, improperly used his office in raising money for the Rangel Center at the City College of New York, and failed to disclose rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic. In March 2010, Rangel stepped aside as Ways and Means Chair. In November 2010, the Ethics Committee found Rangel guilty of 11 counts of violating House ethics rules, and on December 2, 2010, the full House approved a sanction of censure against him.”

    • José

      The Constitution grants each chamber of Congress the authority to devise its own rules (Article 1 Section 5). You can find the current rules online at:
      http://www.rules.senate.gov/

      However. The rules are fairly complicated. It’s been the case that one knowledgeable Senator has been outfoxed by another who is even better prepared. I wouldn’t trust any of our commentators to be able to answer your question with much certainty.

      And of course that’s just the rules. As a more practical matter there’s the question of what obstructionist Republicans can get away with. We are headed towards a Supreme Court seat being vacant for over a year for no reason other than party politics. I’m pretty sure that we will set a record for length of time that a Supreme Court nomination has been ignored by the Senate. If the new Congress decides to break the record next year when Pres. Clinton makes her nomination you can expect public pressure to increase.

      • donuthin2

        At this point, you would have to think the Rs haven’t been very smart and not going ahead and giving Garland a hearing and approving as he will be their best option. Does his name stay in nomination or will Clinton have to renominate him? Or will she nominate someone else?

        • Shelly H.

          I believe it will be her choice to renominate him or nominate someone else.

          • donuthin2

            That is what I assumed. I hope she renominates. She has spoken of him several times in a complimentary way, so hopefully she will, but I could understand her being a little devilish and going more left. I agree with DIT above that they should as quickly as possible get on with voting him up or down, but to do so would be to admit defeat and they are too vain to ever do that. They have lost another notch of credibility on this issue.

          • BCinBCS

            Yes, that is correct. President Clinton can nominate anyone she chooses.

        • José

          Like Shelly said.
          I’m pretty sure that the nomination expires with the end of Obama’s term, but even if it didn’t one would expect Clinton to make her own selection, and it will probably be someone further to the left because she can. Garland was an excellent pick by Obama. His qualifications are undeniable and he would normally be broadly acceptable to both parties. By refusing to consider his nomination the Republicans show themselves to be crass, disingenuous, and mean-spirited. It was a win-win for Obama.

          • dave in texas

            That’s an important point. Merrick Garland is as moderate as the obstructionist GOP is going to get, because Hillary Clinton will absolutely pick somebody further to the left. If Senate Republicans had a brain at all (an iffy proposition with Mitch McConnell in charge), they’d approve the nomination this week.

          • José

            That’s gotta hurt, yelling to your base about how Obummer can’t be trusted or reasoned with, and then realizing that your best option would have been work together with the man like he’s tried to work with you. Fortunately for the Rs their supporters are easily deceived. And maybe it will work out OK for Mitch and crew. They thrive on conflict, not accomplishment, so they have four more years of hollering and fussing ahead.

          • SpiritofPearl

            Rumor has it Clinton wants a younger candidate whose influence will last longer than Garland who is 63.

          • Jed

            i predict she keeps him in nomination, the better to apply pressure to the senate from day one.

            she’ll get another (or even two more) chances to appoint a progressive later.

            of course, all this assumes that she is actually a progressive. she is, in fact, a carbon copy of obama, so i would expect more moderate appointments all the way through.

            the proof will be in the pudding.

        • BCinBCS

          The Republicans have painted themselves in a corner on the Garland nomination as there is not enough time left for his approval before the new President assumes office.

      • WUSRPH

        The Republicans in the Senate could avoid a long fight over the SCOTUS seat AND get one more chance to attack Obama for “bypassing the Congress” and keep Clinton from naming someone of her choice by simply “adjourning” rather than “standing in recess” at the end of its session after the election. That would allow Obama to make a “recess appointment” of his current nominee, putting him on the SCOTUS without the advance approval of the Senate. This would not keep the GOPers from screaming “foul”….and get them out of the mess they have created for themselves at the same time.

        http://tinyurl.com/gpjbpn4

        There is plenty of precedent for such an appointment…It has happened at least 13 times in the past….including three such appointments by President Eisenhower—one of whom was to post of chief justice.

