Guard Dog

Different flavors of bad. That's all. These are two deeply flawed people. Anyone with any sense would not want either of them in any position of real power or even spend five minutes in their company. The President made a comment I think he meant as a joke on Saturday about how now that Trump is receiving intelligence briefings he will treat the information with the sensitivity it deserves. I'm thinking of the two now getting these Trump is not the one the FBI called "extremely careless" with classified info!

Were these events substantiated by a third party respected source? One came from a book by a former Clinton campaign manager **** Morris. He was treated badly by the Clintons, her especially. You might figure he has an axe to grind but I don't think anything he said was altogether false. But it would not surprise me to hear there were some... embellishments. The other incident came from a book by a former secret service bodyguard. In the book he recounts serving four presidents.and their families. That one sounded pretty credible to me.

Congrats Labadal. I spent the weekend fishing in Arkansas. I was planning on visiting my brother but it seems he had better things to do. We had a good time, caught a few fish, swam in the lake, and all that good stuff.

FACT!

Just to remind everyone if all the negativity of Clintrump is getting tiresome it does not have to be this way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPD8kPiOygA & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ03Eh5Fjbc

I always found Cheers funnier than Seinfeld. But that's just me. That ending sequence with Norm & Sam and when he said "Sorry, we're closed" was the best series wrap ever.

I agree, volo expects people to treat Trump with manners and not be critical I think volo thinks Trump is just some normal well meaning politician but I dont mean to target volo but he reminds me of many of Trumps supporters. They have this almost incomprehensible view Trump is a good guy who treats people well and knows how to " fix " the USA ? Just like you expect them to not be critical of Clinton. She is every bit as nasty and uncivil as Trump. GD it feels like we have the same debate every few days or so But please can we use some honest perspective of the actual two personalities and mannerisms of Trump and Clinton Its unfair to say Clinton is as nasty as Trump, he has offended so many people with his indifference and lack of consideration around his choice of words and bravado Clinton hasnt offended nearly as many people or minorities, for example Trump has offended me several times but I will agree Clinton has trust issues. But does that make her nasty ? You have the same conversations over and over because you either don't read what folks write or link to you in rebuttal or you ignore it all together. So then every time you make the same comment you get the same rebuttal! But on to your point this time, I find Hillary Clinton's condescending mockery every bit as offensive as Trump's bombast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI

I agree, volo expects people to treat Trump with manners and not be critical I think volo thinks Trump is just some normal well meaning politician but I dont mean to target volo but he reminds me of many of Trumps supporters. They have this almost incomprehensible view Trump is a good guy who treats people well and knows how to " fix " the USA ? Just like you expect them to not be critical of Clinton. She is every bit as nasty and uncivil as Trump.

Fishing at Table Rock Lake today. Beautiful!

When it comes to the State Supreme Court it's easy because it is every bit as easy to find out what those justices are about as a US Supreme Court judge. If you like your Governor and want him picking a replacement vote not to retain. On the state and county court just read the paper and you can see what they are about. In my state judges are elected, not appointed. I remember in 2014 I was looking at two running for the same bench and both looked very qualified. One was a Vanderbilt alum, the other from Annapolis with 10 years in the Navy. I figured all else being equal I voted for the veteran. Just google their names. There is something that will differentiate them in your mind. Prior employment, years of experience, professional association membership, etc. I believe your State Bar website keeps a short bio on all members. Check this site out: https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page I found this on your SC judge facing retention: https://ballotpedia.org/William_W._Hood

Yeah, I had the same reaction when I moved to Maryland. The general public is being asked to opine on who should fill positions like the Registrar of Wills? How many ordinary citizens have an informed opinion of that position? It usually ends up with the incumbent running un-opposed until retirement. And the election of judges, in particular, comes with a host of ethical problems. I grew up in NJ, which, despite it's many many other problems with government administration, generally has a more sane attitude of letting the top officials stand for election and filling the lesser roles (and judiciary) with appointees. Well, judges are not allowed to "debate" or discuss legal opinions or say anything that might get them in trouble with some case they might have to make a ruling on at some point. So you really can't ask them what they think of anything because the job requires them to have no opinions. It is an odd position for an elected official to be in. But it's not difficult at all to see their track record, see what kind of rulings they made or read any written opinions they have. Plus their education, association memberships are all things to consider. For example if you have a judge that is frequently giving out slaps on the wrist for serious offences or draconian punishments for minor offences that is someone the public would want to be rid of. Most states have sentencing guidelines to prevent this kind of thing but where I live the judges have a lot of discretion. Another advantage to having the mid-level bureaucracy, like county tax collector, etc, face the public is most appointed officials would not lose their job over things like corruption if there is no proof. But you CAN lose an election on unsubstantiated information like that. It tends to hold these folks to a higher standard I think. They tend to want to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Yeah it is tedious and too many voters, most in fact, won't pick up a newspaper or go on the web and learn a little about who they are voting for. But I'd rather ask them to do that than take the power out of their hands (and future voters hands) as a way of apologizing for laziness by making all these positions appointed. Just my $.02

The idea to move away from income tax to a consumption tax is hardly new or unacceptable. We've been kicking it around for years. In theory at least. So far an actual workable plan has not been put out. The problem is the IRS has spawned a small army of tax prepares, including a few multi-million dollar enterprises who will fight like hell through lobbying and congressional campaign donations to maintain the status quo. I like the idea of sales taxes or even a flat tax because every one pays then. Right now somewhere around 80% of all tax revenue is paid by just 25% of tax payers. And many of the ones who pay little to nothing are still bitching it's not enough. As for Jill Stein, she's no Ralph Nader, that is for sure. She has had a few spoons from the left wing's fruit loop bowl.

But GD I'm sure you will recognize if there is only the 2 of them to choose then Hilary overall is the best choice, despite some trust issues ? Bruce, trust issues aside can you not understand why someone like me would have deep, no, insurmountable philosophical differences with Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama was one one of the least corrupt, most upstanding citizens to occupy the White House in many years and I voted against him twice. It wasn't because he was a bad man, or a communist, or a muslim, or a foreigner. He was none of those things. And it wasn't because of the melanin content in his skin. Although I am sick to death of hearing everyone who disagrees with hm on anything is a racist. He envisions a USA where the government is very powerful, and individual liberty is an afterthought and protected only when it does not conflict with the whims of the state. Hillary Clinton is promising to serve us up more of the same. As objectionable as I find Donald Trump I agree with him on a lot of issues. And I'd rather have him picking Supreme Court Justices than Clinton any day for reasons I have written about in depth. But since this the the Presidency we are talking about, the head of the Executive branch of the US Government the character of the candidate IS a factor. Putting aside every stupid or mean utterance Trump has made, he has no experience in government, and as Gromnir pointed out is promising to do a of of things a President can not do. Which means he might try to do them anyway by executive order or he'll lash out at Congress in petty ways and make the air in DC more toxic than it already is. And to tell the truth, I'm not 100% sure Congress WOULD stop him. They have rolled over on their backs and let Barack Obama run roughshod over their own enumerated responsibilities with executive orders. So with two intolerable candidates I look at Johnson and Weld. Both have executive government experience. Both were very successful, both have excellent reputations and not a whiff of corruption. I agree with them on 85% of their platform and they are coming from a political party whose philosophy I agree with 95%. I can't imagine why anyone WOULDN'T support them. And taking Gromnir as an example he isn't voting for Clinton, he's voting against Trump. Negative voting. Voting for someone you despise because the alternative is worse. I've done it many times. I didn't like Romney or McCain but I voted for both, because I was voting against Obama. Sure there are some folks like Leferd for example who is buying what Hillary is selling. WoD is buying that Trump is selling. I don't agree with either of them but I can't fault them for making a choice. But I think the majority of votes cast will be negative votes. Well, nuts to that. From now on I'm voting for what I think is right, not what I think is less wrong. Clinton or Trump is going to win but they will do it without my help. No, Hillary is NOT the best choice. Not for me. I can't explain it any clearer than this.

IF he gets in the debates he'll do it. If not it will be a very tough number to make. Jill Stein is only on the ballot in 37 states as of now. Best case they might make it to 44. That makes 5% out of reach because the majority of those are red states and swing states. Her biggest support is likely to come from the west coast where all three are safe for Clinton and New England. That's a problem because she will likely not be on in Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. She actually has the signatures in NH but she's out of time. It's looking like a court challenge might be coming. But time is really short.

If Trump runs afoul of a Republican Congress and they wake up and remember that they ARE Congress and that Article I assigns responsibilities to THEM that would be one positive to take from this. A very thin reed indeed but when all the news is bad you have to take the positives where you find them.

Well, the truth is unless you are voting in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, or Arizona this election is already over so far as the Presidency is concerned. Clinton will never win a hard red state and Trump will never win a hard blue state. If you are are in the 43 states not named you can vote 3rd party with a clear conscience if you wish to do so. If you are in one of the seven swing states then the decision is a bit more complex. Florida was decided by just 500 votes in 2000. It is conceivable, however unlikely that one vote in one of those states decides this whole thing. For me, as I've already said I find both outcomes intolerable. There is no doubt the next President is going to damage the country either through hubris or simple incompetence. These are two deeply flawed human beings who should not be in a position of power. However that ship has sailed. The only bright spot is I'll be one of the (hopefully) 5% of voters who can say "Don't blame me I voted for Johnson"

Well, the chance of Trump carrying YOUR state is essentially zero. I have a better chance of starting at QB this year for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers than Trump has of winning California. So the truth is your vote is safe to do with as your conscience directs.

You see? THIS is what happens when Americans get sick of Dempublicans and Republicrats. http://www.wlwt.com/duke-a-dog-wins-third-term-as-mayor/41323796

This news story gets an awesome rating of 9.9 out of 10: http://ballparkdigest.com/2016/08/22/miss-babe-ruth-to-finish-season-as-hoppers-bat-dog/

You know Grom, you do have another option that is a viable candidate and on the ballot in all 50 states this year. Only three candidates can say that. Given your line of work that 3rd option might even be attractive. Yes the odds are long, but they are not zero and good things can come even from a loss this time. Just sayin'.

Be careful WoD! You might turn up missing for asking questions and pointing stuff like this out! Or worse you'll "commit suicide" by blowing up your car or shooting yourself in the back with a rifle from 300 yds away. (That one is still my favorite).

The term wasn't intended to be a pejorative. I was just reminded of that story because Oerwinde pointed out that the media and the parties are so used to candidates that do and say predictable things for predictable reasons that when they see a guy like Trump going off script they think he is playing a "deep game". By the time they realize he's making it up as he goes along it's too late. Just like the example you pointed out. But you're right about something else too... in chess you can survive a mistake (probably) not in shooter games!

This reminded me of something I read a while back. Gary Kasparov was on a train in Poland and sees a guy playing chess by himself and strikes up a conversation with him. Apparently this guy had no idea who Kasparov was so he offered a friendly game to pass the time. Kasparov said after 10 moves in he was in trouble because he had no idea what this guy's strategy was. Every move he predicted his opponent would make was wrong. At that point Kasparov realized they guy had no idea what he was doing and finished him off quick. He was so used to playing disciplined players who had a plan he had forgotten most casual players are nitwits. And sometimes it's the nitwit that gets you!