Funny how that respect all goes out the window isn't it? Did you call him out on it?

I had a related conversation with someone similar not long after the election. Their response is that they tried to do that with Obama, but his lies, treason, etc., made it impossible. Bottom line: if you want to justify something badly enough, you'll find a way to do so.

His tweeting is a very effective distraction to the fact he settled his Trump University lawsuit ... look at his silly pointless tweeting rather than the real news.

(it'll be interesting to see if this continues to work once he's making even bigger mistakes as president)

I consider Trump U too be significantly less news worthy than a president elect bullying people and actively trying to shout down an act of free speech. Especially when the words he is targeting were so reasonable and respectful.

I would hope he'd settle Trump U, guilty or not, put it to bed. You never know with this mentally challenged pumpkin, but glad he did.

Don't forget "selling us to ISIS." Whatever the hell that means.

Cuckservative indeed.

He does have small hands, huh?

I don't know. I don't care about him whining about people. That's just who he is. The fact he was running a fraudulent business is pretty big news.

It makes me wonder if Trump is stirring up shit with the Hamilton thing to draw attention away from the fact he had to pay $25m for committing fraud.

And now Trump is attacking SNL again. Sigh.

I'm like Shrek. Layers, onion, all that ;) No shortage of shit for people to hate on, at least try to do it for the right reasons & all, m'kay? I AM the guy who sat out the 2012 Presidential vote after all (and separately noted my pride in my son enjoying intentionally not voting for some folks as his favorite part of casting his first ever ballot this year).

Yeah, I am having a little fun with you here about this. It's all good, it's an easy enough mistake to have made, I'm handy shorthand occasionally ... just so long as you remember that I'm not that lever-guy in any deeper conversation about specifics ;)




And my sincere thanks to Drake for taking time to actually note some of that.

That's exactly what Trump is doing. He's making a fool out of people who should be smarter than him.

But nothing short of a public murder would matter before the inauguration. Yeah, we could be talking about Trump U., but by next week we'd be on to something else regardless.

Come February, Trump will have to worry about his enormous conflicts of interest. If he can tweet his way out of that then we can talk.

Jon, you spent months talking about how Donald Trump was the only candidate in the Republican primaries worth a damn, and excoriating Clinton and Sanders (and Democrats in general) as treasonous pussies.

What turned you against Trump (for a while, I guess? it sounds like you crawled back home?) wasn't the outrageous nature of any of the things he said, or allegations against him, but that he had the temerity to back off, however slightly, on some of his more insane proposals.

Your issue with him was that he was insufficiently extreme, for however long that moment lasted.

Pat yourself on the back for not having voted for Romney, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

The difference between you and somebody who voted for both Romney and Trump is that you're willing to bite the hand that feeds if the meat is insufficiently red.

That does not exonerate you from the charge of being a "pull the lever guy." Because that is, in fact, what you are - where there are levers to be pulled, you're only ever going to pull the one marked (R). You're just willing to lay down and hold your breath until your face turns purple if the meat the (R) candidate is feeding you isn't still mooing.

Yep.


What turned me on Trump was his failure to back the "controversial" law in NC. Plain & simple. Anybody who gets one THAT glaringly obvious to any truly rational person wrong really has no business holding public office ... at least not in a world where sufficiently rational candidates are fielded for high office. Alas ...

As I explained -- which seemed necessary since I had disavowed his candidacy along the way -- the difference this time was that the potential amusement value of a Trump win outweighed the risk that he'd actually screw anything up worse than it already is. That was the difference between him & Romney, I believe the latter would have been tragically similar to an Obama administration. Trump may get few things of importance right, but I don't think he'll do much proactively to make matters worse either.


Or if it isn't fit to eat.

And just because the races aren't high enough profile to warrant discussion here does not mean that there aren't cases where I have voted for a specific candidate with a different party affiliation ... it's just been a very long time since I've seen anyone willing to associate themselves with the (D) party that didn't disqualify themselves outright for that poor judgement.

Just want to be sure we're on the same page on this one:

you turned on the guy who boasted about being able to walk in unannounced on teenage girls in various states of undress because he had to "inspect" them because he wouldn't back the bathroom law? The former wasn't a cause for concern, but the latter was a bridge too far?


I think you might have been right if Romney had been elected the first time he ran for President. By the third time, he'd been reduced to claiming he was "severely conservative" while at the same time running away from his legacy as governor. Any deviation from conservative orthodoxy as President would have meant being a one-termer if for no other reason than that his base would have primaried him out.


When party affiliation is a disqualifier that requires a candidate to deviate significantly from his or her party's political ideology to (maybe) overcome...you aren't making a case for yourself being other than a "pull the lever" voter.

You're saying that a Democrat COULD behave enough like a hardline Republican to get your attention...but why vote for the knockoff when you can have the real thing? And if you can't have the real thing, why bother voting?

Unless it'd make the liberals mad, of course.

From our local Indianapolis station on Pence's reaction to the Hamilton kerfuffle:

Pence not offended by 'Hamilton' cast's message - 13 WTHR Indianapolis


That's the sort of class we should expect out of our politicians.

Full disclosure: Plenty of disagreements with Pence's politics, but I'm also a foster parent, and he and his wife have been tireless champions of the foster system in Indiana. While I disagreed with many of his conclusions and his proposed solutions as governor, I was always confident that he was acting from personal convictions and the principles derived from those. (I still think that funerals for miscarriages was tone deaf and one bridge too far. As someone whose wife has had several miscarriages, tacking funeral expenses onto the loss she was feeling would constitute insult-to-injury.)

Is Burial Bridge before or after Conversion Therapy Bridge?

(ok, I guess it depends on which direction you're traveling...)

I actually agree with the earlier post that the Hamilton (and SNL) tweets are much more bothersome than the Trump U settlement. While I think there most likely was fraud, a settlement isn't proof. And yes, Trump is a hypocrite here, because he said that's exactly what a settlement is.

But the tweets worry me more going forward because they continue to exhibit a very erratic and delusional pattern of behavior. I really worry how that will manifest itself once he's in the White House and faces people and situations much more difficult and problematic than a Broadway cast or late night sketch show.

An ISIS created sketch comedy mocking Trump is in the works.

I'm surprised ISIS isn't trolling him on Twitter.

I think what probably would concern me the most if I were an American citizen would be the Trump family's business concerns and the conflict of interests there - horrifically blatant conflict of interests, really, when you see them all laid out on the page. Does anyone actually think Trump is going to favour the US over his and his children's own interests? Not a chance.

I was reading about the infamous (and influential) Russian book 'Foundation of Geopolitics' over the weekend, and it's kinda scary to compare the strategies laid out in the 1997 book (or at least what's been written about it in English as there are no translations allowed from the copyright holder) with what is happening around the wider world at the moment. Putin must be rubbing his hands together having a buffoon like Trump in the White House, I know that much. I wonder if it's ever been easier to force a US president's hand than it will be over the next 4 years.

Trump’s big infrastructure plan? It’s a trap. - The Washington Post

When Argentina’s prez called to congratulate, Trump asked him to expedite permits for a biz project in Buenos Aires. https://t.co/hsh1IeyFoH

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 21, 2016

Should we just start the impeachment count down now?

Trump is so high-energy that he doesn’t even wait for his inauguration to start committing impeachable offenses https://t.co/9q6XuHxxjD

— David Frum (@davidfrum) November 21, 2016

Read through some of this after your post and all I can say is that it completely fits the MO for Putin for the last 15 years. I'm guessing that the excitement that he feels over potentially expanding his sphere of influence must be incredible.

No hot Twitter takes yet for Donald on the recent police shootings?

I can't tell if it means America has reached a new high or a new low when we can get through a day where we can say, "At least the President elect didn't tweet anything stupid today."

