The Walking Dems

walking-dems028I’ve seen this condition before, in ’68, in ’72, in ’80, and in 2000. Shell-shocked Democrats, wandering the streets aimlessly, chanting, “Brains,,,What happened to brains?” They so believed their own hype and polls that the idea of losing was never considered. It will pass, like kidney stones.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to The Walking Dems

  1. Michael Anderson says:

    I guess our long national nightmare is still not over. Damn.

  2. Chris Peterson says:

    Been there, seen that. This is WAY different. The absurdity of this election is staggering.
    Electing Trump to the Presidency because you don’t like the government, is like eating a dog turd for breakfast because you don’t like the dinner you made yourself last night.
    But your right on one count; the power of the elite hasn’t changed, but life just got way more intense on the local level. White American males have once again established their small-world dominance, but they are still as inconsequential as before in the big picture. The average Joe hasn’t changed, but the Orange Man has let loose the dogs of prejudice.
    There will be blood.

    • John Dough says:

      Whose blood are you expecting will be spilled Chris?

      • Chris Peterson says:

        Well, let’s see now, Dough; since we’re talking about bigots, I would assume it will be the blood of innocents; typically, the weaker, more defenseless ones. And even then, bigots prefer to hunt in groups, because cowards have an aversion to getting hurt.
        Geez, I hope I’m wrong, but I can’t help but notice the little red flags popping up everywhere, even as we speak. Once you’ve emboldened the ignorant, you can’t put the cork back in that bottle without a collective threat of force.
        For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. That’s just a fact.

        • John Dough says:

          I don’t know how to interpret your comments Chris. Are you suggesting that everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot? You also seem to be suggesting that Trump voters are ignorant? I would like to understand what it is you are really saying. As we discussed in another thread, the voters choice was between an apparent criminal and obvious asshole. Are you saying that those who chose the asshole are ignorant bigots?

          • Chris Peterson says:

            Let me attempt to clarify.
            I don’t, for a second, believe that “everyone” who voted for Trump is a bigot, but I’m certain that every bigot voted for Trump. And while I don’t believe that everyone who voted for him is flat-out ignorant, there are varying degrees of ignorance in doing so. For instance; the aforementioned bigots are, by definition, severely mentally challenged. The independents and cross-over Dems who voted for him will, themselves, admit to a certain amount of ignorance if things go as he proposed. And the rest are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, who would vote for Hannibal Lector, if he ran as a red candidate, and there’s a touch of lemming idiocy to that, as well.
            But my most alarming concern is that Trump has given credence to the most despicable among us; the bigots. Because, as history has taught us, they not only target every race and creed of humanity that is not a white Christian, they will even murder those white Christians who stand up for minorities. So, I can’t tell you who, or when, or where they will strike first, but yes, there will be blood. Among a myriad of other candidate-self-professed reasons, that alone is reason enough to have not voted for Trump.
            And I do not hold to the theory that Clinton lost because she was thought to be a politician that lied. That, in itself, is an ironically ignorant argument.

  3. Cathy C says:

    I think this time it will be a lot longer and harder to pass than kidney stones. If it ever does. I am not ashamed to admit – NOT MY PRESIDENT.

  4. Greg Goodknight says:

    The GOP controls (or will in January) the Presidency, the House, the Senate, most governorships and most state legislatures. This is way different, the GOP is in the catbird’s seat for the first time in nearly a century.

    Constitutionalists will (hopefully) again soon control the SCOTUS by 5/4 and it may become 6/3 or even 7/2 by the end of Trump’s first term. As one jurist once wrote, when a justice starts looking outside the Constitution and US law for guidance, what they are really doing is consulting their own bias.

    Pretty good for a party that, according to trusted news sources, was on a path to obscurity just a week ago. Going forward, in two years, due to a quirk in distributions, more than half of Democratic Senate seats will be up for reelection. Friends in the DP, you have one year before those campaigns start, you have your work cut out for you and while the DiFi seat in our solid blue state is probably safe, the other 24 may have a harder time.

    RL, congrats on having an easy caricature for the next four years. Unlike the last 8 it will be politically correct to make the POTUS look funny, a boon to ‘toonists everywhere. I was happy to again vote for Johnson, but who knows, if the DP reformation makes the Democrats once again friendly to their old classic liberal Jeffersonian wing, maybe they’ll pick up some former Dems who fled to the LIB party. No, I won’t be holding my breath.

