WWTBAM Bored

Should be a fun week watching the convention.

News items:

DNC chairperson resigns over exposed email scandal to 'fix' the nomination process.

DNC erects 4 mile, 8 ft. high fence around the convention site. Correct me if I'm wrong, did the RNC feel the need for a fence? Who are the folks the DNC are trying to keep out? Bernie supporters? BLM folks? Those are all supposed to be their constituents.

DNC invites Michael Brown's mother to speak. I guess this is who the DNC values, women who beat up their own mothers so they can keep the tourism profits from their own thug son's death. I'm sure she is writing her own speech.

Al Gore will not be attending, or endorsing Clinton.


The good news is that it appears CNN has moved to the dark side and values ratings over its own left leaning politics. MSNBC not so much, but a good Wikileak fixes that. Gives CNN ammo against their chief propaganda rival.


Trump's tweets this week should be classic. I'm heading to the store for more popcorn.

BackInTex wrote: DNC erects 4 mile, 8 ft. high fence around the convention site. Correct me if I'm wrong, did the RNC feel the need for a fence? Who are the folks the DNC are trying to keep out? Bernie supporters? BLM folks? Those are all supposed to be their constituents.

Looks like they may have erected a fence in Cleveland, too. But most of the Cleveland protesters were non-Republican, and fairly civil.

BackInTex wrote:Who are the folks the DNC are trying to keep out?

Texans.

Just shows how stacked the deck is against third party candidates that we can have two such terrible candidates, and STILL people won't vote third party.

Jeemie wrote:Just shows how stacked the deck is against third party candidates that we can have two such terrible candidates, and STILL people won't vote third party.

I agree. But I've voted 3rd party before. l may this year. Though I'm not a big fan of Gary Johnson, he is better than either candidate offered up by the two major parties.

BackInTex wrote:

Jeemie wrote:Just shows how stacked the deck is against third party candidates that we can have two such terrible candidates, and STILL people won't vote third party.

I agree. But I've voted 3rd party before. l may this year. Though I'm not a big fan of Gary Johnson, he is better than either candidate offered up by the two major parties.

I am voting for third party...someone I can stomach pulling the lever for, and if I can't find one, I'm not voting.

There is no way in hell I can turn the lever for either the buffoonish huckster or the globalist warmonger.

Already, the neo-libs are citing the world's new favorite boogeyman, Vladimir Putin, for the Wikileaks e-mail dump.

That the Dems decided to rig the game for Hillary was a Russian plot, you see.

Jeemie wrote:Just shows how stacked the deck is against third party candidates that we can have two such terrible candidates, and STILL people won't vote third party.

The party with the naked guy has had the smoothest convention

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Jeemie wrote:Just shows how stacked the deck is against third party candidates that we can have two such terrible candidates, and STILL people won't vote third party.

The party with the naked guy has had the smoothest convention

That guy made me realize for the sake of civilization, there do need to be at least some limits to freedom.

And just when you thought this election season couldn't get any crazier, this weekend's news dump also gave us the following gem:

Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and pontificating flaming a-hole David Duke announced his candidacy for the open U.S. Senate seat in his home state of Louisiana. Duke has made it no secret that he lurves demagoguing bag of candy corn Donald Trump, although Trump himself disavowed Duke earlier this year. No word yet on what kind of impact Duke will have on either the U.S. Senate race or the presidential election, but the GOP almost certainly would have been happier if Duke was not a part of the process at a time when the GOP leaders are attempting to move away from the nativism and the racist rhetoric.

BackInTex wrote:DNC erects 4 mile, 8 ft. high fence around the convention site.

I'm at the DNC. I think the Secret Service is responsible for the fence. From the look of it, I'd say they're trying to keep copycat truck terrorists out. Most of the area inside is parking lots.

BackInTex wrote:Al Gore will not be attending, or endorsing Clinton.

He's probably still mad at the weak support President Clinton gave him in 2000. But Dukakis and Mondale will be here. Didn't realize they were still alive!

jarnon wrote:

BackInTex wrote:DNC erects 4 mile, 8 ft. high fence around the convention site.

I'm at the DNC. I think the Secret Service is responsible for the fence. From the look of it, I'd say they're trying to keep copycat truck terrorists out. Most of the area inside is parking lots.

BackInTex wrote:Al Gore will not be attending, or endorsing Clinton.

He's probably still mad at the weak support President Clinton gave him in 2000. But Dukakis and Mondale will be here. Didn't realize they were still alive!

Gore says he's withholding his endorsement until Clinton is nominated.

Bob Juch wrote:

jarnon wrote:

BackInTex wrote:DNC erects 4 mile, 8 ft. high fence around the convention site.

I'm at the DNC. I think the Secret Service is responsible for the fence. From the look of it, I'd say they're trying to keep copycat truck terrorists out. Most of the area inside is parking lots.

BackInTex wrote:Al Gore will not be attending, or endorsing Clinton.

He's probably still mad at the weak support President Clinton gave him in 2000. But Dukakis and Mondale will be here. Didn't realize they were still alive!

Gore says he's withholding his endorsement until Clinton is nominated.

Except he just did now: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/g ... 8?cmpid=sf

And tonight the DNC has an admitted and unrepentant child molester as a speaker. They are pulling out all stops to bring in their base.

BackInTex wrote:And tonight the DNC has an admitted and unrepentant child molester as a speaker. They are pulling out all stops to bring in their base.

Josh Duggar is speaking?!

BackInTex wrote:And tonight the DNC has an admitted and unrepentant child molester as a speaker. They are pulling out all stops to bring in their base.

Just grotesque.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:And tonight the DNC has an admitted and unrepentant child molester as a speaker. They are pulling out all stops to bring in their base.

Josh Duggar is speaking?!

No, they were able to book their first choice.

And so there's no confusion, because after thinking about it, there could be, I'm not referring to Bill.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:And tonight the DNC has an admitted and unrepentant child molester as a speaker. They are pulling out all stops to bring in their base.

Josh Duggar is speaking?!

No, they were able to book their first choice.

And so there's no confusion, because after thinking about it, there could be, I'm not referring to Bill.

OK, I'll bite. To whom are you referring?

Lena Dunham

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Lena Dunham

Since that one was new to me, I had to look it up. The incident took place when Lena was 7 and her sister was 1. Lena's mother gave her an introductory lecture on sex, and, since Lena couldn't examine herself all that well, she checked out her sister. Child psychologists will tell you that playing those types of sexual exploration games with others is normal curiosity that lots of children engage in. If there is any fault here, it's with the mother if she was aware of it and didn't talk to Lena about it.

Now if you want to talk about grown men who molest children and then lie under oath about it, well, there's a place for them in the Republican Party:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/ ... -molester/

Here's somebody at the DNC that BiT will admire: a woman (some reports say a man in a dress) was badly burned stomping out a burning U.S. flag.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jrobinsonpho ... 4584075265

Protestors also burned an Israeli flag.

Pastor Fireball wrote:And just when you thought this election season couldn't get any crazier, this weekend's news dump also gave us the following gem:

Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and pontificating flaming a-hole David Duke announced his candidacy for the open U.S. Senate seat in his home state of Louisiana. Duke has made it no secret that he lurves demagoguing bag of candy corn Donald Trump, although Trump himself disavowed Duke earlier this year. No word yet on what kind of impact Duke will have on either the U.S. Senate race or the presidential election, but the GOP almost certainly would have been happier if Duke was not a part of the process at a time when the GOP leaders are attempting to move away from the nativism and the racist rhetoric.

The only people who give David Duke any attention or credibility are democrats. He has never been elected for anything and is virtually ignored except when useful for smearing republicans. Shove off.

silverscreenselect wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Lena Dunham

Since that one was new to me, I had to look it up. The incident took place when Lena was 7 and her sister was 1. Lena's mother gave her an introductory lecture on sex, and, since Lena couldn't examine herself all that well, she checked out her sister. Child psychologists will tell you that playing those types of sexual exploration games with others is normal curiosity that lots of children engage in. If there is any fault here, it's with the mother if she was aware of it and didn't talk to Lena about it.

Now if you want to talk about grown men who molest children and then lie under oath about it, well, there's a place for them in the Republican Party:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/ ... -molester/

There is a difference in the way the Republican Party and The Democrat Party react to such things. Each party has their own warts (to be polite), but the Republican Party excommunicates them while the Democrat Party celebrates them and invites them to speak at their convention.

And it was just not the actions of a 7 year-old. She described other things she did with her sister as she got older. And she talked about them as if they were O.K. and somewhat humorous in retrospect, not something that she was at all ashamed of. She is almost if not actually proud of them. She did apologize for any offense to others in her writing about the events, but has never said she is ashamed, or un-proud of what she did.

BackInTex wrote: And it was just not the actions of a 7 year-old. She described other things she did with her sister as she got older. And she talked about them as if they were O.K. and somewhat humorous in retrospect, not something that she was at all ashamed of. She is almost if not actually proud of them. She did apologize for any offense to others in her writing about the events, but has never said she is ashamed, or un-proud of what she did.

I haven't been able to find any information about how old Dunham and her sister were when the other incidents happen. One of them involved giving the sister candy to let her kiss the sister on the lips, so obviously the sister had to be old enough to appreciate the value of the candy in making this type of "bargain." But the fault here seems to lie with Lena's mother, who apparently was aware of the first incident (at age 7) and probably others and didn't do anything about it. Children take their cues from adults about what is and is not acceptable behavior. Lots of older brothers and sisters threaten or coerce their younger siblings into doing all kinds of things. It's inappropriate but it's not child molesting, especially when an adult essentially acquiesces in the behavior.

Dunham has an in-your-face style of humor that's hard for a lot of people to take. As she herself has admitted, her use of the term "sexual predator" in her memoir was a poor choice that she intended as humor that backfired. But, based on what she's written, she isn't a child molester.

BackInTex wrote:There is a difference in the way the Republican Party and The Democrat Party react to such things.

Not to be nitpicky or anything, but in order to be consistent, shouldn't it be "Republic Party and The Democrat Party"? Or "Republican Party and The Democratic Party"?

earendel wrote:

BackInTex wrote:There is a difference in the way the Republican Party and The Democrat Party react to such things.

Not to be nitpicky or anything, but in order to be consistent, shouldn't it be "Republic Party and The Democrat Party"? Or "Republican Party and The Democratic Party"?

This represents another conceit by the far right that that the Democratic party does not deserve to be called by its actual name because they aren't "democratic." It's just part of the right's fascination with name calling, the same as the idea that using the term "radical Islam" and believing in Donald Trump will put an end to terrorism. Let's remember it's the same bunch that wanted to rename French fries "freedom fries." I guess that now that we're on board with the French again, we can once again give them credit for some unhealthy potatoes.