kurtster wrote: 
Imagine that the most obnoxious, arrogant and incompetent fool has become your boss, landlord/mortgage manager, the mayor and the head of police in your town. He has no experience in any of those positions. His promises of the things he's going to do while in those positions show that he doesn't understand the law/Constitution or the consequences of fulfilling those promises. 

He's alienated a lot of people who'd normally be his allies. He has promised to persecute people based on their ethnic background and religion. He has all the hallmarks of an emotionally disturbed narcissist. He angers very easily, lies all the time and is a sexual predator. He's repeatedly ripped people off in business. 

And oh yes: the pile of crap that fell on you in that scenario has now fallen on everyone in the country.

I keep posting the link to this Vox story on these pages but let's do it again. Here are the details of the sh—tstorm headed your way:
 
 
 Donald Trump’s presidency is going to be a disaster for the white working class 

 kurtster wrote: 
This happened.

And this happened.

And then this happened.

Cry? I'm weeping, white boy. Not about him, but what he's unleashed.

WTF  has happened to this country, indeed. 

 kurtster wrote: 
This only goes back to about 2011 but it gives you some idea that maybe you just weren't looking in the right place.

I have never seen so many cry babies, never.  

WTF has happened to this country ?

 bokey wrote: 
No, bokey. But I do have to wonder whether Bret Baier's "mistake" falls within the scope of Paul Waldman's op-ed about Republicans trying to win at all costs, including the erosion of our institutions of democracy. I'd include a free, fair and impartial news media as one of those institutions. I didn't have much faith in Fox News, but this "mistake" removed the last of it. 

I also wonder how Baier's story got to air, given that he relied on one anonymous source within the FBI. That's pathetic journalistic standards. CBS did something similar back in 2004, but the network publicly investigated how it let a false story get to air and fired people. Fox...not so much.  

Here's Waldman's op-ed again. Judge for yourself whether he has a point or not. Have a great weekend.
.
 
Republicans are now vowing Total War. And the consequences could be immense.

 kcar wrote: 
You are blaming Trump?

 kcar wrote: 
..if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. —Jonathan Swift

 haresfur wrote: 
That would be really annoying for everyone in the universe. 

I'm not sure this falls into the pattern of Republicans damaging our institutions that Waldman claims but it sure has me saying "WTF." Bret Baier should be looking for another job. Dan Rather got canned for less.

 
Fox News apologizes for falsely reporting that Clinton faces indictment  

Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized Friday for reporting that federal investigators had determined that Hillary Clinton’s private email server had been hacked and that an investigation would lead to an indictment of Clinton after the election.

In fact, Baier said, after checking with his sources, there is no evidence at this time for either statement.

...

Baier said he relied on a single anonymous source within the FBI for his report about an alleged hack of the server: “I was quoting from one source about his certainty that the server had been hacked by five foreign intelligence agencies. . . . As of today there still are no digital fingerprints of a breach, no matter what the working assumption is within the bureau.”

 

oh kcar <> Kaw.

I thought you were arguing with yourself 

 Kaw wrote: 
Paul Waldman's piece doesn't claim that the FBI is "a tool used by the republicans" or that "republicans are now just a tool for Putin and other foreign powers."

Waldman does claim that the GOP is willing to damage our institutions of fair, impartial and independent courts and law enforcement agencies. "And now, Republicans are not even pretending that those institutions should be impartial and transcend partisanship. They’re saying, if we can use them to destroy our opponents, we will. Something is seriously breaking down."

Here is the takeaway from his op-ed: 

"You may not like what Democrats stand for, but they aren’t engaging in widespread official vote suppression, chanting that should their candidate win her opponent should be tossed in jail, promising to prevent any Republican president from filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, suggesting that they’ll try to impeach their opponent as soon as he takes office, cheering when a hostile foreign power hacks into American electronic systems, and trying to use the FBI to win the election."


Let's move on to your comments about the GOP, the FBI and Russia. 

Here's the link to the op-ed again: 

Republicans are now vowing Total War. And the consequences could be immense. 


The piece does refer to reports in the Wall Street Journal (here and here) and the Daily Beast (here ) that there are FBI agents who feel so strongly that HRC should be charged with crimes that they were leaking information to the press about the Bureau's investigations. Rudy Giuliani is quoted in the Daily Beast piece claiming that "there’s a kind of revolution going on inside the FBI about the original conclusion being completely unjustified and almost a slap in the face to the FBI’s integrity". He claims he knows this based on information from former and active FBI agents. The Washington Post and the New York Times have reported that Comey released his vague letter of last Friday in order to counter the flow of leaked information from FBI agents who are trying to undermine Clinton's candidacy. 