    • BCinBCS

      I had to call my Congresscritter to get the name of the rule that governs the Senate and is approved at the beginning of each session. I learned that the rules are called the Rules of the Senate. I googled the Rules but wasn’t certain how they were applied so I began calling my Senators. I was never able to contact a live person with Sen. Cornyn’s office and had to call several of Sen. Cruz’s offices before I finally contacted a non-electronic assistant. She had to take my question to someone else in the office but I now know that Rule V of the Rules of the Senate allows the Rules to be modified with a majority vote any time during the session.

      In the scenario that I described in my previous post, adoption of the “nuclear option” can occur at any time so if the Republican minority decides to obstruct, the Democrats can lower the votes necessary to pass legislation.

      If anyone cares, here’s Rule V of the Rules of the Senate:

      1. No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day’s notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules.

      2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.

  • John Bernard Books

    Now thats funny I don’t care who you are…
    Trump, “I see the who Hillary campaign staff is here….NBC, ABC, CBS”….
    Trump. “Hillary bumped into me and said pardon me, I said we’ll after I’m elected”
    Brought the house down…..

  • John Bernard Books

    Now thats funny I don’t care who you are…
    Trump, “I see the who Hillary campaign staff is here….NBC, ABC, CBS”….
    Trump. “Hillary bumped into me and said pardon me, I said we’ll after I’m elected”
    Brought the house down…..

  • John Bernard Books

    Our prez to be is funny warm and gracious…”Hillary’s largest crowd of the season…..

    • Gunslinger

      What do you think will be Trump’s margin of victory?

      • John Bernard Books

        YYYYYYYYYUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        or do you think she can steal it?

        • Gunslinger

          “YUGE”, eh? So, he’ll win with upper 90s or mid-to-upper 90 percentage points?

          • WUSRPH

            Ask him about his predictions for McCain and Romney, and for Cruz this year.

  • John Bernard Books

    Of course its rigged…
    “With just three weeks to go, major newspapers (with a circulation of at least 50,000) are walloping Donald Trump in their official endorsements, favoring Hillary Clinton by a count of 68 to zero.”
    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2016/10/18/rigged-trump-doesnt-have-single-major-newspaper-endorsement

    Biggest media lie of the year….Texas will turn blue.

  • John Bernard Books

    Just in case you need more proof of just how dumb liberals are…
    “In her recording, you can hear the teacher clearly state “to be white is to be racist, period.”
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/20/oklahoma-teacher-tells-students-that-all-white-people-are-racist-video/#ixzz4NilK9E7L

    Liberals never cease to amaze….just when I think I’ve met every stupid liberal another one opens mouth and inserts foot. No I don’t think most liberals have the ability to stop and think before popping off……

  • John Bernard Books

    A dem’s job is never done…right WASSUP? lie, deny, obfuscate, spin rinse repeat…….

  • John Bernard Books

    Of course there is voter fraud….why do you think dems are trolling for illegals with this flyer. No photo ID required…… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1487fcb2942f013a7b111e8675992b14e9bae39e408355124f5e5dc9f2c29363.jpg

  • donuthin2

    I heard Kellyann Conway, Trumps campaign lady, say that the “Never Trump” republicans are responsible for his slide downward. I am very happy to be one of those given credit. I would have much preferred a decent republican candidate, but will be happy to cast my vote for Hillary. With Abbott, Patrick and Miller I see little reason to remain a Republican, but will wait to see if any reforms are being considered.

    • Shelly H.

      I am in a very similar circumstance. I was dismayed when Patrick rose to power, and that the republican party continued its unholy alliance with the politically religious “Christians” first as the Moral Majority then as the Tea Party. I haven’t changed – the Republicans left me in their move to the far right.

      • donuthin2

        Many years ago, I thought of myself as a conservative democrat, then a moderate republican. Then those you mentioned, begin to take over the republican party and set out to replace the conservative democrats so that I feel like I don’t have a place as a moderate in either of the parties. I’ve never been to partisan, and tended to vote both parties based on the individual. I respected Bernie as a candidate, but he is too far left for me and unfortunately he pushed Hillary to the left further than I would like. I guess I am left of center on the social issues and right of center on the fiscal issues. I find it pretty discouraging when I get out among my friends and neighbors and hear all of what appears to me to be illogical thought processes.

        • Shelly H.

          We could almost be political soul mates. 😀

          • BCinBCS

            Same here. I’m a social libertarian and fiscally moderately conservative.

          • SpiritofPearl

            I was raised in an urban Irish Catholic New Deal FDR-lovin’ household. I have moved farther to the left on social justice issues than my family ever was.

          • Jed

            those are both libertarian. you’re a libertarian.

