It was largely due to Sarah Palin that I did not vote for McCain back in '08.

Only caught a minute or two here and there (because that's all I could stomach), but I did catch one piece of revisionist history by Pence. He said that Putin's aggression started under Obama and brought up Russia's invasion of Georgia. This was the line: "This foreign policy from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has awakened a Russian aggression that first appeared a few years ago with their move into Georgia and Crimea and into the wider Middle East. "

That (the invasion of Georgia) happened in 2008.

And apparently the old Russian proverb that Pence quoted, "the Russian bear never dies, it just hibernates"...is not actually an old Russian proverb.

Trump adviser on debate after Pence passed up opportunities to defend him: "Pence won overall, but lost with Trump"

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) October 5, 2016

more from adviser on Trump reaction to strong Pence debate following poor Trump showing last week: "he can't stand to be upstaged"

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) October 5, 2016

So does this make for an even angrier Donald in debate two?

Yeah, I don't think this will make any difference because people don't vote for VP's, and doubt many of those ignoramuses chose to tune in to the VP debate. But facts don't matter live, and Pence dominated that debate, regardless what CNN's biased focus group said. The big winner tonight was Pence's potential 2020 campaign (I think he's very appealing to the base Ted Cruz has been trying to ride for years, and presumably many big $$$ donors slow playing things or sitting this cycle out) after a lackluster convention speech.

Assuming Hillary wins, Kaine will have plenty of time to change his image, though I'm not buying him as a viable stand alone candidate down the road. Although I can see the argument that he was miscast as the attack dog tonight.

Ha! Definitely voting Clinton now! Fucking liars over there on the right!!! Who wasted their time fact checking that? :)

Btw, CNN pundits all had this as a Pence win. The focus group was undecideds in Virginia, and it really isn't surprising that majority said their former governor and current senator won. Even the CNN anchor passed it of as a biased group.

What the hell did Hillary see in this buffoon? Terrible decision.

I think the terrible decision was by either how they told him to act in the debate, or in how he acts in the debate if that's just his way of debating.

I only watched about 4 minutes, but I was cringing the entire time and just couldn't take any more. They were talking about Syrian refugees, and Pence was lying out of his ass the entire time, but Kaine kept interrupting him. He also kept almost rolling his eyes or just looking like a dick the entire time.

Kaine was presented as this doofus dad of America type. If the Clinton's plan was to send him on the attack during the debate, it seems like a very odd choice. No one wants to see dad berate someone, especially on national TV.

You can be an attack dog without acting like an attack jackass, though. (Or maybe it's so outside of Kaine's personality that he can't pull it off?)

Kaine is a good guy in general, but he's a stolid workhorse, not an attack dog. Why the Dems did not play to his strengths, I cannot imagine. He looked bad.

Dola...

But yeah, if he had just waited for him to finish, then smiled smugly, shook his head, and said "no, Trump did say X" after every lie, he is being talked about today as the clear winner.

Or don't even call him a liar, even, on the deportation stuff. Just put your hands up in mocking exasperation, give a mocking chuckle and say, "Well, I guess technically he's telling the truth, since Trump has contradicted himself so many times. One day he says he'll deport them all. The next he says there will be a fine and a path to citizenship. Who knows what he's going to do????"

Virginia.

If Trump loses, the leaks from the Pence campaign are going to be epic. He's clearly already trying to position himself as the conservative choice for 2020, and I bet he'll bury Trump while he tries to become the early frontrunner.

Which seems solidly in Clinton's camp whether due to Kaine or not.

Hmmmm..that sounds fun and all, but can Kaine (or any R) win if the Trump camp gets completely alienated? It seems that if you leak that sort of stuff, Trump isn't exactly going to just sit back and not respond. With no handlers keeping him "presidential," I'd think you'd be initiating all-out war with an already-pissed-off Donald Trump while his already-pissed-off supporters are just looking for someone to blame for his loss. I don't see how that could end well for any conventional politician.

Picked the wrong democratic ex governor. Warner >>>>> Kaine.

Based on what? Mark Warner is to the right of Tim Kaine for sure and he almost blew a Senate election he should've had wrapped up. Their positions on Syrian refugees puts Kaine way way ahead of Warner for me.

Any time you have an older candidate, the VP becomes a much bigger part of the equation.

