Republicans, Their Debates and Ideas

An Essay by Member William:

If anyone actually has the fortitude to sit through one of the Republican debates, you learn that their candidates are actually even worse than you imagined. I’ve seen various Republicans for decades, of course, and they are always bad, with rare exception. But this group is actually frightening. They know nothing about history, or world politics or science. And they don’t even care; they say things that are demonstrably objectively false; and feel no sense of embarrassment that they have no idea what they are talking about. Seriously, one would almost feel sorry for them, for their lack of intelligence and knowledge; except that they want to be President.

If they were kids in a seventh grade classroom with you, you would just cringe, and hope that they could find careers as stock clerks. But they want to run the country, control the lives of all of us. And Republicans en masse are so fixated on winning, that even the right-wing media, some of whom were actually educated to some extent, gives them a complete pass on the inanity that they express on a daily basis. It is truly terrifying that our country has come to the state that a bunch of stupid, ill-educated, selfish, vicious people completely dominate the Republican Party as it stands today. To say it is no longer “the party of Lincoln” is a cliche, because it wasn’t that even by 1868. But it’s not even the party of Eisenhower or Ford. It is a strange mix of evangelical totalitarians, know-nothings, corporatist oligarchs, rapacious crooks, crackpot survivalists, apocalyptic weirdos, liars, and fools. None of these people should even have anything to do with governance, much less being Congresspeople and President. And it’s not just a matter of ethnicity and gender; there are Black people like Herman Cain and Ben Carson; women like Carly Fiorina, and Sarah Palin, who are as bad as the White men who have always dominated that party.

Well, you watch one of their debates, or read an encapsulation of it; and in the midst of the horror, you hear various policy proposals or political theories which the Republicans espouse. Again, no one in the media, certainly none of their hand-picked debate faux moderators, question them on the implications of any of them, even if they make no earthly sense. They just go on, like some dumb and lazy student who doesn’t read any of the texts, and just says whatever pops into his or her head, because they do not even have the sense that they don’t know anything. Again, it would literally be funny, if it were not for such immense stakes.

Rather than go over the various things said in the most recent debate (because there are two parts: a minor-league debate with candidates who are polling about 2%, and then the “big boy/girl debate,” we get to hear the same insanity twice over, like in some nightmare), I thought i would just slightly extrapolate from the theories and concepts that were expressed there, and in the earlier debates. This will thus either summarize, or be the logical extension of, the Republicans’ positions. In fact, I am waiting for someone over there to take that last step, and specifically espouse one or more of them.


One of the Republican candidates said that 40% of Americans are unemployed. This astounding figure must of course have included babies, children, retired people, disabled people, and the idle rich. The Republicans try to create the narrative that the Democratic policies cause this unemployment, and that they will fix it. Of course, they do not want to pay even a minimum wage, because they believe that it hurts employment. And yes, in a literal sense, it does; because having to pay someone for work is inconvenient, and does cost some money.

So I am waiting for one of the candidates to suggest this: “We want to have every American employed in a job. We will create jobs for all. Employers will of course not be able to pay the workers any money, at least for now. However, any worker who is hired, will have the right to a job review after three years, at which time their employer might decide to pay them something. If the decision is not to pay them, they have the right to another review in two years. But every citizen will be able to enjoy the feeling of having a job, and contributing to the greatness of America.”


The Republicans do not believe in science. Occasionally one of them tries to quote a scientific fact, which is invariably wrong. Remember the Senatorial candidate from Missouri who was sure that a woman could not become pregnant if she were raped? Or the many who do not believe in evolution, because it conflicts with their religious beliefs?

So the answer is obviously to require schools to stop teaching science of any kind. Because science is complex and difficult, and requires some intelligence to learn. Much better to let children and adults just have their various beliefs, whether from religion, or conspiracy theories, or weird conceptions of ancient times; storing grain in the pyramids, e.g. Let everyone believe what they want to believe, and do not challenge these beliefs with scientific or historical data. It violates a basic American freedom, which is to be as ignorant as one wants.


People believed for many centuries that the earth was flat, because the Church taught them that. Unfortunately in that regard, some explorers eventually went around the world and did not fall off; so the theory was generally discarded. But the flat tax concept is one that is taking hold, perhaps as a substitute for those people who are comfortable with the idea of flatness.

Republicans want to replace the tax code in ways that will benefit the very rich. After all, they wrote most of the tax codes, so why should not they be allowed to change them to suit their current needs? So we replace the progressive taxation system with a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage of taxes. The fact that a 10% income tax for a person making $20,000 a year means that he or she has to give up absolute necessities of life; whereas a 10% tax on a person making $5 million a year means nothing more than that he or she can’t buy the sixth yacht, is not important. The fact that a flat tax would bankrupt the government, is also not meaningful. All that matters, is that a flat tax would put much more money in the hands of the super-rich, which is the point of the whole con game. So let’s have a flat tax, and make the tax as low as possible. Or maybe, as Mr. Cruz suggested, let’s get rid of the entire IRS, and then let’s see if the government can take any money whatsoever from the very rich people who run things.


Republicans like some regulations, but hate others. The ones they hate are those which attempt to regulate some aspect of corporations, like their ability to pollute; or manufacture faulty products which end up causing deaths: or produce drugs with pernicious side effects; or restrict their right to falsely advertise for any of such products.

Rubio talks about his belief that there are a billion new regulations of this sort enacted every year. Fiorina says that any regulation should be done by Congress, not “faceless bureaucrats.” Of course, the Republican Congress will pass no regulations on business, so there would be none. We could happily go back to the Gilded Age, where a few people made billionaire status, and the vast majority of citizens lived in poverty and squalor; and worked in jobs where if they had their arm cut off by a drill press, they were fired and left to die in the streets. And where the meat was contaminated, and so was the water; and anyone who dared to speak up about it, was labeled a Communist, and beaten up and sent to prison.

But the regulations the Republicans like, are those which try to restrict the way in which the average citizen can conduct his or her daily activities. They want to elminate the right to abortion and even contraception. They want to monitor people’s sex lives. Prohibit various forms of gambling (usually to benefit those forms whose sources pour in lots of money to the Republicans’ coffers). They try to ban books and movies. CBS refused to run ads for the movie “Truth,” which cast a bad light on CBS. Republicans like regulations, when they are the ones who get to do the regulating; and the regulating is of a personal, not corporate nature. So to avoid the inconsistency and hypocrisy, the corporate regulations are called “The government restricting the rights of American citizens,” and the personal regulations are called, “Keeping America a moral and god-fearing nation.”


The Republicans have a solution for every foreign policy complexity, which is to go to war. Nuances of diplomacy and foreign policy are completely beyond them. Can you imagine if one of these candidates ever got to the position where he or she had to make such decisions? When asked about any difficult matter in this area, their ultimate response is to saber-rattle, and say that we will go to war with them. Obviously, if you do not really understand the antecedents or the implications of a foreign policy issue, you can only behave in a belligerent manner; just fighting everybody, or at least threatening them. And then there is the occasional Republican isolationist like Rand Paul, who takes the other tack, which is to just let everything go, and not become involved at all.

In “1984,” Orwell suggested the possibility of endless wars, whose goal was essentially to keep the populace cowed and controlled; to validate rationing; and to create a continued jingoism which dovetailed into the mindless support for the totalitarian state which ran things. This may be Republicans’ goal; but more likely it is akin to the little boy who gets frustrated with the complexity of trying to build something delicate, so just decides to knock it down.


I will not presume to write a primer on religion, but it is obvious that many religions needed to create an evil entity against whom the religious would fight. This may be purely a psychological defense mechanism; it may be projection; it may be the part of the duality with which we live: day and night; light and dark; good and bad. Whatever the very complex antecedents are, humans seem to need an enemy to vanquish, something that is keeping them from reaching a higher plateau, or an exalted state. In the Christian religion, this has taken on the name of the Devil, or the Antichrist.

Republicans are, or like to pretend they are, highly religious people. And they believe in these entities. And so they have the Clintons, and now particularly HIllary Clinton, to fill that role for them. Now, they are not bold or transparent enough to call her one of those names. But if you watch the debates, they are essentially all focused on Hillary Clinton as an evil entity who must be destroyed, if Republicans are to reach their desired summit, which is a combination of the Gilded Age, Dickensian London, and a theocratic state which controls behavior in the way that the Church did in the Dark Ages and early Middle Ages.

How many times is the name “Hillary Clinton” invoked by them? If the Republican candidates have nothing coherent to say about any issue, they will simply turn it back to, “We have to stop Hillary Clinton.” As Hillary likes to jokingly say, without her, they would have essentially nothing to talk about. And that all the books about her, written by shadowy figures who purport to have dire stories to tell, form a virtual cottage industry. Just as many of the TV evangelists have gotten wealthy by inveighing against Satan, so the Republicans have always found that demonizing the Clintons is a big fundraising money maker for them.


That was a comic bit often done by Abbott and Costello, though they may have taken it from somewhere else. They would come upon some money, and Abbott would always take charge of dividing it up. He would count out two bills for himself, and one for Costello, saying in an authoritative manner, “Okay, here’s two for me, and one for you. Another two for me, and another one for you. Two more for me, and one for you…” And Costello would sit there almost transfixed by the patter, until finally he would wake up and say “Hey! What kind of divvying up is that! You keep saying two for you, and then one for me!” And Abbott, in his most unctuous manner, would reply, “Oh, that’s right, I’m sorry! Here we go: One for you, and two for me. Another one for you, and two for me…”

That, in so many words, is the Republican platform. Well, except that it is more like ten thousand for them, and one for the general populace. Their only task is to disguise what they are doing, which is finding clever ways to rob the middle class and the poor, while taking all the money for themselves. Flat taxes, “tax reform,” replacing the income tax with a sales tax; no-fault insurance; caps on lawsuits for defective products or medical malpractice; tax exemptions or rebates for big business; no caps on credit card company loan rates; “too big to fail”; “lowering taxes still further on corporations will create jobs”–these all are variations of the same shell game. In fact, something I realized years ago, was that every single thing that comes out of any Republican’s mouth regarding domestic or financial policy, is some verbal trick or obfuscation designed to fool and deceive people into giving the very wealthy 1% even more of their hard-earned money.

And that’s a summary of the Republican debate–the last one, the one before that, the next one, and all of them. One can either choose to take advantage of all the extra free time they have now gained; or one can watch just to monitor them. But rest assured that there is nothing beyond this in any of the Republican candidates’ heads or hearts.


73 Responses

  1. Brilliant essay, William, but where’s the satire/exaggeration? 🙂

  2. As Lily Tomlin once said,” no matter how cynical you get, it’s impossible to keep up.”

  3. Thank you, Sue. I’m glad that you enjoyed it.

  4. Excellent essay, William.

    When I watch the GOP debates, I do so for laughs, but there is no doubt this is a scary lunatic bunch of characters. John Kasich is the only sane one in the room ( although he is very conservative ) which means he has little or no chance to win the nomination.

  5. Above is a funny, short vid about how many times the creeps at the rethug convention mentioned the middle class, versus how many times they mentioned Hillary. I am always astounded at how many people are fooled by these charlatans.

    Great post William!

  6. These clowns were fielded to make Jeb seem presidential….but even they can’t help him lol

  7. Thank you, Beata and Annie.

    The Republican Party is so weird now, that I think that anyone off the street could have run and been at 10% in their polls. Having ever held office, is obviously not necessary, nor is having any kind of a record. They are down to charlatans, carnival barkers, and hucksters, all fighting to claim that they are “outside Washington.” Three of their “top tier” candidates have never held an elective position.

  8. I’m waiting for the “Bad Lip Reading” version of the debate but this will have to do until then:

  9. These clowns were fielded to make Jeb seem presidential….but even they can’t help him lol


  10. Beata, love the Kimmel Kartoon!!! Thanks!!!

  11. Annie, isn’t the “Carly” character in the Kartoon just perfect?

  12. Beata, yes!

  13. Excellent essay and absolutely spot on.

    By federal law, every Republican should be required to have a tea towel or an occasional pillow with this embroidered on it: Stupidity is the handmaiden of greed serving the master of fear.

  14. The Republican elites are in full blown panic. Word is they’re once again exploring the “Romney option”.You know you’ve got an unsolvable problem when you’re best “option” is Mitt (47%) Romney.

  15. Mitt Romney to the rescue? Saints preserve us!

  16. The Repubs looking to Romney is just proof that diligently wearing your magical underwear while riding your car elevator does indeed pay dividends.

  17. These creatures look so bad, they actually make Romney look good lolol.

    Truth is, they ARE in a panic. They created extreme monsters for followers and now they are horrified that they are attracted to Donald and Ben.

  18. It’s funny; I was just saying in conversation a couple of days ago, that if Romney had run, he probably could have gotten the nomination, given how truly awful these other candidates are. Romney is also a social darwinist who is wrong on every issue, but he ordinarily disguises it better, with the exception of his comments to his donor group that really damaged him.. And he was very unwilling to cede the national stage last time, was sure he was going to win. So it could happen.

    However, the far Right didn’t like Romney much, and believed that nominating a “moderate” was a mistake. I don’t think they will want to see him again–unless they are so desperate to defeat Hillary, that they cave in. Could we be fortunate enough to see the rarest of modern exceptions: a knock-down, drag-out Republican race which goes to the convention, and leaves the Far Right wing so angry that they walk away? Hillary mentioned an old political saying the other day, “Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.” So the likelihood is that they’ll make do with whichever one of these pathetic characters gets the nomination. And while it is so important that Hillary not only win, but win by a very large margin, I really believe that the Radical Right which dominates the Republican Party must ultimately be faced head-on, and repudiated by the voters, to be able to severely damage that group.

  19. I’m hoping that the GOP nominates a far right candidate and it sure looks like they are headed that way. When you add Trump and Carson’s numbers together they are over 1/2 of the party I believe. The reason I want this to happen is not so much for Hillary to win. I mean I do want Hillary to win and win big but if they nominate someone from the far right and they lose in a landslide the GOP is going to have to accept that no one likes their issues. It will sufficiently cow them and perhaps stop the stupidity of shutting down the government and all the other nonsense they like to foist on Americans.

    I just noticed the statement above about being banned. Have you had a lot of trolls lately?

  20. Which statement about being banned?

    I swept up, cleaned this place out long ago. There are plenty of people who are banned and i don’t apologize for it. This is a Hillary blog. And that’s that.

    Haven’t banned anybody lately, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but no, we get a few CDS people now and then but they start out in moderation and never make it to the board.

  21. Thank you for your moderation of the comments, Up. It isn’t that I can’t take valid criticism of Hillary. It’s the horrific misogyny that so many commentators engage in at other sites. Yes, ostensibly progressive commentators too.

  22. “Give us your Uppity opinion of you aren’t banned first” is on the top of where you give your opinion. I just noticed it. Maybe it’s been there but I was thinking before it just said “Give us your Uppity opinion”

  23. Hahaha oh ok. I was in a whimsical mood that day. And yeah, it was meant for the hit and run CDS people. But I guess it works, as I haven’t had one in awhile. I guess news of being in moderation when you first try to post …….and then landing on the permanent spam list if you trash Hillary……..travels.

  24. Some of the CDS people, whom I will not name, actually supported Hillary back in 2008. :/

    That makes my nasty, cynical mind wonder how many of those people really liked Hillary, as distinct from how many of those people just caught a monumental case of the creeping fantods at the thought of that Double Seekrit Moozlim Commie Sleeper Agent *BONG* getting into the White House.

    *BONG*, of course, is a Blazing Saddles reference. 😉

  25. I pay them all no nevermind.

  26. Ivory Bill Woodpecker:
    Exactement, mon frere.

  27. Yes Brassy, the Bernouts are the worst. Remind me of the zealots in 2008 melding with Ron Paul junkies. Delusional sulking little brats.
    Dude Nation.

    You can always tell with it’s a Republican because they have the same buzz phrases they all use.

  28. If you’re suggesting they were racist or something, I don’t think that is necessarily the case. I think many were more conservative Democrats who now feel she has moved left. But that’s because they had a superficial understanding of HRC. She has always been more liberal than even her husband. She was definitely more liberal than Obama.

  29. Imust most of these people left her long ago. Some of them weren’t even her supporters if you ask me. Or even actually democrats for that matter. But that’s for another day. Or no day. I never saw her as all that left. I am not all that left myself. I always saw her as a center left person, a hawk when it comes to bullshit in places like the middle east, not very fond of what China is doing to us, etc. etc. I guess if you mean more socially left, I would say Yes. But I think she’s strong when it comes to foreign policy and no Obama when it comes to handling those things. It’s always easy for people to forget that SOS works for the President and therefore implements the president’s policies. It is not an elected slot, it’s appointed.

    I don’t agree with her on everything, I’m not that keen on never closing our borders and a repeat of when Castro started throwing his criminals and mentally ill on boats to Florida. I think it’s dangerous to others in a really big way. I also agree that it is costing taxpayers zillions. But I do believe that it’s illogical to imagine you are going to round up millions of people and deport them. It’s just plain dumb for anybody to believe anybody can or will do that. There will be civil war besides. I say make them pay for their crime of entering illegally via fines or whatever, but prevent the problem from growing and monitor our borders more carefully.

    This is not just about latinos, they are the least of our worries with an unwatched border. Look at what happened in France. Terrorists can come across our borders illegally just as easily as anyone else. A free for all border is a threat to our national security on so many levels, there’s probably no need to even argue about it.

    I disagree with Obama on being lenient on Islamofascism. But I don’t see that as Hillary’s opinion because I know her better than that. But hey, I could be wrong, but my third eye tells me that Iran’s party would be over under a President Hillary.

  30. Unfortunately, one of the results of the terrible tragedy in France, is that the issues of foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East; and immigration, are going to become much more important in the campaign. Republicans actually try to benefit politically in some way from these events. Yesterday, I saw Ed Royce, who I believe is the head of some House Committee on Foreign Affairs, use his air time on CNN to complain that Obama should have helped the Kurds more.. Well, maybe so; but I seem to remember that the Republicans were all complaining that Obama wanted to send troops to Syria, and that we should not get involved in another war. And CNN today was running Republican candidates’ comments about the terrible events of yesterday, with Jeb Bush giving his opinions about what we must do.

    And Uppity is certainly right that Hillary did not make any of Obama’s policies, she just implemented them, while of course giving her best opinion. In a campaign, any candidate like Hillary who actually values the importance and complexity of the issues, is obviously not going to commit herself to exactly what she might do. Republicans are never bound by such concerns; and in times of fear and anxiety, their usual air of certainty often plays well with the populace, which understandably does not care about complexity, but wants the evil forces to be defeated.

    I am fully confident that Hillary will make the right choices as President, with regard to these issues. But I am sure that the Republicans will seek to shift the campaign from domestic financial issues, where they cannot win, to matters of war, as well as their hardline stance on immigration. I really never wanted our country to start taking in Syrian refugees; and what has happened in France, was why I didn’t. But a measured stance, such as Hillary takes, will have to face the hardline positions of Republicans on immigration, which they will hammer away at now.

  31. I just felt the need to defend against the racist remark. Many of us were called racists in 08 because we supported HRC.

  32. Republicans always shame liberals for “exploiting” mass shootings, but rush the microphones to exploit acts of Islamic terrorism.
    Hypocrisy, much?

  33. Yeah today you’re a racist no matter what you do, because now ethnicity is called a race. Mexicans are NOT a race. Calling latinos a race is like calling Italians a race. Middle Easterners are not a race. Islam is not a race. And on and on and on.

    But yeah now racist is used to shut you up even if you aren’t discussing an actual race or a person of an actual race. Caucasions are a race, Black people are a race. Italians aren’t a race, and neither are Mexicans or Cubans, etc. And Islam is a RELIGION.

    And it’s true we were labeled racists for supporting Hillary. It was just the bots’ way of threatening us. Shutting us up. The bernouts are trying to do that now too. Buncha white boys in a fraternity with their token girls so they can’t call us racists. So they just call us stupid, like they are geniuses.

    The only people left in the USA you can target, insult and trash without punishment are……..women. Of ALL races. And that is why I will fight till the last dog is dead to elect Hillary.

  34. “Racist” seems to have become a synonym for “bigot”, whether or not a genetically-related group of humans–a “race”–is the target of the bigotry. (Though, of course, all humans are genetically related to one or another degree.)

  35. If I think you’re an asshole and you happen to be a different religion than I am, or a different ethnicity, or a different color, it doesn’t mean I am a bigot or a racist, it means I think you’re an asshole. And I might just be right.

    A lot of this seems more related to the respondent. For example, it seems we can say anything we want about Ben Carson and nobody’s accusing us of being racist. That’s because he’s a sociopath AND an asshole. And he’s not a Democrat ….

  36. Anyone watching the debates?

  37. Oh, yeah, the GOP is going to banging the terrorism drum. However, they seem to forget that the last time they drove foreign policy it was nothing short of a disaster and they are the ones that gave ISIS the tools to do what they are doing.

  38. Sophie, we just turned it on a few minutes ago. The blonde male moderator seems to be really going after Hillary.

  39. My husband thinks his name is John something. He appears to be trying to help Bernie & O’Malley. We’re also wondering why he is asking all the questions (that we have seen).

  40. This debate seems to have a nasty tone overall.

  41. Why should HIllary have to comment on something Marco Rubio said? wtf? These questions are horrible.

  42. Bernie supporters are having an absolute meltdown over this debate along with the right wing because it is on a Saturday night. Then they are screaming for more debates for Bernie. More debates are not going to help him.

  43. Ga6th, why do they care about Saturday night? Because they want to go whoop it up someplace? It shows their immaturity.

  44. All three of them still wipe the field of any of the clowncar occupants.

    As much as I disliked the weighted questions lobbed at HRC, this totally pales compared to 2008. There’s not a single corporate shill comparable to Obama amongst ’em, therefore no over-the-top favoritism to said shill.

  45. I agree with you socal about the debate moderator. He was trying to prop up Bernie, who clearly looked uncomfortable. After BS would respond, then the mod would say……are you saying that Sec Clinton {fill in the blank insult}, like he was trying to start a fight. O’Malley really annoyed me. His speaking style is so demeaning, and kinda weird. Like Mr. Rogers on speed.

  46. I also noticed that Bernie’s uncomfortableness showed on his face and head. He was all red for the first part of the debate. He reminded me of this guy from the movie Inside Out:

  47. imust, you nailed it!

  48. I watched the debate. I thought that O’Malley was insufferable. I cannot believe that some pundits and Democratic insiders were talking about him three or four years ago as a possible major presidential candidate. In addition to his rambling statements about what he did in Maryland, he went after Hillary after Sanders did. O’Malley has absolutely no chance to win the nomination; perhaps he wants to help the Republicans win the election? He couldn’t be polite, make whatever points he wanted, without snarling at HIllary?

    Sanders is more likeable in that he cares about the country, and his ideas are good–except that they are completely unfeasible, so maybe they are not good, because they minimize the more feasible ideas that Hillary has. Any one of us could say that the minimum wage should be $35 an hour, and the top tax rate should be 80%, and all those young Iowa Democrats would cheer loudly. But we couldn’t do any of it, nor can Sanders. And except for one question from the moderator, Sanders is never asked how he thinks he can accomplish even one percent of what he wants to do. He just makes his statements about banks and Wall Street and corporations, and people cheer this as if they think that the President is the Wizard of Oz. One would think that he had more sense than this, but maybe he is intoxicated with the support he gets from the younger and unknowledgeable voters.

    Hillary did her best, under very trying circumstances. All the difficult questions were directed to her. And the moderator, who was John Dickerson, apparently the host of Meet the Press, which I never watch now; and the son of Nancy DIckerson, the White House correspondent when JFK was President, deliberately turned the debate into an anti-Hillary fest. He questioned her about the emails, again; he asked how one could believe that someone who “takes money from Wall Street could be trusted by Democrats,” etc. And then he would try to encourage the other two to criticize her. Hillary is always poised and knowledgeable. But the “two against one” current debate situation, is not helping the Democratic Party.

  49. However, I will assure anyone who did not watch the debate, that Hillary did well, as always; and made no missteps. She did get upset once, at Sanders, when he said that if the Wall Streeters are giving her money, they must know that she will help them, or something like that. She said, correctly, that he was impugning her integrity.

  50. John Dickerson took over hosting CBS’s Face the Nation after Schieffer retired. He is a true CDS moderator on the show…and also a light-weight journalist. I can only think he was chosen because CBS thinks he is the next “golden boy”.

    I didn’t see the debates..babysitting my sister’s kids to give her a desperately needed night off (don’t ask)…but I did see Hillary’s comment about taking in more Syrian refugees. I am not a happy-camper about it.

    BTW, imust, the “Anger” character is perfect for Sanders. While Larry David plays Sanders brilliantly, Bernie does talk just like Lewis Black, the voice of “Anger”. But at least Lewis fires off on both parties, which is why I love his humor. He doesn’t cow-tow PC his humor for anyone.

  51. Rut ro….Bernie is now feeling “The Burn”.

    Ups, I have another post stuck in cyber hell.

  52. To elaborate on my earlier post, racism is a specific variety of bigotry.

    All racists are bigots, but not all bigots are racists.

    Some people have begun to call all bigotry “racism”, which is rather like calling all facial tissues “Kleenex”, or all soda pops “Coke”. The best-known variety of the general “product” becomes a synonym for all varieties of the “product”.

    Ciao for nao. :mrgreen:

  53. Maybe O’Malley thinks that Sanders is going to crash and burn after NV or SC and he’s going to be there to pick up Sanders’ hater contingent.

    I agree with imust’s assessment of O’Malley–Mr. Rogers but a little faster.

    Dickerson really was a dick: Bernie, tell us why you think Hillary is evil because she did this terrible thing that you didn’t do. Here–let me help you tell us again and again because it looks like you need an edge.

  54. William, A small correction. John Dickerson is the host of “Face the Nation,” not “Meet the Press.”

    Roz in NJ/NYC

  55. I wasn’t impressed with Dickerson. But then I’ve always been difficult to impress.

  56. Hahaha on O’Malley, he’s going to crash and burn WITH Bernie.

  57. Hahaha on O’Malley, he’s going to crash and burn WITH Bernie.

  58. Voting Hillary, Spam net truly hates you. I gotcha out.

  59. LOL! the Bernie Bots screamed for more debates because free national airtime, but I guess not if it interferes with party time! After two debates, my prediction has come true: she’s killing him. He’s a one-note puppy. And the more people SEE him, the more they walk away.

  60. Yeah Sophie.
    Mod: Sen. Sanders, how would you defeat ISIS?
    Sanders: Speaking of Wall Street……..

    Mod: Sen. Sanders, do you have a plan for immigration reform?
    Sanders: Speaking of Wall Street…….

  61. Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaa Imust.

  62. Bernie has a sign on his back

    “First come the revolution. Then come the Despot”.

  63. Bernie Sanders’ campaign song:

  64. Freedom Fries are back to being French Fries. Film at 11.

  65. I looked up Dickerson. He grew up in a huge mansion (30+ rooms) on a huge estate (40+ acres) overlooking the Potomac. Spoiled, silver spoon kid who had his career handed to him because of his mother. He seemed engulfed by CDS. I don’t at all understand why modern day journalists don’t want to at least appear to be unbiased, but its like they don’t even care. I think they care more about their own celebrity.

  66. Vox says that Hillary won the debate.

  67. Poor John Dickerson ( sad face ). It appears that Nancy Dickerson was a Washington version of “Mommie Dearest”. John got even with her by writing a tell-all book after she died.

  68. So John Dick is another poor lil rich boy like Andy Cooper.

    Looks like Johnny may have some mommy issues that he’s taking out on HRC.

  69. Beata, wow.
    It reads like John Dickerson’s mother was a career woman ( such a quaint phrase) and he perceived her as a “mommy, dearest.”
    How do we keep this poor, wounded, useless soul far away from Hillary?
    PS. how’s your kitty?

  70. I’m not surprised he’s an ungrateful trust fund baby. WHen I saw him, I thought, this guy hung around a fraternity house with guys named Skip.

  71. Moving video description by a Paris couple who barely escaped being killed with dead bodies all around them. “An ocean of blood”

Comments are closed.