    • Chris Peterson says:


      You got my dog staring at me wondering why I burst into laughter on a rainy, silent afternoon.
      Thanks, Greg. Good one.

  5. John Dough says:

    Chris, interested in a dialog about the above but do no want to jump to conclusions about what you mean above. The four members of the Supreme Court that lean to the right are generally regarded as strict “constitutionalists” in their interpretations and associated opinions. Do you disagree with that, or are you just unhappy that the Court will likely be moving to the right in the coming years?

    • Greg Goodknight says:


      Chris Peterson hasn’t yet figured out that his style, the assaultive, insulting language so popular in some circles, is what drove the Trump victory a week ago. Those living in a bubble (Planet Frisco, Planet Manhattan and even Planet Portland (West) have learned that they can shut the opposition up by rhetorical assaults (Jon Stewart taught the technique very effectively) and it worked. Until the opposition got tired of it and voted for Trump.

      Shutting people up isn’t the same as actually winning the argument.

      JD I think what you were grabbing for is “strict constructionist” or “originalist”, but Scalia seems to have objected to that because his guide was more “textualist”, in that the words, the actual text of the constitution as understood by a literate modern American is at the core of how the Constitution should be interpreted.

      The court that returned Dred Scott to his ‘owner’ believed in a literal interpretation… besides being a disaster for the country then, it would mean laser printers, broadcat radio and TV wouldn’t be thought of as “the Press” or speech.. The Social Justice warriors on the court are nearly as interested in what foreign laws might be to guide decisions based on worldwide notions of what justice might be.

      Certainly an honorable intent, but the Scalias would say if the Congress and the President want a different outcome, they should pass a law that makes that so, not stack the court with justices that will just make it happen out of text that doesn’t support it.

      • Chris Peterson says:

        Scalia was bullying jerk who hid his bias in an inconsistent and never-ending circle of judicial-sounding BS. Most Constitutional scholars have known this for years.

        Read, and if you can comprehend it; learn, Greg:

        • Greg Goodknight says:

          There’s a reason Posner was never nominated to the Supreme Court (I tend to agree that a burrito isn’t a sandwich) and that piece is a perfect illustration. As to your incessant need to revert to bullying yourself, I’m led to believe it isn’t bullying you object to, it’s bullies who you perceive to be successful at moving the ball away from your goal line.

          Really, Chris, your style of discussion, across the country, just drove Trump to the Presidency. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result; perhaps you should learn some new tactics. Listen to this nice crazy man, Jonathan Pie is talking to you:

          Throwing insults doesn’t work anymore. Stop it, if you can.

          • Chris Peterson says:

            I genuinely like that. Thanks. I’ve actually just posted it on my FB page.
            My only problem with you, is you think that since I’m a liberal, I must suffer from the same affliction. I try to argue with intelligent points of disagreement, and agreement where it can be found, but there seems to be a disconnect between how you would have me converse, and how you go about it. If it’s total capitulation you want, or nothing at all; then nothing it is.
            If perhaps, as I said, we are ALL a bit ignorant about our politicians, perhaps someday you’ll also realize that you are just as guilty as anyone for arguing your point without actually listening to what those with a differing viewpoint have to say. You are, after all, the blog Prince of ad hominem.
            I won’t hold my breath.

  6. John Dough says:

    Chris, you appear to be saying that everyone who doesn’t see the world like you do must be an ignorant bigot. I find that to be an ignorant and bigoted attitude in and of itself. Take a deep breath and reread your last post. It seems to be very common for voters who are unhappy with the outcome of the election to lash out against voters who supported Trump. In reality, you should examine your own thought process for why you were able to be be duped by such an obviously corrupt, self serving, liar. For you to claim that voters who were not able to accept and overlook her corruption and numerous illegal activities as being ignorant, explains exactly why you got your ass kicked last week. If you want to win an election, get a better candidate. Don’t try to blame the voters who were obviously smart enough to see your candidate for what she was. Bigots are certainly distasteful human beings. Corrupt, treasonous, self serving, criminals are clearly more distasteful to more voters.

