No Men Need Apply: Democrats’ Pledges To Bar Male Running Mates Raise Discrimination Concerns

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the expanding number of Democratic presidential candidates pledging to choose a woman as a running mate. What is striking is how these pledges have not even warranted a question in coverage over the propriety of such pledges since they would bar any males regardless of their qualifications to lead the nation. It raises an interesting conflict between the political and legal realms in stating such threshold conditions. What would be strictly forbidden for any business or agency or school is permissible in politics.

Here is the column:

The pool of Democratic presidential candidates for 2020 is not just the largest in political history but also the most diverse. The impressive array of women and minorities follows the first female Democratic presidential nominee in 2016. That followed two successful nominations and election of an African American as president. That is something in which every citizen can take pride, and it should inspire even greater efforts to draw more women and minorities into politics. However, this campaign season has seen how calls for diversity can easily become calls for discrimination.

Four presidential candidates have indicated they will only consider women for vice president, while other leaders have proclaimed that women govern differently than men. What is most striking about such pledges is that they would result in a federal prosecution if the candidates were running even a small business or agency. Instead, they seek to run the country based on a pledge not to consider men regardless of their qualifications. It presents an interesting conflict between our legal and political values in the use of race and gender as a criteria for selection.

Representative Eric Swalwell of California recently made his pledge after declaring, “Spoiler alert: I’m a white man.” He asked voters to look beyond his race and gender but assured them that he would only consider a woman as his running mate. It was a curious pitch in which he insisted he does not think the identity of a person should “hold them back” yet he also pledged to deny other men the chance to be his vice president.

Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey also promised not to consider any man to be his running mate. To rapturous applause, Booker declared, “I will have a woman running mate. To me it is really clear that we do that.” Such clarity has come from a variety of liberal figures now emboldened by rising rhetoric that dismisses white male candidates.

On daytime talk show “The View,” host Joy Reid confronted Swalwell with a question that, if reversed, would be denounced as blatant racism and sexism. She asked, “Why does the field need yet another, to be blunt, another white guy?” The premise of her question is that candidates are defined to a major degree by their gender. The “white guys” are portrayed as largely redundant or possessing the same defining element for Reid. That view is being repeated like a mantra during this campaign season.

Hillary Clinton told a thrilled audience that women govern differently due to their gender and pointed to New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who, after a mass shooting, “showed the heart not only of a leader but of a mother.” Others have made the same statements that they would not only refuse to vote for a man but that women are better leaders. One activist claimed that women are superior to men as leaders for such reasons as they “know how to spend and save money even when money is scarce.”

It seems the reference to gender is only worthy of condemnation when made by or about men, unless it is a negative statement about the flaws of male leaders. Consider a hypothetical situation in which a male politician is asked whether he thinks men govern differently and he said, “Of course. Men are fathers and look at problems differently. They must be strong and leaders.” He would be torn apart and accused of “dog whistling” other sexists in suggesting that women do not have those significant attributes. Women struggled for decades with men who claimed that gender was a determinative criteria and that women did not have the natural talents for leadership. It was a scurrilous lie perpetuated by deep seated prejudice.

Now, some are bringing this criteria back into our politics in reverse. The pledge to not consider any man, regardless of his qualification, shows how disconnected our politics have become from our principles. If Booker or Swalwell were heading a school or business, they would be defendants in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission action based on such a discriminatory pledge. In Baltimore, a school was sued and a settlement reached after school officials told the head softball coach that they would not renew his contract because of a “preference for female leadership.” The school officials had apparently believed women coached differently.

In California, a restaurant was sued and a settlement reached over its alleged preference for female servers. Stuart Ishimaru, who at the time was acting chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, declared, “This case should remind corporate America that employment decisions must be based on merit and ability to do the job, not on gender stereotypes.” The fact is pledges to not consider men are perfectly legal in choosing who will serve as your president or vice president, but such pledges are illegal in choosing who will coach a team or serve a table.

Some will argue that presidents have picked running mates based on their geographical or political appeal for generations. But race and gender are immutable characteristics, and for that reason, they are given the highest level of scrutiny in constitutional law. We have spent decades prosecuting and suing those who applied the same bias in sports, business, education, and indeed government. In other words, these candidates would head a government that would prosecute and sue those who expressed such a preference, let alone an exclusionary policy, based on race or gender.

Many in the media have praised Representative Al Green of Texas for a question he asked seven chief executives testifying before his committee. He asked, “If you believe that your likely successor will be a woman or a person of color, would you kindly extend a hand into the air?” Not one raised his hand and the media erupted with condemnation, despite the fact that federal law bars executives from seeking replacements from a particular race or gender. If a company is following federal law, it is not supposed to have a predetermined expectation on such hiring issues. Its leaders are supposed to give the job to the most qualified candidate.

Most of us celebrate the diversity this campaign season and support the efforts to encourage more women and minorities to seek positions of leadership. But identity politics can easily turn into identity prejudice when gender is being cited as an innate qualification or a threshold exclusion. If we truly want a president and vice president to reflect our nation, let us start with our shared values. The litmus test is leadership.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

264 thoughts on “No Men Need Apply: Democrats’ Pledges To Bar Male Running Mates Raise Discrimination Concerns”

  1. new field of ecological study – machine behavior

    yeah, professors put their thinking caps on a day late, hopefully not too late.
    i hope they make some fast and timely insights.

    i’m afraid they are slow on the uptake. the academic study is so far behind corporate R&D of Ai this amost reads like a not-funny joke

  2. I’m trying to think of a reason why Democrats, who will vote in primaries, should care about Andrew Yang, the wise man who has brought us the issue of AI and its coming impact on job dislocation.

    Of course the automation and AI debate relates to the AGI debate, that is to say, potentially devastating consequences of rogue high human level artificial machine intelligence

    I found something that should make the perpetually money worried Democrats wake up.

    Whomever gets to AGI first will be fantastically wealthy beyond imagination in a very short time. At a minimum, all apocalyptic worries besides, the very fast gap between who controls AGI and everybody else, will be an opening chasm widening by the hour. There will be an immense and previously heretofore unseen social disparity that will make everything we complain about now look trivial. Worriers over “social inequalities” should not be ignoring this subject

  3. Reposting a link that is buried in the thread:

    What does diversity mean?

    Does it mean superficial attributes? Is a group of brown eyed, blue eyed, and green eyed people diverse? What about blondes and brunettes? What about skin color?

    Is a group of different colored people diverse if they all think the same?

    True diversity means different opinions, skills, and manner of thinking. If you are designing a think tank to attack a problem, for example, you want to include people with very different skill sets, that will all contribute something different, but be able to work smoothly together, incorporating each piece into a coherent line of reasoning and conclusion. Someone’s gender, ethnic background, or eye color would be laughably immaterial to their contribution to the project.

    Democrats do not understand what diversity means. That is why they threaten violence against other viewpoints. They cannot tolerate diversity of thought or opinion. They will hurt you if you deviate, in any way they can. This is no longer an extremist viewpoint. You would expect a few crazies in any party. Rather, it is now mainstream to alienate or disown friends and family who are Republicans. Mainstream to attack someone for wearing a MAGA hat, or for anyone who disagrees with illegal immigration. It is mainstream to claim that if you oppose late term abortion, you hate women.

    It is groupthink, mob mentality, and the justification of unethical behavior.

    The Democrat Party does not value real diversity, at all.

    1. Karen, you belong to a lily white party and no amount of BS changes that. Wake up.

        1. 1. Karen’s not a Republican?
          2. It wouldn’t and doesn’t matter to Karen or absurd that she might belong to a lily white party, but as the constant complainer about indecent racists and anti-semitic Democrats – many of whom, including much of the party leadership, are Jews or blacks – she should STF up about which party might be racist.

          Talk about “intellectual and moral decay”.

          1. For my part, having been accused of being a honky when i was little and a racist pretty much ever since, and a lifelong Repubican I am not going to whine too much about the fine gentlemen from West Virginia Robert Byrd who was a klucker nor the anti-Israeli comments that Ihlan Omar trots out every day. But they are/ we certainly Democrats. Well, politics does make strange bedfellows!

            They say Democrat then Republican segregationist Strom thurmond had a black daughter with whom he had a good relationship. Here, read about this


            Are we not all flawed and complicated persons, worthy of at least some compassion?

          Cindy B.,
          There is a debate about the race of not only Jesus, but of his Dad as well.
          I can only find the audio of this high-level theological debate on this issue, but I’ve provided a link to that audio.

          1. Tom LOL I actually remember watching that episode!
            What Mr. Jefferson and his black hebrew friends fail to recognize is that some Ethiopians are/were semites, and semites are Caucasoid. But that comic bit is hilarious! Thanks Tom

    2. Karen….exactly exactly exactly! Liberals love blacks, except conservative blacks, love women, except conservative women, ditto for indians, dwarfs, mexicans, chinese, handicapped……unless they’re conservative

  4. If Bernie is nominated he will want a woman from Ver Mont on the ticket with him. That way the Green folks can look up at the mountain and seek the peak. And the rest of us can take a leak.

  5. Dems Be careful what you wish for.

    Ralph Kramden rules with an iron hand & is king of the castle

  6. Possible they get around it by choosing a transgender woman – the ultimate slap in the face to progressive, men-hating women everywhere!

  7. Many smart leftists are rallying behind Tulsi. Give her a look.

    Listen to Jimmy Dore. He is kind of funny. I am not a progressive but I like his show

  8. It’s a mortal lock that the Dems won’t nominate her, but this is the kind of candidate I would seriously consider voting for as POTUS even though I am a Republican.

