Appelbaum has often annoyed, but this mirth was appreciated.

That's pretty funny.

If we can combine an anti-Trump landslide with the GOP holding onto Congress, I'm in. Divided government is best.

And these "Trump is awful" parties are pro-gun, pro-life, and do not want a Liberal for the next 2 Supremes?

"Please don't throw me into the briar patch
!"

If asked I also would have refused to answer the 'will you accept the results' question

Quite frankly I would have gone a step further and asked why the fuck self absorbed pissant morons are wasting time asking a question I had already answered in the first debate

"Fearmongering" : funny accusation from someone posting the dangers of Islam nigh-daily.

Then came Shrillary -- liar, thief, bully, hypocrite, sexual victimizer, war-monger and unhinged, self-adoring demagogue.
Her decisions cost thousands of lives, millions of refugees, tens of millions of tax payer dollars.

Creepy in the Mao suit.

Divided government is best.

...because John Boner and RRomney RRyan really did so much

At this point, it may be better if HRC wins and the warring factions of the GOP sort themselves into two distinct parties. Call the new one Tea Party, Trump Party, whatever you like, but I'd like to see three (or four, or five) major parties in the United States now.

(I know we have the Libertarians and the Greens, but both have demonstrated they're less interested in obtaining local office and building up than showing up every four years to bawl about the two major parties.)

If Trump loses, the Republicans have to wonder how they had years to combat a dreadfully flawed opponent and ended up performing so shambolically. For those who inevitably will end up bitching about the media or whatever, consider this: the bedrock of Republican thought is being responsible for your own actions (and their outcomes) despite life's obstacles. This election, they've done a piss-poor job.

Trump's reckless willingness to damage trust in the electoral process -- in order to save face and hold leadership of the paranoid wing of U.S. politics -- is the most pressing reason why voters must defeat him in a landslide.

I've said all along that Clinton is going to win. I never completely ruled out a Trump win but thought it extremely unlikely (like a 1-5% chance.) However, it's now looking like Clinton may win big, with the popular vote and, especially, electoral votes.

Face it, Hillary-haters: Trump is going to be a loser (I read a great remark recently, that Trump has really just been prepping for his next reality show: The Biggest Loser.) Those of you voting for him aren't losers but you're certainly backing a loser. When he loses, Trump will throw a tantrum (new word: tantrump!) and many of his supporters will as well. Will his supporters become violent? We'll have to see. I'd say it's quite possible. There's a lot of anger out there in what the News called "the paranoid wing of U.S. politics." Trump has already inflamed it and can inflame it some more.

I'm afraid you just aren't a valid source on such matters Kevin. And as for wondering how the Republicans got there, that is common knowledge. The Tea Party Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce Republicans can't stand each other. They have highly differing ideologies. Most likely what will happen is the Chamber of Commerce guys (i.e. NeverTrumpers) will become part of the Democrat party. Under current law there is a near zero chance of more than two major parties forming.

A lot of the NeverTrump crowd are going to be shocked when they finally realize that a Trump defeat means a Hillary victory and what exactly that victory will entail.

Chillingly, he refused in Wednesday night's debate to commit to honoring the results of the November election. Doing so, he questioned the fundamental soundness of America's democracy.

Chillingly? Is this the same newspaper that shrugged its metaphorical shoulders when Al Gore demanded recount after recount in 2000, changing the rules with each recount? Was that a "chilling" questioning of the fundamental soundness of America's democracy?

I'm afraid you just aren't a valid source on such matters Kevin.

Source? I'm not a "source"; that's my opinion.

And as for wondering how the Republicans got there, that is common knowledge. The Tea Party Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce Republicans can't stand each other.

Precisely what I was saying. We just don't agree on the desired outcome. I'd like to see a viable third party, though I do agree it's unlikely — which is why I said "I'd like to see" rather than "I think this will happen."

Birds of a feather ...

https://onsizzle.com/i/evil-has-a-dress-code-i-love-how-they-put-3033912

I find all this moral hand-wringing to be a puzzlement. Obama is an internationaly renowned liar and a murderer. As was George W before him. And Clinton I. And Bush I.
Management ability could be a better marker for leadership. Here again, neither major party candidate is up to the mark. Trump would run the White House like an extension of Trump Enterprises. We'd be in receivership by the end of his term. Clinton, who knows? Investments in document shredding and cemetery plots might make you rich.

The people here that are so certain that Hillary is going to win could be in for quite a surprise. I was born during WWII and have noticed that in the body politic the only things we know for certain regarding the future is death and taxes.

The polls notwithstanding, I am going to my voting precinct on election day and making my mark for Trump.

Fine Kevin let me be more frank. Your opinion aint worth shit. As far as electoral outcomes for the republican party due to a split, I think you would be very disappointed. The Commerce guys are mainly located in heavily democrat strongholds. After a split the GOP will have a hard time taking New York state . . . just like they do today. Big whoop. Those Commerce guys disproportionately makeup the leadership of the GOP but they don't have the votes to actually do much. This split has been coming for over a decade. Most likely outcome of a split is the GOP veres sharply right.

At the same time the democrat party is going through their own civil war. Blue collar democrats appear to have been forced out by Obama and Hillary. It will also be interesting to see if the Obama Hillary hatefest breaks the black vote.

Fine Kevin let me be more frank. Your opinion aint worth shit.

Well, this is a place for opinions, even if you don't agree with them. I don't necessarily agree with yours, but I certainly wouldn't tell you it "aint worth shit."

I absolutely agree with Mike that divided government is best. My worst nightmare is an activist President (from either party) with a compliant Congress. But that's the beauty of Trump--no matter which party controls Congress, it won't roll over and give him whatever he wants. You may be sure that if Hillary wins and gets a Democratic majority in Congress, she'll run roughshod.

Restore US honor?
By electing Hillary?

Damn, that's stupid.

She has already proven you can kill the US ambassador and get away with it. Yeah, that's honorable.

Of course, if Hillary and Trump are both unfit for office -- and cases have been made for unfitness in both of them -- people could vote for Gary Johnson, who is the only other candidate with his name on the ballot in all fifty states, as far as I know.

But EEEEEEEEVIL TRUMP and EEEEEEEEVIL HILLARY mean we must vote for EEEEEEEEEVIL HILLARY or EEEEEEEVIL TRUMP to stop the other.

Sometimes, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

If it helps I mean it in the nicest way possible Kevin. But you are clearly ignorant and biased.

Mpetrie, Yes the lesser of two evils is still evil. But it is less evil.

As for Johnson, if he was the Republican candidate he would be just as evil as Trump. Or at least that is how he would be portrayed. I also don't see any chance of him winning. Not even one state much less the presidency. You may as well vote for Superman. But I'll admit I'm a bit biased. I don't really care for him any more than I care for Trump.

If it helps I mean it in the nicest way possible Kevin. But you are clearly ignorant and biased.

Well ... thanks? I'm not sure where you got bias out of my observation that America would do better with more than two political parties, but we all have our biases, I suppose.

Well ... thanks? I'm not sure where you got bias out of my observation that America would do better with more than two political parties, but we all have our biases, I suppose.

Kevin at October 22, 2016 10:31 PM

If you can find a way to get 40 plus states to go to a system of proportional representation, than you have a set up for a viable third parties.
I think there are a few who proportionally divy up their electors, but not very many of them.

However since this would hurt both major parties, which control all the existing state legislatures, there isnt much demand for changing this system.

Especially when it would shift even more power to the blue cities and the states with large populations which have huge vote fraud systems in place.

So your desire for a viable third party is a bit naive, to say the least.

Im also in favor of returning the fuction of selecting senators to the state legislatures where it belongs.
This would limit the graft. Senators would no longer be selling their votes to out of state special interests for large campagn contributions. The Senate was intended as a check on populist nature of the house, and it has instead become a super house,
Senators and representatives also need to be paid and housed by the states and districts that they come from, and not out of the general fund.

It is the same self dealing that the public sector unions enjoy. They sit on both sides of the table.
The individual taxpayer gets screwed at both ends.

The problem with "liar, thief, bully, hypocrite, sexual victimizer and unhinged, self-adoring demagogue" is that more than one candidate in the race fits that description.

I take it that Al Gore and John Kerry were unavailable for comment?

"Divided government is best."

There's no such thing anymore. Obama established the principle that the President can rule by executive order and get away with it. Hillary will use that to the hilt. Additionally, Trump's defeat will leave the country-club Republicans firmly in charge of the party, and they will order the members to vote for pretty much anything the Democrats propose. Some of them will be smart enough to bring home some bacon to their district, but in the face of mass economic depredation, a few strips of bacon isn't going to matter much.

This will leave a large percentage of the American population unrepresented in Washington. Make no mistake, that't the way the people in power want it and they aren't going to relent. We are rapidly running out of Constitutional options. A Constitutional convention may be a long shot, but it might be the only shot we have left. The game's nearly over.

A Constitutional convention may be a long shot, but it might be the only shot we have left. The game's nearly over. ~ Cousin Dave at October 24, 2016 7:41 AM

And in whom do you have enough confidence to send to represent you at such a convention?

There is no politician or statesman alive today whom I trust to write a new constitution to replace the existing one.

Kinky Friedman. He's our only hope! ;)

There is no politician or statesman alive today whom I trust to write a new constitution to replace the existing one.

Conan the Grammrian at October 24, 2016 12:28 PM

I dont think the constitution needs to be totally redone. We just need to repeal and replace a few amendments to bring the structure of government more in line with the founders intentions.
A good start is repealing the direct election of senators. And possibly term limits for the Supreme Court.

States didnt intend to cede so much power to the feds. They lost it one court decision at a time, especially when the feds acquired the power to reward and punish states with federal revenues.

Things like a 55 mile an hour national speed limit wasnt just a bad idea because it was stupid. It was terrible because the feds had acquired the power and monetary control of interstate highway funds to blackmail all the states into going along. And the courts backed them up.

Conan, I said it was a long shot. But the existing Constitution is almost gutted now. Hillary's SCOTUS appointees will wipe out the Second Amendment and what remains of the Fourth Amendment, and the First Amendment will be transformed into a privilege reserved for government-approved groups. Exemptions to the Sixth Amendment's provisions regarding speedy trials and confrontation of witnesses will be greatly expanded.

If I were proposing amendments to be considered by a Constitution convention, a few things I would do include:

* Repeal of the Commerce Clause, which over the past half century has been interpreted by courts as a nearly unlimited grant of power to the Federal government. Replace it with a much more limited clause that prohibits states from levying import duties.

* An amendment that states that no citizen is entitled to support from any level of government, along with a clause that prohibits the federal government from transferring funds to any other entity, except as payment for services rendered, or remittance of overpaid taxes.

* A right-to-travel amendment, that says that citizens have the right to move about and relocate, and that the act of doing so does not in itself constitute grounds for a search, or seizure of property.

* A national right-to-work amendment.

* A provision that allows either house of Congress to override court decisions regarding interpretation of law.

* A framework that brings regulatory agencies within the scope of the Constitution. Among the thing that would be done:
-- Every agency must have a charter that specifically limits its power to one subject or area. Courts are to interpret the charter in its strictest sense.
-- Either house of Congress can vote to suspend the rule-making authority of an agency at any time. Either house of Congress can vote to nullify any rule adopted or proposed by an agency. Once a rule is nullified, the agency is prohibited from proposing any similar rule until specifically authorized by legislation.
-- Congress can compel, by legislation, any desired reorganization of regulatory agencies. The President may not veto such legislation.

* Specifically state the the executive branch is prohibited from implementing any provision of any treaty or international agreement until the treaty has been ratified by the Senate.

* Some sort of provision that allows for direct recall of the President and Supreme Court. I'll admit I'm not sure how this should work. But when all three branches of government are colluding against the citizens (as they are today), there needs to be some way to restore the balance.

That's all I've got time for right now, but I have lots more ideas.

I almost forgot the most important one: Clarify that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms, and to defend one's person, family and property.

Mr. Trump is the second-worst person in the world. The worst is the seething Trump-haters, who vandalize stuff and pick physical fights and all that.

In fact, if you asked me if I would vote for Mr. Trump two weeks ago, I'd have said no way. But after his star was smashed and all those cars were damaged, I just have to. I can't support those people.