    • Chris Peterson says:

      My statement: “I don’t, for a second, believe that “everyone” who voted for Trump is a bigot, but I’m certain that every bigot voted for Trump. And while I don’t believe that everyone who voted for him is flat-out ignorant, there are varying degrees of ignorance in doing so.”

      You, after reading that: “you appear to be saying that everyone who doesn’t see the world like you do must be an ignorant bigot.”

      Aside from the fact that you, apparently, don’t have the conviction to post under your own name, I have to seriously question your reading comprehension skills. I am not “lashing out” at any particular voters; truth be told, there is a touch of ignorance in every vote for every politician. I was merely pointing out the varying degrees of that ignorance in our last election. I will freely admit that, IMO, there was far more willful ignorance involved in Trumps victory than in any I have ever witnessed. (And I mean that in the truest sense of the word ignorance; in that his supporters were quite willing to ignore every morally reprehensible thing he said or did during the campaign.)

      I don’t find the need, (or the want), to argue the point any further, but rather let the comic tragedy of his administration play out, as we speak. Starting out with a known racist for his chief of staff, and an Islamaphobic imbecile in a policy position does not bode well for the American people. But, YOU are now the one who now has the task of defending his actions; not me.

      Finally, you may want to qualify your last sentence, by listing exactly what crimes Clinton has been convicted of, and which candidate received the most votes. And feel free to use Greg as a source; for, as many times as he has issued the statement in McCarthyest form, that “I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party”, he is, nonetheless, their most dauntless defender on this blog. (I don’t think you’re ignorant, but you could use the help.)

      • Chris Peterson says:

        My apologies:
        Reince Priebus is, of course, his pick for Chief of Staff. I meant to note the addition of Stephen Bannon, his pick for senior counselor and chief West Wing strategist.

      • John Dough says:

        Chris, I hope you will continue the dialog a while longer. While we certainly disagree on perspective, your thoughts are interesting.
        A few quick points: I don’t know who you are, doesn’t matter. Your ideas are what is important to me. You should consider viewing me in the same light.
        You are apparently disgusted by the “morally reprehensible” things said and done by Trump during the campaign. I feel the exact same way about Clinton. Disgusted by everything about her. Your outrage is no more valid than mine.
        As you know, Clinton has not been convicted of anything, yet. Her crimes have been well laid out by the FBI. Time will tell if our justice system works or not.
        You are correct in that HRC did in fact win more popular votes. DJT did in fact win more votes where it counts, which makes him our President for the next four years.
        Finally, your attempt to pigeonhole people based on stated opinion is pointless IMO. I have read Greg’s posts on this and other blogs and take his statements about his political leanings at face value, why can’t you? I also am not a Republican and did not vote for Trump. Here is the point that seems to escape you and all Clinton supporters. Despite his numerous, embarrassing, and sometimes horrifying flaws, 60 million voters were less horrified by him than by her. The fact that you, and 60 million like you did not see it that way, does not make the rest of the country ignorant bigots, or racists, or anything but Americans with a different moral compass. I am personally shocked that any honest person could vote for HRC. You apparently feel the same about DJT.

      • Greg Goodknight says:

        From Merriam-Webster:
        bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

        I expect that of all bigots who voted, about half voted Hillary.

        Regarding crimes, Al Capone was only ever convicted of income tax violations. Nixon was never convicted of any crime but he did accept a Presidential pardon which is the legal equivalent of a confession. We’ll just have to wait and see what pardons Obama may hand out this Xmas.

        • Chris Peterson says:

          You forgot the second part of that definition. I’m sure it wasn’t through some contrived desire to offend. lol

          …especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            An “especially” tacked on in the end does not restrict the application of bigot against those who treat other political views with hatred and intolerance. I know a number of left wing political bigots and one positive outcome from last week’s blowout of the Democratic Party is they have not been getting out much, chasened, I suppose, to have awakened the next morning only to be greeted with the news that not only had Hillary lost but the party just noticed that since Obama took office, the Democratic Party has been hollowed out. The GOP now owns the Presidency, the Senate, the House, two thirds of all Governorships and state legislatures, and is about to take back the SCOTUS, perhaps for a generation or two.

            Several times since last Spring one local radio news director assured me how the GOP was going to be destroyed in November and they needed to Dump Trump NOW and stem their losses, with a thought as to how the GOP could be reborn into a perennial second party… like it was for much of the 20th century until Gingrich became speaker, the first Republican Speaker since I started eating solid food as a baby. Even he now understands the shoe is on the other foot.