And I doubt Warner would have been any better at the debate. Clinton went safe and comfortable. Given that VP picks almost never provide upside, but can provide downside, it was a fine pick. Nobody is going to be talking about this debate in a week.

Very, very much agree with this assessment. I've met with him several times, starting from when he was still Mayor of Richmond running for Lt.Gov. I don't know that I've ever met with a more genuine, decent politician than Kaine.

VP candidates typically have to be willing to make tougher attacks than the presidential candidate, and I think he has willingly agreed to be shoehorned into that role. This is clearly a mistake, and probably on two levels. First, he's just not that good at it. As many others have noted, it is just not in his nature to be that guy. Second, I don't think anyone is needed to play that role in this particular election. Trump is bombastic and invites the public and the media to call him out on all of the crazy things he says. Clinton/Kaine would be much better served in this election by simply being the grown-ups at the table.

Pence definitely 'won' the debate... if these folks were on top of the ticket. However, it seems really apparent that Pence didn't really help Trump at all. He never defended Trump and kept trying to rewrite Trump's entire position on Russia. Kaine looked like an aggressive jackrabbit, but he kept pointing to Trump said X, can you defend it... and Pence couldn't. And that's the narrative today for a wide variety of media outlets - Pence won, but he couldn't defend Trump. Very definition of winning the battle but losing the war.

Kaine did what he was supposed to do for the campaign. They wanted this ad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZOW...AtQGGi&index=1

I will say that I respect Pence far more than I did before. His ability to jump onto a ticket like Trump and yet still keep his personality and reputation intact has been borderline amazing. I'm not sure I thought that was a possibility when he was given the VP spot.

Is that a reputation for looking at the camera and lying for 90 minutes or something else?

That's awesome.

I wonder how Trump supporters feel about Pence disclaiming some of Trump's biggest policies - like the Muslim ban, deportation forces, punishing women that have abortions.

Usually the "move the middle post-nomination" strategy is more subtle. This is the stuff that got Trump headlines and support early on. How do those supporters feel now that the Trump/Pence strategy appears to be just to lie about Trump ever holding those positions? And if he's abandoning those policies, what exactly does he stand for now?

Mike Pence: GREAT GUY!

Mike Pence Tells Wrongfully Convicted Man He Won't Act On Pardon Request - BuzzFeed News

Keeping that reputation in tact!

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 4m4 minutes ago

We're liveblogging the VP debate too, though, which could easily swing the polls as much as 0.006 percentage points.

...thank god baseball was on.

I don't think Pence did (or wanted to) defend all of Donald's statements, but the interrupting & the moderator hustling things along helped mask that. Never had to actually defend the full content, could just give the exasperated "of course Donald didn't say ALL Mexicans were bad. You're just being absurd."

When Kaine said he'd refused to defend Trump 6 times and Pence said he'd love to go point by point I was excited... And then I believe the moderator told Pence he had 30 seconds to respond and hustled on to the next topic. That would have been a great time for the moderator to say you know what, you guys have been catfighting about this and shoehorning them into every topic, let's have it out. But unfortunately schedules must be adhered to!

....I did. :(

It just wouldn't be a debate without Donald being upset that a Mike wasn't working for him.

That's simple: you don't ever let a lightweight like Pence ever take (the higher) office or have any meaningful role.

Such a good guy he received $162,000 in gifts as Governor with of course no expectation of giving anything in return.

Kaine’s acceptance of gifts in Virginia could create opening for Republicans - The Washington Post


I mean, that has to be the most damning thing in there, really.

Same group of people who assume that OF COURSE Barack Obama was going to grab the guns in his second term even though gun rights and gun ownership rates expanded during his first term.

When you assume that the other guy must be hiding a super-secret plan for electoral advantage, it isn't a great leap to assume that Trump/Pence are just "playing the game" because parts of Trump's agenda make the middle uncomfortable.

Trump is a giant Rorshach test. He's been on both sides of every issue in this campaign, sometimes more than once. The people who support him can project exactly what they want to believe on him, even if his campaign's message shifts. Again. They'll just wink to one another and say "don't worry about it, WE know the truth."

Vote Trump, because Obama invented racism!

Georgia teacher Jane Wood Allen fired over racist Facebook posts about Michelle Obama | Mic

I get mailings almost every day and 90% of them are anti-Katie McGinley fliers. The RNC must really be desperate to hold Toomey's seat.