  • John Bernard Books

    Making a choice has never been easier…..Lemme see there’s crooked Hillary and her band of looters …..nope zip nade never……..see how ez it is. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f6a7ab703a687f35e76800a3a2bbc7172cff6c82bfb618c3cc0c565faacc5377.jpg

  • John Bernard Books

    The clinton campaign team commonly known as NBC CBS ABC and CNN or clinton news network gets a rude awakening…
    “Despite that, following the debate, CNN made a point of speaking to group of undecided voters. They were asked whether the debate had changed their position at all, and if so, whom they were likely to vote for now:”
    http://ijr.com/2016/10/718816-show-of-hands-leaves-cnn-anchor-speechless-when-she-polls-undecideds-after-final-presidential-debate/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=politcs

    btw dems Trump owned the last debate……

  • John Bernard Books

    We know Hillary has a character issue and simply cannot tell the truth as evidence by her whoppers at the last debate….
    “Hillary Clinton has aligned herself closely with a vision for America laid out by her benefactor — left-wing financier George Soros, who talks of “international governance,” more open borders, increased Muslim immigration and diminished U.S. global power.”
    The phrase “American exceptionalism” is not part of his agenda. He wrote in 1998: “The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”
    “We need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy,” Mr. Soros wrote.”
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/20/hillary-clinton-embraces-george-soros-radical-visi/

    Many have denied the “one world government” goal, but it is real and it is a real threat to US sovereignty. Hillary denied she was for open borders during the last debate. If she told her true agenda she couldn’t get elected.
    So why would anyone vote for someone who has to lie to get elected. How stupid are dems?

  • WUSRPH

    After Bill Clements was elected in 1978 a number of office-holders who were elected as Democrats began to change parties…..Now we have had two East Texas Republican officials switch over to being Democrats in a couple of weeks. In both cases, they used at least a variation of the old line the GOP made famous “I did not leave my party. My party left me”. Have Trump, Patrick and company finally gone to far for the non-fanatics?

    • John Bernard Books

      They’re crazies…and a perfect fit for the dem party.

    • Shelly H.

      We can only hope so.

      • SpiritofPearl

        I’ve heard several people of late say, “I used to be a Republican.”

        Are these genuine changes or merely deathbed conversions?

        • Shelly H.

          I think they’re genuine changes of moderate pragmatic politicians and voters. I haven’t considered myself a republican for over two decades even though I vote in the R primary due to where I live.

          Although I have started to see more and more of the large Clinton/Kaine signs at major intersections which you would not have seen them 4 or 8 years ago.

          • Jed

            we’ve had this conversation before.

            “even though I vote in the R primary due to where I live.”

            this is the definition of republican in texas. you just need to own it.

            or, you can demonstrate your commitment to not being a republican by not falling for daugherty’s head fake.

          • Shelly H.

            Yes we have, and yes I have acknowledged that technically, I am a republican according to the state of Texas. 50% – 75% of my local races are decided in the primary. So either I can just not vote for my local candidates which I find unacceptable, or I can hold my nose and vote in the republican primary as long as my county is >90% republican without qualified candidates from other parties.

  • WUSRPH

    Let us bring this thread to a close with this weeks’ numbers:

    Huff-Post Clinton v. Trump Clinton 48% Trump 41%

    Clinton v. Trump & Johnson: Clinton 45%, Trump 39%

    5-38: Clinton has a 86.7% chance of winning…Trump’s back at 13.2%

    Popular Vote: Clinton 49.8%, Trump 43.2%, Johnson 5.5%, Other
    1.5%
    Electoral Vote: Clinton: 347 Trump 196

    • WUSRPH

      http://tinyurl.com/hvcdzn9

      The Donald, JJ and the Troll keep telling us all the polls are wrong….Well here’s a story that looks at that possibility…..Of course, they won’t be convinced. They have to have some false hope.

    • John Bernard Books

      Predictions and polls means nothing…
      “He predicts that Donald Trump has an 87-percent probability of winning the election in November.
      In the February/March time frame, well before both parties settled on their nominee, the professor declared that Trump had a 97 percent chance of becoming commander in chief of the U.S. You could almost “take it to the bank,” he declared at the time.

      http://www.inquisitr.com/3361934/president-hillary-clinton-or-donald-trump-professor-picks-winner-with-87-percent-certainty/#8kWiRzoMhvrkbWID.99

      Thats why we vote. There is only one question….can she steal it?