The WSJ articles and Waldman contend that the FBI agents were basing their investigation on the book "Clinton Cash"—written by the head of a foundation that Steve Bannon (the CEO of Trump's campaign) founded and still chairs. The Department of Justice reviewed evidence presented to them by the FBI about the possible criminal activity by HRC and the Clinton Foundation and found it "worthless hearsay" (the first WSJ link). 

As for the GOP and Russia, Waldman does not claim that Republicans are a tool of Putin. This is what he says: 

"Republicans continue to cheer the fact that the electronic systems of American political groups were illegally hacked, and then private communications were selectively released in order to do damage to one side in this election. The Republican nominee has explicitly asked a hostile foreign power to hack into his opponent’s electronic systems." 

I think it takes a lot of desperation to talk about the FBI as a tool used by the republicans. Also implicating that republicans are now just a tool for Putin and other foreign powers is just silly. If you are talking about destroying fundamental pillars of democracy... Don't do it yourself for a start.
The lack of realism is painful on both sides.

An excerpt from a Washington Post op-ed. A very disturbing left-wing take on the current state of national politics in the US. Emphasis below is mine: 

Republicans are now vowing Total War. And the consequences could be immense.

...

Republicans, led by Donald Trump but by no means limited to him, are engaging in kind of termite-level assault on American democracy, one that looks on the surface as though it’s just aimed at Hillary Clinton, but in fact is undermining our entire system.

...

But as he has in so many ways, Donald Trump takes every ugly impulse Republicans have and turns it up to 11, and just about the entire party follows him down. So now they are making it very clear that from literally the day Hillary Clinton is inaugurated, they will wage total war on her. There will be no rule or norm or standard of decency they won’t flout if it gets them a step closer to destroying her, no matter what the collateral damage.

It’s important to understand that strong institutions are what separate strong democracies from weak ones. In a strong democracy, one party can’t come into power and just lock up its opponents. It can’t turn the country’s law enforcement agencies into a partisan tool to destroy the other party. It can’t say that the courts will function only at its pleasure. We have the world’s most stable system not just because there aren’t tanks in the streets on election day, but because we have institutions that are strong enough to restrain the venality of individual men and women. And now, Republicans are not even pretending that those institutions should be impartial and transcend partisanship. They’re saying, if we can use them to destroy our opponents, we will. Something is seriously breaking down.

<Here’s how you destroy a democratic republic>

And please, spare me any explanations for this phenomenon that rely on how “divided” Americans are. Are we divided? Sure. But there’s only one party that is so vigorously undermining core democratic institutions in this way. You may not like what Democrats stand for, but they aren’t engaging in widespread official vote suppression, chanting that should their candidate win her opponent should be tossed in jail, promising to prevent any Republican president from filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, suggesting that they’ll try to impeach their opponent as soon as he takes office, cheering when a hostile foreign power hacks into American electronic systems, and trying to use the FBI to win the election.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Hilarious!! ( I am still emoji-free)

Gollum J. Trump on Twitter

 Lazy8 wrote: 
  "...un-vaccinate the kids."

 kurtster wrote:
Let's put this another way: let's find someone you wouldn't trust to lead a scout troop and give that person nuclear weapons.

Tangent: the wife and I were discussing which of the candidates we'd hire as a babysitter.

Trump? No f#cking way. Nope nope nope nope.

Jill Stein? Well, she is technically a doctor,  and probably wouldn't be able to do much damage while we were gone. She might insist that we turn off the wifi while she was there but it's not like she can un-vaccinate the kids.

Johnson? Sure, bet he tells great bedtime stories but NO EDIBLES ALLOWED.

Clinton? Probably learned something as a mom, but Bill is NOT allowed to come over.

 black321 wrote: 
I will come back to this, but let me say quickly that the way most people think of it is how your post frames it — whether a judge is conservative or liberal in terms of political orientation/persuasion.  That is the wrong approach.  That consideration should be irrelevant.  A judicial philosophy should not be grounded in a judge's political beliefs or leanings; certainly judicial determinations should not be.         

 kurtster wrote: 
I do appreciate the responses, but ...

To those who chose to respond to this, let it be known that I only wrote it as a rebuttal to this post earlier in the Clinton thread.

 Red_Dragon wrote:  

I do not think that it can be broken down that simply as our friend does nor should it.  I know that Trump is an asswipe on many levels, but we are electing a POTUS, not a boy / girl scout troop leader.  

I leave with these rhetorical questions ... what does Trump have to gain by becoming POTUS ?   A.  Nothing, he already has everything.

What does Hillary have to gain by being elected POTUS ?   A.  Everything.  Remember how she said they were flat broke when they left the White House ?  

My vote is for the person who has the least to gain by winning.  That person has a better chance of doing the right thing, for all of us.