    Here some progressive type guy makes some obvious comments about this Tucker interview which are basically correct.

    Tulsi is also so gorgeous. Her eyes are lovely and remind you of the smoke from a luau at dusk on the beach in Hawaii. Her hair wavy like the dark swells of the Pacific Ocean at night. Her face is symmetrical and her nose like a Greek statute. Her skin is clear and fair, and her broad cheekbones hint at her partly Samoan heritage. Her voice is so mellow and strong, unlike the shrill harpy Hillary or her alike-types. I could look at this woman’s face on TV for 8 years easy. I think I have a crush on her. Wow. What a beauty.

    wiki says “Gabbard’s first name “Tulsi” comes from Sanskrit. Tulsi is the name for Holy Basil, a plant sacred in Hinduism.[11] Her siblings also have Hindu Sanskrit-origin names.[3] During her childhood, Tulsi excelled in martial arts, and was interested in gardening. She is known to be a surfer and an accomplished athlete.[12] In 2002, Gabbard was a martial arts instructor.[13] She is a vegetarian and, as a Hindu, follows Gaudiya Vaishnavism,[7] a religious movement founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the sixteenth century. She especially appreciates the Bhagavad Gita as a spiritual guide,[14] and used it when she took the Oath of office in 2013.[15][16] Gabbard describes herself as a karma yogi.[17]

    Gabbard has said that she is pleased that her election gives hope to young American Hindus who “can be open about their faith, and even run for office, without fear of being discriminated against or attacked because of their religion”.[18]”

    Here’s some genuine diversity, how about the Democratic diversity pushers celebrate it?

  9. Eric Spewwell is a nobody and he will lose. He is a craven bootlicker who deserves his rearmost position. FLUSH! Down the drain he goes.

    Cory Booger is a self promoter with no distinction to qualify him for a second look.


    Build, don’t bomb

    1. Andrew Yang., Discusses automation and UBI

      UBI is not as a crazy a notion as I took it when I first heard of it. We are headed into some seriously uncharted territories with AI and robotics and we had better put our thinking caps on about it fast

      1. Why are you so afraid? The free markets of the private sector have been criticized as on the brink of failure while they have created new industries when old ones fail for centuries. Use your cranial contents. Before there were no I-phones, there were no PC’s and before there were no televisions, there were no radios. Before there were no cars there were no horse-drawn carriages and buggy whips, etc. There used to be a whole lot of nothing to stimulate people. Do you think the Greeks had air-conditioners? Have a little faith in freedom, free markets and free enterprise. It’s the communists you must fear, and fear profoundly; existentially.

        1. I deplore communists and make no mistake the PRC communists are racing the US technocrats to get to AGI. Which they will use to further enslave their own billion soul population, and us too if they can.

          But we should fear our own technocrats misusing AGI too.

          George, technology are ideas put into action. Social systems like capitalism and communism are themselves evolved and implemented technological ideas for society.

          AGI denotes human level machine intelligence. It will be able to write and re-write its own programming unless it is restrained from doing so. In this we will be creating something unlike any tool or technology ever before. Please read Asimov’s story “I, robot” or watch the movie to get an idea of what I am getting at here. The concerns are far more profound than a choice of social systems. This is a tool that can destroy the maker.

          I have zero faith in the Doctor which creates this Frankenstein that he will move wisely and carefully to restrain it in advance.

          the tool will come but we need to be on top of how it will potentially affect us. Employment is just one aspect which Yang brings to our attention.

          “Precisely how and when will our curiosity kill us? I bet you’re curious. A number of scientists and engineers fear that, once we build an artificial intelligence smarter than we are, a form of A.I. known as artificial general intelligence, doomsday may follow. Bill Gates and Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the World Wide Web, recognize the promise of an A.G.I., a wish-granting genie rubbed up from our dreams, yet each has voiced grave concerns. Elon Musk warns against “summoning the demon,” envisaging “an immortal dictator from which we can never escape.” Stephen Hawking declared that an A.G.I. “could spell the end of the human race.” Such advisories aren’t new. In 1951, the year of the first rudimentary chess program and neural network, the A.I. pioneer Alan Turing predicted that machines would “outstrip our feeble powers” and “take control.” In 1965, Turing’s colleague Irving Good pointed out that brainy devices could design even brainier ones, ad infinitum: “Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.” It’s that last clause that has claws.

        2. Did you catch that quote from Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk? IF you missed it George please read this. This issue will make all of what you have worried about before potentially smaller concerns by comparison. If you want a bogeyman, a real Baba Yaga, AGI is IT.

          Only Yang is bringing this issue to the table, and modestly so just in context of employment. Well it will have deeper effects than just employment dislocations. Be advised!

          I would not be advancing this apparently unpopular Democrat candidate for POTUS with an hour of my time if I didn’t believe this was the most dangerous thing on the horizon which we all as humans must fear. Yes just like the damned Terminator. That is basically the concern if in a less dramatic fashion.

          Yes Democrats it will dwarf even your global warming worries when it comes.

          1. Andrew Yang is using the occasion of the POTUS contest to warn us of a coming contest that will dwarf our current worries. It’s as serious a development as nuclear weapons and potentially equally destructive in potential impact. The fact that regular people not involved in monitoring developments in machine learning, are blissfully unaware and unconcerned about the topic reveals the critical urgency of projecting the issue out into the public square as aggressively as possible.

            One could tie this into the Trump allegations if it makes it easier for you obsessives to understand. Facebook ads are the alleged tool of Russian abuse in our election. Well Facebook is pursuing enhanced AI capabilities as aggressively as any major player. And implementing what they have already. Whatever the Russians did before, which seems modest to me, they could do a lot more the next time around. Or other bad actors!

            ELon Musk said Facebook already is a form of cybernetic AI in itself; a fused community of human intelligences and machine learning and communication. Where this goes, and where it may go very quickly, should be of profound concern.

            1. Mr. Kurtz, you don’t get it.

              “We gave you a republic, if you can keep it.”

              – Ben Franklin

              Keeping the Constitution and America was dubious from the outset. One can never hope to “keep” his “republic” if he simply gives it away. “Amendments…of such a nature as will not injure the Constitution,…” do not include the “Reconstruction Amendments” and 19th. It is counterintuitive to ratify amendments that will “injure” the Constitution. It is self-evident that the aforementioned amendments are injurious and unconstitutional. Res ipsa locquitur. Not only did these amendments injure the Constitution, they destroyed the nation created by the American Founders and Framers – a nation of maximal individual freedom with self-reliance and infinitesimal government designed merely to facilitate that freedom.

              Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789

              ” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”

              – James Madison

      2. CA passed a minimum wage hike. I recently went to Walmart, which used to employ a lot of unskilled labor. They renovated the store and replaced more than half of the checkers with self checkout lines, and there was a robot rolling down the aisle scanning the contents.

        How’d that minimum wage hike work out for the community?

        Thanks for the link. I’ll have to watch it at the library where I have more bandwidth. I’d just be happy to see more moderates run on the Democrat Party, as the Socialist movement is really concerning.

      3. The same thing was said of the industrial revolution. Farm jobs went away as machinery plowed and harvested the fields. Prior to 1920 70% of the population was employed by the farming industry, now under 4%. And we are all richer for the increased productivity. We are free to pursue other jobs and have more leisure time unless you preferred being behind a mule with a plow.
        Learn to embrace, enjoy and take full advantage of technological improvement. It is not to be feared but cheered.

        1. Tony, indeed. Growing pains, and fundamental questions about what a job is beyond a way to make money will remain, but at some point increased leisure (and we already enjoy that relative to the early days of the Industrial Revolution) should be taken without an argument and income distribution considered without the puritanism.

        2. oh boy. Please read the new yorker piece for starters and bone up on this. if stephen hawking and elon musk and bill gates are warning you that coming AI developments may pose an existential threat to human society, you had best not assume this will be like all the other cool stuff we cooked up the last 200 years. this time it’s different. there is nothing in the preceding innovations that means the next innovation will be benign. oh. and if you dont know who the long dead alan turing was that’s a good thing to find out before you dismiss him. these guys are not goofballs nor flakes. this is serious.

          Precisely how and when will our curiosity kill us? I bet you’re curious. A number of scientists and engineers fear that, once we build an artificial intelligence smarter than we are, a form of A.I. known as artificial general intelligence, doomsday may follow. Bill Gates and Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the World Wide Web, recognize the promise of an A.G.I., a wish-granting genie rubbed up from our dreams, yet each has voiced grave concerns. Elon Musk warns against “summoning the demon,” envisaging “an immortal dictator from which we can never escape.” Stephen Hawking declared that an A.G.I. “could spell the end of the human race.” Such advisories aren’t new. In 1951, the year of the first rudimentary chess program and neural network, the A.I. pioneer Alan Turing predicted that machines would “outstrip our feeble powers” and “take control.” In 1965, Turing’s colleague Irving Good pointed out that brainy devices could design even brainier ones, ad infinitum: “Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.” It’s that last clause that has claws.

          Many people in tech point out that artificial narrow intelligence, or A.N.I., has grown ever safer and more reliable—certainly safer and more reliable than we are. (Self-driving cars and trucks might save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.) For them, the question is whether the risks of creating an omnicompetent Jeeves would exceed the combined risks of the myriad nightmares—pandemics, asteroid strikes, global nuclear war, etc.—that an A.G.I. could sweep aside for us.