          • Chris Peterson says:

            The “especially” tacked on the end is to clarify who I, in the first person, am talking about; not some general term meaning all who disagree with me, as you would have it. I haven’t called any person a bigot, or expressed any hatred for anyone but those who I consider “the most despicable among us”, as I earlier said. In our family, a bigot has always been a term reserved for racial assbags, not the partial definition you now throw about in defense of Trump, who, IMO, is a bigot.
            Hope that clears it up for you, but I know you well enough to realize, you won’t let it go.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “Bigot, n,
            One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”

            It began as a term for those intolerant of other religions (by God, bei Gott, bi got). Fascinating word history. It’s clear that people who are intolerant of other political views are one of the historic applications of the word “bigot” and if the shoe fits, they should wear it.

            The esp. in a dictionary does not limit the application, Chris. That’s just the way it is.

    • Michael Anderson says:

      John Dough, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the birther issue. As you know, many people in this country believed that President Obama was not born in America. Were you one of those persons? Let’s focus on this for a bit, I think it could reveal a lot concerning the answers you seek. Look forward to hearing back…Michael A.

      • John Dough says:

        Michael A. Don’t believe I seek any answers related to, or answered by, the birther issue. I am trying to understand why Chris thinks HRC lost the election. I will trade you though, my birther thoughts for your thoughts on why HRC lost, along with a brief explanation on why you think they may be related.
        It is my opinion that BHO exacerbated a very simple issue when he declined to produce his birth certificate for quite some time. He could have ended the discussion quickly and cleanly by producing it earlier. His failure to do so gave rise to all kinds of conspiracy theories. When he finally produced the document, the issue died and is still dead as far as I am aware.
        You’re up. I am interested in your thoughts on why HRC lost.

        • Chris Peterson says:

          Don’t waste your time. I tried for three days to have an intelligent conversation with our mystery troll, to no avail. He’s not interested in knowing your opinion, as demonstrated by our repeated exchanges. (An assertion born out by the fact that he will defend Trump with all the usual party BS, yet claims, ala Goodnight, that he didn’t vote for him, even though he speaks anonymously. What person lies to protect the reputation of a make-believe persona?)
          Oddly enough, the best reason for Clinton’s loss was presented by Greg, above in his link to me of a Mr. Jonathon Pie. In a nutshell, it was the Dems fault for allowing a previously rejected, and deeply flawed, candidate to hijack the primary system, and run, once again, a campaign that completely missed the concerns of average voters.
          It wasn’t an affirmation of Trump, but a rejection of Clinton, only in those states that mattered, that won the day. (Either that, or the Russians hacked more than just the DNC.)
          But, you’ll find that the mystery troll will equate that to mean that you think all those who voted for Trump were ignorant racists, no matter what you say to the contrary. (To him; a claim that any of those who voted for him were racists, or ignorant, is a claim that all were.)
          Good luck.

          • John Dough says:

            Well Chris, it looks like we finally scratched through that thin veneer of “nice” that you carry around to hide the chip on your shoulder. I am disappointed that you felt the need to resort to name calling when you ran out of cogent ideas. I had hoped for better. That seems to be a common trait in Clinton supporters. I am not saying that you are nasty, thin skinned and intolerant of those who don’t think like you do Chris. I am only talking about those who look, act, and talk like you.
            What we have here is a perfect example of why the voters rejected nasty tactics and unpleasant demeanor in favor of something different. Good luck to you Chris. I wish you no ill will. I only hope your heroes will not be in charge of our country again for a very long time.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “What person lies to protect the reputation of a make-believe persona?”

            What sort of person decides another is lying if they say they didn’t vote for Trump, yet find Trump is “the enemy of their enemy” and so worthy of a measure of rhetorical support?

            Bigots perhaps?

            Many bigots voted for Hillary, they’re just different ones from the ones who voted for Trump. This time around the Libertarian Party arguably had the most qualified candidates (two two-term GOP governors from Blue states who have never destroyed emails under subpoena or similar shenanigans). A fine choice for a ticket to waste a California vote, as there was no real contest for electors in our lopsided state, especially for someone who has been registered LIB since 1980.

