« Hillary's moment? | Main | Dog days of summer »

August 01, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Trump does deny climate change. Ironically, his proposal for "railroads of the future" (and the City of Phoenix's proposal to plant more trees) would probably do more in a positive sense than any "tax on carbon"--any meaningful level of which is the liberal equivalent of illegal immigrant expulsion in terms of its likelihood of being implemented.

Anyway, this election is Hillary's to lose. By all accounts, she should have had it "in the bag" by now. This poster, like many more Republicans than the Democrats suspect, is not adverse to ticket splitting (Whoever opposes Arpaio in the General Election always gets my vote). The problem is not Trump, the problem is Hillary. Everything Trump has done--from trivializing the family members of those lost in combat (Benghazi in her case) to ridiculing persons with disabilities (special needs children in Arkansas in her case)--Hillary has also done. Then she lies about it--and just about everything else.

People assert that Trump is a "psychopath", but Hillary is a pathological liar--isn't that much the same thing?

Anyway, Trump's peccadilloes--and there are plenty of those--are a symptom of the problem. The problem is the media.

The "mainstream media" carefully managed the amount of publicity--or lack thereof--given the candidates during the primaries to all but ensure that Trump would be nominated--not only guaranteeing, in their eyes, a Democrat victory in November but compromising the Republican Party in the bargain. What the media didn't plan on is that their own candidate might prove to be even more unappealing than Trump.

I so often wonder how things would have turned out had Carolyn Warner won.....

The reason Trump won the nomination is that none, repeat none, of the other Republican candidates could take a punch, or deliver one, for that matter.

Don't blame the "mainstream media" for such inconsequential nonentities. All the mainstream media wants is a "contest", some sort of conflict to drive viewership.

Instead, take a good long look into the Republican distortion mirror and realize once and for all that Trump is what the last 30 years of GOP doctrine has led to. Trump is what you are.

The statement that anything one of the candidates has done, the other has, as well, and then lied about it, would be ridiculous in almost any election. Statements like these have been flung wildly this election cycle without recognition of any need to back them up.
If this was considered a fine way for humans to treat each other, there would be no Better Business Bureau or anti-bullying programs in the schools.
This kind of behavior makes it even less likely that reasonable people of any political persuasion will do us the favor of running for office.
If this really is the new normal, send in the clowns.

To be clear, my previous comment addresses another comment, not the article itself.

Jon said, "This year, we'll also see how many Americans want to waste a vote on Jill Stein or write in Bernie's name to show their own personal purity."

Speaking of "Strongman" the above quote seems to imply an intellectual strongman arm twisting, to threaten this moron into not writing in Bernie.
I have no fear of a liberal uprising.
"With revolution awareness is born."
So Better than clown Trump we get Hillary who will get us more than one supreme court justice and a few other "liberal" tokens. But Bernie Sanders will eventually be known as the father of the coming progressive revolution.

Che and his coyotee
from the great Sonoran desert

Sometimes, planets align in an unusual way and give us all odd choices (and outcomes) in elections. Third party candidates, previous administrations, luck, turnout, and timing can all play a part.

Two recent examples are Carter in 1976 (when Ford pardoned Nixon, no Republican was going to win that election) and, of course, the anti Bush sentiment in 2008 and 2009 that assured the Democrats of the White House no matter who they nominated (and we wound up with, well, what we wound up with).

If you've read Caro's books on LBJ, it's almost a lock that some (most??) of LBJ's early Texas victories were, at a minimum, dishonest. And without those and Kennedy being murdered, LBJ probably never becomes President.

Hard to believe it's come down to these two choices, that's for sure.

I would be very very afraid if I were counting on Hillary to win {I do).
I have always cited the fact that Arizona elected Evan amd continues to elect Sheriff Joke as proof of the poorly informed and largely undereducated electorate.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public.
See my previous comment referring to Forrest Gump.

B. Franklin - I suggest that the Dem/Progs have a distortion mirror of their own to gaze into. Pretty ugly mess, I'd say.

Well, progress is messy...

All the major progressive steps forward in the last 100 or so years: minimum wage, 40 hour work week, Social Security, GI Bill, integration, civil rights, voting rights, OSHA, ADA, Medicare/Medicaid, women's rights, gay rights, the ACA, have come about through "messy" fights against reactionary inertia.

Ugliness, of course, is in the eyes of the beholder.

And I guess if you are blindly stuck in your ways, then everything new can seem ugly.

Talton, thanks for including this insight - "He would then be impeached and removed by his own party — or by a military coup"
I've been waiting to see that in print.
This is serious business.

PS "what we wound up with" won again in 2012.

What's the excuse for that? Planetary convergence? Illuminati? Voter fraud?

And if it weren't for the 22nd Amendment, good old "WWWUW" would easily win again this year...

So...maybe it's not some unanticipated quirky variable as much as it is the sclerotic Republican belief system.


Bush won a second term, too.


Speculate and cheerlead all you want on Big Ears' wasted eight years.

Thing sure got better for poor people, that's for sure......

Obama was amazing considering nearly everything he tried to do got put down by "White" guys and they didn't even bother to put thier white hoodie's and robes on.

George W won a "second term." The country would have been a lot better off had his parents bought him a bicycle shop and he never ran for office. And even though some believe he should be prosecuted for the Americans and Iraqis that died. I'm not sure he really grasped what he was led into by the liars around him.

