Doug C

I have no problem with Kaepernick kneeling during the anthem, I don't think it's going to have any measurable effect on a serious issue, but kneel away, sir. But when I saw photos of him wearing socks with pigs in police garb during training camp before he started his protest, I was surprised that the team and/or league didn't severely discipline him for wearing them. After the head of a national police organization complained about the socks, this was Kaepernick's statement: "I wore these socks, in the past, because the rogue cops that are allowed to hold positions in police departments, not only put the community in danger, but also the cops that have the right intentions in danger by creating an environment of tension and mistrust," Kaepernick wrote on Instagram on Thursday. "I have two uncles and friends who are police officers and work to protect and serve ALL people. So before these socks, which were worn before I took my public stance, are used to distract from the real issues, I wanted to address this immediately."

 

He isn't a bright man. If he is worried about law enforcement officers like his uncles and friends being put in danger, then he shouldn't have worn those socks. A public figure calling police pigs could aid in "creating an environment of tension and mistrust" that puts "cops that have the right intentions in danger".  Idiot. That he escaped discipline is a sad comment on the 49ers and the NFL.

I disagree. Lighten up Francis'.

Confirmation bias in full effect.

Also, even if Michael Moore completely made it up, it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Actually that is the definition of untrue.

 

Actually it isn't. Moore could completely fabricate the story that he posted, but it could still have happened exactly as he imagined it. A made up story, but a true event.

I see your point. But... I see the situations as different. Moore isn't saying "people are saying", "I'm hearing", etc. He is saying that there are specific people that know the events that Moore is writing about are factual, he just doesn't want to name them. That is somewhat Trumpesque, but I can understand, though Moore doesn't specifically state it, someone being told something in confidence. There could be many legitimate reasons why he doesn't want to "name name's". Also, the story that Michael Moore is telling sounds plausible. That doesn't make it valid, but it doesn't reek of obviously pulled-out-of-your-ass bullshit, either. 

 

Yes, I am taking a second hand story as believable, but we do that all of the time. We make many decisions on circumstantial evidence only. If you needed definitive evidence of everything, no matter how much you'd prefer to have it, you'd make very few decisions. Also, if he "named names" and those names said it's true, is that definitive proof? Couldn't it all be a part of a discredit Trump conspiracy? What would be required for this to not be "people are saying"? Video?

 

I take your point, but I find this tale very believable and highly likely based on the mountains of evidence about Trump's personality, values, decision making, etc. Also, even if Michael Moore completely made it up, it doesn't mean it isn't true. It certainly fits Donald Trump's profile.

It would have been interesting if Michael Moore had named names, but I believe his story.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/trump-self-sabotage_b_11545026.html

Remember during the primary how Trump mentioned the polls every chance he got? He doesn't reference polls anymore.

Apologies if this has been posted already (the original article is from July 24), but if Kaine's truly a 'Mats fan, then I'm all in.

 

http://pitchfork.com/news/67032-tim-kaine-clintons-vp-pick-is-a-replacements-fan/

This bodes well. I'm even happier about the election now. Thanks.

I would have assumed that the Motor City Madman would have been all about The Donald... No invitation to speak/rant at the RNC?

I could be wrong, but I remember reading that his tour schedule wouldn't allow it.

I, too, have been wondering if Hixter is still supportive of Trump. As he is a veteran, I'm especially interested in his thoughts re the "Russia isn't in Ukraine" and disrespect of a Gold Star family bullshit. He hasn't posted since June 3rd, when I reasonably questioned his support of Trump and uncool2pillow and Sir Stewart quoted my post. I'm sure that is just a coincidence, he's likely been busy. I'd like to hear from him. It made for intelligent debate.

Ah, the internet.

What? These shameless motherfuckers will say anything. Do they know the meaning of 'irony'? More likely they just don't care. Pence slams Obama: "politics is no place for name calling"

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pence-slams-obama-politics-is-no-place-for-name-calling/ar-BBv25pH?li=BBnb7Kz

The landing was on July 20.

 

Hahahaha!! You are correct, sir. The launch was on the 16th. You continue to perform the pedant role at VC and I commend you for it. I hope you find time to leave your residence on occasion.

Apollo 11, the first moon landing, July 16, 1969. I was mesmerized watching on TV. I rememberi my entire family in silent awe. I think it seemed less impossible to me, as a child, then it did to the adults. My grandpa was agape. He died the next day or two after. Very cool he saw it.

I saw a map of how the vote broke down. It was pretty much London, Scotland, N. Ireland and Whales wanting to stay and the rest wanting to leave the EU.

True, but what a testament to British democracy that suffrage was granted to large cetaceans. The fact that they voted to stay is further evidence that they are intelligent mammals.

Bill Maher is a smug prick. He may be factually correct more often than Limbaugh, but he's almost as pointlessly crude and disrespectful towards people.

I'm a Maher fan. Nothing wrong with being a smug prick when you are correctly calling out smug lying scumbag pricks. We should always call a spade a spade.

But we don't have 3rd or 4th parties that hold any power due due our system. Just because they exist, have conventions and might win a local race once in a blue moon, doesn't mean they are viable parties that have any chance of enacting their agendas. At best, the GOP or Dems might go the way of the Whigs and another party will replace it. We'll always have a 2 party system.

We won't have a viable third party, ever. We'll never get rid of winner-take-all. Only in a proportional system are there 3rd, 4th, 5th parties, etc. that can hold any actual power. At most, a party will replace one of the 2.

Rescinding their endorsement isn't enough. They're all cowards until they say, "I'm voting for Clinton and I urge you to do the same".

Hixter, if you honestly would feel comfortable with Donald Trump as president of the United States of America, then vote for him. But don't get in a snit if people judge you accordingly. I would not have made the same assumptions about you if you voted for any other Republican nominee in my lifetime. That's politics, you vote for the candidate that represents your values. Trump is different. Nothing qualifies him to be president. His command of the issues is non-existent and he uses fear, anger, ignorance and hate to garner support more blatantly than any nominee of either party in my lifetime. If you feel that he best represents your values, vote away. But expect people knowing that to judge you accordingly. This isn't Republican v. Democratic, conservative v. liberal, right v. left. This is serious shit.

Thurston?

 

 

I think Ecstatic Peace! is still solvent.

HA HA HA HA! Thanks for that.

It all helps him. I feel like the only thing that could bring down Trump is if he converted to Islam.

Unless the conversion was part of the negotiations to get a huge deal for America.

What are the chances the Democrats will (try to) heal their rift by putting up a Clinton/Sanders ticket? 

That could result in a Paul Ryan presidency at some point!

Regarding pretending to be his own publicist. Trump admitted it in 1991, it was "a joke gone awry". When asked about it a week or so ago, "No. That's not my voice". All he had to say was, "Yeah. That's me. I was having a laugh and shouldn't have done it. It appears stupid now". He'd rather give Clinton and the Democrats endless ad campaign fodder. The hell?

If a "free college tuition" plan was ever enacted, it must include rigorous qualification requirements. The idea that everyone should go to college must be abandoned. Not everyone should go to college. Some won't be successful for academic reasons, others for motivational reasons, others for self-disciplinary reasons, and some will not succeed because college just isn't for them. When you are financing it yourself, sure, go ahead and give it a shot if you want, it's your money. But when the taxpayers are financing it, you need to show that you are not a risk and are likely to succeed. The tuition plan must also include vocational and technical certification programs, not just university degrees. Also, for profit "colleges", cannot be eligible. The institutions themselves must pass rigorous requirements to get the tax dollars.

Bullshit.

But...but...he's a doctor.