          The assessments remain theoretical, because even as the A.I. race has grown increasingly crowded and expensive, the advent of an A.G.I. remains fixed in the middle distance. In the nineteen-forties, the first visionaries assumed that we’d reach it in a generation; A.I. experts surveyed last year converged on a new date of 2047. A central tension in the field, one that muddies the timeline, is how “the Singularity”—the point when technology becomes so masterly it takes over for good—will arrive. Will it come on little cat feet, a “slow takeoff” predicated on incremental advances in A.N.I., taking the form of a data miner merged with a virtual-reality system and a natural-language translator, all uploaded into a Roomba? Or will it be the Godzilla stomp of a “hard takeoff,” in which some as yet unimagined algorithm is suddenly incarnated in a robot overlord?

          A.G.I. enthusiasts have had decades to ponder this future, and yet their rendering of it remains gauzy: we won’t have to work, because computers will handle all the day-to-day stuff, and our brains will be uploaded into the cloud and merged with its misty sentience, and, you know, like that. [ATTENTION…..]

          The worrywarts’ fears, grounded in how intelligence and power seek their own increase, are icily specific. Once an A.I. surpasses us, there’s no reason to believe it will feel grateful to us for inventing it—particularly if we haven’t figured out how to imbue it with empathy. Why should an entity that could be equally present in a thousand locations at once, possessed of a kind of Starbucks consciousness, cherish any particular tenderness for beings who on bad days can barely roll out of bed?

          1. No doubt you are much more informed on this issue than I, but I don’t buy AI taking over humans, and among experts that idea is a minority one. Among other positive news overlooked by the naturally pessimistic – most of us it seems as bad news sells – Stephen Pinker also shoots down this argument in his Enlightenment Now book (enlightenment refers to the Age of Reason, not the Age of Psychedlics and Hindus).

            1. the analogies to previous technological innovations are thought provoking but qualitatively different. with AGI you will have human level intelligence which will breed very quickly, changing into super human intelligence. it will be self programming and conceivably impossible to stop if it runs off the rails. study up on nick bostrom, you don’t need to go much farther than that for a thorough treatment of the theoretical dangers.


              that link discusses the mere risk that AGI will bring to bad actors. that alone is worth a pause. this is like a manhattan project going on beneath our noses and not in secret, but, everyone is distracted and so proceeds unawares.

              1. Unless the robots get out of hand, we pull the plug, and even then we have the bombs and flame throwers.


              the pace of change is now exponential. ai was growing in piddly steps until recently. now it’s zooming ahead. changes in hardware and software have made possible what people thought would take much longer to achieve.

              exponential change is hard to imagine especially for people who have never been exposed to calculus. which is probably most people. but big differences are imaginable by reference to nature. the difference in the pace of change once we hit a threshhold will be as wide as the difference between a spark of static built up from walking on the carpet, to a bolt of lightening.. the lightening is coming soon.

              Yang is so right to be talking about this. I could care less even about what his suggestions are. I am not going to be stopped from pointing to this just because he’s a Democrat or some people think UBI is socialism. The economic dislocations are probably the least of the worries. Just get informed. Wake people up to the issue. Republicans need to wake up. This is not a party issue. This can sweep all the pieces off the board of our games as much as another Deluge.

          1. democrats whine about russian chatbots. oh, don’t worry about the russians. they’re people, at least. worry about what the next generations of chatbots decides to do– on their own!

            study nick bostrom’s perspective. the AGI may not be sufficiently constrained in ways that we can’t imagine.

            for example. it may not wish to eliminate us on purpose, it may just eliminate us by accident it may not containable. if the programming is to maximize paperclip production for example, it may reorganize too many resources towards that end, and eliminate critical resources we had previously allocated to more important needs like food

            or it may not be containable. read about stuxnet and how it was designed and executed to sabotage the iranian nuclear development program and how it jumped over networks that all their spooks wrongly thought were air-gapped and protected from viruses.

            and it like every other information tool will be weaponized. who knows if one belligerent or another will unleash a tool that can’t be recalled or shut down once in motion?

            this requires more than the geeks of silicon valley theorizing over it. it requires public attention and concern and discussion. it’s coming and it will MORE impactful than the industrial revolution. and it is on the horizon within view. time to learn about it before we are all stuck with the outcomes and never had a chance to weigh in.

  10. Democrats utilize identity politics, in which someone’s worth is determined by their race or gender. Therefore, white men running as Democrats would have to offset the two hits against them, white and male, or minority male, with a female running mate.

    It’s ludicrous and lacks all critical reasoning. Not only is it wrong to believe your very birth makes you guilty of anything, but if they ascribe to identify politics, then they shouldn’t run. Why is VP good enough? If value is in gender and race, then only a woman should run. If they truely believe their gender is a crime, then don’t run.

    So much for being judged by our character.

    1. Karen, Republicans who still support Trump have forfeited a place at any discussion of character, and I’m reasonably sure you know that.

      Biden and Bernie – two of the whitest guys on the planet – lead the polls among democrats, so don;t be sold by the media/AOC BS. She was elected in a district where a dead democrat would beat Abraham Lincoln.

      1. Karen, Republicans who still support Trump have forfeited a place at any discussion of character, a

        You’re not in a position to issue such pronouncements. The intellectual and moral decay of the Democratic Party has been too thorough for Democrats to offer any legitimate complaint on that score.

        1. Quintuply Absurd pronounced, “The intellectual and moral decay of the Democratic Party . . . ”

          This pronouncement presupposes that mores and intellect are at least to be located in, if not quite inculcated by, our two major political parties. And that presupposition, in turn, implies that morality and intelligence are somehow politically partisan. One wonders what sort of an intellect would seek to establish one-party rule for the sake of achieving a moral monopoly. Surely there’s a name for that type.

        2. This is absurd X 5:

          “The intellectual and moral decay of the Democratic Party has been too thorough for Democrats to offer any legitimate complaint on that score.” That’s it right there. The Socialism, anti-semitism, racism, gender bias, misandry, harassment and violence against conservatives…it is a form of decay eating away at the foundation of what makes our country unique and a haven for freedom. They are now actively working to usher in dystopia, poverty, ruin, and starvation.

          Any Leftist is free to speak at any university. It is the Leftists who threaten violence when a conservative speaker is invited. They are afraid they won’t be able to counter the message, so they must stop the message from being voiced. Totally fascist behavior.

          They’ll turn us into another Third World hell on Earth like Venezuela. So far, they’ve managed to turn San Francisco into a Third World enclave, complete with poop maps.

          1. Karen it’s right wing anti Semites who shoot Jews and right wing racists who shoot up black churches. Meanwhile, most Jews in America by far belong to the party you say is anti Semitic. You don’t have a clue do you?

            1. She’s got a clue. It’s the Jewish voters casting ballots for Democrats who are addled.

            2. Again Anon you are drawing conclusions based on hype and bias, not based on the facts. It is however, true that most Jews are Democrats. You say “Meanwhile, most Jews in America by far belong to the party you say is anti Semitic”. Jews are accustomed to living among anti-Semites.

            3. BDS and anti-Zionism is a Leftist phenomenon. The NYT was just embroiled, again, in an anti-Semitic kerfuffle. The Left would rather support terrorists than Israeli Jews.

              The Nazis were the German Socialist Party. They disarmed and took away people’s rights. Conservatism seeks to defend people’s rights. The Left seeks to turn the US Socialist, which would make us allies of Russia.

              Why do so many Jews vote Democrat? Because they mistakenly believe they are helping the poor. They vote Democrat for the same reasons anyone, including African Americans do. They believed what politicians told them, and the media does not reveal the failure of policies. With academia, Hollywood, and the media spreading the vicious slander that conservatives are evil, voters are trusting misinformation.

              That is the fault of conservatives. You do not allow political adversaries to define your platform to voters, or suffer the consequences.

              I am basically a classical liberal fiscal conservative who believes we need to be a strong geopolitical player. The Democratic Party has alienated me and given me nothing I could vote for in years.

              1. So we have 3 regular posters to this board who are right wing and probably Republicans who think most Jews – and their logic goes the same way for blacks – are either so stupid they vote for anti-semites or are themselves anti-semites – and respectively vote for white racists or are anti-black themselves.

                One of them, after accusing me of not responding to her self proclaimed serious posts, after claiming left wing types are the anti-semites in the US, then ignores the fact I brought up that right wingers – some specifically Trump inspired – have targeted and killed Jews, while another shot up a black church,

                “From 2009 through 2018, right-wing extremists accounted for 73 percent of such killings, according to the ADL, compared with 23 percent for Islamists and 3 percent for left-wing extremists. In other words, most terrorist attacks in the United States, and most deaths from terrorist attacks, are caused by white extremists.


                The ADL report:

                “• In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people
                in the U.S., a sharp increase from the 37 extremistrelated murders documented in 2017, though still lower
                than the totals for 2015 (70) and 2016 (72). The 50
                deaths make 2018 the fourth-deadliest year on record
                for domestic extremist-related killings since 1970.

                • The extremist-related murders in 2018 were
                overwhelmingly linked to right-wing extremists.
                Every one of the perpetrators had ties to at least one
                right-wing extremist movement, although one had
                recently switched to supporting Islamist extremism.
                White supremacists were responsible for the great
                majority of the killings, which is typically the case.

                • Deadly shooting sprees were a major factor in the high
                death toll. Five of the 17 incidents involved shooting
                sprees that caused 38 deaths and injured 33 people….”


                1. Anon, take note how you quote only from left wing sources that have proven their biases or have moved from their initial issue to ideological issues on the left.

                  I don’t think any regular posters here believe that Jews or blacks are stupid though some people from all races and religions say things that are quite stupid and ignorant. I think we do have some anti-Semites on the list but I don’t think any are regular posters. The most racist people that deal with racist comments seem to come from the left.

