Wikileaks, Michael Brown's mother, Trump tweets

[BackInTex]

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."

I think Bernie Sanders would agree that the Democratic party is not Democratic, but rather Demoncratic.

It's just part of the right's fascination with name calling,

Members of the party are called Democrats, so leaving of the "ic" is not that big of a deal. Its a shortened version. There is no malice intended. Can't say the same for your side's actual name calling,.

Nothing beats the left's name calling....teabaggers, Shrub, Jr....and the list goes on.

[Estonut]

Nothing beats the left's name calling....teabaggers, Shrub, Jr....and the list goes on.

That they use the term "Teabaggers" illustrates the ultimate hypocrisy. They consider themselves the enlightened, compassionate and politically correct party, yet they refuse to drop this term. Might as well call people "Fags."

[Bob78164]

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.

He made the runoff when running for governor of Louisiana in 1992. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

If democrats are insulted by calling their party the democrats, then I'm all for it. Their standard answer to any policy issue is to insult and demean their opponents. If it demeans them to call them the democrat party, then that's what I'll call them. Repubs don't mind if you call them the repub party. Knock yourself out.

[SloppyDrunkGuy]

If democrats are insulted by calling their party the democrats, then I'm all for it. Their standard answer to any policy issue is to insult and demean their opponents. If it demeans them to call them the democrat party, then that's what I'll call them. Repubs don't mind if you call them the repub party. Knock yourself out.

Thish.... (HIC!) Democrat wouldn't mind beeeeing... (hic, hic!) repubbed! HIC!

HIC!!!!

[flockofseagulls104]

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.

He made the runoff when running for governor of Louisiana in 1992. --Bob

Oh dear. Then I must be in the Klan, right? We're all racist bigots just like him.

Bug off. It only works for the ignorant, which is the majority of the democrat party. We know how full of shit your party is every time it resorts to this kind of phony crap. Which is all the time. The difficult thing for me to understand is how someone of your seeming intelligence buys every contradictory, ridiculous, illogical slander they dish out for you, hook, line and sinker.

[flockofseagulls104]

Nothing beats the left's name calling....teabaggers, Shrub, Jr....and the list goes on.

That they use the term "Teabaggers" illustrates the ultimate hypocrisy. They consider themselves the enlightened, compassionate and politically correct party, yet they refuse to drop this term. Might as well call people "Fags."

democrats would never offend any group. Except Christians, Republicans and Conservatives. They're fair game.

[silverscreenselect]

Members of the party are called Democrats, so leaving of the "ic" is not that big of a deal. Its a shortened version. There is no malice intended. Can't say the same for your side's actual name calling,.

Nothing beats the left's name calling....teabaggers, Shrub, Jr....and the list goes on.

You don't hear politicians and radio commentators talking about teabaggers and Shrub, Jr. That's the difference.

Republicans have gotten quite good at inventing excuses for their exclusionary practices. Bizarre voting restrictions are needed to combat non-existent voter fraud. Major abortion restrictions are needed out of a concern for women's health. Bathroom laws are needed out of concern about sexual predators using women's restrooms.

They don't fool anyone other than the members of their own party who don't understand how they wind up with candidates like Donald Trump and David Duke.

[BackInTex]

He has never been elected for anything

He made the runoff when running for governor of Louisiana in 1992. --Bob

Wow.....that changes everything.

[BackInTex]

Republicans have gotten quite good at inventing excuses for their exclusionary practices. Bizarre voting restrictions are needed to combat non-existent voter fraud.

You know about the Wasserman Schultz thing, right? You know that what she did was wrong? Fraud? Theft? Yet your idol rewards her with a position on her campaign staff.

The whole thing is pathetic. And yet you and your side don't see anything wrong with it. Telling...

[flockofseagulls104]

Members of the party are called Democrats, so leaving of the "ic" is not that big of a deal. Its a shortened version. There is no malice intended. Can't say the same for your side's actual name calling,.

Nothing beats the left's name calling....teabaggers, Shrub, Jr....and the list goes on.

You don't hear politicians and radio commentators talking about teabaggers and Shrub, Jr. That's the difference.