        • Michael Anderson says:

          Clinton lost the Electoral College for many reasons: not understanding the electorate in the swing states, systematic voter suppression in the swing states, a relentless Big Lies campaign against her person dating back to 1992, not attacking Trump’s psychiatric problems harder and acting as if he was not a formidable foe, not campaigning harder in the weaker states that made up her supposed “blue wall,” Comey and the email server escapades especially the last minute November Surprise, dumb usage of celebrity endorsements, and probably some other things as well.

          Since Obama’s mother was a US citizen he could have been born on the moon and he would still have been eligible to run for president. The Big Lie about his being Kenyan was a brilliant way of marginalizing his right to govern. Just standard Goebbels tactics, which it sounds like you support.

          • John Dough says:

            You guys are so predictable it is amusing. From your Nazi name calling to your complete support of a person who will wipe a server of evidence to conceal a crime. You do believe it is OK to scrub a server to conceal a crime, don’t you Michael A.

          • Michael Anderson says:

            “John,” how many mail servers have you configured and maintained in your life? If you can provide an answer that tells me that you have even a remote understanding about technology, I’d love to continue our conversation.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “Everybody in politics lies, but they [Bill and Hillary Clinton] do it with such ease it’s troubling,”-David Geffen, friend and supporter of the Clintons

            There are plenty of pathologies to go around this past election cycle, let’s not pretend otherwise and now the Democratic Party, hollowed out during the Obama years, is at its weakest point since sometime during the 1920’s, with the Presidency, the House, the Senate, two thirds of governorships and two thirds of state legislature seats in GOP hands. Time to wake up to reality.

            In any case, match goes to Dough on an unforced Godwin Forfeit by Anderson.

          • Michael Anderson says:

            Oh hi Gregory, I was wondering when you would be stopping by. I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist helping John Dough and I sort things out. Thanks in advance for your facilitation.

            Regarding your Godwin’s Law citation, my understanding is that it has been suspended until further notice. Something about how it doesn’t apply if the analogy fits the actual reality.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Let’s revisit a listing of Clinton falsehoods as listed by Rep. Trey Gowdy (a former prosecutor) and confirmed by the FBI’s Comey:

            Mike, your side lost. So did mine for that matter but unlike you, I was expecting it. Johnson/Weld was always a long shot even if he’d managed a spot in the “debates”.

            Trump won. Get over it. And on top of that, the GOP owns not only the Presidency going forward, it owns the Senate, the House, 2/3ds of governorships and 2/3rds of state legislative seats. They’ll also be owning the SCOTUS.

            In 2018, more than half of Democrat’s Senate seats will be up for grabs, 25. Could the GOP get to the 60 mark? Stay tuned. As of now, the GOP is stronger than it has been since before FDR got elected.

            Mike, you’ll be having a hard 4 years. Take it easy. Just say no to more blog posts. Worry more about your own sanity, not Trumps.

          • Michael Anderson says:

            Thanks for the advice on the blog posts Greg, you make a good point. I do like that we have been able to be civil to each other this time around so I’ll just leave it at that.

  7. Chris Peterson says:

    What’s the point? No matter how many times I’ve stated that I do NOT believe that the “rest of the country” are “ignorant bigots”, you continue to claim that that is my opinion. And I definitely don’t believe it was because they all liked him better than her; they merely used him to poke a finger in the eye of a government that has refused to recognize that the middle class hasn’t recovered from the great recession, while those at the top have.
    He spoke to that; she didn’t. It’s as simple as that.

    • John Dough says:

      “Michael”, that is a total smokescreen and has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Do you believe it is OK to scrub a server to conceal a crime, either in Washington D.C. or in Nevada County? That is a yes or no question “Michael”.

      • Michael Anderson says:

        My real name is Michael Anderson. Is your real name John Dough?

        Your “scrub a server” question is a logical fallacy. I disagree with that characterization.

        • Greg Goodknight says:

          Hillary wanted to know if her questioners from the press were asking if she wiped the server with a cloth.