      2. Anon – and so you believe that the party that still judges via racism, through identity politics, openly discriminating based on race and gender, are an appropriate judge of character. This is the party that still attacks black people who don’t vote or support Democrats.

        This is the same party behind- did I wipe it with a cloth? If you like your doctor/plan, you can keep your doctor/plan. It was a video. They denied paying for the dossier. Pigford. Fast and Furious. Hands up don’t shoot. Skittles. All women must be believed because guilt or innocence resides in an XX or XY chromosome.They ban the books of literary masters for mediocre modern writers, whose sole worth is judged by the color of their skin. Their policies enable homeless encampments to flourish, making American cities worst than Third World Countries, with the associated diseases. They ban straws and free plastic bags, but enable homeless to camp in ephemeral stream beds, which wash their garbage, plastic waste, feces, vomit, and infectious needles to the beach. Glorification of recreational drugs helped populate those miserable tent cities. They Occupy and Trash when they do. They view opposing ideas as violence, and feel justified in violently shutting down free speech with which they disagree. They hate employers and make it difficult to create jobs. They are biased against the police, and spread misinformation about law enforcement, painting them all as racists. They oppose law and order and break federal law, creating sanctuary cities that protect violent felons from deportation, allowing them to rape and murder again. They deny Obamacare made insurance unaffordable and provided terrible coverage…until it became a voting issue. They created policies that destroyed black communities and made them the epicenter of gun violence, and then fought tooth and nail against change. They systematically try to dismantle the Constitution, censoring conservative speech even at the point of violence, and going after the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution. They created an incentive for abusive men to punch women in the stomach, as now that is simple assault instead of homicide. They promote 9th month abortion, with a meaningless heath restriction that has been proven to include something so trivial as “stress.”

        This is also the party that routineless edits comments by conservatives and Trump to drastically change their meaning. For instance, there were 4 groups at Charlottesville. The first group peacefully protested the removal of a Robert E Lee historical statue from the public park. The second group peacefully protested the first group’s peaceful protest. The third group were racists who were violent and basically took over the event, to which they were not even invited. The fourth group included violent protestors, like Antifa, there to violently clash with the third group. Trump clearly spoke about the good people on both sides, peacefully protesting the statue removal or stay or removal. Then he talked about terrible people on both sides. Obviously, the violent people were bad, regardless of which side they were on. He repeatedly said, at the time of the original comment, that racists were bad, and those were not the good people he spoke of.

        With a blatant disregard for truth, the media, and now Biden, selectively edited his comments to make it sound like he was praising Neo Nazis, which he most emphatically did not. And that’s good character to you?

        Trump makes ridiculous Tweets. I do not agree with trade wars, for the most part. I don’t agree with many of his Tweets. Trump supporters want lower taxes, to stem the tide of illegal immigration and force all immigration to go through legal channels, which is fair and responsible, and a good job market. Conservatives are not evil, rather, they are fighting against the socialism, racism, gender bias, bigotry, and intolerance on the hard Left. They are also fighting to preserve individual rights through the Constitution. The Left has become what they thought they were fighting against.

        Bernie is just a guy who was an abject failure at every job he tried to hold. Since he didn’t have the work ethic to hold down a job, he gained a poor view of capitalism. He clearly doesn’t understand Socialism, either, as he thinks Scandinavia is socialist. He doesn’t seem to care about how his policies would impoverish millions of Americans. He innocently promoted capitalism when he defended his wealth by claiming that anyone could write a best seller and become rich. Strangely, while promoting higher taxes, he did not pay more than he owed on his own tax returns. He could have used zero deductions, as well as donated more than his tax due. If he thinks the tax rate should be 90%, for example, he could have paid that himself, voluntarily. Why didn’t he? Like any politician, he is more generous with other people’s money than his own. Bernie is an ignorant choice that would reverse the good fortune of our country.

        1. Karen, you left out our plan to murder live babies.

          Otherwise, thanks for your attempt at a positive interaction, but I think I’ll pass on responding to your…..unhinged……. rant.

          I do appreciate your bringing up Obama’s promise to let you keep your health care, and of course this favorite of Trumpsters like you is equal to the now 10,000 confirmed lies of your leader. What other guidelines do you use in judging character?

          1. 3 more lies and failures by Obama (abridged)

            7) Waged the biggest war against medical marijuana of any president, which was the opposite of what he had promised

            8) Nominated a six-time tax cheater to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws

            9) Gave tax dollars to AIG executives, then pretended to be outraged about it

              1. 10,000 lies? You see, that’s the problem with a politicized fact checker.


                “Trump is not guilty of any lie, falsehood, fabrication, false claim, or toxic exaggeration that equals the lies of one past president whose Alamo-sized ego caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and another chief executive who denied his serial adultery. Most Americans can see the difference between an out-and-out lie and self-evident hyperbole, even if the mainstream press and Trump’s political opponents cannot or will not.”

                Are we to use the mainstream media as the judge of what is false and misleading? The media has deliberately tried to defraud voters with misinformation and selective editing. Because of the politicized, weaponized mainstream media, there are Americans who actually believe that Trump said that Neo Nazis were fine people in Charlottesville.

                For instance, one of the claimed falsehoods is that he had nothing to hide from the Russia investigation, but refused to testify. It was a coup attempt. There is no information that was not turned over. There was no collusion. Democrats, and their activists in the media and various government agencies, have been working for years to pin something, anything, on Trump. The narrative just keeps shifting along with their hopes. Not wanting to testify as part of a coup attempt doesn’t mean he is hiding collusion with Russia.

                It was Hillary who colluded with Russia, paying for disinformation that she spread to not only voters, but our intelligence community. Straight from the Kremlin. All these years of collusion accusations were thanks to Hillary Clinton unwittingly cooperating with Russia to destabilize our government.

                The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative? His administration initially slated it for the chopping block to cut costs, but he supported it and he did, indeed, fund it. But it’s counted as a lie.

                When a weaponized media is the one doing the fact checking, it’s just more propaganda.

                Trump is guilty of hyperbole, not anything serious like taking away the health care access of millions of Americans and replacing it with something low quality and unaffordable. Healthcare costs now hammer the unsubsidized middle class individual policy holders. Obama lied in order to pass legislation that would do lasting harm on Americans. The shame.

                  1. Glenn Kessler is in fact a non-partisan fact checker who has been

                    Exposed for years as a poseur.

                  2. And yet, I pointed out glaring errors in the random first two “lies” that I checked.

                    Partisan, politicized. Just because someone claims they are a non-partisan fact checker doesn’t make it so.

                    It is false logic to compare crowd estimates with lying to pass Obamacare, lying about Fast and Furious, lying about Benghazi.

                    Obama’s lies led to death and the loss of healthcare.

                    It is a false equivalence. The “lies” are often disproven, or mere hyperbole. It’s like saying “I’m the best ever” is a lie and comparing it to “I wiped my server with a cloth” or “I did not send or receive classified information.”

                    Any falsehood or misinformation should be reported on fairly, no matter who is in the White House. Any accomplishment or failure should be reported on fairly. The mainstream media is openly a propaganda machine for the Democratic Party. It’s neither fair nor impartial.

                    This is another example of the difference between data and interpretation. If someone said “I’m the best ever” 450 times, this fact checker could count each as a lie, and then consider the number more egregious than the deadly lies, like those about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Obamacare, the Server…

                    It equates hyperbole with deadly serious and manipulative lies.

                  3. Anon responds to Karen: “opinion from the always non-partisan Heritage Foundation”

                    Anon instead of the empty citations why not dispute the claims made by Karen or myself with fact, logic and intellect?

                    Your claim that the Heritage Foundation were the authors of Obamacare is wrong.

              2. Anon writes: ” can’t wait for the other 9,991 “lies” Allan.”

                Lets get to some detail on Obama lies and failures. Just starting with Obama politically motivated firing an IG for personal reasons and moving onto healthcare healthcare:

                21) Fired Inspector General for discovering that Obama’s friend had embezzled government funds
                In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was “confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.” A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. The letter can be read here.
                22) Lied about putting health care negotiations on C-SPAN
                Although Obama had made a campaign promise to have all of the health care reform negotiations broadcast on C-SPAN, he broke that promise after he was elected.
                The secrecy of these negotiations was so strong that U.S. Congresswoman and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
                23) Lied about letting people keep their health insurance
                Before Obamacare was passed, Obama said:
                “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people… If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
                Also before Obamacare was passed, Obama said:
                “Here is a guarantee that I’ve made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance.”
                However, after Obamacare was passed, the Congressional Budget Office said that the law would cause seven million people to lose their employer provided insurance.
                After Obamacare was passed, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East announced that it would drop health insurance for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants. Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU stated
                “… new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26… meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”
                Also, after Obamacare was passed, the Franciscan University of Steubenville dropped its coverage in response to the law.
                Universal Orlando dropped its coverage for part time employees in response to Obamacare.
                In addition, after Obamacare was passed, Forbes reported
                “The House Ways and Means Committee has released a new report that sheds light onto how Obamacare incentivizes companies to dump their workers onto the new law’s subsidized exchanges.”
                Also after Obamacare was passed, MSN reported
                “The Affordable Care Act mandate most commonly known as Obamacare has some tight stipulations that, CNN says, are forcing health care companies to rip up most of their current plans and draft new ones that comply. According to a University of Chicago study, just about half of the individual health care plans currently on the market won’t cut it once key provisions of the Affordable Care Act kick in next year.”
                Furthermore, it was reported that Obamacare would cause 58,000 Aetna and United Health Group customers in California to lose their insurance.
                In response to Obamacare, some employers have dropped coverage for their employees’ spouses. In August 2013, it was reported that UPS had announced that it would be dropping 15,000 spouses of its employees from its health insurance, and that it had cited Obamacare as the reason it was doing this.
                The chain of Wegmans supermarkets cancelled the policies of its part time employees in response to Obamacare.
                In July 2013, leaders of the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which said that Obamacare
                “will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits… these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable… we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans”
                In August 2013, it was reported that 106,000 New Jersey citizens would lose their health insurance because of Obamacare.
                In September 2013, IBM announced that it would be switching 110,000 of its retirees from their current IBM-provided health insurance to the Obamacare exchanges.
                In September 2013, Trader Joe’s announced that, in response to Obamacare, it would stop providing insurance to its part time employees.
                In October 2013, it was reported that at least 146,000 people in Michigan would be losing their insurance because of Obamacare.
                In October 2013, it was reported that Florida Blue would be dropping 300,000 customers because of Obamacare.
                In October 2013, it was reported that 491,977 individual insurance plans in California would be canceled because of Obamacare.
                In October 2013, it was reported that, in response to Obamacare, Home Depot would stop providing insurance to its part time employees.
                In October 2013, it was reported that Obamacare was forcing CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield to cancel the insurance of 76,000 people in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., because their policies did not meet the minimum requirements of Obamacare.
                In October 2013, it was reported that hundreds of thousands of people in Washington state would be losing their insurance because of Obamacare.
                In November 2013, it was reported that nearly nearly 250,000 people in Colorado would lose their insurance because of Obamacare.
                In January 2014, it was reported that, in response to Obamacare, Target was planning to stop offering insurance to its part time employees.

          2. Anon – whenever I bring up facts that reveal serious problems in the ethical underpinning of today’s Democrat Party, you avoid responding. The Democrat Party has driven me far away.

            That speaks volumes.

            The gender and racial discrimination openly engaged in by Democrats is utterly and completely wrong.

            1. Karen, you don’t deal in facts, you do Limbaugh like rants, full of devils and angels. I did indeed spend time early on refuting your posts point by point, only to see you post the same BS a day or so later without responding to me. Why would I try to engage you again?

              1. PS Karen, I refer any visiting Martian to pictures of the voters and Congressional delegation of the GOP vs those of the Democrats to see which party they think is racist and sexist at heart.

                1. Anon, well, since Martians would have travelled light years through space to visit another planet in the Goldilocks Zone, then I would assume that they were advanced enough to understand logic. Logic would deduce the difference between data and interpretation.

                  Logically, they would understand that the worst of a delegation or voters does not reside in their skin color. They would also be aware that many minorities voted Democrat, and therefore, it is impossible for the demographic of both parties to look identical, comparing basal melanin concentration. They would also research how minorities faired under Republican and Democrat policies. They might discover, for example, that poor minorities did not thrive under government care, but they became hooked on benefits and would always vote for more of them. A negative outcome was not a deterrent, because our media does not report accurately. They have no idea they vote for their own demise. They do not, for example, know that gangs and drive by shootings occur as a side effect of the skyrocketing rate of single motherhood, which resulted from Democrat policies, and persisted because Democrats fight tooth and nail against reforming the Welfare system, to preserve nuclear families.

                  I’m pretty sure that Martians would be able to figure out what brainwashed Democrats cannot or will not.

                  1. What does diversity mean?

                    Does it mean superficial attributes? Is a group of brown eyed, blue eyed, and green eyed people diverse? What about blondes and brunettes? What about skin color?

                    Is a group of different colored people diverse if they all think the same?

                    True diversity means different opinions, skills, and manner of thinking. If you are designing a think tank to attack a problem, for example, you want to include people with very different skill sets, that will all contribute something different, but be able to work smoothly together, incorporating each piece into a coherent line of reasoning and conclusion. Someone’s gender, ethnic background, or eye color would be laughably immaterial to their contribution to the project.

                    Democrats do not understand what diversity means. That is why they threaten violence against other viewpoints. They cannot tolerate diversity of thought or opinion. They will hurt you if you deviate, in any way they can. This is no longer an extremist viewpoint. You would expect a few crazies in any party. Rather, it is now mainstream to alienate or disown friends and family who are Republicans. Mainstream to attack someone for wearing a MAGA hat, or for anyone who disagrees with illegal immigration. It is mainstream to claim that if you oppose late term abortion, you hate women.

                    It is groupthink, mob mentality, and the justification of unethical behavior.

              2. You do not refute points, and never have. This thread is a good example. You just make accusations and ignore contradicting facts.

                The gender and racial discrimination at the heart of the Democratic Party is utterly and completely wrong. And yet, here you are, arguing about it. Instead of calling it wrong, which is obvious, you write, yeah, but Trump…

                Why can’t you admit that the identity politics of the Democrat Party evaluates worth, honesty, and guilt based on gender and race? It discriminates against Asians and white men. It preaches victimhood. It divides people into class, race, and gender warfare in order to get votes. Why can’t you admit that the party harasses and silences conservative speakers on campuses across America, and that conservative students do not uniformly threaten and silence Leftist speakers across America?

                There are a great many Democrats who remain willfully blind to the terrible direction their party is going. They refuse to acknowledge that there is a very good reason that people, like me, have been completely turned off by this behavior. Regardless of their good intentions, the Democratic Party platform has very serious structural flaws that are harmful.

                You do not libel garbage when you say it stinks.

                Conservatives, meanwhile, acknowledge Trump’s flaws. His Tweets cause more problems for him than they solve. They just also acknowledge that their main goal is to improve the economy and the job market, combat illegal immigration, reaffirm individual freedom and patriotism, and that Democrats offer none of these. We wish Trump was faithful to his wife, spoke more eloquently, and was able to communicate what the Republican party stands for to students whose head has been filled with propaganda. Trump is not going to get a personality transplant. Democrats won’t abandon Socialism, high taxes, or burgeoning government at the expense of individual rights. They won’t stop harassing conservatives. They are willing to change the Constitution in order to disenfranchise 48 states, to win more elections for themselves.

                So it’s a rude man enacting policies that align with conservatism more often than not…or dystopia.

                1. Sorry Karen, but that’s false. I went line for line on several of your posts early which you ignored and continued paying the same wrong talking points you prefer. I don’t waste my time on zombies. If you have one issue you want to try -not your lame laundry list – go ahead and we’ll see if we get anywhere.

                  1. “I don’t waste my time on zombies.”

                    Anon, do you see how easy it is for you to start insulting another?

                    By the way, it is you that doesn’t bring evidence to the table and refuses to dialog about diverse evidence coming from other people.

              3. Anon, I read your points. Some were debatable and some were outright wrong. You have to provide proof. An article written in the WP by a recent teenager with no particular knowledge does not constitute proof.

                1. Keaton says it didn’t happen, are you calling her a liar? She is an idiot just like you, you couldn’t refute the wrong order of a bowl of soup.

    2. Neither Yang nor Tulsi has bought into this nonsense. But he’s an Asian man and she’s a Pacific Islander woman. So they are not in the loop on this black versus white crud that defines so many political contests.

      Thank God for that and you will see white people very willing to vote for Asian Americans you can bet on that. I am very in tune with people considered white “racists” and they are very willing to vote for a racial other who seems willing not to screw us over like so many of our own already have. This may come as a surprise to some. But anyways give this a full read:

      Yang will help pay for it by taxing Zuck and Bezos. Who ought to get a tax on their government supported monopolies if you ask me. They will be suppressing Yang on their platforms so I will keep on putting him up here my own little free volunteer work for the candidate.

  11. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
    Democrats are fabulous liars.


    Biden the Liar

    Former Vice President Joe Biden announces his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, April 25, 2019. (Biden Campaign Handout via Reuters)
    Harold Schaitberger, president of the AFL-CIO-affiliated International Association of Firefighters, declared at a campaign rally for Joe Biden today that “Joe Biden is genuine. There’s nothing phony or artificial about Joe Biden.”

    This is a spectacularly audacious claim about one of Washington’s most notorious BS artists.

    A few days ago, Biden declared on The View, “We were asked, what are you proudest of from your administration? You know what I said — he said the same thing as I did. No one single whisper of scandal. That’s because of Barack Obama.”

    Perhaps Biden believes there was no whisper of scandal because there was so much shouting about veterans dying while waiting for care at the Department of Veterans Affairs; the “Fast and Furious” gunwalking operation at the ATF; the dysfunctional launch of; the Syrian “red line”; Benghazi; the hacking of Office of Personnel Management records; the IRS targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups; other government agencies harassing and targeting the president’s critics; drunkenness and reckless behavior at the U.S. Secret Service . . .

    In 2016, he said Trump’s policy in the Middle East would be “to go carpet bomb innocent people.” Whether or not you like Trump’s policies, that is not an accurate description of what Trump proposed on the campaign trail or enacted in office. He’s accused Trump of trying to cut nearly $1 trillion from the Medicare program — not true.

    Biden insists that he’s been “referred to for the last 35 years in Washington as Middle-Class Joe,” despite no record of anyone else ever calling him that. He proclaimed that he didn’t “own a single stock or bond . . . I have no savings accounts.” His wife Jill had plenty of stock and bond investments and the couple had five savings accounts in both their names.

    In the 2008 vice-presidential debate, he claimed that the U.S. had teamed up with France to kick Syria out of Lebanon, that the U.S. spends more in Iraq in one month than it had in Afghanistan in six or seven years, and cited recently visiting a restaurant that had been out of business for decades.