Republicans have gotten quite good at inventing excuses for their exclusionary practices. Bizarre voting restrictions are needed to combat non-existent voter fraud. Major abortion restrictions are needed out of a concern for women's health. Bathroom laws are needed out of concern about sexual predators using women's restrooms.

They don't fool anyone other than the members of their own party who don't understand how they wind up with candidates like Donald Trump and David Duke.

Again, this is how we know democrats are full of *&^$. Yes you do hear left wing politicians and news commentators uttering those kinds of phrases when they don't think they're being recorded. And we all know that's how they think. We are Hillary's biggest enemy, remember?

What you point to as 'bizarre' was called common sense not too long ago. I think allowing anyone to use whatever public bathroom they want based on what sex they feel like today is the height of bizarre. As is the Federal Government extorting this view into elementary schools.

[silverscreenselect]

You know about the Wasserman Schultz thing, right? You know that what she did was wrong? Fraud? Theft?

Exactly what sort of fraud or theft was Debbie Wasserman Schultz guilty of? She showed admittedly poor judgment in sending some e-mails without thinking them through, but I fail to see how that constitutes fraud or theft.

What Bernie Sanders followers don't realize is that he did far better under the "rigged" system than he would have under any other set of nominating rules. Much of the reason that he was so close was his victories in caucus states that reward people who have the time to show up in one place and spend hours going through the process. That tends to overly reward those with a more activist, younger voter base. If all the caucus states had instead held primaries, Bernie would have lost by a considerably larger margin. Bernie's supporters then tried to stack the deck at district and state nominating conventions, essentially changing the results of the primaries (that's also what Ted Cruz supporters tried to do). If that's not trying to "rig" the system, I don't know what is. Bernie lost because he failed to make his case to a sufficient number of Democratic voters, especially black and Hispanic Democratic voters.

[silverscreenselect]

What you point to as 'bizarre' was called common sense not too long ago. I think allowing anyone to use whatever public bathroom they want based on what sex they feel like today is the height of bizarre.

What do you think transgendered men and women did up until a year ago when they went out in public? They didn't go into the "right" bathroom and explain to anyone watching that it was OK, I'm not really a man because I was born a woman. They went into the bathrooms of people who looked like themselves, kept a low profile, and went about their business without disturbing anyone. And for years, no one said a word, no one was assaulted, and no one complained. My guess is that half the women in America have probably shared a public restroom with someone transgendered at one time or another without being aware of it.

It only became an issue when right wing yahoos decided to try to demean and humiliate transgendered people by passing silly laws.

[BackInTex]

You know about the Wasserman Schultz thing, right? You know that what she did was wrong? Fraud? Theft?

Exactly what sort of fraud or theft was Debbie Wasserman Schultz guilty of? She showed admittedly poor judgment in sending some e-mails without thinking them through, but I fail to see how that constitutes fraud or theft.

What Bernie Sanders followers don't realize is that he did far better under the "rigged" system than he would have under any other set of nominating rules. Much of the reason that he was so close was his victories in caucus states that reward people who have the time to show up in one place and spend hours going through the process. That tends to overly reward those with a more activist, younger voter base. If all the caucus states had instead held primaries, Bernie would have lost by a considerably larger margin. Bernie's supporters then tried to stack the deck at district and state nominating conventions, essentially changing the results of the primaries (that's also what Ted Cruz supporters tried to do). If that's not trying to "rig" the system, I don't know what is. Bernie lost because he failed to make his case to a sufficient number of Democratic voters, especially black and Hispanic Democratic voters.

Worth repeating.....

And yet you and your side don't see anything wrong with it. Telling...

[silverscreenselect]

Worth repeating.....

And yet you and your side don't see anything wrong with it. Telling...

Worth repeating .....

Exactly what sort of fraud or theft was Debbie Wasserman Schultz guilty of?

[BackInTex]

Exactly what sort of fraud or theft was Debbie Wasserman Schultz guilty of?

Says a lot that you can't get there from knowing what Wasserman Shultz did.