Not really Trump related, but his election has spurred me into remembering why I originally wanted to get into politics before I just got lazy and went where life took me. In doing some research, I came across the following from the SC Democratic party rules:


Even as a Democrat, this just comes across as... I'm not really sure I can find the right words. It just feels so forced and off-putting. They give Trump so much crap for being racist and misogynistic, but they can't even trust their own members not to be racist and misogynist.

Huh? I see it as being inclusive of diversity in leadership. This is something that should be PROMOTED, not dismissed.

This sort of "forced" is how non profit organizations promote diversity and have done so for years. It actually gets the voices of those who normally wouldn't reach the goal to be listened to.

It's like saying affirmative action is merely forced diversity and just shows these states just don't trust colleges not to be racist.

So they're own members cannot be trusted? I do not care what the job is, I want the best people for a position, regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.

And I want a diversity of viewpoints in leadership. Y'all do realize that this means that if the Chair is a young black female, this allows for the Vice Chairs to be a) male, b) white, and c) older, right?

FWIW, that means that the Second Vice Chair is currently required to be white, since the chair is a black man. I would like have a white person as Vice Chair for his diversity of views.

Well, an old white man can't be trusted to have the views and experiences of a young black woman. Not any fault of his, of course, but that's the reason for having people of multiple backgrounds on a leadership board.

Which is exactly what the racist policy is.

I get it, however, this does not guarantee diversity of viewpoints, nor is this the role that way to develop policy. If I am sick, and there is a team of doctors trying to figure out what is wrong with me, I do not care that we get diversity of opinions, I want the right solution. My concern is do they know what they need to do to get the information they need to diagnose the ailment, and the proper course of treatment.

A black female that went to Harvard and a white male that went to Yale have a lot more in common than a black female that went to Harvard and a black female drop out from downtown Charleston.

I do not understand it, but maybe it is me. As a salesman, I have to promote my company (political party) to my customer (my constituents), but I also need to represent my customer to my company. Sometimes, I need to take a customer's problem (societal issue) to my company and we need to determine a solution (course of action). I often have to guide the company's proposals based upon the knowledge of my customer's needs. This is achieved by listening, not by having the same background as the customer, but listening to the customer.

EDIT: Part of the problem the Democrats had in this election is because they are not working hard. They figured they had a woman at the top of the ticket, they had other minorities around her, and assumed that that would be enough. You have to listen and you have to get things done.

I get why it's beneficial to have racial diversity at a university, that's a benefit to the educational experience, but this discussion makes it sound like we assume that all people of a race have the same experiences and viewpoints. So if you get "a black guy" you've got the "black viewpoint" covered. Make that makes everybody happier and feel like they're better people, but that tokenism feels so 80s.

On the other hand, we just went through an election where were one of the blames assigned to the losing Presidential candidate was that her staff didn't have enough patience for the views of working class white folks (and those who advocated it were not taken seriously).

There is no guarantee, of course, that Harvard black female would know a ton more than a Harvard white male, but the BF would likely know at least a bit more due to her experiences in growing up black and female.

And in political elections, it is generally allowing different constituencies to have a voice on the board - and those constituencies would likely pick people to represent them that did understand those concerns.

It comes across to me as being expansive and ensuring that diverse viewpoints are heard ... I kinda like it tbh.

That was my exact thought in reading this. Beyond that, as someone disgusted with both parties right now, I rarely hear any new ideas worth anything and I find it hard to have a discussion with a member of EITHER party without running into some sort of brick wall in thought.

Immigration seems to have three solutions: Kick all the illegals out, let them all stay, kick only the violent ones out. I think all three solutions are garbage.

As long as we have this hive mind mentality where our side is the only right one, there are no viewpoints to be had, only solutions for attacking the other side. Which is how this idiot got in office and why this country is so ridiculously divided on everything right now.

edit: If the young black female or the old white guy in this example have a plan which looks similar to the "other sides" plan, what happens? My guess is diversity won't come into play. They'll be either eased out of their position or not listened to anymore. I can see how it could be a great thing. With the hive minds of each party, I think it has little, if any value.

So what's your solution?