Anyways I got a Trump one today and before I discarded it, I looked at who paid for it(I'm always curious) It was paid for by The New York Republican State Committee. I live in PA. Was just wondering if this was a legal solicitation.

Trump is unpolished and speaks off the cuff. If you mean his position on the Iraq war, (1) Just about everybody has changed their "position", (2) Trump's opinions came without benefit of intel briefings, and (3) it doesn't matter now. The Clinton Empire is much scarier. Hillary is secretive and careless, she promises pie in the sky just to get votes, and her husband is senile. California is preparing to give Obamacare to ILLEGALS, and another ILLEGAL who was deported EIGHT times recently murdered an American. Is that the country you want to live in?

And you could tell right away that it was the work of an illegal immigrant because no native-born American has ever murdered anyone.

Tell that to the murdered victim's family.

Donald Trump claims he can fix Chicago's crime problem in one week. He's also going to keep all the jobs here, make Mexico pay for a wall, ban Muslims, shut down parts of the internet, force Nabisco to make Oreos here, cut the budget by 20% without touching the military, social security, or Medicare benefits, and somehow ending birthright citizenship without changing the constitution.

If we're talking "promises pie in the sky just to get votes", tough to beat Trump.

Are you one of those "soundbite liberals" I've heard about? If so, let me educate you. The so-called Muslim ban would be a ban on people coming from known areas of terror and it would only be temporary until each one is vetted. I want to keep American safe, don't you? Companies can go anywhere they want, but if they export to the US, they will pay a tariff. Almost every civilized country in the world already does that. Do you want the American economy to do well? Sounds like "no". The budget could EASILY be cut 20%. I used to work for the federal gov, and you wouldn't believe the waste and the corruption. I could go on, but I suspect you only wanted to bait me rather than have an intelligent exchange.

Let's not confuse that with "knows what he's doing." Donald Trump's behavior the last 11 months has been woefully ignorant, but he knows exactly who his audience is and to whom he's speaking. He's "unpolished" because he knows that the people who eat his shit like it was Godiva chocolate harbor a deep distrust for anybody who behaves with decorum (i.e. "won't tell it like it is").


See, the thing is, he claims to have opposed it before it began. There's nothing on the public record to support that. There's stuff on the public record for after the war began, being in opposition, but nothing from 'before the war,' as he claims. So on that front, it's not even about a position change.

No, here's my concern:


That's from 2006. Two years before Barack Obama's election. The disposition of forces agreement was signed by George W. Bush prior to Obama's oath of office. The decision to withdraw had already been made before Obama spoke a single word as President.

Trump now points to the decision to withdraw as the genesis of ISIS, and calls Barack Obama the founder (or "MVP") of ISIS. Oh, along with Hillary Clinton, of course.

Whether or not Trump opposed the war all along speaks to his judgment, but that's not really what's relevant here. What's relevant is that an actual policy position he advocated for turned out exactly how he predicted it would and he's CASTIGATING THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION for prosecuting the policy he advocated in the first place. He's trying to use the Iraq War to speak to his judgment, but this terrible thing, ISIS, that he thinks is so awful that we need to prevent all Muslims from entering the country, is ostensibly the result of a policy he called for - and what he suggested was the inevitable outcome anyway. And THAT speaks to his judgment, too. He can't have that both ways.

He isn't "changing his position" so much as misrepresenting what it ever was.


Sorry, no. Donald Trump, whatever you think of him personally, is John the Baptist. If he's successful in his run for the Presidency, somebody more "polished" and better able to wield the language of nativism and fascism will follow him in years to come. That's the danger of Donald Trump - not whether he's a buffoonish fop who wants to nuke the world, but what his success portends.

Clinton, if she represents "more of the same," cannot come close to echoing that threat. She won't have the support of the House for any of the right wing's most fevered Clintonian liberty-theft nightmares; she's going to have, at most, two years of Senate cooperation in the nomination and confirmation of judges to any federal court, barring an unpreceented midterm Democratic turnout wave; and the Supreme Court is unlikely, in the next two years, to be terribly receptive to, say, the gutting of Heller.


That's an oxymoron, I'm afraid. Careless people aren't very good at keeping secrets. So which is it?


We're going to build a wall, and Mexico's going to pay for it!


And Donald Trump is a Johnny-come-lately "conservative," somebody who spent large swaths of the '80s and '90s as a registered Democrat, somebody who is on the record as being in favor of multiple liberal policy positions, someone who in the last five years has had a "come to Jesus" return to the Republican Party as birther-in-chief. I would remind you that most people don't experience late-in-life political swings of that nature. That's the sort of thing that happens when someone is running a grift, or is suffering from dementia. By the time you're in your late 60s and 70s, your worldview is pretty secure. You don't wake up and go MY GOD I'VE BEEN A FOOL after retirement age. Usually. He's either the exception that proves that rule for all time, he's running a grift on the Republican base, or he's suffering from dementia.


Literally impossible, to the extent that California would be spending any federal money on healthcare for illegals. That would be in contravention of federal law, you see, and Congress would be able to turn off the flow of federal aid money for programs like Medicaid to the state of California.

If California is preparing to give illegals access to health care, it ain't Obamacare said illegals are getting.


Dude was deported eight times. Sounds like the government was pretty good at catching him and getting rid of him. He made it back a ninth time. Okay. You do realize, one hopes, the utter futility of slamming the door and keeping all "undesirables" out shy of a "Fortress Amerika," right? The answer to that question is always - always - going to involve handing more power to the State. What happens when the wall doesn't work, because you can't extend it out to sea, and we have a thing called boats and thousands of miles of unguarded coastlines? What about the (documented) issue of visa overstays? If someone overstays a visa and steals or creates a new identity to evade detection, how are you going to handle that? Drones in the sky with facial recognition software so that ICE can scan 300 million people for faces in folders of previously-deported individuals? A national ID card issued at birth, to be presented on demand of a law officer?

A border wall is a feel-good that 1) isn't getting paid for by Mexico, 2) is going to be expensive because the cheapest miles to cover already got fenced under Bush, 3) is not going to deter anybody who was willing to cross hundreds of miles of American desert to reach this country because if they're that desperate, they'll find another way and 4) is, I believe the phrased you used was "pie in the sky to get votes."

Polish that turd named Donald Trump however you like. He's a damn Rorshach test, and whatever you want to project on him, you can probably find something in the public record to support your belief that that's how he really feels.

But to believe in a vast Clintonian conspiracy suggests that she's either the most ruthless criminal mastermind ever who gets shit done on a level Trump can't dream of (in which case why vote for the lesser evil?) or she's juuuuust incompetent enough for her evildoing to spill out in a drip drip drip fashion over the last 25 years while simultaneously being competent enough to make sure there's never enough "there" there to allow her political enemies to actually make her face the consequences at any time during those 25 years.

Looks like a lot of words, but I stopped at "eat his shit". You liberal goons are supposedly soooo concerned about political correctness and not "offending" anybody's delicate sensibilities. But these same liberals (inc you) have no problem stereotyping Trump supporters. I am not close to being an uneducated racist white male. I'm glad I don't know you in real life, lest you chase me down the street and beat me up. The Violent Left. Go fuck yourself.

No, I'm not a liberal at all.

I of course want the American economy to do well. That's why I'm against the insanely high tariffs he's proposed. I'd prefer not to pay over $1200 for a smartphone or an extra $5,000 for a new car. Sure it increases a handful of jobs in manufacturing industries, but that's at the expense of a tax on every single American on just about every single product we sell. This is perhaps why both the left and the right have agreed that tariffs are a terrible idea. Decades of economic data have proven it. But I do admit enjoying those on the right prop up a failing far-left economic policy.

And no, you can't "easily cut 20% of the budget". Here is a spending breakdown:



Now Trump has stated he won't cut Social Security or Medicare benefits which accounts to about 60% of our federal budget. He has also been adamant about dramatically increasing military spending which currently accounts for 16% of the budget. He has also stated he is going to be increasing benefits for Veterans which accounts for 4% of the budget.

So between areas he says he will not cut or increase spending, we have 80% of the budget. He would have to eliminate every single other penny spent by the Federal government to meet his 20% promise. This would of course have to include defaulting on our debt.

Now this would be tough because Trump has promised massive infrastructure spending. He in fact scoffed at Hillary's $275 billion proposal saying it was "a fraction" of what he wanted to spend. This goes with his massive military and veteran benefits spending.

Perhaps his understanding of the budget is why he has failed so spectacularly in business.

I always like that graph. I'd like to see a graph that shows how many federal tax dollars the government collected from us in 2015. I'm sure it's readily available, I just don't have time right now to get it posted.

I believe that you just proved his point. Nicely done. Bravo.