Do you think any Sanders supporters sent money to the DNC during the primary race? Do you think those folks assumed Bernie would benefit from that money?

The entire DNC was (and probably still is) a fraud. It was the HRCNC. They solicited and received money from Sanders supporters who assumed, bases on DNC charter and solicitations, that the money would be used to support their candidates and causes. The DNC used that money to hurt Sanders, to benefit Clinton. In my book that is fraud and theft. In your book, apparently that is just good business. You really should be supporting Trump, then. He's like you.

[silverscreenselect]

Do you think any Sanders supporters sent money to the DNC during the primary race? Do you think those folks assumed Bernie would benefit from that money?

I'm sure some Sanders supporters did send money to the DNC and they got benefit out of it. Who do you think paid for that convention in Philadelphia last week and the debates and staging caucuses and primaries and various conventions?

One thing we don't know now is to what extent that there are e-mails damaging to Clinton and favorable to Sanders. The leaking here was quite selective.

And my guess would be that there are a lot of e-mails floating around the RNC that they wouldn't want to have made public either.

Although it doesn't excuse the content of some of the e-mails, my understanding is that most of them were sent late in the campaign, when it was pretty obvious to everyone except die hard Sanders supporters that the race was over practically albeit not mathematically. Many of those e-mails represent frustration at Sanders for not seeing the handwriting on the wall (especially when Cruz and Kasich threw in the towel) and recognizing the harm to Democratic candidates in general and the party that continuing the contest would be.

Your concern for Bernie Sanders is quite touching. I'm sure you're a big supporter of his policies.

[ghostjmf]

What I want from the person who used the toilet before me:

They should flush. Until everything goes down. This is especially important in public restrooms that have those auto-flush mechanisms, which only apparently autoflush after I've sat down, splashing me with toilet contents. I try to remember to press the little auto-flush button myself before I sit, but, well, sometimes I'm in a big hurry.

(Of course the auto-flush flushes if you move a micron. But at least its not so bad if its *your* toilet contents in there.)

I want nothing on the floor. Men (& transitionees w/ male anatomy) really need to watch out for that, apparently. If they produced liquid that hit the floor, they must clean it up.

I want nothing on the seat. There is a whole group of women who are convinced that they will get cooties from sitting on a public toilet seat, even one with one or maybe 5 of those nice seat-liners some public toilets provide. They could also make their own liners out of toilet paper. Like my Mom trained me to for public toilets. When I wasn't in a big hurry (see above) that is.

So they squat above the seat. And dribble on it. Same as men dribbling on the floor, they need to clean this up before they leave. I mean, for those who are not putting on seat liners, *really* clean it up, as with soap. Alcohol. Whatever. No-one can stop them from doing this, its their own business (I saw a Dr. Oz show where he took a poll of female squatters, & 1/3 to 1/2 of his audience stood up), but they need to clean up after themselves.

Roseanne RoseannaDanna, signing off for today.

I do not care what gender you are (& neither would she, if she were still here, I'd bet).

Just leave a clean stall.

[Bob Juch]

What I want from the person who used the toilet before me:

They should flush. Until everything goes down. This is especially important in public restrooms that have those auto-flush mechanisms, which only apparently autoflush after I've sat down, splashing me with toilet contents. I try to remember to press the little auto-flush button myself before I sit, but, well, sometimes I'm in a big hurry.

(Of course the auto-flush flushes if you move a micron. But at least its not so bad if its *your* toilet contents in there.)

I want nothing on the floor. Men really need to watch out for that, apparently. If they produced liquid that hit the floor, they must clean it up.

I want nothing on the seat. There is a whole group of women who are convinced that they will get cooties from sitting on a public toilet seat, even one with one or maybe 5 of those nice seat-liners some public toilets provide. They could also make their own liners out of toilet paper. Like my Mom trained me to for public toilets. When I wasn't in a big hurry (see above) that is.

So they squat above the seat. And dribble on it. Same as men dribbling on the floor, they need to clean this up before they leave. I mean, for those who are not putting on seat liners, *really* clean it up, as with soap. Alcohol. Whatever. No-one can stop them from doing this, its their own business (I saw a Dr. Oz show where he took a poll of female squatters, & 1/3 to 1/2 of his audience stood up), but they need to clean up after themselves.

Roseanne RoseannaDanna, signing off for today.

I do not care what gender you are (& neither would she, if she were still here, I'd bet).

Just leave a clean stall.

Thaks for sharing.

[flockofseagulls104]

What do you think transgendered men and women did up until a year ago when they went out in public? They didn't go into the "right" bathroom and explain to anyone watching that it was OK, I'm not really a man because I was born a woman. They went into the bathrooms of people who looked like themselves, kept a low profile, and went about their business without disturbing anyone.

Yes, that is true. Very few people had a problem with the way it was, and if they did they were ignored. Just what changed to make it a big frickin deal? The need to have another stupid distraction issue by the left. Nobody cared about this issue until the activists decided to shove it in everyone's face. A different fraction of the population had a problem with it, but their concerns are a national calamity. And now, of course, if you disagree with the 'noble' activists you are an evil, hating person.
Then the federal government decided to stick their nose in it (what section of the Constitution gives them the right) by requiring elementary schools to promote this bizarreness.

And I agree with Ghost.

[ghostjmf]

Awww; tablet won't let me do all needed edits on previous long post today. At any rate, its what the physiological equipment produces, & on what offending surface it produces it that needs to be cleaned up after, was my point. Or RRD's. Who cares what gender eyeballs of others would register the body-waste producer to be.

And where flock probably isn't going to agree w/ me is that its transitional young kids who need the clearly gender-neutral facilities to keep them from being harrassed. Adults are smart enough to look the part of the bathroom they went into, & no-one in there, if there's more than one stall, is likely to have known them from before.

The Somerville Public Library just went gender-neutral, at least on its adult one-commode rooms (I have no reason to check on the kids' b-rooms, so don't know about them). I expect to see some men outside the rooms jumping up & down because we anatomical-women take longer, we just do.

Maybe this is all a big plot to get more stalls for anatomical women, ha ha.

[silverscreenselect]

Just what changed to make it a big frickin deal? The need to have another stupid distraction issue by the left. Nobody cared about this issue until the activists decided to shove it in everyone's face.

Nobody started proposing "unisex bathroom legislation." The non-issue became an issue when right wingers starting introducing legislation about bathrooms. They are the ones who "shoved it in everyone's face."

[BackInTex]

Just what changed to make it a big frickin deal? The need to have another stupid distraction issue by the left. Nobody cared about this issue until the activists decided to shove it in everyone's face.

Nobody started proposing "unisex bathroom legislation." The non-issue became an issue when right wingers starting introducing legislation about bathrooms. They are the ones who "shoved it in everyone's face."

Wrong as usual. You have your history backwards.

[silverscreenselect]

Just what changed to make it a big frickin deal? The need to have another stupid distraction issue by the left. Nobody cared about this issue until the activists decided to shove it in everyone's face.

Nobody started proposing "unisex bathroom legislation." The non-issue became an issue when right wingers starting introducing legislation about bathrooms. They are the ones who "shoved it in everyone's face."

Wrong as usual. You have your history backwards.

Please point out one single instance of a "unisex bathroom law" that was proposed or enacted before the North Carolina legislature and a few other yahoos started this whole controversy.

[BackInTex]

Please point out one single instance of a "unisex bathroom law" that was proposed or enacted before the North Carolina legislature and a few other yahoos started this whole controversy.

Every proposed "use the bathroom of your physical gender" law was in response to a "you may use the bathroom of the gender you think you are even if you are wrong" legislation.

Arizona Senate Bill 1045, proposed in 2013, was "was a response to an ordinance Phoenix leaders adopted in February, banning discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents. Phoenix’s law applies to public accommodations such as stores, restaurants and hotels, and could affect public bathroom use in some cases."

The North Carolina law is a 2016 law.

Houston's HERO ordinance was originally approved by the city council in May 2014, two years before North Carolina's law.
Houston's voter overruled the ordinance in November of 2015.