          • John Dough says:

            Michael Anderson, I am pleased that is really you, or so you say. Since I don’t know you, nor need to in order to have a conversation, your name is unnecessary information. Ever talk to a stranger Michael? Do you demand to know their name? Do you question the name they give you? We are strangers Michael, having a conversation. And by the way, I, (John Dough to you) have been having a conversation with Chris and Greg, for a few days. You joined the conversation, but are certainly not obligated to continue if talking to John Dough offends you. Your issue of names is just more smokescreen to avoid the question. That is a strategy that is being used unsuccessfully by HRC.
            I am interested in your answer to this simple question: “In your opinion, is it OK to delete evidence of a crime from a computer system?” I expect the FBI could structure a more legally defensible sentence, but I am sure you understand the question. Can you answer that with a yes or no Michael? Of course, “I don’t remember” has become an acceptable answer in some circles recently.

          • Michael Anderson says:

            Yeah, I thought that was a pretty clever answer. Probably better than “why don’t you ambulance-chasing toadies take a long walk on a short pier.”

  8. Michael Anderson says:

    Mr. Dough, you’re the one that put quotation marks around my first name. Now that we’ve established that I am who I say I am and you are not, we can move on.

    Regarding your second point about talking to strangers, as long as you don’t try to tempt me into your van with some pretend candy I’m just fine with continuing our conversation. But we’re still going to have to stand out here on this busy street where other people can still see us. I’m sure you understand.

    Regarding your request for a simple “yes” or “no” answer to your question, it’s becoming increasing clear to me that you and I are going to have to engage in some remedial logic tutelage in order to continue any further. I recommend reading through this very quickly and let’s see if that helps:

    As you can see, your request above for a “simple” answer is a Begging the Claim fallacy. Let me demonstrate with a sample: “Do you think it’s OK that Trump raped a teenage girl in 1994? Can you answer that with a yes or no John Dough?”

    I look forward to hearing back soon, thanks.

    Michael A.

    • John Dough says:

      Michael A. your playbook is pretty predictable! The offhand insults and Nazi names, change the subject, sidestep questions, attempt to exhort intellectual superiority, insinuate deviant behavior, (where is Anthony Weiner when we need a character reference?) It is unfortunate that the left half of our country continues to believe that in any situation, the truth depends on what the definition of “is” is.
      Michael, I hope that our answers would be the same to your question about Trump. If he in fact did rape a teenage girl in 1994, that is certainly NOT OK. I have not received the new National Enquirer yet, so I am not up to speed on this story. Was that a trick question? The fact that you needed to ask it makes me wonder if you know a scenario where it would be OK?
      Do you believe that the widely held public perception that HRC was dishonest had any impact on the outcome of the election Michael? Do you believe that integrity is an important character trait? Do you think it is OK to delete evidence of a crime from a computer system?

      • Michael Anderson says:

        John Dough, I’m sorry that you feel intimidated by my responses. That is certainly not my intent. Let’s try a different approach. I am going to go through your last response sentence by sentence. I think that is the best way for me to try to give you the answers you seek.

        JD: Michael A. your playbook is pretty predictable!
        MA: I am not trying to treat this conversation like a sporting event but that seems to be your impression of my approach. I’m feeling unfairly pigeonholed here. Maybe I should go to my “safeplace for snowflakes” and “have a cup of cocoa” to sooth my fragile nerves. (More playbook talk, heh.)

        JD: The offhand insults and Nazi names, change the subject, sidestep questions, attempt to exhort intellectual superiority, insinuate deviant behavior, (where is Anthony Weiner when we need a character reference?)
        MA: I think this list really overstates my responses to date, but since these seem to reflect your true feelings I can’t offer any help here.

        JD: It is unfortunate that the left half of our country continues to believe that in any situation, the truth depends on what the definition of “is” is.
        MA: This comes completely out of left field. What does Bill Clinton have to do with anything we’ve been discussing? Please stay on track.

        JD: Michael, I hope that our answers would be the same to your question about Trump.
        MA: Lack of relevance. I was demonstrating a logical fallacy, not comparing notes on an alleged crime.

        JD: If he in fact did rape a teenage girl in 1994, that is certainly NOT OK.
        MA: Good to know I suppose, though I wasn’t asking you that question. Again, I was attempting to use an analogy. Oh well.

        JD: I have not received the new National Enquirer yet, so I am not up to speed on this story.
        MA: As much as I love snark, you seem to be spending a lot of time on this non-issue that I wasn’t asking you about. Perhaps I need to do some more reading on this rape allegation, your obsession with it is piquing my interest.

        JD: Was that a trick question?
        MA: No, it was a demonstration of a logical fallacy, which I have now had to explain for a fourth time.

        JD: The fact that you needed to ask it makes me wonder if you know a scenario where it would be OK?
        MA: You didn’t study up on that list of logical fallacies I provided, now did you?

        JD: Do you believe that the widely held public perception that HRC was dishonest had any impact on the outcome of the election Michael?
        MA: I agree with you that HRC’s alleged dishonesty was more of a perception than fact, to which I attribute a hateful and very well coordinated anti-Hillary noise machine dating back to 1992.

        JD: Do you believe that integrity is an important character trait?
        MA: Yes, I beat my wife regularly and mercilessly.

        JD: Do you think it is OK to delete evidence of a crime from a computer system?
        MA: Of course not. What does this have to do with our discussion?

        Hope this helps.

        Michael A.

        • John Dough says:

          Interesting discussion Michael. It is no wonder our country is so disconnected. I am happy to be able to fill the role of someone you feel you can intimidate. I try to help out that way whenever it seems appropriate.
          You spent some effort rebutting my statements but the first two paragraph’s were in fact statements, not questions. The three questions that I did ask, and your responses are further evidence of our disconnect. Your defense of HRC dishonesty is telling. Comey’s 7/7/16 press conference and his appearance in front of Congress graphically illustrates her dishonesty, that you continue to defend. Sorry about your wife. We have local organizations that can help her when she has had enough. My final question has been asked 3 or 4 times, you have avoided it every time until now. More evidence of the disconnect between us. Nice chatting with you Michael.

        • Michael Anderson says:

          JD, I fear our host here is tiring of this exchange so this is my last reply to you, at least on this particular thread. I’m sorry we spent so much time talking past each other, we clearly were not making much progress. Maybe next time. Have a great Thanksgiving.

          • John Dough says:

            Michael, thanks for the discussion, sorry we were not able to find anything to agree on, I am sure there are many things, we probably should have started there. Until next time! Have a Great Holiday. JD

  9. rl crabb says:

    Yes, it appears that the only way to reconcile the differences between the left and right is boxing gloves, or better yet, pistols. Knock yourselves out. Afterwards, maybe people who actually want to resolve grievances can can out of the shadows and reclaim this broken nation.

    • John Dough says:

      rl, it was Chris Peterson’s reference days ago, to “there will be blood” that caused me to comment on this thread in the first. Does the left really see us shooting each other in the streets simply because they lost an election? God help us if we have really come to that point. GWB came and went, BHO came and went, and Trump will be a part of history soon, hopefully in a good way, we certainly need some good right now. None of this is worth fighting our fellow Americans, is it?

      • Chris Peterson says:

        No matter how many times I have tried to explain, you refuse to listen. My reference to “there will be blood” had nothing to do with left vs. right; it was in reference to the racists who are feeling emboldened by the words of Trump, (who is also neither left or right, as evidenced by his candidacy’s opposition by those in the Republican Party’s leadership.)
        You even asked “who’s blood?” and I answered: the usual people who suffer for their actions; that being the innocent and defenseless. At no point did I even suggest that liberals were going to take arms against conservatives, or vice versa, over an election. As long as you insist on assuming that any argument over social issues is aimed at you personally, you will continue to feel persecuted, no matter where you go. And with W’s war of choice, and the aftermath of his idiotic economic policies fresh in our minds, I wouldn’t expect anyone to merely give Trump a pass into the history books without a great deal of opposition, any more than I’d expect you to suddenly see the wisdom of Obama’s Presidency.
        I, personally, have found no cause worth fighting over since my military days, some forty odd years ago. (And I wouldn’t hold my breath for your mystical god to intervene, even if we did. That particular referee seems to have lost his whistle long ago.)

        • Greg Goodknight says:

          Chris, the only racists I’ve seen, besides the BLM crowd, are the occasional nutcases the press runs after in order to find all those imagined racists emboldened by Trump’s political incorrectness.

          I imagine folks still carrying the baggage of Bush Derangement Syndrome are really going to have problems going forward.

          Finally, without the enthusiastic collusion of the press from start to finish, we’d probably have had different candidates from both the DP and GOP, we’d have had a different conversation, and the Libertarian candidate would have been in the managed news conferences we now call “debates”.

          • Chris Peterson says:

            “imagined racists”?
            That’s probably the most daft observation by you to date. Thankfully, this is all being chronicled for posterity, so we can look back at your words when things get really out of hand.
            Of course, by then you will have made your usual shift to your comfortable position of support without actual participation.
            And once again, you make an effort to play some pseudo-intellectual game at making trite comments about events such as the death, dismemberment, and dislocation of millions in Bush’s asinine war, as if you score some form of conservative points by making light of those of us who take such things seriously.
            Bob will probably ban me for saying this, but I think you’re really one sick fuck. Murdering human beings, whether bombing them for events they had nothing to do with, or racists running them down in the streets, is not a fucking game!

          • Chris Peterson says:

            My apologies, Bob. See you at the reunion.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Yes, Chris. Imagined racists. They aren’t about to rise up from hiding in a Brownshirt tide to give their new fearless leader their allegiance.

            Right now, there’s an Alt-right convention going on, that neo-nazi white nationalist Richard Spencer guy that no one heard of before the election. Said to have been the one who coined the term Alt-right… and he has all of about 200 attending his shindig, dinners at a chain family style Italian restaurant. How many are undercover FBI is anyone’s guess.

            Because of the big tent of Alt-right (which seems to be anything right wing that isn’t mainstream GOP) Steve Bannon, who ran Trump’s campaign and will be Trump’s brain in the White House, now has “white nationalist” pinned to him by the likes of CNN not because of anything he’s said or written, but because of what someone else who self identifies as Alt-right has been saying. Guilt by disassociation.

            In any case, Chris, I am impressed you were able to go so long this time without a meltdown. Trump isn’t going to be the caricature the Left has been painting and just what sort of caricature he will turn out to be is a matter of some speculation.

        • John Dough says:

          Chris, or maybe I should call you Peterson if that is the way we address each other now. It takes two to fail to communicate. I will own my share, you should do the same. There is no persecution complex here. While I can read your repeated claims that you are not talking about any racists any bigots in particular, out of the other side of your mouth you keep talking about racists and bigots everywhere. You seem obsessed that we are being overrun. Reread your posts above. I don’t think there is an explosion of bigotry because Trump was elected, I think those that are disappointed in his election are using that to attack him. Why don’t you give him a chance before you pass judgement? I am glad to know that your reference to blood is not a forecast for the future, thanks for clarifying that. Since we don’t know each other it is difficult to understand the context of comments sometimes. Have a great Thanksgiving Chris.

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      RL, I think you mean the differences between the hard Left and the not so Left.

      Were there a conservative here, it might not have ended so nicely (many are uttering variations of ‘payback’s a bitch’), but it’s hard to say… the hard left definitely has had some of the fight knocked out of it… losing America (not just this election but the entire hollowed out state of the Democratic Party) has been a bitter pill. I’ve one member of my extended family still going on crying jags over the election.

      Imagine what the election might have been had the DNC (thank you, WikiLeaks) not pushed the press at the beginning of the primary season to promote the GOP candidates the DNC wanted to run against: Cruz, Rubio and Trump. Once Trump was selected the real work of tearing him back down began.

      Imagine a modern press corps being independent and fair reporters of the news, rather than Democratic Party lickspittles. Hard, isn’t it? The election of Trump almost reads like the plot of The Producers… first, we find the worst candidate possible to run against. I can imagine Podesta and Hillary sitting slumped into their chairs, crying “Where did we go Right?”

      • John Dough says:

        Greg, nice job above countering the racist/bigot mantra. It sounds like you and I have similar outlooks/hopes for our new President that neither of us apparently voted for. He won, let’s give him a chance. The stock market, housing market, corporate leaders, etc. all seem to be responding positively. Hopefully our left leaning fellow citizens, who need some good stuff to happen as much as the rest of us, will give him a chance also.

  10. rl crabb says:

    I have no doubt that I will have major differences with the Trump administration in the days to come, but until they actually DO something I’m willing to listen. Just this morning I saw Tennessee rep. Marsha Blackburn on Varney & Co. (Fox) talking about what her rural constituents need. Her answer was not “a return of manufacturing” but rather, access to broadband. This is a real problem that bedevils even enlightened rural Californians. Maybe that’s a starting point to move the ball forward.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *