OCinBuffalo

Ok, now that you've seen fit to clear up your contradiction, which is all I was asking of you.... I'll boil down the argument to your 2 points above, because I am pretty sure you'd agree that these are the real points of contention here. My response: 1. If it has been bought and paid for, that is only because it was first marketed and sold. You really can't conceive of "either you give to the political action committee, or, we're going to come by and check to see if all your bathrooms are up to code"? If not, educate yourself: Tammany Hall was around long before TV was, or ad buys. Government "protection" rackets, and general "give me this or I'll abuse my power as a government official"...has been around since the first emporer of China, and probably long before that. You're trying to blame corporations for this, when you have it ass backwards: corporations were INVENTED as a way to protect buisiness FROM government, and especially their lawyers. It is the government people, who first chose to begin the feathering of the nest activity. Why? For the same reason since forever: the business people make lots of money, and the government people covet it, largely because they can't make their own. So, corporations were established. Now, has the pendulum swung too far the other way? Perhaps, but please, don't waste my time telling me that the government hasn't been in the "protection" racket since forever. Today, the biggest thing the government has to sell is the tax code. Take that away, and institute a FAIR tax? Half of your problem is solved instantly. The next big thing is regulations on competitors, or, protection from regulations. There's lots of things that can be done here. I actually do some of them every day. 2. What in God's name makes you think any politician is "tempted" to sell out, rather than: joins the profession with every intention of selling out? Consider: "deals" are made all the time by politicians. "You give me my bridge, I'll vote for your legislation", etc. But it goes way beyond that. #2 is precisely why the founders of this country proscribed all-powerful central government, and specifically left unenumerated power to the states. That's why the Constitution is written in terms of what government cannot do, and must do, rather than what it can do. Your problem is that you think that somehow politicians aren't in it for $. Are you willing to sell your scripts for nothing? Everybody is "in it for the $" to some degree, the only question lies in whether they are "in it" for anything else. One thing I know: politics means power, and power ALWAYS means money. Money doesn't always necessary mean power. But power always means money. I think it's rather absurd for us to concern ourselves with trying to limit the temptations of people that are there to do it on purpose. Rather, we should just limit what they have to sell.

No, I've asked you to explain the contradiction in your argument. I don't see how the internet does anything but make the rigging of politics harder, not easier. Ask Dan Rather about the internet's influence on rigging politics. Therefore, I don't see how Citizens united is the issue for the left that it once was. Trump is a practical example of: money isn't the only way. There is no larger point. You are saying that money is the problem, yet at the same time saying that the internet et al reduces the need for for the big wigs to spend $. That is a contradiction, like it or not. You're describing a problem, and its solution, but then telling us that the solution is irrelevant, because money is still the problem. Yeah, I accurately surmised your argument, and rather than merely being simplistic, it's illogical. IF the game is rigged, that has a lot more to do with what politicians are selling, rather than what donors are buying. They easiest way to change the game is to reduce what the politicians have to sell. Reducing how much money can be spent on lobbying by the buyers is almost beside the point: it won't change the scope or scale of what the politicians are putting up for sale. Consider: a Congressperson is going to try and bring home the pork(let's say a new bridge) no matter what. So, what difference is saying "you can only spend $4k" going to make to the guy who wants the pork(to build the bridge)? All you're doing is making the cost of business cheaper for the buyer. Your mother told you it takes 2 to fight. And, as annoying as that is, because of all the nuances involved, the same is true of bribery, also because of the nuances involved. You think all the blame lies with the buyers. No way. They can only buy what the politicians are willing to sell. EDIT: And, your argument is completely bereft of the group who gains the most from all of this: the bureacracy. They gain the most, because they are put in charge of handing out what is being sold, and taking their cut, AND, they can threaten both buyers and sellers with regulations if they don't get their cut.

EDIT: Jesus, how many times are you gonna completely wipe out what you posted and post something else? Trump isn't going to have anything to do with the furtherance of Obamacare. It's a political albatross that has made the D party into the region-only party they claimed not supporting it would make the Rs. Look at the damage its done to everybody but Obama. That damage has yet to end. The same can be said for most of what Sanders proposes. Anything that looks like a loser, is a loser, and Trump's not gonna touch it. Oh, and btw, that goes double for Clinton. Obamacare dies faster under her administration than anyone's. She won't tolerate dissent, because she's the POTUS. Any D that gets in her way will be excoriated. And the Rs are gonna go along. It's Clinton triangulation all over again. She's not gonna let it hang around and cause her to lose and her presidency to fail like Obama's has. I've been saying it for years: The far left is fooling themselves with Clinton, as her 1 and only policy is "what's best for me". Now, it seems they've woken up and realized that, which is why Bernie is still around. That, and they'd rather try running a socialist candidate...than admit all their pet policies from the last 20 years have now been tried, and have utterly failed.

Awesome. I believe there was a time when liberals, especially college kids were very, very for McGovern and Mondale.

Oh come on. Lagh all you want, but tell me: Did Jeb Bush spend $3k a vote in NH? Did Donald Trump spend $31? Yes and yes. Unless you're a moron, that's not how "its supposed to go", because "whoever spends the most $ always wins". Do you really want to argue against basic math? You can F around if you want, but your entire argument is disproven by the existence of Trump. If he knew any of this, he'd be laughing.

Buddy, the only ghost here is you. You don't get to post another thing is in this thread until you speak to the 50+ times you've been either proven wrong, or asked a question, or explain where the F you get your data from. All you do us show up, drop another pile of nonsense, and then run away for 3 damn months, only to repeat the process. Like I said: you're the ghost. LABillz is fooling himself if he thinks you're gonna answer his question, with demonstrable fact, and not cooked F'ing books. And know that the facts I possess on HC are legion, I am ready to destroy your silly arguments, as I already have numerous times. Let's start with the "per capita spending" argument. What about the "illegal but condoned" side payments? What about the reality: the government pays X, but, X it is supplemented by racketeering and influence peddling by HC providers, their government partners in crime, and of course the government and labor unions? If you are Joe Blow that needs a kidney, you're gonna die. If you are the Assistant to the Minister of the Foreign Office, you get choppered in, and treated within 24 hours. But, please, tell me again how that is better, or, I'll even take "different", than our system. You can't. You can't because what goes on in socialized medicine is the exact same as here. There is no difference in terms of preferential treatment, the only thing socialized medicine does is make things cost more...because the government takes MORE $ out of the system than our private insurers do, and pays out less. They do that by cooking the F'ng books via fees and taxes that they don't include in their reports. IN FACT "government insurance" in these countries IS government insurance...meaning it is for the government, their employees, and their allies. You think a big firm like Mercedes Benz in Germany subjects its employees to the national system, and that's it? No. So, what they have is a corrupt national service whose job it to cater to the Pigs, and get around to the other animals if/when there is time and resources, operating right alongside a private system who can charge a premium to their customers because those customers have few choices. They have few choices because the government takes a big cut out of the private system insurers/providers, in return for picking them as the winners and... ...OMG....they don't count any of the private system as "per capita spending". All of this leads to absolutely ZERO motivation for anyone to control costs. That is the reality of "all other national HC systems". I have the data to prove it. Hell, I have the damn clients to prove it. How about we ask, again: If national HC programs are so successful, why does EVERY single IT job, advertised in every single country with national HC systems(certainly any of the countries on your list), state "Private Insurance" as a benefit? Why do they need to entice employees with private insurance, since they already have wonderful national plans? Why? You can't answer that either...and remain a serious person. Last question stolen from DC_Tom: what kind of engineer are you? Sanitation?

Yeah, yeah, here we go. Let's take this idiocy to a logical conculsion: by that standard, you can't support the Peace Corps unless you join it. You can't support teachers unless you are one. You can't be an envirotologist unless you quit your job and protest every day. You also can't support school meals unless you send your kids to public school. Now, let's hold every liberal to that standard. Oh, wait, you say no? You don't want to schit in a hole in Africa? You don't want to work with 30% people who don't care, 30% who are just happy to have a job, and 40% who do all the work while the other 2 groups B word? You don't want to deal with kids who show up to school with bed bugs, and, you want to make "real money"? You want to have a real job and not live in a tent or a tree? And of course, you want to send your kids to private school, especially if you live in a city. Yeah, once we hold liberals to the same standard they hold "supporters of the Iraq War"? Things get real serious, real quick for them. Thus, it's a ridiculous argument, and I've shut over 50 mouths with it in real life. They always get real pissed too, which adds to the fun. Nothing like proving you're an idiot in public. All I have to do is facilitate...they do all the heavy lifting. EDIT: gatorman doesn't count towards my tally, because he proved he was an idiot in public, ages ago.

Can you clarify how all of us having the ability to create content that can be immediately consumed by millions, with no filter(unless of course you count a couple of instances of censorship by Facebook and Google, against the right, of course)....somehow...necessitates the need to curtail political free speech $? You said it yourself: you don't need to spend $. Donald Trump has proven that, over and over. You're talking about real change? Real Change is exactly what Trump is doing to our political system. To a lesser extent Bernie Sanders is, but, the story isn't about his message and expert use of the internet. No, his story is that he outraised Hillary Clinton by ~$10 million last month. Do you really think that all $44 million came by way of $32 per person? If so, you're an umitigated moron. IF Trump can do what he has, and, the internet is the internet: then change is upon us. Whether we want to admit it or not...that's for you to think about. What you're talking about is a negation of $ being the sole means of political influence for donors, and success for candidates. What is that if not change? See? Citizens United simply cannot be as big an issue as it once was, for reasons you've already stated, and Trump has recently proven. Your argument contradicts and supports itself at the same time. Time to clean it up. Remember: the little guy with the unbeatable message, going up against the big guy with all the $...is how Lincoln got himself elected. No amount of money in the world can defeat a self-interest free, well reasoned, and well designed message. You may not like the Koch brothers. And your message that their money is bad for our system. However, your other message: "Let's put every coal miner/natural gas worker in the country out of a job" is even is worse. Far worse. So, until you get rid of your message, I'm going to stay fine with the Koch's broadcasting theirs, no matter how much $ they spend. It's really up to you: as I've said many times, business spending $ on politics is as much about protection from government as it is influencing it. You want to say they've been bribed? That's only half the story: they are also running a protection racket as well. See, it's as TTYT says: this entire discussion's only logical conclusion is: you're trying to prevent people you disagree with from availing themselves of their rights. When everybody gets done talking that's where this ends up, 100% of the time. You can tell yourself "they don't NEED to do it". But, and here's the bottom line: that's not YOUR call.

Perhaps. But, none of that changes the central argument: all of their policies, that "if only we were in charge", were tried and failed. Miserably. Now, instead of introspection, instead of thinking: "Hmm, what's a better solution to do X(and/or are we even certain X is the problem, have we defined it properly)?" They go full Bernie Sanders. The delusion/wishfulness is in effect, who knows how bad/big it gets, but, this kind of bubble always pops. This ain't North Korea, whose entire function is to keep the bubble intact. Nope, and running further to the left of Obama is political suicide. Absolute suicide. All that's happening here is a lot of people choosing "feel the Bern" over "I'm an idiot, and next time I need to learn more before I toss my full support behind a guy whose entire reason for being is "I'm Black!". That's because deep down: they all KNOW they deserve to lose this election, give the events of the last 10 years and their results. In the end, you cannot win with a delusion. Much of this is about protecting the left's precious egos...not a real political movement. The article above proves that. This means that it's unlikely we're going to see the left on election day with the same energy as the right. Lack of Energy Defined: The need to tell us that an "important" issue, is...important. Think about the psychology at work here. If your social media pals are so right, and committed, why the need for all the talk? Why the need for this article in general? Is anybody seriously writing articles reminding us that terrorism, the economy, jobs, etc. are 2016 issues? No. Their editors wouldn't allow it. A real issue doesn't need PR. Again, the entire "Don't forget about climate...cause it counts!" is hilarious. I would be willing to bet that most of the schit that you see on social media, is 10x more about "I don't want to admit I was wrong" than it is "I have a genuine concern for the human race".

I understand it's an election year, and it easy for the thing you care about to get crowded out. However, the irony here is just too funny to let pass by. There's a hole in your bucket, dear Liza, a hole. IF the climate counts....why do you need to tell us so? If this is fact: Then how do you explain this, in your own article , Liza? Which contradicts the above completely. You aren't "dominant" or a "trend" if you are at the bottom of the list/don't even make the list now on most issue polls. Cohen is a moron. All he is doing is finding a way to use the word "demographics" in a sentence, which is a dog whistle for the rest of the affected/deluded left. Dog whistle hell, it's a "comfort word". That's what all of this is. You've heard of comfort food. The left needs comfort words now, hence this article. So, how the F does it "count"? It does not. Not this year. Probably never again. Citing a few 1 day news stories doesn't make climate into a major general election issue, and it's ridiculous when you've already conceeded that it's at the bottom of the list. The only place climate counts? In the leftist's deluded own wishful thinking world. It's the same, and only, place whre Obama is competent, and a good leader(despite the mountain of empirical evidence to the contrary). It's where the leftist foreign policy, that we "had" to get in place since 2006, of "smart diplomacy" and "engagement"...isn't seen as being a F'ing candy ass by the rest of the world, and isn't therefore an abysmal failure. Yeah, "End the Iraq War!" Fine slogan. I have one too "You get weak? You get ISIS!". This is not a climate change thread as much as it is about direct evidence of the delusions leftists labor under on a daily basis. I'm telling you all: they know deep down that every single idea they have preached since before 2006 has now failed in practice. So, they are going to their happy place. A place where Bernie Sander's promises can actually be kept. Why else do you think Sanders is still alive? Mass delusion. Mass defense mechanism. The left aren't serious people anymore. No one should fear them, and their brains/arguments are merely tissue paper.

The simple fact that GreggyT exists...increases the probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists...geometrically. Um, gee, OC, I believe that this same equation can be used to explain why Trump not only isn't dead, but is leading in the polls. Um, yes, OC, you are of course right, but...not in a way anyone can understand at 3 in the morning.

Now, I hate every word of the OP...but...doesn't this thread exemplify the proles thinking for themselves? If so, is this the best we can expect? Ok, so, Exilied pulls the lever for Hillary, in Cook County. Um, what exactly changes that reality from 6 months ago...until Nov? If so, shouldn't I shoot myself in the head, right now, for supporting Trump? No. The simple reason is the simpleton: Exiled in Illinois would have us believe that Asian Carp is a larger issue than ISIS. Or...given Bernie's continued existence...that Global Warming remains a significant party platform issue...that Hillary...is somehow going to make into something.....oh for Christ's sake! Doesn't every unmitigated moron here understand the simple politics involved? No, you don't. I will spell it out, AGAIN, as I have been doing since 2014. IF Mrs. Clinton gets elected, then, 2 things will be true, whether anyone likes it or not: 1. Obamacare dies that day...the Rs have been using Obamacare to win elections since 2009. Look at the states! Why is Ted Cruz still alive? Hillary is older than my godmother, when both die, there is NO D replacements! Both women would never suffer an albatross like Obamacare to linger around their necks longer than 5 minutes, because both women are accomplished and not stupid. Keeping Obamacare == The Minnesota Wild/LA Kings...who took all our ****ty deals to "win now". The D party has no future. They've traded away all their draft picks. They are the literal equivalent of the Redskins. But please, say demographics again...I need a good laugh. Hillary knows this, and she's not about to be the kid without a chair when the music stops. She will decimate Obama's "legacy", if for no other reason than to give the D party a fighting chance of becoming a national party again. 2. The end of Global Warming, the political trap/gain/fund raising/major policy issue...and welcome to the "requires more study" purgatory that the rest of the "science"-based socialist conspiracies now dwell. Anybody remember the "Population Bomb"? No. None of you do. For good reason. However, imagine a book like that being required reading in your "Western Civ" class. And we wonder why we have massive/scaled/ college stupidity. Look: college stupidity has been around since the University of Bologna. That's right, the first university ever created...is called Bologna. For the uneducated, for those who never attended a class whose professor had a sense of humor, Christ, for the soul of this board itself: I present to you the literal fact that the first "college", of all time, was named Bologna. Go to Tops/Wegmans(I have 0 interest in this debate as it belongs to spoiled NYers who have no idea how bad grocery stores really are in the rest of the world)...find some Bologna. Now, I fully realize that this entire post was an excuse to laugh at the first University ever created...at Bologna. But, WTF? We can't all be GG all the time, can we? The Establishment is guilty of many sins...but not all of them are without cause...as this OP demonstrates.

Yeah...and it's not like my opinion of their their article, when they posted it, wasn't pervasive. So, after hysterical hit-piece didn't work, NOW they move on to Cruz. Lead story? Try Plan B. Or, perhaps we are at Plan M by now? So, what are you saying, Mr. Timestamp(speaking of research, I suggest you begin there)? I need to invent a time machine and jump ahead to figure out what Plan M will entail...24 hours from now? Or, that I should bug their conference room, so I can know about their next big plan...of the day...before they post it? Like it or not, that's what your silly argument demands, for it to be valid. So...yeah. The question: "How Weekly Standard cam be stopped?" Remains, unscathed. The facts are...still: 1. They lost, and remain butthurt 2. They have lost about half their standing, and are seeing losing the other half...but that is only what they are seeing, it's not what is really there. Does Donald Trump really mean an end to the conservative movement? Did Barry Goldwater? How about Ronald Reagan? See, this is what happens when principles are confused with values. Some, not all, of WS's values were held up to scrutiny by voters, and have failed. Rubio stated it. That's it. This is something Obama does not get either. He is princple/value confuser-in-chief. 3. Standing refers to the DC zero sum, machine culture, in which there are fixed pieces, and only so many are allowed. Every little piece aspires to be a big piece, but that only happens if a big piece is torn out by force, and little piece hopes to jump into the hole. Trouble arises because often little piece isn't designed to fill the hole. So, we need workarounds...which is how government "creates jobs". People, and often consultants, are hired to make up for a piece's design faults. And, there are only so many "member" pieces to the machine: nobody else is allowed to be in the club. If the machine grows, it's not because pieces are added, it's because each piece gets bigger. Some a lot, some a little. The little support people aren't pieces. They are "budget". And when you cut the "budget", you "shut down the government". That is the contract between the pieces and the little people. #3 is precisely what has been going on since Reagan left office. Now we have this massive machine, with huge parts, and egos to match. Don't be confused: the Weekly Standard is as much part of the machine as the EPA. Sure Obama promised to review each and every piece of the machine. But, Obama was never a real threat to the machine. "Transformative" meant "get bigger", which is why the machine welcomed him. Ted Cruz is no friend of the machine. Based on the WS's supposed values: Ted Cruz is the PERFECT candidate. So...why haven't they been on board from day 1? Why the need to beseech others to join Ted Cruz now, when all they are really asking for is to follow a true R? Because the machine realizes that there's a glimmer of hope with Cruz: they know the IRS is doomed, but that doesn't mean the entire machine is doomed. The only fact that really matters: 4. Trump will destroy the entire machine, period. Then he will build a different one. OH, we'll still have an FBI, an Army, a Navy, etc. But as for all the rest? It's in the air. Do you really think the people at HHS, or specifically CMS, see any job security whatsoever, in President Trump? Have you seen, in one of my many pontifications, my links CMS's "work product"? You should know this: very few people are truly surprised when they get fired. Thus, the machine is fighting for its life. I don't blame them. It's a lot to lose. However, I do despise them, because they never should have had any of it in the first place. They "didn't build that": They stole the raw materials to create the machine from all of us.

Now that would be a great story.

Given today, the OP of this thread is now: hilarious. In what way, any way, any way at all, can this now be considered a "nice move"? When Amnesty International is calling this a failure, and shows up with documented, significant increases in arrests, beatings and detentions? No. There is no way this is a nice move. Like most things leftist, this is a stupid move, made by those who are willing to put their own emtional self-gratification ahead of the bodies and lives of Cuban dissidents. Group masturbation is not an acceptable approach to foreign policy.

The Orewllian irony of your last few posts is delectable. I love it. Keep it coming. While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why Hillary thought it would be a good idea to say she's going to "put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" ...in OHIO! Yeah, it's not like you need to win Ohio to win the general election or anything. And the funniest part? Vox.com, Ezra Klien's liberal "explanier of things, for people"(otherwise known as place for leftist clowns to collect their "thinking"...if only collecting government benefits was this easy!) website kicks into gear, and tells us: Clinton has a $30 billion plan to help coal miners, but it got buried by a silly “gaffe" ...yes Ezra, this is a fine example of "explaining" things. Photoshopped pics of Romney? That outlines just how reasonable and insightful, you are, and shows that your argument is all essence and no ceremony. Ezra and you have everything in common, don't you?

But, she's one of the bad guys...which...is why cash will flow from everywhere to keep her out of the WH. I don't think there's been a better fundraising pitch than No Hillary in decades. The anti-Trump movement is dwarfed by comparison. Nobody wanted to stop Obama back in the day, because nobody knew him, and nobody wanted to be called a racist. Now? Everybody knows Hillary, and nobody cares if they get called a sexist. Not after 8 years of crying "-ist" wolf.

No, I'm saying what I said: This is what Butthurt looks like. They have a conservative candidate in Cruz, and he's dedicated to the conservative cause as much as anyone in the USA. So, what's their problem? 1 thing, and 1 thing only: they didn't get their moderate, electable, election-losing Romney clone, and they are butthurt, period.

Curently, I bathe in water you would pay $5 a bottle to drink. I'm in the Southern Tier right now. There is tons of water here, and all of it is the best. I'm gonna flush my toilet 5 times...because I can, and you can't. Enjoy! Every time you keep it mellow becuase it's yellow? I am laughing, because I could bottle the water out of my toliet and sell it to you. Hey, I'm housed on private land with its own well. And consider: none of that would be "Known to the State of California"...so...you're F'ed. I never miss a giggle when I see "Known to the State of California". It's like your crazy uncle...he is known to your family as incapable of coherence....but the rest of us? Do not care. Not our problem. My toilet water is unknown to the State of California, but, if I had an "earth friendly"/ "send me your used milk gallons and I will fill them up with the finest artesian water in the land" campaign? You'd be drinking my toilet water, with no chance of ever knowing.

First: http://www.weeklystandard.com/how-trump-can-be-stopped/article/2001595 I mean, they aren't even trying anymore. For the leftists here? This is what YOU look/sound like, when I say you are Butthurt. I mean, be happy! This is one of the very few times in the last 10 years that you aren't the butthurt people/total failure in the story. You aren't on the winning side, but, at least this time you don't have to defend yet another round of idiocy. You can sit quietly, or talk amongst yourselves. How many more articles are we going to read from these clowns, none of which is any different from the articles they ran 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 month ago? Put the shovel down. And it's not just these clowns. Please understand: 10s of Ks of people in DC derive their living from having "ACCESS" to the POTUS, or this advisor or that one. Trump wins, and many of these people are out of a job. It's really as simple as that. It's self-interest/self-preservation. It has to be fun for the left to see the phonies on the right squirm, for once, doesn't it?

See the actual funny part here is that you don't see it, do you? Of the 2 options I offered Greggy, the second one is far and away worse for Hillary, and better for Trump. How can this be? A Federal indictment not being as bad? Simple. A Federal Indictment doesn't mean a conviction. Indictments are easy. Convictions are not. Indictment can be resolved with a plea agreement and a slap on the wrist. It's bad, but it has an expiration date, and once it's over, it's over. The Clintons are the best at "moving on" and being the "comeback kid". No, no, option 2 is far and away the worst thing for Clinton, because it's what everybody, including you: expects. Your expectation that Clinton will get away with it is far more damaging in this political environment. Why? Because it embodies the root of Trump's support: a different set of laws for Hillary. In this age of political cynicism, what is worse that confirmation that the cynicism is well founded, with Hillary's picture on its box? Everybody loves to say the word "brand". How does Option 2 not make Hillary the national spokes..person for the DC Corruption and Cronyism Brand? The worst part is that the Democrats already have their scripts for when she gets over. They are ready to marginalize the outrage on the right, by doing what they always do: calling them conspiracy nuts, phony scandals, etc. So, their expectations are set as well. That's the Hillaryarious part. All this expectation setting, including yours, will only serve 1 master: Donald Trump. I guarantee that his plan for this will sting asses throughout the country every day. He won't do the typical R win the news cycle today tirade, and then go home. He never does. No. IF option 2 occurs, it has no expiration date. Now I know what you're going to say: apathy. Expectation setting leads to apathy. You got what you expected so who cares? Wrong. Unlike the "gentlemen conservatives", unlike Romney, Trump will jab with it every day, not foolishly try to throw it as an upper cut on one day, and think their 1 day tirade is effective, but also shows class, as Rs have in the past. Option 2 means a strong, quick left jab to Hillary's face every single day for months on end. Any boxer will tell you that constantly landing jabs, like the email server, so you can set up body shots, like Benghazi, setting up the knockout left hook or upper cut, like our entire foreign policy under Hillary, and her participation in a failed 8 years of domestic policy, especially trade, is how you win. Bill O'Reilly said something interesting yesterday "Many Republicans don't just want to win, they want to punish the left". Hillary getting off, like you expect, is far and away worse for her. The jabs will never cease. If there's one thing Trump has shown, he knows how to land the same jab day in and day out. Donald Trump is the consummate punisher.

You know what else has been in place for almost 100 years? Keynesian Economics. I have already lost my mind, ages ago, because all I ever hear from the left is "consumer spending". Do you realize that Keynes said, himself, that "In the long run we are all dead"? Do you understand what that means? No. You don't. It means: "Hey, it's the 1940s and who cares about what happens in the 1970s"? Not our problem. Let's spend like children, create government jobs, compete with private industry, and that will pump up "CONSUMER SPENDING" Do you realize that we are now living that long run? He is dead, we are alive, and we had to clean up his mess, that LBJ/Nixon/Ford/Carter fully bought into, because "well, this Keynesian Harvard professor says we can't run the modern economy without wage and price controls. He also said we need to tax the rich at 70-90%". This in turn created stagflation. Double digits of both. Hello 1978. Do you know what cleaned up that mess? Supply side economics. Ronald Reagan. The Laffer Curve. Do you understand that BOTH Keynesian AND Supply Side are short term solutions to fix immediate problems, and not approaches to be adhered to throughout the ages? No. You don't. Which is why we never hear the end of "we need to pump up Consumer F'ing Spending"...which created/creates the entire mess in the first place. How much consumer spending did The Scamulus create? How come all of Obama's Keynesian economic advisors have since returned to the colleges with their tails between their legs? When are we going to be done with pretending that Keynesian Economic multipliers are long term solutions? They are tenous things that MUST be highly targeted and limited to short term actions....otherwise you destroy more than you create, and, you start picking winners and losers, which in turn destroys: CONSUMER CONFIDENCE. How likely am I to buy a car if I know the administration may put them out of business, and make my new car illegal, due to, I don't know, something stupid like: Carbon Emission regulations? How likely am I to buy a house if I know that your idiotic fiscal and/or monetary policy...to get more Consumer Spending...is going to put my mortgage underwarter due to inflation? I won't because I have no cofidence in making those life-altering purchases. Consumer confidence, not spending is the answer. IF consumer's have confidence, they will spend. Growth and consumer confidence, not spending, are the ONLY long term economic factors/goals worthy of consideration. Everything else is F'ing about pretending that economics == physics. But once again, you've demonstrated that you don't even know what you don't know. And, like most of the rest of the unmitigated morons on the left, Consumer Spending has become an autonomic response that you parrot, because you literally don't have anything else to contribute.

If we moved our architecture into the election industry, this guy would get nowhere. It's as simple as that. This guy and his 100 lines of code are a joke to us. We've been talking about election machines as a new industry to pursue, but thus far it seems like more trouble than its worth. Which...is probably how this all came to pass. Why would we, or anybody good, want to deal with schitty clients who won't pay for quality? We even considered doing it for free as a PR move. But then, there's still the schitty client aspect, that will never go away. The PR will wear off, but the schitty stays. We're not IBM, and therefore don't have millions to waste on failed PR asshattery: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/03/14/469207779/turmoil-behind-the-scenes-at-a-nationally-lauded-high-school Actually thinking about starting a thread on this one. Yes, and despite all that? Dan Rather was taken down by the Internet in 15 F'ing minutes from the time he broke the George Bush National Guard Lie. Or, Breitbart.com exists, warts and all. So does Huffington post, sheer assclowns and all. How's Nate Silver doing these days after missing Michigan by 20 points? Yet, he exists, and one big FAIL doesn't mean he doesn't offer solid content. So does Real Clear Politics. I get more from RCP than any other source, largely because all of their in-house articles are fact and data-based. Their election data analysis is second to none. So, remind me how this great media consolidation affects me, when I watch one TV news program(Special Report w/ Bret Baier) maybe 3 times a week. Beyond Brett, Charles Krauthammer is a flat out pisser. He's hilarious, because he's truthful. He's the white, parapeligic version of Chris Rock. Somehow I don't feel a message being forced upon me. And, if it is, isn't it my own damn fault for being too lazy to learn/check things out for myself? I have no sympathy for people who have stopped learning. None at all. Especially not when the greatest education tool ever devised costs you $20/month, you can even get it as part of a cell phone plan, and half the damn public spaces in the country offer it for free.

Something my grandmother used to wear perhaps? Or is it grandfather? Did you know that at one point back in I don't care, men used to stuff mail into their pockets so it would look like they got lots of letters from women? I saw a video once of a dance, and all these clowns with huge bulges of mail in their suit coat pockets, swing dancing. I suppose that evolved into stuffing toilet paper into your pants, or is it niqqers? I imagine the choice to move to toilet paper came from one too many pieces of mail slicing and dicing in painful areas. I mean, a paper cut to the grundel(otherwise know as The New Jersey) has got to be something we can do that is worse than waterboarding, right? All I can say is that every time I ever got schit from an old fart about my clothes, I'd bring up the mail story, and it always worked.

Me too. And I know I tend to get hyped up at election time, but, I ask you: WTF was Hillary doing with a private email server in the first damn place, if not to deceive us, or obfuscate her record as SoS so that she could run for POTUS without scrutiny? There is only one reason in this world that anyone has 2 sets of books, and that is to decieve. She didn't set up that server by accident. No staffer did it off the reservation. She was specifically briefed that she wasn't to do it...but she did it anyway. That disqualifies her. This isn't a speeding ticket, or a fixed DUI. This is premeditated, felony intent to break the law. Your Hillary supporter friends are going to have a rude awakening, not only about the consequences for her actions, but when they find out that shouting "the Republicans did it" falls on deaf ears. They are in denial about this. Or, they know exactly how bad it is, and are choosing to party in the bunker(and I don't blame them for that. When you know you're screwed, no point in being miserable, and besides, despair is a sin). Either way. The arty is zeroed in, and there's plenty of ammo. All that is left is the command to fire.