I'm hoping before Obama leaves he puts millions more acres in Roadless Wilderness and puts "All drugs under the FDA".

Be interesting if Hillary picks him for the Supreme court. White god wold go really crazy, with a Black Communist Muslim on the bench.

I forgot an "illegal alien" black muslim communist.

I plan on wasting my vote just like I have since 1976. Even when I won I lost.

When Republicans start talking about "poor people" it makes me want to vomit.

Why is that?

I have the same reaction when they start talking about how much they "care about veterans".

Or when they offer up "their prayers" for the victims of our latest mass shooting.

I think res ipsa loquitur is the phrase that comes to mind.

Bradley, left U a note on Hillary piece.

Trump blames Obama for Khan's death?

Trump Spokesperson blames Obama for death of American soldier, Humayun Khan .
Khan was killed in 2004 in Iraq, protecting fellow soldiers from a car bomb. You might recall that Obama did not take office until 2009.

Sarah Palins, medal of honor soldier son-in-law tells Trump to apologize.

Wonder if American soldier, Humayun Khan, a Muslim was related to
Genghis Khan was a tengrist, but was religiously tolerant and interested in learning philosophical and moral lessons from other religions. He consulted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christian missionaries, and the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji.

Trump's ascendency can be, at least in part, ascribed to what I call the "neo ugly American."

The original "ugly American" was the loud, boorish, world traveler of the 1950's and 60's that had no idea of the local customs when they vacationed. Their uncultured behavior gave us a bad name.

The reason I bring this up is because a huge portion of the Republican electorate consists of this bold and obnoxious mindset that has no interest in other people's sensibilities. I believe this flows from the Republican party becoming increasingly reactionist, uncooperative, and intransigent. When you factor in how the "evangelicals" and religious storm-troopers have hijacked "faith," you have a perfect storm of divinely-inspired rebellious zealots. Their current behaviors mirror Trump's extremism in both style and content.

Another part of this divinely inspired thinking is that their wants are to be accorded them because God is on their side--and those opposing them are Godless liberals-socialists-communists.

While they may not be the majority, remember the saying, "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it."

Trump's bellicose rallies.
The Nazi Nuremburg rallies.

Taking an oath to Trump.
The Wehrmacht oath to Hitler.

Trump's demonizing Mexicans, Muslims.
Hitler's demonizing Jews, Gypsies, etc.

Trump cozying up to Putin.
Hitler cozying up to Stalin.

Trump saying, "I will make America great again."
Hitler saying, "I will make Germany great again."

Trump saying, "I alone can fix things."
Hitler saying much the same thing.

Republicans believing God is on "their side."
Nazi belt buckles inscribed, "Gott Mit Uns."

"Seig Heil!" with a smile, anyone?


The people you mention in the Hillary piece are not in a position to make agreements that either bind, or potentially bind, America to a course of action. Obviously, none of them are in a position to be elected president.

While "treason" being applied to those you mention is uncertain, Trump's actions, by his stature as the nominee, wholly fit my definition of "high" treason.

Does Trump's behavior (toward Putin) remind anyone of a 21st century "Manchurian Candidate?"

you're a little late, Bradley; the "Manchurian' got into the WH eight-years ago.

Oh, so now he's a Kenyan Socialist Muslim Korean War Veteran, programmed by the Chinese Communists to bring health care to millions of Americans?

Those clever Reds!

@ Bradley: read “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer and get back to be on the treason thing.

Trump as Putin’s sock puppet – yeah that’s really a hoot. I think the root of the meme is the hacking of the DNC email system. All we know is somebody hacked it. That’s all. The Russians are just one of many that might have been motivated to do it. Just as plausible is that it was an inside job. We’ll probably never know.

Just an aside, put much to do about the ole, whites anger problem. Well, being an old white male, I can tell that I certainly do have a lot of anger. If Burney Sanders is indicative, there’s a lot of anger among white young people and lefties in general. Seems to be a lot of anger in blacks also. I’m sure there’s a segment out there that’s not angry. I think we’re correct. If the present situation doesn’t anger you, you’re just not thinking about it enough. I don’t really there’s that much difference among us about what we find troubling. The differences are in which aspect of the problem is salient and the best remedies might be.

Maybe Anonymous fans of Bernie hacked the Democrats and gave it to Julian? And they framed the Russians. I think I saw that in an Elementary episode. Sherlock is everywhere. Can he trust Doctor Lucy Lu Watson. I hear she is a North Korean spy.
Interesting how (as usual)the FBI sat on the hacking until the last minute. Oh maybe they are In bed with Putin and Trump.

Dudas, Terrible how you have suffered under Manchurian Obama. Can't wait to see what Hillary does to U. But hold on Putin and the FBI, Trump and Assange may save U by taking out Hillary. Now all they have to do is to get rid of Bernie. Maybe they will give him a choice, Exile in Norway or ????.

You're getting senile, Cal - who said I 'suffer'? Read post again, guy.

Ms Dudas, it's good to know that you don't personally suffer. But I bet you're a carrier.

Now that we sorted all that out, getting back to that sad "ethical pygmy" Ev Mecham.

Interesting that he only got slightly more than 40% of the vote. If my math is correct, and I went to an Arizona public school, that means nearly 60% voted against him. So, I guess the question is "what the hell has happened to the Arizona Democratic Party since then?"

Let's face it, Latinos didn't vote in great numbers then, either.

So where did all those Dems go?

One answer is that they run uninspiring ciphers like Eddie Basha, "nice guys" with no passion like Fred DuVal, everybody's favorite smug technocrat, Harvard's own "don't break a sweat campaigning" Terry Goddard, and so on.

It's not like they're running against giants. Fife Symington? Jane Hull? Jan Brewer? "Cup or Wafflecone" Ducey?

To be fair, it wasn't that long ago that Janet Napolitano won consecutive terms. It just seems that long ago.

However, after a good long look at the clown show that is our legislature, she naturally left for greener pastures.

Apparently taking the Dems needed to win statewide with her.

Dude, of course I'm senile and a moron.
But it's just the tone of your voice.

B franklin, in my 76 year old senile opinion;
of the almost 7 million people in az, 500,000 people have a lock on 35 percent of the votes cast. All they need is 16 percent more to insure thier candidate wins.

That aside I'm willing to bet regardless of Dudas tone, votes his or her's conciousness.

As we work our way to November here is a high five to Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange,Daniel Ellsberg, Robert Merritt and Mark Felt.

And Bernie gets 99 write in votes in AZ.

Lash, my tone imitates the Hill - we come from the same neck of the woods.

Hillary was born is the flatland of Chicago?
the White house sets on a HIll?
Hill is for the backwoods, of?
Sorry Dudas U lost me, as I did lose my car yesterday. luckily my neighbors found it.

@ teri: You from the mean streets of Park Ridge, Ill.?

wkg in b ham:

The problem is we all get caught up in the little things and fail to see the "big picture."

I think you are comparing oranges to watermelons if you are trying to equate the Clinton's profiteering to Trump cozying up to Putin. Especially if you consider the potential destabilizing effect of each on not just the U. S.,
but the entire world.

I tend to look at the big picture because it is bigger.

wkg in b ham:

I don't think the politics get bigger than Putin and Trump being "best buds,"
or have greater potential ramifications for our way of life.

teri dudas:

I don't see how Obama has in any way potentially committed treason or behaved quasi-treasonously as Trump has by displaying his crush on Putin.

The ball is in your court.

@ Cal: Hey the Fit is a very small car and easy to misplace.

@Bradley: I’m going to need some enlightenment on the Trump and Putin being “best buds”. I know they share some personality traits. I seem to recall he what somewhat complementary of Russia’s economic performance relative to the utter corruption of the previous rulers.

It would seem a more harmonious relationship between the Russian Union and the U.S. would be a good thing and hardly “destabilizing”.

Speaking of deplorable Republican politicians:


Putin is a former KGB shark who knows an easy mark when he sees one.

Trump is a narcissistic political naif, a pathological liar with delusions of grandeur and the emotional response mechanism of a spoiled six year old.

What could possibly go wrong?

Geez, WKG, what U want is at your fingertips called google. Trump is worth maybe a little more than 4 billion. Putin is worth 70 Billion. So the love fest is obvious and its obvious who is on top. Trump cant even wrestle let alone handle a black belt cowboy.




I think the current US administration and NATO have been screwing over Russia quite frequently and with our CIA children we knocked out a duly elected Ukrainian leader and put our puppet strong man in. ( for $$$$)


Of course we did the same thing in Egypt to the legally elected Muslim Brotherhood candidates.

So folks we must rid the planet of Putins and oh yea Muslims and Mexicans. When Hillary gets elected she can make,
The Donald ambassador to Russia.

Thanks Jerry for the article. No one since Calvin Coolidge has deported more people than Obama. some prominent "Mexicans" in the Southwest do not believe the Democrats or the GOP care about them. More important is how much their Wall Street investments(Clintons)


are making off private prisons. And those prisons get a guaranteed amount for beds filled or empty. Now that is criminal.
Dont forget vote for Bernie.

Scratch the name Calvin Coolidge from Deportations subject. He is still ahead of Obama in pardons.

wkg in b ham:

Putin rode in on a wave of Russians dissatisfied with capitalism and cooperation with the West. Putin has said he longs for the time when Russia were stronger. In fact, I believe he has said Western-style capitalism has not been good for Mother Russia. Ever heard of Josef Stalin and his authoritarian regime?

Trump's supporters long for a period when they say America was much stronger: The 1950's and the 1960's. Part of this is wrapped up in a period when America was much more "White."
Trump's refusal to disavow himself of the KKK and White supremacists is enough evidence for me that he tacitly agrees with those groups.

On the issue of cozying up to Putin, Trump runs a great risk of being taken like a fool. This is because Putin is an authoritarian who doesn't like or believe in democracy. He deals in dictatorship where what he says goes.
While Trump has some of the same sociopathic traits, he has yet to demonstrate he is in the same league as a dictator or that he wants a dictatorship.

The only thing someone like a Putin respects is strength and the unwavering resolve to use it if necessary. Bullies do not "make nice," they create conflict. They will only respect someone else because the someone else demands it--and will confront and destroy the bully without hesitation.

In the bully arena, how much REAL blood does Trump have on his hands? How many people has he had killed?

I'm quite certain many people have met their demise on Putin's direct orders.

I think, wkg in b ham, you are under the impression that an American can be friends with Putin. I don't see that as possible in the same way I don't see that America can really be friendly with a Russia controlled by Putin. It's because America and Russia have diametrically opposed political systems. That was not the case of post-Soviet Union Russia before Putin.

Putin is many times more ruthless, Machiavellian, and brutal than Trump.
Putin is used to getting his way and uses military force to get what he wants. Trump has already stated his aim to reduce America's military presence around the world. What kind of opportunity do you think Putin sees in THAT?

I think any American cozies up to Putin at a great risk to American security.

Ever hear of the phrase, "too many cooks in the kitchen?" Do you really think Putin believes in cooperation--other than "cooperation" being what he says?

Trump's not realizing this is both a sign of his "blindness" about international realities and his cozying up to Putin tantamount to high treason.

wkg in b ham:

International diplomacy is like a negotiation, and while Trump understands business negotiations, international diplomacy is much, much, much more serious.

As Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."

On the verification front, what is verifiable under Putin? The answer to that question point out how cooperative Putin is likely to be in international diplomacy with the United States going forward.

I've seen very little that speaks to Putin being cooperative and not wanting everything his way.

The world isn't his personal Burger King.

Bradley, good posts. However the US seems to think the world is its "Burger King" and we have the best bread to make them into a sandwich, American style with Ketshup.
Since the 50's the US CRUSADES have continued trying to make "Regime Change" wherever it pleases, with murderous consequences for millions of people. US administrations and the CIA have the blood of millions of innocent civilians on their hands. Makes me wonder if they have a conscious? The US continues and will under Hillary or Donald, primarily for profit in falsely stating its for democracy.
For your info Bradley:

The Donald may be insane to the point of the need for the folks with the straight jackets. But is he occasionally right?
Is Trump an enemy of Neocons.

@ Bradley: Arg. I simply asked for some enlightenment on Putin and Trump being “best buds”. Your nonresponsive essay lays out a new barrage of claims, charges, etc. based on your clairvoyant insights. However I’m still looking for something that indicates they’re “best buds”. They’ve never met or communicated.

Your ramblings would require much more time to address than I want to put in. But there are a couple I can handle quickly. E.g.” Ever heard of Josef Stalin and his authoritarian regime?” As it turns out I have. Did you know the USSR/Stalin were the darlings of far left in the US prior to WWII? Using your logic Hitler and Stalin must have been “best buds” – they were so much alike. They hated each other. The war on the Eastern Front was one of the most bloody and ruthless in history.

How about “Trump's not realizing this is both a sign of his "blindness" about international realities and his cozying up to Putin tantamount to high treason.” Well Putin, so far anyway, is a softie compared the Castro brothers in Cuba. So I suppose cozying up to them is “tantamount to high treason”. I define treason as selling out national interests for personal gain. Jeeze, who would do that?

Trump is indeed a very flawed man. But HRC is flawed to point where words like “evil” apply. This assessment is not based on a hypothetical future, but on her actual history. It’s a lamentable situation where you have to pick between Trump and HRC. I think you have to go with Trump and hope for the best. HRC’s record is one of lacklusterness, failure and duplicity. It’s impossible to like Trump; it’s impossible to look over the HRC oeuvre and hold her anything but contempt.

@Cal: I read the New Yorker “love story” article. It could be summed up as “Bradley with better writing.”

@Cal: I think the crusading thing goes back a lot farther than the 50’s. I’d have to go back to a least the 1890’s when the McKinley/Teddy Roosevelt crowd wanted a colonial empire like the big boys in Europe. Ginned up the Spanish American War to grab Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam and Philippines’. “Annexing” Hawaii occurred in the same time period. We’ve been war more to less continuously since 1940. It’s insane. Related: between Trump & HRC who are we likely to get “more of the same”?

@Cal re Neocons: I think the movement is on its last legs in the GOP. Not completely rid of them – for example that idiot John McCain is still senator. Tea Party doesn’t seem to have much clout in Az.

For no reason at all: Russian history is just one big tragedy. the highlight where the Gorbochaf (spelling?) Yeltson years – when any improvements in freedom where offset by the systematic looting of the country.

wkg in b ham:

Trump speaks admiringly of Putin and Putin, I believe, has done the same of Trump.

Stalin said, "If Hitler had joined me, we'd be unbeatable." He actually wanted an alliance, and so wanted it that he intentionally ignored the buildup of the Wehrmacht on his western borders. Actually, if you knew of Stalin correctly, he actually admired Hitler--much as the mutual admiration society of Trump and Putin.

Hitler saw the Russians as untermensch, and fit for only hard slave labor to the Reich.

I highly doubt the Castro brothers have the ruthlessness to have ascended through the Russian KGB and political structure as Putin has. Besides, have they ever annexed territory?

The reason its called high treason is that its a more damaging kind of treason, like selling out the country.

I prefer to side with those that think Trump, by being so off-the-wall, somewhat delusional, and prone to vindictiveness, is clearly unfit for the presidency and might create complete chaos. Way too unsettling for me.

But if you think Trump's so grand, don't worry, be happy!

@Bradley: I think Trump is far from grand; and no I’m not happy that he’s the GOP nominee. Many here are not happy with HRC being the demo nominee. But we’re both stuck with what we’ve got.

Re Hitler and Stalin. They actually did have an alliance and Poland paid the price for that alliance. The USSR was shipping oil and grain to Germany right up to the day of the invasion. I think Joe got stuck with his pants down. I think he was just blind sided. His intellegence network let him down. The USSR had an excellent intelligence service. Not just in Germany but just about everywhere including the USA. McCarthy was an asshole but he was right about one thing: our government was riddled with Soviet spies.