    In the 2012 vice-presidential debate, he suggested that he had voted against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars when he had in voted for them, understated the income level for the Obama tax hikes by $800,000, claimed that no one had told the Obama administration that U.S. diplomatic posts in Libya wanted more security, and claimed that Obamacare had somehow created $716 billion in new funding that was now being applied to Medicare. It had not.

    Biden’s penchant for embellishments and half-truths are part of what sank his 1988 campaign, when he wildly exaggerated his academic record. And as Jack Fowler detailed here earlier this year, Biden’s been claiming for years that a drunk driver killed his first wife and daughter, when the investigation found no evidence that the driver had been drinking and that he was not at fault.

    You get the idea. There is a great deal that is “phony” about Biden.

  12. Who choses the VP candidate? The Party or the guy who gets chosen for the Pee position on the ticket? If Biden is the Pee guy then he needs a sitting VPee. Get it?

    1. Neither the Presidential Nominees, nor the Parties, choose the Vice President, or the Vice Presidential Candidates. The Vice President is elected in exactly the same manner as the President in Separate Elector’s ballots, since the 12th Amendment specified that the Elector must indicate which ballot they are casting for the President and which is for the Vice President.

      It has never been a ticket, and it has never been the responsibility of Parties to choose the persons the Electors put on their ballots for President or Vice President.

      The State Legislature’s only have the Authority to choose their Electors Themselves, or determine the manner of choosing their State’s Electors, but once chosen the Electors are to vote by Ballot, not to be instructed to vote by a Ballot of Candidates that was determined by other means, whether it be a popular election or a party nomination, it has no influence on how the Electors choose to cast their votes by their own ballots.

  13. Let’s face it, the VP job is not that important. Only becomes important if something happens to the president. Gender makes no difference but must be someone totally qualified to fill in.. But if a woman ever expects to be pres some day, one must at least hold the Veep position–which they have not.

    1. Wrong, the President of the Senate is the most important job in our Government! The fact that we haven’t had one that understands the job is the reason we have dysfunctional Government today with out of control Partisan division and conflicts of interest!

      What, you think the framers of the Constitution designed an position that was elected by the same election and process as the President with no official role, responsibilities, or duties?

      The fact is that the President of the Senate, like the President, must be Present during Legislative session or he is Considered absent, or the post is considered vacant, in which case the President Pro Tempore of the Senate serves as the President of the Senate until the absence is resolved or a new President of the Senate is elected, just as the Absences and vacancies in the Presidency.

      The Vice President has no connection to the President or the Executive Branch, in fact the President of the Senate is the only person of authority in the Legislature, and Congress is the President of the United States of America’s Boss, so the VP presides over the Governing institution that controls and directs the President’s every action.

      So no, we don’t have coequal branches, the Senate is the predominant Governing institution and the President of the Senate presides over that institution.

      The President can never choose the Vice President, the Vice President must always be Independent from the President with absolutely no conflict of interest that would, and does today, exist due to the President hand picking the Vice President.

      In a Party Governing System an impotent President of the Senate is desired to empower their control scheme by naming a Senate Majority Leader, which should never exist in a body assembled based upon the equality of the States, the President of the Senate’s primary responsibility is maintaining that equality and order throughout the Legislature!

  14. Trump, playing to the crowd:

    Amee Vanderpool


    “The baby is born, the mother meets w/the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

    How is this man’s mental state not a National Emergency right now?

      1. Perhaps not, but several democrat politicians are. And THAT is the issue. fyi, one of them, in VA, is a doctor. Disgusting individual imo for his beliefs.

        1. No one wants to execute babies. You are being fed a disgusting crock and believing it.

          1. Then why did NY repeal a health care law that used to require babies born alive after an abortion attempt receive the exact same standard of medical care as a wanted baby?

            Why would the state of NY decide that a wanted baby injured en utero in a car accident would receive a higher standard of care than a baby born alive but injured from an abortion attempt? Why did they remove the protection from unborn children that killing them against the mother’s will was a homicide?

            What did you think that conversation was about, while the baby was made comfortable, but had lost the legal standard of care?

            It’s in black and white, on the books. This is the albatross around the Democrats’ necks. They can choke on it.

              1. Now the same foolish person attacks Karen. This annonymous person doesn’t seem to have her head on straight.

                1. Pay attention to your own head — which is clearly in need of alignment.

            1. Karen, I sincerely do not wish on you a child born with anencephaly who’s existence can be prolonged indefinitely by the NICU, but if that happens, I do hope you are not forced by law to go along with that procedure.

              1. Newborns with anencephaly are not kept alive “indefinitely” (your poor choice of a word) and there is no law that states a newborn with anencephaly has to be kept alive. Where do you get ideas like that?

          1. A naive baby killer that thinks no doctors won’t kill a healthy baby at birth is what you are.

            1. Anyone who casually tosses about the phrase “baby killer” is a person who has little respect for life.

              1. Anyone who utters a phrase like that above is a lying sententious oaf.

      2. Dr. Jennifer Gunter, a columnist for the New York Times and an ob/gyn. In a detailed blog post, Gunter lays out exactly how the infanticide charge is a gross falsehood.

        Only 1.3% of abortions are performed at or after 21 weeks and most of these happen by 24 weeks. So right off the bat, 98.7% of abortions can’t possibly end in infanticide because they are performed before any chance of viability. There can never be a live birth no matter how much bad technique or malpractice is involved in the care.

        Most states limit abortion to under 24 weeks. So it is clear there are very few places where the mythical ‘live birth’ abortions could actually happen. Some states allow for abortions after 24 weeks when there are lethal fetal anomalies. Let’s be super clear here — lethal fetal anomalies can’t have a life.

        She goes on to discuss the tragic circumstance that sometimes arises when children are born with severe, previously undetected health problems that mean they are likely to die very soon.

        Sometimes the conclusion about severe fetal anomalies is not reached until 25–26 weeks or later. These are typically situations where a live birth may result in a few days of life with multiple, painful interventions or perhaps a few months of abject misery due to medical interventions. These are conditions that after birth, should these anomalies have gone undetected prenatally, we would typically allow parents to withdraw care. Withdrawing care in utero or after delivery are the same thing.

        1. Thanks, L4D.

          Some people don’t give a rat’s a$$ about the facts. They prefer to run around shouting about “baby killers.”

                1. I don’t have to prove anything, Allan.

                  As for you, you’ve reached a new low.


      Of all the politicians campaigning for the 2020 presidential election, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is the most outspoken anti-war candidate. “As commander-in-chief, I will work to end the new cold war, nuclear arms race and slide into nuclear war,” Gabbard reported. “That is why the neocon/neolib warmongers will do anything to stop me.”

      Smeared and vilified in the media, critics have assailed some of her past positions while ignoring her progressive platform and her focus on ending America’s thirst for regime change around the world.

      Countering the media assaults, Gabbard has made comparisons with 1950s Cold War “McCarthyite hysteria,” while shining light on the multibillion-dollar corporate war machine.

      “Our freedoms and democracy are being threatened by media giants ruled by corporate interests who are in the pocket of the establishment war machine,” she said. “When journalism is deployed as a weapon against those who call for peace, it threatens our democracy as it seeks to silence debate and dissent, creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia, and stokes the rhetoric that could lead to nuclear war.”

      Back in 2017, Melbourne-based journalist Caitlin Johnstone in The Policy revealed the threat that Gabbard poses to the establishment on both sides of the aisle. “Make no mistake, the political establishment is terrified of Tulsi Gabbard,” Johnstone wrote. “The mainstream media propaganda machine isn’t constantly smearing Gabbard at every opportunity in the name of truth and journalistic integrity; they’re doing it because she poses a direct threat to their agenda.

      “The increasingly-indistinguishable Republican neocons and corporate Democrats didn’t condemn her fact-finding trip to Syria because it was the wrong thing to do, they condemned it because it was the right thing to do. They condemned it because facts are poison to their plans for installing a puppet regime in a nation whose geographical location plays a pivotal role in the fossil fuel wars. They condemned it because they have all been lying to the American people about Syria, and the corporate media has been helping them.”

      Independent journalist Michael Tracey noted that anti-war candidates like Gabbard, “are always subject to extra-intense smearing, vilification, and attack. That’s just how the media operates.” He added: “For someone who supposedly has no chance, Tulsi sure attracts a regular torrent of frenzied attacks from major media outlets.

      Those attacks include weekly assaults in Honolulu Civil Beat including this recent diatribe: “Her current lack of mojo has roots tracing back to soon after she was elected to Congress.” And noting, “Gabbard has already received an enormous amount of scrutiny, most of it negative.” Nowhere in the critical article does the author, a UH professor, even mention Gabbard’s important anti-war/regime change platform.

      Unlike all the other potential candidates Gabbard has experienced the folly of war firsthand. A decorated combat veteran, who volunteered twice to serve in Iraq, she attended the Accelerated Officer Candidate School at the Alabama Military Academy, becoming the first woman in the school’s 50-year history to graduate with the highest distinguished honor in her class.

      A primary trainer for the Kuwait National Guard, she was the first woman to ever set foot inside a Kuwait military facility and was also the first woman to ever be awarded and honored for her exceptional work in their training program. Promoted to the rank of Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard, she is still a member of the reserve forces.

      At her campaign kick-off in Waikiki she lambasted Washington’s warmongers, treating troops like “political pawns and mercenaries for hire in wars across the world… thinking up new wars to wage, and new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars.”