I generally believe illegal immigrants should be punished in some way or form if they want to stay. It shouldn't be more advantageous to immigrate illegally than legally (which is what amnesty would give).

I'd bet until this election the Dem party in SC has been driven largely by white union voters, black voters and young voters. It sure looks like the plan was to have all three constituencies represented in the DNC administration.

They should have a provision to ensure that each representative matches the stereotypes of his or her group.

Maybe electing the most qualified people would help them not get their ass kicked in every election.

I agree 100%. I don't think kicking out millions of people and destroying families is the fair solution, but there has to be some type of punishment for being here unlawfully. There also has to be heavy punishments on the companies employing illegal workers. (which isn't going to happen with Trump in charge unless he wants to punish himself)

I don't claim to have all the solutions, I'm just a working dumb ass. But I'd sure love to see options being discussed. I'd sure like to not be called a racist xenophobe because I think that a system which allows between 250,000 to 500,000 illegals to cross the border each year is a problem.

I usually either really agree or really disagree with Troy but I agree here. It's obscene companies can profit millions off illegal workers but we only punish the people who come for these opportunities

The irony of these policies being pushed by somebody who has been documented profiting from illegals shouldn't be lost on anyone. And I wonder how many illegals would be employed in building the wall and making massive profits for the companies involved.

The problem is splitting the baby. As long as you're concerned about damage to families, remember that many of those families are going to have children who were brought here by their parents. What sort of punitive measure are you going to take against those kids? If a pathway to citizenship for those kids is ultimately part of whatever package takes form, what sort of corrective action are you going to take that doesn't materially harm a generation of young, prospective citizens (and thus doesn't materially harm their productive prospects on behalf of the nation)?

That's why most solutions offered end up being "pay back taxes and a fine, demonstrate proficiency in English, and apply through the legal channels for citizenship, but go to the back of the line." Punitive solutions don't just fall on the heads of those actively breaking immigration law. It also falls on those who had no say in the matter.


Which is why this has been, like gay marriage bans in 2004 and Roe since the 70s, little more than a wedge issue designed to drive voters to the polls. Nobody in the Republican Party wants to be in the position of appearing to be anti-business, but at the same time, "they're taking jobs from Americans!" is how you keep the base riled.


I guess where I come down on the issue is that I think there's a critical distinction to be made between border security and immigration. The two aren't unrelated, but remember that a significant percentage of illegal immigration isn't actually the result of illegal border crossings.

We issue 45 million temporary visitor visas per year, and while only about 1 percent of those result in illegal overstays, that's still 450,000 cases per year. Locking down the border, building a wall, whatever you want to do, might increase border security, but it isn't going to eliminate illegal immigration. Might put a dent in its numbers, but most of the data out there suggests that illegal immigration from the southern border has either been static or negative in recent years - that is, the number of people illegally crossing the border has, at worst, been at parity with those leaving the country for whatever reason. At best, the influx has been smaller than the outflux.

So what we've been doing for the last 16 years has worked, and that's probably a non-trivial part of why Donald Trump changed his message from "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" to "do what President Obama has done but with more energy!" The low-hanging fruit on illegal immigration has largely been plucked through the efforts of the Bush and Obama Administrations to secure that border. It's never going to be perfectly non-porous, for topographical reasons if nothing else, but what's left that can be done on that front is a question of diminishing returns.

The visa issue, on the other hand, has been largely untouched (and several of the 9/11 hijackers entered the country exactly that way, so WHY that loophole has been left untouched is a little troubling IMO).

Given everything we have learned, I think a headline "Trump Taps Gov. Nikki Haley" is fairly unwise.

Trump calls son of ambushed San Antonio officer - BBC News

"Trump Grabs Haley by the...." Wait, no. That won't work either.

Why does the last 7 days feel like it should be retitled, "the education of Mr. Trump?"

Second, the way he has backtracked off of his stances or promises while losing no support from his hard line supporters just reinforces the idea that the next time around, you'll literally be able to say anything and nobody will expect that you'll actually mean any of it.