  • WUSRPH

    http://tinyurl.com/zrarn2x

    An interesting article by a known-conservative refuting the Trump-JJ view that America is a sick, decadent weakling.

    • BCinBCS

      From that Vox article:
      They’ve [Republicans] also been told the economic recovery is “false” — Trump’s word — due to phony government statistics and Federal Reserve money printing at the behest of the Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Inflation is really sky high rather than quiescent, and the unemployment rate is many multiples of the “official” number.

      Don’t they simply look around? Except for food prices that assume a roller coaster trajectory, there is no evidence of inflation – no one needs wheelbarrows full of dollars to buy bread and those that want to work can, even if it means they must flip hamburgers – after all, the unemployment rate is 5%. It appears to me that conservatives are a group of economic hypochondriacs.

      Also:
      …economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson conclude, “The great China trade experiment may soon be over, if it is not already. The country is moving beyond the period of catch-up associated with its market transition and becoming a middle-income nation. Rapidly rising real wages indicate that the end of cheap labor in China is at hand.”

      The American middle class is the engine of the U.S. economy and the world middle class will be the engine of international economies which will be synergistic with ours – that is if we have the enlightened leaders that will guide our nation to take advantage of these synergies.

      The article quotes Ben Bernanke who said: (bold is mine)
      In a highly polarized environment, with echo-chamber media, political debates often become shrill, and commentators and advocates have strong incentives to argue that the country’s future is bleak unless their party gains control. In this environment, it seems plausible that people will respond more intensely and negatively to open-ended questions about the general state of the country, while questions in a survey focused narrowly on economic conditions elicit more moderate responses.

      Need proof? According to The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, 58% of Americans describe the economy as being bad while only 34% describe their own economic conditions as bad. Interestingly, 66% of Republicans believe the economy is bad while only 46% of Democrats believe the same.

      As stated in the article, conservatives tend to be pessimistic and liberals tend to be optimistic but despite whichever one is correct, the U.S. is uniquely situated to remain the economic leader of the world.

  • Slugger_McBuster

    Get outta here, the entire system is rigged. When you got a corrupted status quo with a corporate shill propaganda machine working 24/7 on its behalf, posing as “news,” constantly assailing an outsider candidate who speaks to the concerns of the populace, while running cover-up on a criminally corrupted candidate chosen by the corrupt establishment, don’t bother spinning this bogus yarn about “Democratic process.”

    Hypocrisy and more hypocrisy. We’re gagging on it.

    • WUSRPH

      And you can believe six impossible things before breakfast.

    • Wilson James

      What poppycock.

    • Jed

      i agree with this, but which one is clinton? i see what you did with trump and sanders there …

  • BCinBCS

    I don’t live in Travis county but I found this Commissioners race ad amusing:
    .
    https://youtu.be/wzjRwNUQDRU

    • Shelly H.

      OMG that’s hilarious. I’d vote for him just because of his sense of humor.

    • Erica Grieder

      lol that is great

  • wessexmom

    I would like to remind Ms. Greider that Texans have recently voted for many obnoxious right-wing nuts like Ted Cruz, Dan Patrick and Louis Gohmert and also that Governor Abbott has pandered to Texas fringe dwellers who hang on every word spewed by conspiracy crazy Alex Jones, a lunatic who trumpets Trump at every opportunity.

    The panic and paranoia fueled by Jones’ idiotic Jade Helm insanity brought Governor Abbot to his knees, which embarrassed our state even more! It certainly made an impression on President Obama–He made a point of mentioning it last week in his speech rebuking the GOP for nominating Trump.

    Trump has never caught on in Texas because he’s a vile obnoxious thuggish NYC bully who doesn’t appeal to a general election electorate here but more significantly, his anti-trade rhetoric simply doesn’t resonate in a state whose workers have benefited from an expanding global economy as much as ours have. If Don The Con’s empty economic slogans were truly relevant to Texas workers, more of them would hold their nose and vote for him.

  • John Bernard Books

    Obama warns of rigged elections….
    “Speaking at a campaign stop at Kent State University in Ohio, Senator Obama said elections in the past had been rigged when he was asked by a supporter, “I would just like to know what you can say to reassure us that this election will not be rigged or stolen?””

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/22/flashback-obama-believed-in-rigged-elections-in-2008-video/#ixzz4Npps2RZr

    We will never meet a group of people more easily manipulated than dems…..

  • John Bernard Books

    For goodness sakes vote for Hillary even if you can’t stand her….
    “Oprah has an inspiring new message for undecided voters thinking about voting for Hillary Clinton, “You don’t have to like her.” Oprah’s inability to go much further than that in support of Clinton is just the latest indication of how unpopular the Democratic nominee is.”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/22/oprah-reminds-everyone-vote-hillary-even-dont-like-much/

    It is hard for the average American to grasp how stupid dems are….

  • John Bernard Books

    And the cheating starts…
    “I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan said. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.””
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/calibration-error-changes-gop-votes-to-dem-in-illinois-county.html

    Can she steal it….

  • John Bernard Books

    There’s a certain type of person who would rather lie than be truthful…
    “A conversation between Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and political consultant Erick Mullen leaked by WikiLeaks suggests that Tim Kaine — and Hillary Clinton — lied to the American people about the Virginia senator’s selection as Clinton’s running mate.”
    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-kaine-clinton-lied-vp-selection/

    Bill, Hillary, Obama et al are all liars….

  • John Bernard Books

    Dems have probably stolen at least 10 presidential elections….
    “Following Wednesday night’s debate, James Carville appeared on MSNBC to discuss the presidential race with news anchor Brian Williams, and to the surprise of many acknowledged that there was, in fact, a likelihood of election fraud.”
    http://conservativetribune.com/old-clinton-crony-voter-fraud/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TheNewResistance&utm_content=2016-10-21&utm_campaign=manualpost

    on a side note…
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/96d43dc53950f3fa86a6154d803f13d1d7c367c1bbf8fe8ee0cc198f0298144d.jpg

  • WUSRPH

    Two articles in The Economist this week that may be of interest.

    The first is a special session on Putin’s Russia that makes it more than clear that it is not the type of a nation or a leader that a potential leader of the greatest democracy in the world should be praising.

    The second is a multi-page attempt to explain why people like JJ have such a pathological hatred of Hillary Clinton. It won’t do anything to reduce their hatred, but it may be interesting to more objective people.

    I don’t have a link. I read them in hard copy….but The Economist can be found on line.

  • WUSRPH

    http://tinyurl.com/zxo7o3f

    Donald Trump got some semi-good news late yesterday: Despite what many have said about him, he’s not a very good fascist. At least that was the finding by an expert on fascism in an article in the Washington Post that rated Trump against the 11 tests to measure fascist tendencies. Turns out that Trump qualified for only 26 of the 44 possible “Benitos” (points) that show the degree of fascism. What is most interesting is that one area in which he does poorly is violence. Seems that neither he or his supporters (despite the talk of hanging her, etc. and rouging up protestors) are violent enough to gain a high score in that category. He also totally strikes out in not having any fascination with youth or an attempt to build a youth movement…..

    P.S. You might remember that I did a post a while back in which I said that, while I did not think that Trump was a real fascist, that he definitely had some fascist tendencies. This measurement tends to support that finding.

    • John Bernard Books

      more hate speech…

    • Shelly H.

      I agree but for an entirely different reason – He lacks the ambition needed to be a fascist. He is too selfish and lazy to be a true fascist IMO. If he truly was a fascist he would have put in the work needed to actually challenge Clinton in the debates. However, because he is addicted to praise he could be manipulated by someone who is a fascist.

      I recently read a pretty good article about one of the top experts on cults that made a decent case that Trump was more like Jim Jones, David Koresh, L Ron Hubbard, etc. than a true dictator. Equally dangerous but in a different way.

      http://www.gq.com/story/the-cult-of-trump
      http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/drinking-the-orange-kool-aid-cult-expert-says-trump-is-like-rev-jim-jones-but-far-more-dangerous/
      http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/05/09/5-ways-trump-supporters-like-cult-followers/

      • WUSRPH

        The concept of Trumptaranism being a cult rather than a political movement sounds fairly plausible. The fascists and the communists had ideologies and theories about the nature of mankind and the world—as weird and distorted as they were–which were supposed to provide the solution to the world’s problems. The Donald, however, has no theory or ideology. All he offers is THE DONALD as a solution.

  • WUSRPH

    Maybe their still is hope for America, despite the division represented by Trumptarianism…. I mean today Trump and I AGREED on something—-the proposed merger of TIme-Warner and AT&T. He says he will stop it if he gets to be president…As usual, he fails to understand that he can oppose it, but his will is not going to be sufficient to stop it….That would probably take rulings by the FTC and the Courts. However, be that it may, we do agree that e view the merger as probably resulting too much concentration in one company.

    While it is easy to oppose a merger as big as this one, the recent special report on globilazation in the Economist raised another area of mergers that may, in the long run, be more damaging to our future well-being than big ones like this proposed AT&T-Time-Warner deal. That is the tendency of major firms, particularly in the information technology industries to gooble up emerging small firms when they seem to have an interesting product, program or concept. This is certainly good for the folks who created the new firm as they often become multi-millionaires over night….but the question is what does it do in the long run for the creation of new ideas, products and techniques, etc. What happen, for example, as may be the case, if the purchase was not so much to implement the smaller firms’ ideas but rather to stifle their potential challenge to the bigger firm’s dominance in the field? Are these kinds of mergers potentially more harmful to the economy than something like the TW-AT&T deal? What do they do to creativity and the new jobs and industries it creates?

    • John Bernard Books

      The left is strictly driven by hatred now…2 more weeks of vitriol from the left.

      • Seamus

        So the vitriol is only coming from one side?
        That takes a special sort of blindness.

    • John Johnson

      Thank you. Anti-trust laws are being totally ignored. In Arlington, the two major cable providers are ATT and TW. Direct TV was just bought by ATT. They were the third provider. What do you think is going to happen to the cost of service? I have griped about our U-verse service for years; my old parents are on TW, and it has been even worse. Want a reading on what’s going on? Look at the profit margins of both. Look like they have been losing money? Hell no…they have both been getting rich. Look at how the 3 major airlines have divided up the US into three major monopolistic markets, and then how insurance and banks have done the same. We are an ignorant lot. It is bought votes and rulings, dummies. As crazy as Trump is, he offers change.

      • WUSRPH

        Two points:

        1 The Republicans refused to put an anti-trust/pro-competition provision in their platform. There is one in the Democratic Platform, however.
        2. President Obama issued an executive order to all federal agencies to combat ant-competitive behavior.

        • John Johnson

          Well, Bonehead, I believe that I addressed concerns going back decades; I believe that Trumpies do not have much in common with the Repub platform.

          • WUSRPH

            Then why is he running as a Republican when he would need Democratic votes to do almost everything he says he will do…

  • John Bernard Books

    Can she steal the election?
    ““Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.”
    ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince”

  • John Bernard Books

    Race relations have deteriorated under Obama by design…
    “Trump didn’t come out of nowhere now,” Obama said during a campaign speech in Miami. “For years, Republican politicians and far-right media outlets had just been pumping out all kinds of toxic, crazy stuff.””
    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/22/obama-blames-far-right-media-pumping-kinds-crazy-toxic-stuff/

    The crazies on the left believe we should be silenced…….it will be all out war the next 2 weeks.
    “The Prince” is a manual for those who wish to win and keep power. The Renaissance was awash in such how-to guides, but Machiavelli’s was different. To be sure, he counsels a prince on how to act toward his enemies, using force and fraud in war.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/opinion/why-machiavelli-matters.html
    NY Times reminds them that cheating wins….the left is losing power and will do anything to hold on to it.

  • John Bernard Books

    How desperate is the left?
    “Craig spoke to reporters in response a graffiti message found in the area of W. State Fair Ave. and John R. St. reading “Kill All Police, Kill James Craig.”
    http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2016/10/21/cowards-write-kill-all-police-kill-james-craig-on-the-side-of-detroit-building/

    What will they do to retain power?

  • John Bernard Books

    James O’Keefe alleges HRC personally involved…in violence at Trump rallies.
    “Trump: “Just been learned on video that the violent protests at some of my rallies…were caused by paid DNC & Clinton campaign operatives.” pic.twitter.com/FbKG9CVLPU

    — Fox News (@FoxNews) October 22, 2016

    O’Keefe immediately sent this tweet…

    Don’t file that lawsuit quite yet, @realDonaldTrump, more video coming that HRC was personally involved in directing what happens at rallies

    — James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 22, 2016″

    If that proves to be true will that stop you from voting for HRC? If it doesn’t then it means one of two things….you condone the violence or you’re stupid. Well I guess it would one thing you are stupid…..

  • John Bernard Books

    So what is the truth about the Clinton Initative?
    “Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

    Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.
    Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.
    “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.”
    http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

    So remind me why you’re voting for HRC?

    • BCinBCS

      JBB asked: “So what is the truth about the Clinton Initative (sic)?

      From The Chronicle of Philanthropy of December 22, 2015 nearly ONE YEAR AGO:

      “Charity Navigator said Tuesday it has removed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from its watch list, a red flag used by the charity watchdog to signal to donors that questions have been raised about a group’s operations.
      [snip]
      “The Clinton Foundation was added to the list earlier this year after investigations by news organizations, including the Wall Street Journal and Politico, raised questions about whether corporations and foreign governments used donations to the charity to curry favor with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
      [snip]
      “From the start, the Clinton Foundation challenged being added to the list. It wrote to Charity Navigator saying that there was no proof of wrongdoing in any of the new“s stories.
      [snip]
      “Subsequently, the foundation took multiple steps to enhance transparency and avoid what it described as “even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

      So remind me why anyone should trust anything that you post?

  • WUSRPH

    If you want to know why Texas is not a BLUE state and why it probably won’t be for some time to come…..read the special report in the Austin American-Statesman on Hispanics in rural Texas. Another example of why we need to restore the Voting Rights Act and overcome the attitude that you only have a right to vote if you vote RIGHT.

    http://tinyurl.com/h8e6n6h

    • BCinBCS

      A huge serving of apathy seasoned with lack of knowledge and topped with a covering of suppression.
      Requiring single-member districts seems like the easiest solution to the problem.

      • SpiritofPearl

        Apathy wasn’t mentioned in the article.

        • BCinBCS

          Apathy might not have been mentioned but it was certainly described.

          • SpiritofPearl

            We read it with different perspectives. I “see” institutional obstruction to Latino votes.

          • dave in texas

            It’s not necessarily either/or. Both things can be true.

          • SpiritofPearl

            I agree. I don’t want to blame the victims in this situation.

      • WUSRPH

        Single-member districts have resulted in more Hispanics (and Blacks) being elected BUT they have not substantially increased the number of Hispanic and Black voters. The turnout figures for big city Hispanic and Black districts are often half or less than half of their neighboring Anglo districts. In some cases I almost fear that, once elected, the new Hispanic/Black leadership is less interested in increasing the turnout in their districts than it is in holding onto the seat.

  • John Bernard Books

    Trump expands lead…
    “Just released hours ago, the poll shows Donald Trump up two points nationwide, by 43 to 41 percent for Hillary Clinton.”
    http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/nations-most-accurate-poll-shows-trump-up-by-two-points
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2ed0e40b249e1332b72174b442ed3d1aa498c7f79c05fd8d8706a130963b790a.jpg

    • BCinBCS

      Of the Kool-aid, much have you drunk.
      -Yodel

      JBB, you do know that IDB/TIPP called the 2008 race for John McCain just two weeks before Obama’s landslide victory and that the poll predicted Ben Carson would win the Republican primary?

      • John Bernard Books

        Let me tell you what we do know…
        In one of Podesta’s emails he recommends oversampling
        “I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.”
        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

        We understand how you dems operate….what the average American doesn’t understand is the elections are rigged….

        • BCinBCS

          …the elections are rigged…

          JBB. this is a map of how each county in the U.S. voted in 2012:
          .
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/27358e6c7f2c435ad542b1ec1be193cd8d44af49889e09adafcf752fd7c24649.png

          .
          Since the overwhelming number of counties in the U.S. are governed by Republicans, it follows that most of any election rigging will occur in those counties.

          Since you can’t seem to get your brain wrapped around the concept that there is amazingly little voter fraud in this country and that extremely small number has absolutely no affect on a Presidential election, maybe this picture will help.

          • SpiritofPearl
          • BCinBCS

            Yea, I saw that.
            Now let’s hope that the down-ballot races have coat-tails.

          • John Bernard Books

            I’m hoping not as many dead voters vote….

          • John Bernard Books

            the question is can we stop dems from cheating

          • BCinBCS

            No, that isn’t the question. The question is why can’t Trump and his followers accept defeat like honorable men without having to make up excuses?

          • WUSRPH

            You answered your question when you incorrectly described them as “honorable men”. They ain’t.

      • SpiritofPearl

        He hears voices in his head.

        Here in southern Indiana where we’re visiting, yard signs lean more to Clinton than Trump, but are overwhelmimg in their support for John Gregg, the Dem candidate for governor. Mike Dense is loathed in his home state having left wreckage in his wake.

  • SpiritofPearl

    Clinton is closer in Texas than she is in Indiana. Texas is now a toss-up:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/302414-texas-becomes-tossup-realclearpolitics-declares

  • donuthin2

    I may vote straight ticket for the first time ever and it will be democrat. And I am a long time Republican but totally frustrated with lack of statesmanship in both Nationally and Texas. I hope the Dems get control of the senate and Repubs keep control of the house. I hope that there can be a discussion of the redistricting process as it is horrible. I wish there could be more cross the isle cooperation in the future. I wish the likes of Gromert, Patrick and others could fade into oblivion. We need to get back on track. I am hopeful, but doubtful as I think the right wing nuts will just dig in and others will keep on being cowardly.

    • John Bernard Books

      You’re saying crooked hillary is a statesman? hahaha

    • dave in texas

      I didn’t agree with him on very much, but I always admired Senator Jeff Wentworth’s efforts to introduce legislation to put redistricting in the hands of a nonpartisan commission. Of course, it never got out of committee, but I truly think something like that is going to necessary at some point.

      • donuthin2

        Yes, he lead the charge on redistricting which was probably the most notable thing of his Senate career. I wish they would start at the top of the state, decide how many districts and a way to divide the state into square or maybe rectangular districts, the size dependent on population, but without regard to much of anything else. And it should be done by a nonpartisan commission. I hate the gerrymandering for political or racial reasons.

        • dave in texas

          Square or rectangular would only work in the Panhandle. 😉 For most of the state, county boundaries would serve just fine. I don’t know how it is in the rest of the state, but in Austin, precinct boundaries often as not go along things like creeks and railroad tracks. To get districts of equal population in the big cities, it has to be at least somewhat arbitrary. I mean, there are more people in Travis County than in the entirety of the Panhandle.

          • donuthin2

            I’m sorry, I did not mean square or rectangular in an absolute sense, but relatively. I am quite ok with rural districts being very rural rather than purposely mixed with urban populations.

          • Jed

            there are software programs that do this.

            you can tell it to emphasize one thing or another: compact shape, for example. or demographics or party id.

    • Beerman

      Waited in a very long line to vote today. The line was about 80% women, and the conversation about Trump would make a sailor blush. This is a heavy GOP precinct and I was stunned at the anti-Trump rhetoric being expressed. Yes, there was a covey of “nasty” women in this area today.

      I voted straight Democratic ticket for first time in my life, and I don’t believe that I was the only one to do so at this location today. And, you can blame Trump for my vote, definitely.

      • John Johnson

        You’ve lost your mind; it happens to people of a certain age.

    • allen

      Good morning, what I find appalling in our politicians is their lack of compromise. What ever happened to the give a little, get a little approach? The career politician is so consumed by television cameras beaming their rhetoric back home, that they are afraid to be seen shaking the hand of someone from across the aisle. In the mean time the people suffer from it. Like cruz reading Dr. Seuss to try and shut down the government! Did he really think about what WE wanted? The only time he ever impressed me was when he stood up to trump at the convention. Then he tucked his tail between his legs and came licking Donnie’s hand. If anyone had ever said the things about my wife and father, trump said about cruz’s; well let’s just say as a native Texan that dog wouldn’t hunt.

  • John Bernard Books

    Did grandma scramble her brains….
    ““How bad is her head?” Podesta asked Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri in an email with the subject line, “Any sense of whether and when she wants to talk?””
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/email-podesta-asked-bad-head/

    deception…..

  • John Bernard Books

    I knew this….
    “Now scientists have uncovered an explanation for why telling a few porkies has the tendency to spiral out of control. The study suggests that telling small, insignificant lies desensitises the brain to dishonesty, meaning that lying gradually feels more comfortable over time.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/24/from-porkies-to-whoppers-over-time-lies-may-desensitise-brain-to-dishonesty

    When you’ve lied your whole life it becomes a habit.

    • BCinBCS

      Well JBB, that certainly explains your posts.

  • Too Sweet

    I live in a Democratic precinct. I tried to vote today. The line was out the door, 150 yards across the parking lot onto the sidewalk long. I’ll vote another day, but that was the longest absentee voting line I’ve ever encountered.

  • nickthap

    I voted in Austin yesterday and every single person voting except me was a woman. Telling.

    • John Johnson

      It’s Austin; what would you expect?

    • Shelly H.

      Nasty women are not to be trifled with. Trump and the republicans are in for a rude awakening.

  • Nicole Greer

    When you write an article it should be written with facts not your opinion. It has already been proven that there has been actual tampering.