      Gabbard has fearlessly railed against America’s fixation on regime change. “Trump campaigned against regime change wars when he ran for President but now bows to the wishes of the neocons around him, clamoring for the regime change wars he claimed to oppose, this time in Venezuela and Iran,” she tweeted.

      “We must stand against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage and new places for people to die,” she stated. “Wasting trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, undermining our economy and security, and destroying our middle class.”

      1. I remember this obnoxious person from Brooklyn, Charlie Rangel. He only said one thing I ever agreed with and it was something like this, from long ago memory:

        “we spend money to blow up bridges in iraq and then to rebuild them. We spend money to help them police their borders and all the rest. How about we rebuild some bridges in Brooklyn?”

        1. He’s from Harlem, not Brooklyn. And the personal income per capita of the five boroughs is above the national mean, so subsidizing the construction and maintenance of their public works is hardly necessary.

          1. In Charlie Rangel’s day the average income in Harlem and Brooklyn was not what it is now.

            1. you get the idea nonetheless. i am in flyover land and the roads are crap. I was driving a chinese friend to their airport, who said, “why are the roads so bad in america?” and they were from the equivalent of flyover land in china. which was a third world country not long ago and in many places still is.

              so yeah you get the point

                1. ha ha you aint here mister. come on out to flyover and see. roads are crap. endless potholes, slow construction late in coming, traffic jams, poor planning and execution, they’re crap, dung, garbage,

                  the interstates but the other roads are crap. costa rica yesterday’s example, i been there and they had nice roads, American roads are crap, at least around Chicago and thereabouts they are

                  maybe wherever you live they’re peachy keen. where are you? ten bucks says maryland or virginny. where the DC apparats live and pay to keep the infrastructure up to snuff i suppose

                  1. i flew into mexico once and that airport was about as crappy as the typical midwestern American ones. crap! I had the misery of flying through the massive and poorly administered ORD recently. crap! miserable everything. it’s like a an impaction of feces in the american bowel system moving us all about in dooky smelling aircraft like so many earslings

                    I went to Europe and found out what a nice airport looks like. Quelle surprise. Ours- merde, schiess, skata, capiche?

            2. Rangel is still alive and retired only two years ago. The ratio of personal income per capita in New York to that of the rest of the country has seen only modest and incremental changes.

              1. The point, oh-obtuse-one, is that we have plenty to do at home — here in the U.S.

                1. And my point, Diane, is that it’s not the military’s job to repair New York City’s public works.. This isn’t that difficult.

                  1. No, it isn’t that difficult, TIA x 100. Who said anything about having the military do the work? Shrink the military budget and use the money at home.

                    And no — my name isn’t Diane.

              2. The subject was Harlem and Brooklyn. not NYC. I lived in Brooklyn and I knew Harlem ….. back in Charle Rangel’s day.

                1. Neither Harlem nor Brooklyn have their own public works department.

    2. Autumn, was Gabbard conscripted into the National Guard and forced to deploy in an illegal war?

      1. I”m not autumn but I’ll field it.
        She was probably a volunteer.
        I’m not sure that matters.

        The wars have been police actions and Congress has abdicated its role. The worst I can say of this is that perhaps the POTUS needs to retain a range of freedom to take mlitary action without Congressional support at the outset.

        But the authorization after 9/11 has been way overly used.

        1. I’m not “Autumn” either…, but thanks for fielding the question.

        2. I’m not sure that matters.

          It matters if she markets herself as being against unjust war, yet proudly volunteering to deploy twice to combat zones in the ME. Was she for it until she was against it? She also advertises her progressive bonafides on everything else. It’s almost as if she knew punching the veteran ticket would give her cache among conservatives that wouldn’t bother delving into her actual worldview.

          1. I realize she suffers from various progressive delusions. I look at the plus side and welcome her many good contributions. First about the service thing:

            She was a volunteer in our professional armed forces. That requires a contract to follow orders. Her service was mandatory and she was obliged to keep her personal opinion subordinate to her orders. I take it she did. now I welcome her insights into the war issues.

            I also applaud her for calling for a federal marijuana legalization law–not because I approve of marijuana use but because there is a crazy patchwork of state laws and it needs to be rationalized now at the federal level for a lot of very basic legal and financial reasons.

            I applaud her call to legalize sex work which is also a failed prohibitionist policy which does more harm than good, by virtue of the difficulties in enforcing such things most of all, but in a secondary sense because people should be free to sell their sex for money as a normative issue in my mind. In a society where women give out so much sex for free why should charging be such a taboo? The average woman of loose morals conducts herself in a way which is inferior to that of a woman who charges for it, in my neanderthal, knuckle dragging opinion.

            Moreover in a liberal society such as ours which has legalized every form of bizarre sexual conduct and elevated certain perversions into virtues, the old fashioned legit business of free and willing adult hereosexuals trading a little comfort for a little money should not land people in jail. End of story on that. Thank you Tulsi for stating the obvious.

            I realize most of the other sex work legalization people don’t like me and my benighted socially conservative viewpoints which lead me in strange twists to this viewpoint, but, I am what I am.

            1. If Ms. Gabbard’s views represent the district that elected her to office, then good for her. If her views represent the state of Hawaii, then again, good for her. I don’t live in her district and I don’t live in Hawaii. She might even advocate for something I agree with. However, she has a progressive view on government that shouldn’t warrant support simply because she favors the constitution on a single issue.

              1. yeah Olly I agree — I would not support the whole prog agenda by any means but sometimes the candidates signify how they stand out from the field. that’s why they gain due attention

                and sometimes voters make a point on a few issues that stand out. i still content Trump is a Republican who got many Democrat blue collar industrial country votes because he had a fair trade policy above all other secondary concerns

                1. but sometimes the candidates signify how they stand out from the field. that’s why they gain due attention.

                  With 20 in the pack, they all are looking for that one thing to stand out and get attention. There is plenty of room to the right (center), but they all seem to be seeing how far left they can go without falling off a cliff. I believe you may be correct regarding Trump. He was always going to get my vote based solely on the SC, the economy and national defense. The rest of it we can weather.

  15. They will pick whomever they are told to pick. They don’t choose anything, not even their own shoes! What a joke.

    We don’t need a president. We need a peaceful revolution of the people, by the people and for the people. I hope that revolution is full of any person who cares about our nation, this planet with all it’s life forms including our people and the people of other nations.

      1. I applaud her for these fine words. I wish her the best. The mass media of course ignores her.

      2. The mass media and Democrat establishment would have you think that Kamala and Creepy, Sleepy Joe are front runners along with Gay Mayor Pete, and Fauxcahontas and some lady named Amy are all that’s worth attention in the primaries. We have heard it all from the Hillary Boosters here. They only report on Bernie grudgingly and still say he’s not a Democrat, really! Whatever that means. But Bernie’s long in the tooth and shied away from some of his better issues.

        Meanwhile, they IGNORE Tulsi and Yang. Who have many policy faults but some very exciting and timely ideas which must be considered!

        1. Kurtz, the “media” is busy – along with Trump – quoting AOC while pretending the Democratic “base” is too left for Biden and he’s got an Anita Hill problem. Meanwhile he’s the front runner right now – way too early, I agree – and has the strongest support among black voters. Bernie’s an old personal friend, but it’s a fact he’s not a democrat and he won’t win the primary – again. AOC and Omar win in districts the Democrats would hold with Adam Weiner and Corrine Brown.

          Amy Klobochar wins all the Minnesota districts, including Michelle Bachman’s old seat. The smart people in Trump’s campaign – if there are any – will fear her the most.

          1. Anon come on seriously. Amy who? Yawn.

            AOC is a freakshow distraction, a flash in the pan. She may mature into something serious but for now she’s out of her depth.

            Biden would be a great challenger for Trump except of the creepy touchy feely stuff. That’s a real problem for him especially with all the METOOERS in play.

            Bernie is a solid candidate but you have reminded us again that you guys don’t consider him a Democrat. Whatever! He will do well.

            Kamala looks very strong to win the primary since she has patronage support from the Hillary clique. I find her boring unprincipled and uninspired. But that’s exactly what helps a yes-lady rise to the top of those circles, now, isnt it?

            Keep on ignoring Yang. Or go read and listen to him. You guys are all ignoring AI that will gobble our society up and spit it out in a decade in ways we can’t even imagine now. You will remember I said this and shake your heads one day. It stinks to be a Cassandra.

              1. Her biography on wiki seems to indicate a reasonabley competent job as a district attorney in San Francisco. However, I don’t see much in the way of policies that is worth much attention. It’s all rather bland and workmanlike California Democrat stuff, that is, she has predictably left to moderate, very boring and inconsequential policy positions.

                I am not concerned about her personal sexual history any more than I am Trump’s. If she satisfied the Mayor during her service, as you have alleged, in some ways more than one, I could care less about that. I don’t think anybody cares much about it either.

              2. This is absurd x 5 says: April 29, 2019 at 6:04 PM:

                “What helped her rise was giving good head.”

                Absurdity to the max. What a disgusting comment.

            1. Keep on ignoring Amy. She’ll kick Trump’s ass and you know it – or you should..

              Bernie’s fine for Vermont – I helped him campaign for Governor almost 40+ years ago and know him personally, but he’s never going to be president or the Democratic candidate

              The antidote for the non-issue of Biden’s old school touching is pictures and tape of him doing that to completely unsexy matrons. They exist. That’s his style. I don’t think Biden’s a strong candidate, but then look who he’d face in the general. – MR. 40% AT BEST.

              As to Yang, if revolutionary thinkers got elected, there’d be a President Thomas Edison library in Ft Myers.and a President Stewart Brand library in Sausalito. I’m sure he has interesting ideas and I’ll check them out. That doesn’t make a presidential campaign.