I can admire certain aspects for people that I really don’t like. I’ll give you two examples. I read BHO’s “Dreams of my Father” and got about 100 pages into it and said to myself “this is really a well written book”. About HRC: she’s a much harder worker than I am even on my best days. She really never stops working.

Interesting to speculate on how Trump and Hillary might deal with Putin specifically and foreign policy in general.

The good news is that we can just hope that either or them emulate the last eight years, cause that sure has turned out swell......

wkg in b ham:

Stalin did say, "If Hitler and I joined forces, we'd have been unbeatable."

Sounds like more than admiration to me.
Also, Stalin remarked, "One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic."
I'm sure Stalin admired Hitler's cold-blooded ruthlessness because Stalin had little regard for human life.

It was just a case of too many cooks in the kitchen.

I do think Putin has much more experience internationally than Trump.
If Trump gets into anything with him,
I believe Putin will view him as an easy mark. Lack of respect from an opponent can be dangerous on the international stage.

Respect is what gets one cooperation.

Regarding the last 8 years:

Much of the last 8 years of foreign policy was unfortunately dictated by the previous 8 years.

Which was a huge festering debacle.

Brought to you by, wait for it, The Party of Lincoln.

Along the way, Obama didn't ignore a major public health crisis (like Reagan--AIDS) or suborn the Constitution (like Reagan--Iran Contra).

He didn't ignore warnings about imminent terrorist attacks (like Bush--9/11).

He didn't try to dismantle Social Security or Medicare (like--pick any Republican).

He did manage to get health insurance to many millions of people who didn't have it.

And his economic policies helped bring America back from the brink of a second Great Depression.

Imagine all the other "awful" things he could have done if the Republicans hadn't been determined to destroy him from even before he was inaugurated.


Look. Why argue?

You think successful presidential leadership hinges on something like "Well, I tried but it was someone else's fault". Let's call that the third grade soccer team approach.

I tend to raise the bar a little higher. I think of FDR, Lincoln, Reagan, LBJ and some others and the things there were able to accomplish. The way that there nonpartisan popularity basically forced others to accept their agenda. Reagan's 1981 historic tax cuts had broad support:

The Obamacare cheerleading from the left fits perfectly with the third grade approach. It was suppose to decrease the deficit.

Has it?

Gee. The CBO can't even figure it out.


Costs up. Enrollment down. Sounds like a real winner:


Sis boom bah!!

To all those here wanting change,

Change is very attractive, and rebelliousness is part of the American identity.

I just feel, in my 60's liberal heart, that the changes Trump wants are not in keeping with my beliefs in equality for everyone, inclusiveness, and fairness.

That being said, I do wish Sanders were the nominee because he is about upending the system toward it being more egalitarian. But we all know how the conservative paint this: liberal=socialist=Godless communist.
Robin Hood doesn't play well in the "red zone." That these conservatives believe and propagate this is, to me, a convenient and poor excuse for their selfishness--especially when they parade themselves as Christians.

Jesus said, "How you treat the least among me is how you treat me." Pope Francis referenced this in calling out Trump's behavior as not being Christian.

Christian behavior--as Jesus Christ would act--embodies compassion, love, and sacrifice for the common good. These tenets are not unique to Christianity; they are intrinsic to all faiths around the world.

Hillary is hardly a paradiqm of perfection. But of the two candidates, if only to me, she comes much closer to having the compassion, concern, and public decency that define dignity. Yes, I do believe the presidency requires dignity, and that whoever is there is an example not just here, but around the world.

Another thing, men, by their testosterone, are more often to be bellicose, aggressive, and intemperate in crises. Women are, by not having so much testosterone, are more likely to be deliberate in the decision-making process.

I am a feminist by my belief in equality, and I want to see what a woman can do as President. Hillary, by both her experience and demeanor, is more qualified to lead this nation.

To all those railing against the status quo: Consider the saying, "The devil you don't know may be worse than the devil you do know."

To IN PHX: Do you have something better than Obamacare? As I recall, about 2-3 weeks ago, I heard the Republicans were set to unveil a competing plan.

The silence is deafening.


Took about 3 seconds. There's a search engine folks use on this here Internet called Google. Maybe you need to try it?

So shall ye seek, so shall ye find.


Its not 25,000 pages yet, it hasn't been poorly implemented yet, but it's a plan.

Brad, I believe Sanders would have easily beat Trump. But I repeat his revolution is still out there and next time alot of those kids will be 4 years smarter.

Inphx, on a personal note, I don't have "Obama care" but since it's been in place my personal private insurance premimus are $150/ month less.


I'm glad you're saving some bucks.

At the company I work for, this year's proposed increase is 8.6%.


It's a white paper, not a bill. It lacks specifics, but it does allow insurers to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. This kind of looks like the Republican ethos of, "you're on your own," and a support for business at the expense of the less fortunate.

Want to guess that part of your 8.6% increase is due to insurers covering pre-existing conditions?

How charitable are you?

Of course insurance premiums never increased prior to Obamacare.

And no one was ever denied coverage.

And no one ever had a pre-existing condition.

And no one ever went bankrupt because of medical bills.

Indeed, it was a free market paradise of altruistic insurance companies, avarice free pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals that wouldn't dream of gouging people.

And then "he" screwed it all up!

8.6 percent sounds like 600 bucks more a year. U can afford that INPHX and still buy 245 Starbucks drinks per year. It's your forced contribution to humanity. I know its not the money it's the forced part.

Well, INPHX there's a place in Idaho, where they defy that forced stuff. And you can hang out with some real helicopter Sarah Palin, Macho Wolf killers. Rumor has it John Birch is still Alive. U will need a Jeep as there is no Amtrack service.

INPHX said, "Cal:I'm glad you're saving some bucks.At the company I work for, this year's proposed increase is 8.6%."

INPHX, Besides being a 76 year old Arizona Republican, a retired cop and working for a Republican governor, I belonged to three different unions and I was a Union President. Would be glad to assist you in negotiating that proposed increase. Unless that offends your individualistic survivor of the fittest philosophy.

Bernie wrote an op-ed in today's LA Times that everyone, especially his supporters, should read:


It is impossible to know how he would have fared in the general as the Democratic nominee. He faced no Republican attacks because the GOP wanted him to win the nomination. Why? Then he could face the massive GOP attack machine that has been used against Hillary Clinton for 25 years.

After 100 days of SOCIALIST! TAX-AND-SPEND! DEFICITS! And did I mention SOCIALIST!! — it's highly doubtful that a majority of the electorate would have felt the bern.

As I have written before, the reason Bill Clinton was a center-right president was because that was the only way to win in post-1972, post-Reagan America. George McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Mario Cuomo and every other liberal tribune went nowhere. I wish it were different.

Jon, U R probably correct.
But the numbers before Hillary's getting the tin hat showed Bernie doing better against Trump than Hillary. but then those were just guesstimate figures and U know how liars figure.

Jon,said in the above column about EV,
"his "pickanniny" comment and blaming working women for high divorce rates were only two.

The following Trump beat by a WoMan satire i think fits the Pickanniny EV Mecham when it comes to his philosophy on women.



Try not to divert. Obamacare was pitched as reducing the deficit. I applauded that- an expansion of the safety net that would not add to an already obscene deficit.

Did it?

How can you support it without knowing that? Isn't that a necessary condition for it to be considered a success?

Do costs and revenue matter to you?

Cal: We've already gone a few rounds with the insurance company. We're small so we don't have a lot of pull.


Gotta read a little closer:

Ryan's proposal would keep some popular pieces, including not allowing people with pre-existing conditions to be denied coverage and permitting children to stay on their parents' coverage until age 26.


So, in about an hour, you've seen the GOP proposal that you said didn't exist and then you've misinterpreted it.

Now that you've seen it and better understand it, have you changed your mind at all? Even a little?

Although I not sure universal health care can be implemented and be efficient and effective, my gut tells me that health care is a right not a privelge.
INPHX,Google Small companies band together to lower health insurance costs. It's in a trial period in some states. Not sure what Arizona legal position on such is?

Jon, thanks for The LA Times (the rag that help kill Gary Webb) piece. SO Sanders talked the party line. No suprises there.
But even better was the link to Presidential candidate Gary Johnson who seems to be at 12 percent of the vote? A dangerous libertarian. I'm forwarding such on to Gary's Pal. Indio Ruben.

To IN PHX: That's in the white paper. It remains to be seen whether that proposal makes it into bill form. And whether, if it is in the bill, that the bill isn't altered in committee or on the floor.

When it's in a bill form, and the Republicans are behind it, I'll believe it.


Differentiate delivery of health care with the paying for it.

Get the government out of the delivery of health care business.

Have the government help finance it for those who can't afford it.

Again, I applauded parts of Obamacare. But when the costs blow right through the revenue (and they will), where's that money going to come from?

To IN PHX: When it's on the floor, that will show me the Republicans are serious about something other than "NO!"

Brad wrote:

To IN PHX: Do you have something better than Obamacare? As I recall, about 2-3 weeks ago, I heard the Republicans were set to unveil a competing plan.

The silence is deafening.

Showed you the plan. The silence was never deafening.

Stop moving the goalposts.

It's not going to any further as long as there's Democrat in the White House. They're too entrenched and blinded to think there might be a better plan.

Took 'em 6 years to come up with a white paper of things their more backward Tea Party members will never agree to.

And the best parts are already in place with the ACA.

That's just the kind of leadership we need for the the next American century.

As far as Obamacare reducing the deficit, I can find as many sites that say it does, as you can find sites that say it doesn't.

Besides, remember what your boy Cheney said, "deficits don't matter."

Anyway, to quote that other Republican legend W, "we'll all be dead by then."

To IN PHX: As I've said...

To IN PHX: That's in the white paper. It remains to be seen whether that proposal makes it into bill form. And whether, if it is in the bill, that the bill isn't altered in committee or on the floor.

When it's in a bill form, and the Republicans are behind it, I'll believe it.

To IN PHX: When it's on the floor, that will show me the Republicans are serious about something other than "NO!"

There are no other goal posts other than, put it in the black and white of a bill that has everything you've proposed. Show me the money. Then it's no longer a proposal possibly designed to imply you're doing something. Don't imply something; actually DO it!

I think it's a very fair line in the sand--the Republicans actually need to cross it.

And as far as your assertion about a Democrat in the White House being the "naysayer," nobody, including you, knows anything until an actual bill is brought forward. And if the "Democrat" in the White House blocks it, that won't look so good on them, will it?

I will believe the Republicans are not the party of "NO!" when I see them put something positive and concrete as an alternative to Obamacare. Proposals are simply that--and NOT concrete offers that bills are.

