trump is serious!!!!!

[Crackpot]

I think that only happened in your head Wes.

[Bicycle Bill]

it sounded logical when you accused me, twice, of vowing to run you off the board too, but that was also a lie....

crickets about that tho, huh?

Speaking of crickets ....

he has put himself, and his family, at great personal and financial risk by running for president.

Show me proof.  Real, honest, serious proof that either he or his family have been at "great personal and financial risk".  Mindless blatherings by internet trolls saying "someone should shoot the so-and-so" need not apply; I'm talking about actual, credible attempts or threats that were thwarted as a result of actions taken by the Secret Service or other police forces.
(edited to add — I also do not consider the possibility that there might be protestors or hecklers in an audience to be "great personal risk" either)

So far the closest thing you've given to an answer is that Hillary faces the same dangers too, and that if I don't know what you mean you certainly aren't going to tell me because I'm "too thick" to understand.  In that case, wes, this one's dedicated to you. (the rest of the class is excused from having to watch this)



-"BB"-

[Gob]

Daniel Boone, great comparison. Slaughtered a bunch of Indians, failed land speculator, welshed on his debts and absconded to Spanish territory.

Oy!! Fuck you Canadians!!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Technically, it's "welched".

[Scooter]

it sounded logical when you accused me, twice, of vowing to run you off the board

It was there until you edited it out.

See how easy that is to say?

I remember that he wrote Mexican because I thought it strange that he didn t say Spanish

Well that's an interesting embellishment. In which case, why wouldn't you have said, at the time, hey, don't you mean Spanish territory, not Mexican, or hey, what the fuck are you talking about, Mexico didn't exist at the time.

The ONLY reason why Mexico came into this at all is because YOU confused what I wrote with the story of Davy Crockett, and attempted to alter the details to fit once you realized you were wrong. And let's say this little fantasy of yours is true. Sue posted below me and then you answered her, and then Bicycle Bill posted after that before you posted back to me. You're telling me that in all those exchanges, you never noticed that what had previously said "Mexican" now said "Spanish". Because you would have drawn attention to it if you had, that would no question have been part of your response.

That's the problem with trying to cover one lie with another - there's always going to be some contradiction/inconsistency that prevents the story from holding together. And then there's the fact that so many posters already have experience with you reading something into their posts that was never there, or attributing comments to the wrong poster and attacking them for it, and never having the balls to own up to your mistakes, that it starts looking less like a lapse in reading comprehension and more like a deliberate attempt to put words in people's mouths. Because no one can be as illiterate as you are pretending to be.

[BoSoxGal]

This board is becoming all wesw, all the time. SO tedious. wesw, wouldn't you rather hang out over at USMessage Board?

[Scooter]

[MajGenl.Meade]

The ONLY reason why Mexico came into this at all is because YOU confused what I wrote with the story of Davy Crockett, and attempted to alter the details to fit once you realized you were wrong

And that bears repeating. Bazinga!

[BoSoxGal]

Donald Drumpf may be the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, but the #NeverTrump movement appears determined to #NeverGiveUp.

Drumpf has knocked out 16 rivals, received more votes than any other candidate in Republican primary history and is closing in on the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the GOP nomination.

While it is too late to get a third-party candidate like Mitt Romney to appear on all 50 states’ ballots on Nov. 8 — a devious plan could be hatched by the GOP establishment, according to liberal magazine Mother Jones.

In a story line right out of “House of Cards,” the party would get different candidates to run independent single-state campaigns in as many states as possible.

Mitt Romney could run in Utah, where he remains popular. If Romney beat Drumpf and Hillary Clinton in the general election there he would get six electoral votes.

Gov. Scott Walker could be the third-party choice in his home state of Wisconsin, where 10 more electoral votes are up for grabs.

The mantra would be to get popular Republicans who are part of the #NeverTrump movement to run in potential swing states such as Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

If these rogue candidates win some of these states, you could see neither Drumpf nor Hillary Clinton reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

If that happened, the president would be selected by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. At that point, a President Romney or a President Walker would be a real possibility.

This convoluted election process happened in 1824, when John Quincy Adams was elected president despite winning fewer electoral votes than Andrew Jackson. With two other candidates involved — William Crawford and Henry Clay — Jackson fell 32 votes short of the 131 needed to win.

The House selected 
Adams as our sixth president. Jackson defeated 
Adams four years later.

Could that scenario play out again nearly 200 years later? If it did, the voters would be more angry than they already are by what Drumpf and Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders continue to call a “rigged system.”

Will this chain of events play out? It may seem unlikely — but remember what William Shakespeare wrote.

“What’s past is prologue.”

John Sapochetti is co-host of “Boston Herald Drive” heard weekday mornings 6-9 a.m. on Boston Herald Radio. Follow him on 
Twitter @johnsap25.

[wesw]

[Lord Jim]

The NeverTrump people haven't been able to convince one credible candidate to run as an Independent Republican, the chances that they are some how going to convince multiple people to run in multiple states approach absolute zero...

It's perfectly understandable why they haven't been able to convince anyone to take this on...

Despite the fact that our political process has resulted this year in the two most disliked political figures in America being the nominees of the two major parties, the system schedule is set up in such a way that once the Democratic and Republican standard bearers are known, it's a near logistical impossibility (even assuming the enormous sums required could be raised) for a credible third candidate to get on enough ballots to win the election....

There's a very good reason for this...

The ballot qualification process, cost, and schedule in each of the states were passed into law by state legislatures controlled by...

Democrats and Republicans...

Not really complicated...

[Scooter]

[Long Run]

Unfortunately, I think we are going to get shredded.

[Long Run]

[quote="Scooter"
The ONLY reason why Mexico came into this at all is because YOU confused what I wrote with the story of Davy Crockett[/quote]

He should Fess up.

[Joe Guy]

It's easy to get Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett mixed up since they are twins...

[Long Run]

I just dropped in to comment

Soon, we can hope that the Red Sox and Orioles will bring more drop in comments*.


* Moving ahead in the AL East, leaving Yankees and Jays behind.

[Econoline]

You want some tunes, wes?

Here ya go.

[rubato]

The Making of an Ignoramus
[Paul Krugman]

Paul Krugman MAY 9, 2016


Truly, Donald Trump knows nothing. He is more ignorant about policy than you can possibly imagine, even when you take into account the fact that he is more ignorant than you can possibly imagine. But his ignorance isn’t as unique as it may seem: In many ways, he’s just doing a clumsy job of channeling nonsense widely popular in his party, and to some extent in the chattering classes more generally.

Last week the presumptive Republican presidential nominee — hard to believe, but there it is — finally revealed his plan to make America great again. Basically, it involves running the country like a failing casino: he could, he asserted, “make a deal” with creditors that would reduce the debt burden if his outlandish promises of economic growth don’t work out.

The reaction from everyone who knows anything about finance or economics was a mix of amazed horror and horrified amazement. One does not casually suggest throwing away America’s carefully cultivated reputation as the world’s most scrupulous debtor — a reputation that dates all the way back to Alexander Hamilton.

The Trump solution would, among other things, deprive the world economy of its most crucial safe asset, U.S. debt, at a time when safe assets are already in short supply.

Of course, we can be sure that Mr. Trump knows none of this, and nobody in his entourage is likely to tell him. But before we simply ridicule him — or, actually, at the same time that we’re ridiculing him — let’s ask where his bad ideas really come from.

First of all, Mr. Trump obviously believes that America could easily find itself facing a debt crisis. But why? After all, investors, who are willing to lend to America at incredibly low interest rates, are evidently not worried by our debt. And there’s good reason for their calmness: federal interest payments are only 1.3 percent of G.D.P., or 6 percent of total outlays.

These numbers mean both that the burden of the debt is fairly small and that even complete repudiation of that debt would have only a minor impact on the government’s cash flow.

So why is Mr. Trump even talking about this subject? Well, one possible answer is that lots of supposedly serious people have been hyping the alleged threat posed by federal debt for years. For example, Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, has warned repeatedly about a “looming debt crisis.” Indeed, until not long ago the whole Beltway elite seemed to be in the grip of BowlesSimpsonism, with its assertion that debt was the greatest threat facing the nation.

A lot of this debt hysteria was really about trying to bully us into cutting Social Security and Medicare, which is why so many self-proclaimed fiscal hawks were also eager to cut taxes on the rich. But Mr. Trump apparently wasn’t in on that particular con, and takes the phony debt scare seriously. Sad!

Still, even if he misunderstands the fiscal situation, how can he imagine that it would be O.K. for America to default? One answer is that he’s extrapolating from his own business career, in which he has done very well by running up debts, then walking away from them.

But it’s also true that much of the Republican Party shares his insouciance about default. Remember, the party’s congressional wing deliberately set about extracting concessions from President Obama, using the threat of gratuitous default via a refusal to raise the debt ceiling.

And quite a few Republican lawmakers defended that strategy of extortion by arguing that default wouldn’t be that bad, that even with its access to funds cut off the U.S. government could “prioritize” payments, and that the financial disruption would be no big deal.

Given that history, it’s not too hard to understand why candidate Trump thinks not paying debts in full makes sense.

The important thing to realize, then, is that when Mr. Trump talks nonsense, he’s usually just offering a bombastic version of a position that’s widespread in his party. In fact, it’s remarkable how many ridiculous Trumpisms were previously espoused by Mitt Romney in 2012, from his claim that the true unemployment rate vastly exceeds official figures to his claim that he can bring prosperity by starting a trade war with China.

None of this should be taken as an excuse for Mr. Trump. He really is frighteningly uninformed; worse, he doesn’t appear to know what he doesn’t know. The point, instead, is that his blithe lack of knowledge largely follows from the know-nothing attitudes of the party he now leads.

"... Oh, and just for the record: No, it’s not the same on the other side of the aisle. You may dislike Hillary Clinton, you may disagree sharply with her policies, but she and the people around her do know their facts. Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom, but in this election, one party has largely cornered the market in raw ignorance. ... "

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The Making of an Ignoramus
[Paul Krugman]

What an appropriate juxtaposition...

one party has largely cornered the market in raw ignorance. ...

Until you're sporting a "Make America Great Again" cap rube, the market in raw ignorance remains uncornered...

[kmccune]

About the Boone-Crockett reply , the way I see it ,no other place to "park-er ".
Seriously if Trump makes it ,I feel that a lot of Folks will be disappointed ,just like the disenchanted voters after MR. Obama became POTUS .