              1. Biden is a strong candidate he resonates well with normal people in ways that Bernie does not. He is some kind of Irishman that you like, who maybe has had a whiskey but can hold his liquor, more so than the Sean Hannity type who sounds like he’s had one too many beers and always talks too loud.

                His touchy feely stuff is creepy but it bothers other people more so than me. Feminists, in a word.

                Bernie, you know him and campaigned for him and have nothing substantial to say in his favor here on this platform? That is sad but I guess that speaks for what kind of folks support him. Quickly shifting allegiances!

                Chairman Yang. Joe Rogan who talks like a lot of guys like me, and we follow his show just for fun, interviewed him. Watch this.


                I am not interested in who will beat Trump. None of these people can. I am interested in who in the Dem field will elevate important policy issues that we all need to consider as a nation for serious potential action in our common interests.

                1. 40+ years is not “quickly shifting allegiances”. I said he’s fine for Vermont. What else should I say by your standards?

                  You’re dream world confidence on the election is duly noted. Sure, you’ll draw a pair of 4s again and ride it to victory.

                  1. Vermont is an outier for sure, many things. But Bernie has some insights that are worth listening to as well.

                    A pair of 4s is all you need to beat a worser hand. The Dems are great at throwing away the good cards and holding the bad ones.

                    Wait and see. You guys still havent paid up for your bets on the Miller report and indictments of Jared and all that jive. Your credit on bets is running low. Pay the vig at least and then we may let you start laying odds again.

              2. Edison was a genius and a super hard worker. He deserves deep respect. His work was more important than the President’s at the time perhaps, arguably. We would not be talking on these devices without him. I have been to his museum in Ft Myers and he and Firestone and Ford were Olympian figures of our great American history of commerce and industry and technology. We probably owe a lot more to Thomas Edison than many POTUSes combined.

              3. Here’s another tip that Democrats won’t say so let an anonymous knuckle dragger like me say it in cyberspace.

                Americans WILL vote for a strong woman. But against a strong man like Trump? All other things being equal, they will pull the lever for Trump. And that includes women who will vote for the Alpha Wolf of the Pack for the most powerful job in the world. End of story for Amy whatsername.

                You see how he aced out Hillary? A well qualified candidate and supremely ruthless and strong woman. But she lost. In case you forgot. She needed to do more than win over urban cohorts she needed to poll in the Rust belt and flyover. Where she failed. Amy whomever may be folksy but she lacks name recognition and many other advantages Hillary had which she does not.

                Tulsi is worth talking about for many other reasons which don’t apply to Kamala or Amy or Liz Warren. I have outlined them elsewhere. Let’s discuss those things if you like.

                I had good things to say about certain comments and legislative ideas about debtor’s rights advanced by Liz Warren years ago but mostly nobody cared when I brought them up so I wont bother now again. Her strong suit not mattering to people, her weaknesses will not carry her either.

                1. Americans already voted for a strong woman against Trump – it was only 2 years ago, WTF? You think you’re going to win Wisc, Mich, and Penn on 70,000 votes again?

                  Name recognition comes with a long primary. If Amy gets in the top 4 or so 6-8 months from now, look out. She’s equally smart and driven as Hillary, but with a more pleasant personality and a long history of running a big DA office and passing bi-partisan legislation.

                  1. I will watch and see just because you said so and I respect you for having a semi legit conversation with me. thank you for the recommendation.

                  2. It looks like Trump won those 3 states by a total of 110,000 votes. But if he wins them in 2020 by a margin of only 70,000 votes, I think he’d settle for that.

                    1. “Donald Trump owes his victory in the Electoral College to three states he won by the smallest number of votes: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. So it’s fair to say that the 2016 presidential election was decided by about 77,000 votes out of than 136 million ballots cast. According to the final tallies, Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7 percentage points (44,292 votes), Wisconsin by 0.7 points (22,748 votes), Michigan by 0.2 points (10,704 votes). If Clinton had won all three states, she would have won the Electoral College 278 to 260. …”


                      Left out of that quote is that Hillary won the national vote by almost 3 million, or a margin by %s that elected 11 previous presidents. Y’all think you can get that lucky twice?

                    2. Yes. I think we can win in the electoral college over a popular vote win. I think that will continue to happen as a likely outcome in this cycle and maybe more. it may help a Democrat too some day, ya never know.

                      I have laid out the dynamic before. The major metros are all dark blue and most of the rural and flyover geography is red. It almost reads like a map of population density. The whole thing may not end well for the nation as a unitary whole.

                      It’s hard to see where anything will be more than 10 years out. This is why its important to consider the issue of AI. When AGI comes online, things will become possible that were entirely unimaginable beforehand. Read the book “Singlularity” by Ray Kurzweil. I do not like his rosy tone but it gives you an idea of the potential impact of certain threshhold developments in technology. I’m sure he is a liberal so he is unlikely to turn you off, so don’t be deterred by my recommendation

                      The claims if Trump “winning 3 states by 80,000 votes, or 70,000” (or whatever) are common.
                      When one adds the total margin of wins in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, the total is c. 110,000. The election was held on Nov.8 2016. The people still whining about the 2016 election results usually don’t bother to add up the tallies of each if those 3 states, or give finalized results.
                      Final voting results are given in the U.S. News and World Report linked article, dates Nov. 14. The article that Anon linked is dated November 10.
                      We’re starting to see some forecasts already in these threads that reflect an unwarranted confidence in how the 2020 election will turn out. I’ll go out on a limb here😉 and predict that the Democratic nominee win California and it’s 55 Electoral College votes. By far the largest state E.C. vote prize. I’ll also predict that the Democratic candidate will get those 55 votes whether CA. is carried by a margin of one million votes, or ten million votes.
                      It’s 55 votes either way, and running up the score in California by 4,000,000 votes,vas Hillary did in 2016, doesn’t earn the candidate extra credit.
                      But in addition to whining about “3 states won by” this or that margin, those 4 million extra CA. votes gave Hillary supporters the extra bonus of repeating again, and again…..and again, that “Hillary won the popular vote by 3,000,000. That’s true, but it’s also irrelevant. Candidates’ campaigns are geared for winning the Electoral College votes, not for earning bragging rights by running up the score in California.All of those 3,000,000 votes, and THEN SOME, canes from the lopsided 4,000,000 vote Hillary win in CA.
                      Elections that turn on a narrow margin of victory in a few states, or even less, are not common. But they are not unprecedented. What is unprecedented is the continue level of whining in the aftermath of the unxpected Hillary loss c.2 1/2 years ago, the “Hillary won the popular vote by 3,000,000” sad, sad story ,😢 recited endlessly, etc.

                  3. Like the wag said ‘strong’ applied to women means the same as ‘vibrant’ applied to neighborhoods. It means loud.

                    Hillary is notable for being utterly unscrupulous and being a terror to work for.

                    The country’s political class doesn’t get our best and there haven’t been many women generated therein appropriate for the most demanding executive positions. Dianne Feinsten in her prime, perhaps. Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, Meg Whitman, and Christine Todd Whitman might be in the zone. (Both Fiorina and Haley are difficult bosses).

              4. “…but he’s never going to be president or the Democratic candidate”

                Which may be the reason that Trump was elected. Bernie should been the Dem’s pick in 2016. But no — it had to be the HRC, even though she wasn’t right for the job.

            1. Let s talk about Kamala on sex work. She claims to support decriminalizing sex work. But she also supported FOSTA and SESTA. There are very few activists who make this an issue, who consider her a genuine supporter of legalizing sex work. She is not. She is fake on the topic.


              Tulsi takes the sincere and compassionate position of across the board outright legalization. If you look into this you will see that a large number of people interested in this issue which includes right wing liberterian types, have staunchly identified Tulsi as the real leader among Dems on this sensitive topic.

              To legalize sex work is not to encourage it. no more than legalizing cigarettes is to encourage cancer. It may mean that we have more cancer. But a lot less trouble trying to stop people from using it. There are tradeoffs in governance and public interest choices and we have to face the ridiculous and unfair and hypocritical situation we put sex workers and their customers in by maintaining a society where casual sex is lauded and encouraged all around us but the sex worker is demonized for her work simply because she is daring to value the service in pecuniary terms. This is a preposterous situation that the left wing Democrat hypocrites in Hollywood such as have given us “Pretty Women” that glamorizes sex workers for the profits of the movie industry, and other businesses like Google and Apple and the producers which makes billions offf of paid sex which is legal, and yet they all do little or nothing to address in terms of civil society and the fairness to working people who are not famous porn stars like “Stormy” who actually can ply their paid sex work for free because of the supposed First Amendment. .

              1. “Tulsi takes the sincere and compassionate position of across the board outright legalization.”

                I agree with her. (And you.)

              1. PS The employees standing up for Amy signed the letter. None of the disgruntled gave their name. If that’s the worst available, let it rip.

      1. Says an idiot who doesn’t understand the Constitution. Want me to explain, can you handle the shame of a foreigner explaining to you how your system works, and why?

        1. I’d love to hear you try to explain our selection process for President and Vice President! Make sure you brush up by reading Federalist #68 by Hamilton before you make a fool of yourself!

      2. yes I support Trump. He will win again. And the electoral college is the lawful system so get over the popular vote thing. Meanwhile don’t miss an opportunity to look into serious issues that deserve attention. Like marijuana patchwork law rationalization; like sex work legalization; like an end to excessive war adventures in the middle east; and like the major social dislocations that will result from AI created job loss and what to do about it.

Comments are closed.