To IN PHX: If the Republicans are serious about an alternative to Obamacare, they will act--as opposed to talking.

The proof is in the putting.

Arizona is a place of for profit schools and Prisons. Kalamazoo Michigan is a place where U can get a college education at no monetary cost to You.

Arizona has a couple of concerts now and then but nothing like a Seattle Bumbershoot.

Looking for a big music fest, try the First Eaux Clarires Festival in Wisconsin.

Is it just me, or do fiscally conservative Republicans only worry about deficits when the money might be spent on people they don't approve of?

I'm thinking people of color, women, students, poor people, gays, etc.

You know, all those folks who never quite fit under The Big Tent.

Is anyone voting their self interest any more? Are they electing competent people and holding them to account? Or is it more fun to play political games?

B. Franklin:

After the conservative Republicans have made their money on the cut-rate wages of the "illegals," they want to send them back at the first sign those people might cost them some of their morally ill-gotten gains. Passive-aggressive of just morally delusional? You choose.

Also, do you really believe that Jesus would act as they do toward people of color, women, students, poor people, gays, etc.? You choose.

Brad, I got a laugh out of your testosterone vs estrogen post (testosterone bad, estrogen good). I guess you haven't seen the clip of the compassionate Ms. Clinton lamenting the murder of Gaddafi of Mad Albright dismissing the death of 1/2 million children as worth the price of regime change. Take a look

Hit the link and the clips are on the left.

Jon, Please stop condescending to those of us who can no longer hold our noses and validate bad options. If your fears lead you to voting Clinton then go for it but include me out. I am sick of all the old bs about lesser evils. If you want me to do your bidding on the booth then get to work and give me better options. Too late for this round. Burning my ballot looks like the only way for me to make a meaningful statement.

Now don't get on me about not voting or wasting my vote on a candidate other than the "official" options. It's my vote and I'll cast or not as I see fit in my own interest to make the statement I choose. If allowing the system to rig the game time after time and going along with the results works for you then I think that's a bigger danger than refusing to go along. I have more respect for those who refuse to be a part of that game.

Vote Bernie.

"Vote Bernie," even though Sanders has implored his supporters to vote for Hillary.

So, why? This is a serious question. What's the end game? How does this turn out well?

It deserves a serious answer.

I miss Soleri.

Jon, This election isn't Doris Day movie, it's more like a Cormac McCarthy novel. If there is a happy ending I am having trouble imagining it.

Thanks for providing this forum. It's helpful.

Jon - do you believe Soleri has the answer, or can provide surcease to your angst?

The big problem with refusing to be a part of "the game" is that you're still in "the game" whether you like it or not.

Unless you move to New Zealand or someplace.

Oh, I guess you could go to the wilds of Idaho and declare yourself a "Free Man", unbound by any laws or obligations that you don't like.

Otherwise, you are in "the game" up to your neck.

So the questions are do we leave it the way it is, make it better, or worse?

As far as I can see, one viable party has a platform that pushes us in a positive direction. And one viable party has a platform that tries to return us to a fictional past.

And two not viable parties have no chance of doing either.

Jon, I miss the signing poetic sage, Soleri.
But I envy him his unharnessed freedom.
“Serious answer” that why I read your intelligent well written blog.
Thus I get more informed but probably not much smarter.
It would be great to have Soleri here to have your back but for now it is what it is.
So again make your mark and I will make mine.

“Testostrone”, Hillary has got more than Obama and Donald combined.
And her body count is more than Obama and Donald combined.
Hail Caesar, Donald Duck and Melania has been exiled to Solvenia.

BF said, "So the questions are do we leave it the way it is, make it better, or worse?"
Guess it depends on where you are and how you define better or worse."

Republicans not voting for Hillary or Donald, a waste of a vote?

@ RC re “Then he could face the massive GOP attack machine that has been used against Hillary Clinton for 25 years.” Well the Left has a pretty massive attack machine too. If the object of the attack (regardless of who’s doing it) merits the attack, I really don’t have a problem with it. If the attack is based on the slimmest of actual evidence, then it’s not OK.

With Team Clinton it’s been nothing but one thing after another for 25 years. I won’t enumerate them here; the list is simply too lengthy. But there are commonalities; lying, stonewalling, and destroying of evidence just for starters.

The best way to avoid these “attacks” is just to quit skating out on the thin ice.

Trump’s history and every word he has even spoken will be gone over with a fine tooth comb. I’m perfectly OK with that. Anyone running for a significant office or appointment to an important office must expect this. If you issues in the closet, don’t expect them to stay there. The best policy when they revealed (and they will be) is to honestly address them. Some times that’s going be along the lines of “I said/did essentially what is being reported and I wish hadn’t.” Or something along those lines.

The Dems don’t a need vigorous attack squad now, Trump is ruining his campaign with that big, fat mouth of his.

Jon’s right. I’m a righty, and as much as I don’t like it, I’m voting for Trump. If you’re a lefty and are revolted by Trump, voting for anyone besides HRC is senseless.

My vote for Hillary will actually be an anti pence vote, I've stated that.

I ve watched Hillary interviewed a couple of times recently. Where a normal person would have interjected the words , " I apologize or I'm sorry" at that point in her statement, she didn't. She couldn't. Those words are not in her vocabulary. I don't like that.

I'm a big country western music fan. Stand by your man is one of my all time favorite songs.

When Hillary stood by her man, me and most of the country thought two things:

1. Lady, you're dumber than you look.
2. Lady, you just made a deal with the devil for future money and power.

Guess she's not so dumb. However, the devil owns her soul. That's not a trait I look for in a President.

"Senseless" if I don't vote for Hillary or Donald? Well Jon and WKG, called it, I am a,"senseless moron ".
And Ruben is abandoning Gary Johnson for Hillary. Must have smoked a bunch of bad weed.

Cal, actually, I'm liking Ross's idea.

Burning our ballots in protest.

We burned our draft cards. That ended a war.

Got my med marijuana card. There's no bad weed in them stores. Only the best.

Ruben, good news about your new girlfriend, Maryjane.
But looks like it's going to be a while before tha planet is all right.
No telling when the Coyote will be back.

@Cal: Several times you have made statements to the effect “Hillary has blood on her hands”. That can be read in a couple of different ways. One would be in a Bush II way: that stupid war, caused by “Bush lie; people died” sense. Or it could mean she had people aced by hired pros. Any illumination?

Don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but the first draft card was burned in 1965 and the US military involvement in Vietnam ended in 1973.


Correlation does not prove causation.

Here on the right we have a similar situation; Trump has issues but we don't like HRC, either.

I really don't think I can check either of those boxes. Might just stay home.


In the main, women are generally less voluble, especially publicly, than men.

How 'bout THAT?

Wkg, do your own research. Make your own conclusions .

I had a conservative Republican friend visit the week of the Democratic Convention. We had a few testy exchanges but got along well for the most part. He's as a decent a human being as I know even if our minds don't always meet.

I noticed the same thing with Facebook friends who post pro-Trump memes. With the exception of one vile "friend", soon defriended, who posted a GIF that showed Hillary vomiting feces, I know them as good people who for want of better or more complete information somehow think Trump is qualified to be president. They didn't arrive at this delusion because they're racists or bigots. They got there because of their media, which sells a dream called we are right, they are wrong.

This points out the problem in a forum like this with persuasion. I know through sad experience the insanity of the effort. Most people are not persuadable on subjects like this. There's simply too much media telling them what they want to believe. For example, that Hillary Clinton is this horrible liar and that Donald Trump is an overachieving titan unlike any who ever lived. That he is, even for a developer, unusually untethered to basic ethics and ordinary conscience somehow gets lost in the reality-TV show that is his life. He's a consummate showman.

Lying, on the other hand, is a bit more nebulous sin. I take it as a given that we all lie even though most of us are so practiced at it that we're not even aware of what we're doing. I lie but the awareness is usually late arriving and only after I'm prompted to ponder something I said because of some pushback. But, more often than not, differences about the truth come down to opinions and the individual's memory. Trump, on the other hand, because he has seemingly intractable psychological and/or neurological impairments, will say brazenly false things like Ted Cruz's father being part of the JFK assassination, or that Muslims in New Jersey cheered the destruction on 9/11. Is Trump even aware that these statements are lies? If he doesn't have the requisite consciousness to feel remorse or simply say he's sorry, can it be said he's even responsible or compos mentis?

Hillary's has been the more truthful presidential candidate by a factor of nine. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/clintons-fibs-vs-trumps-huge-lies.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article Yet somehow, Donald rates as the more trustworthy candidate. Go figure. What Hillary does which offends us is appear uncomfortable when defending herself. If she were like Ronald Reagan, she would simply smile and say "there you go again!". But she's not a talented politician, so she goes straight to legalese and we despise her for agonizingly trivial things like using an e-mail server that wasn't somehow approved by the high priests of our bureaucracy.

We're talking past each other for the most part and we can't remedy this situation because of a) our individualized media menu and b) our reflexive need to defend it as truthful. It goes without saying that no one has a corner on truth. It's why we double-check one another and have multiple and protracted debates about "what matters most" to us. There's no clear path to the Truth, let alone evidence that Truth as a set of beliefs exists. We live, rather, in an age of "truthiness". As one Bush 43 administration aide once boasted, "when we act, we create our own reality". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

I think a lot about our consensus reality and why it's so fragile. We are, it seems, tribal creatures who think in terms of good guys and bad guys. Politics is fundamentally irrational for that reason. I noticed this acutely during the Bernie wildfire how young people who couldn't spell de Tocqueville were suddenly lecturing everyone on the necessity of revolution. By the same token, the Trump revolt shocked many of us because we thought the Republican Party was a top-down organization that would never allow the nomination of someone so grotesquely unsuited for high office. All of us have a fathomless capacity for self-delusion. What this election is really about is whose social reality we prefer to inhabit. I prefer kinder to cruder and smarter to dumber. It's not that I want paradise on Earth or reason triumphant. No, I'll take the small improvements where I can find them in a species stranded between the stars and mud.

@ Solari, good to hear from you again. Everyone has missed you.

@Cal re HRC “blood on hands”: Even though she’s hired thugs to harass and intimidate the women who accused Bill of sexual misdeeds there’s no evidence or even suggestion of murder. I already know more about HRC than I really care to – I’m not digging into her history any more.

Related on the Vince Foster death: “Crisis of Character” offers the best explanation I’ve read. Foster committed suicide due to the mental and emotion stress of dealing with HRC as first lady.

Many positive words could be used to describe HRC; relentless and tireless for example. “Kind” is not one of them.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz