Thursday, October 20, 2016

Grasp and greed

Just a guess, but I doubt 'reimbursing ourselves' is a line of reasoning that justifies theft of anything, least of all a natural resource.

Apparently along with all the other things he doesn't understand, like personal boundaries, national boundaries are an ethical and intellectual challenge for Trump too.

This is the personification of the term "Chickenhawk"

This is the man who insists, without any evidence for it, that he is smarter than all the generals and admirals who are professional military experts. You have to be pretty foolish and gullible to believe anything relating to foreign policy, war, our military, or to patriotism that this man says.

Hillary and the 2A came up in the 3rd presidential debate

I have long contended that unless and until we have consensus by proof of what is and is not factual, we won't have any functional unity.  I don't want to see us continue to become increasingly dysfunctional as a nation.

Lies fuel extremism.  Lies fuel fears.  Both quotes in the graphic below are FALSE.

I fact checked the graphic below after finding it on the FB page of someone who expressed an alarming degree of hatred for Hillary.  I am confident that the reasons this person has for his emotions are ALL as false as the image below, which I took from his FB page.

Images like this keep popping up on right wing posts on social media. It is false. But it goes a long way towards explaining the poorly informed right wing response of boos when Hillary CORRECTLY stated her FACTUAL position on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- a document she knows well and understands thoroughly.

We have a serious problem with gun violence; our rates are 25 times higher, especially gun violence involving either child victims and/or child shooters.  So long as one side of the issue refuses to be factually accurate, we can't do anything to successfully resolve this public health issue.

Here is what is wrong with the above image; it is entirely FAKE. Because conservatives LIE when the facts are not on their side; and this is one more example of it.

From Politifact Iowa:
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton explicitly stated her plans to "shut down" the National Rifle Association and expressed hope at banning handguns in an interview with The Des Moines Register last summer. At least, that’s according to a viral image that first cropped up on an anti-Clinton Tumblr blog and has been shared widely on Facebook. "I will get the NRA shut down for good if I become president. If we can ban handguns, we will do it," the post quotes Clinton as telling the Register on Aug. 8, 2015.
But here’s the thing: The quote is wholly fabricated. Clinton was never quoted in the Register making that statement, and it appears she has not made such a statement anywhere else.
Clinton campaigned heavily in Iowa throughout the summer and fall of 2015, and Register reporters and the paper’s editorial board interviewed her several times. But she was not in Iowa on Aug. 8, when she allegedly made the statement. Clinton’s first visit to Iowa in the month of August occurred on Aug. 14, followed by public events on Aug. 15 and Aug. 26.
A review of the Register’s archives show Clinton was neither interviewed nor quoted directly on Aug. 8 or in the days immediately following.
Clinton did make several statements regarding gun control on the Iowa campaign trail that were covered by the Register. In all of them, she laid out an agenda that calls for broader background-check requirements, including sales at gun shows, as well as stronger measures to prevent gun purchases by domestic abusers and people with serious mental health problems.
"I'm going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better than that," Clinton said in Iowa in July. "A majority of Americans and a majority of gun owners agree with universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and people who are mentally unstable and even terrorists."
On Aug. 26 in Ankeny, she responded to the on-air murders of a news crew in Virginia:
"We've got to do something. It's a very difficult political issue. But we are smart enough, compassionate enough to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights concerns with preventive measures and control measures, so whatever motivated this murderer ... we will not see more needless, senseless deaths," she said.
She went on,  "If guns weren't so readily available, if we had universal background checks, if we could put some time out between the person who got fired, or domestic abuse, or whatever other motivation ... maybe we could prevent this kind of carnage."
On Oct. 6, she described her views again, in response to a mass shooting in Oregon: "I feel like this is unfinished business in our country, and I am very determined that we are going to try to bring some sanity back, so that people's Second Amendment rights are protected — but they are not absolute, the way the NRA wants them to be," Clinton said at an event in Davenport. "There are common-sense ways to make sure people are not using guns to commit mass murders."
Gun control came up again at an event in Sioux City on Dec. 4, after the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. At that time, she expressed support for banning gun sales to people on federal "no-fly" lists.
"I think we've got to be more willing to start imposing these kinds of gun-safety measures," Clinton said. "I'm certainly going to continue advocating for them."
Internet searches for the quote found on the image refer only to the image itself — not to any original reporting from the Des Moines Register, another news outlet or to raw audio or video. Evidence of the quote does not appear to exist beyond what was originally posted on Tumblr.

And from separate fact checking at (which I also verified by the defacto George Washington Presidential Library at Mount Vernon):

[Face Book Meme, Feb. 16, 2015] Say George Washington said that "when government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern." — Facebook posts on Monday, February 16th, 2015 in a meme on social media Did George Washington offer support for individual gun rights, as meme says? False Facebook posts Say George Washington said that "when government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern." — Facebook posts on Monday, February 16th, 2015 in a meme on social media Did George Washington offer support for individual gun rights, as meme says? By Audrey Bowler on Friday, February 20th, 2015 at 8:56 a.m.
A reader sent us this meme about George Washington and gun rights. Did the first president really say that? Would George Washington have been an ally to modern-day gun-rights groups? A social-media meme suggests that he would have. Around the time of Washington’s 282nd birthday, a reader sent us the meme, which includes a painting of Washington and a quote purportedly written or uttered by the nation’s first president: "When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern."
But are those really Washington’s words? We contacted Edward Lengel, editor in chief of the Papers of George Washington project at the University of Virginia. He said "there is no evidence that Washington ever wrote or said these words, or any like them."
Lengel cautioned that it’s impossible to prove a negative, but he added that he’s "as certain as he can be" that the quote did not originate from George Washington. This is not the first time a similar claim has popped onto our radar screen. In December 2012, PolitiFact Texas rated False a claim made two days after the Newtown elementary school shooting.
When U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, appeared on Fox News Sunday, he was asked why he believed ordinary Americans should be able to buy semi-automatic weapons designed for military use. Gohmert answered in part, "For the reason George Washington said a free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government." PolitiFact Texas contacted Gohmert’s office to seek details on the Washington quotation but didn’t hear back. The closest statement they could find was one Washington made in his first State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1790: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." The academic consensus is that Washington was referring to a trained militia to defend the new nation, rather than anticipating citizens seeking to head off perceived governmental tyranny. Ron Chernow, whose Washington: A Life won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for biography, told PolitiFact Texas that Washington was "talking about national defense policy, not individuals arming themselves, and the need for national self-sufficiency in creating military supplies." Some post-Revolutionary lawmakers did expect citizens to own firearms, but Washington does not appear to have been among them, experts said. "The idea of resistance to tyranny being dependent on a nation of gun-wielding individuals acting at their own behest or even on local initiative would have been anathema to Washington," Lengel told PolitiFact Texas. "Indeed, during the (Revolutionary) war he very frequently lamented the crimes carried out by armed civilians or undisciplined militia against their unarmed neighbors. The solution to these crimes, as he understood it, was to increase the power of the government and the army to prevent and punish them -- not to put more guns in the hands of civilians." Indeed, during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, "citizens of Western Pennsylvania rose up to fight a new tax on the whiskey they produced," said Mary Thompson, research historian at Washington’s Virginia home, Mount Vernon. Washington was "concerned that success by the rebels would lead to a diminishment of the central/federal government," and directed state militias to counter the insurrection -- "citizen-soldiers," she said, "acting on behalf of the government against their fellow citizens."

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Pop some popcorn and welcome to the debate; let's hope for more movie, less cartoon circus

Disney's Dumbo the Flying Elephant
with cartoon crows and mouse
Tonight's debate has something in common with not one, but two, very dissimilar movies, and with a circus.  Pop yourself some popcorn, and settle in.

The fantasy animation feature about a circus, "Dumbo the Elephant", was released by Disney Studios in 1941, and included a character with the unfortunate name of Jim Crow (voiced by Cliff Edwards, who earlier did the voice of Jiminy Cricket in the animated classic Pinnochio).

In 2015, the Academy Award winning movie Spotlight, about the Boston Globe's efforts to expose serial sexual predator pedophile priest  was released.

Tonight we can expect some of the circus style entertainment from substance challenged candidate Donald  Trump, who has prepared for this evening's debate, much as he prepared for the second debate, by attempting to distract with ugly spectacle, or what one might term a circus. 

Tonight's Trump circus will feature a mother who lost her son in the Benghazi attack, who wrongly blames Hillary Clinton.  While I feel great sympathy for this woman's loss, I feel far less sympathy that she is attempting to victimize someone else with a false attribution of blame.

The other feature of tonight's Trump Circus will be the half-brother of President Obama, a pathetic individual reminiscent of Billy Carter, President Carter's feckless brother, in his lack of intellect or success. For some inexplicable reason, Malik Obama holds dual Kenyan and US citizenship, and has been voting since 1980.  His reasoning for supporting Trump are pretty thin:

“This Trump guy is a really cool guy and I like him because he speaks from his heart and he is so down to earth,” said the older Obama then. The wire service reported he held dual citizenship in both the U.S. and Kenya and that he has voted in American elections since the 1980s.
Trump may soon have something in common with Malik Obama: HuffPost Pollster shows it’s likely the magnate will lose by significant margins come Election Day, much like when Malik Obama lost a bid for a Kenyan governorship in 2013, also by big margins.
From other reporting, in the UK, quoting Malik, who admits to 3 current wives.  One of the few things Malik has in common with Trump is a lack of monogamy, and alleged domestic violence.:

“There have been 12 wives since my first marriage in 1981, when Barack was my best man. I have done my best with all of them, along with the children.”
And: “I don’t beat my wives, as has been alleged. It’s all b******t. I categorically deny the allegations said to have come from my wife.”
Spotlight Poster
Movie Promo photo
winner 2015 best movie Oscar

And while we are on the subject of bad causes supported by Malik Obama, he apparently knew and liked horrific dictator Moamar Kaddaffi, and lobbied Barack Obama to keep him in power.  What Trump has proposed while campaigning and his notion of how government works generally is fascist and authoritarian, which would appeal to someone who likes dictators.

Malik Obama is notoriously pro-Islamic terrorists; sadly part of the incompetence of Trump is his failure to vet his supporters.  This certainly argues he is incapable of effective so-called extreme vetting.  From Winning Democrats:

Now, there’s a reason President Obama doesn’t associate with his Kenyan half-brother, and Trump may not be aware of it — Malik Obama supports Hamas, and was photographed in 2012 wearing one of the terror group’s scarves with the slogans “Jerusalem is ours – we are coming” and “From the river to the sea,” a statement that asserts Israel doesn’t exist at all.

As a shorthand for this particular circus exhibit that is Malik Obama, I think of him as "Dumb-bro", dumb for supporting Trump, 'bro' for brother, and like a cartoon elephant for supporting this particular worthless Republican candidate.

The movie Spotlight pertains tonight because more people have come forward to support the stories of the victims of sexual assault by Donald Trump.  As with Malik Obama, who erroneously believes Donald Trump is innocent "because the women didn't come forward before", in point of fact as we see in the movie Spotlight, women DID come forward before the election, in some cases long before, as in the case of the law suit filed by Jill Harth, LONG before Trump considered running for office.

Six people have come forward to corroborate the assault reported by People magazine staff writer, Natashay Stoynoff.  The quote below is an excerpt from the New York Times regarding the accusation by Stoynoff.  It is worth noting that while superficial and shallow, less fact conversant people like Malik Obama focus inaccurately on the timing of events, the New York Times has followed a very similar pattern of seeking corroboration to that followed by the Boston Globe in pursuing their stories, as depicted in the movie "Spotlight".  Multi-sourcing, seeking multiple sources for a quote or an event, are standard practice for responsible, ethical, serious journalists.
People published her claims on the same day that The New York Times published an article in which two women described what they said were their own encounters with a sexually aggressive Mr. Trump.
The six people quoted in the latest article include two editors from People, Mary Green and Liz McNeil; a professor of journalism, Paul McLaughlin; a co-worker; and two personal friends of Ms. Stoynoff. All of them said Ms. Stoynoff told them about the episode around the time it occurred.
“She wasn’t sure what she should do,” Mr. McLaughlin told the magazine. “I advised her not to say anything, because I believed Trump would deny it and try to destroy her.”
The investigation by the Spotlight feature writers at the Boston Globe led to many  more accusations, and to many successful law suits against the insurance companies and the Boston diocese for their part in the cover up.  Many of those who came forward did so after a long period of being intimidated into silence, as appears to be the case with the Trump accusers.  The significance of the New York Times, much like the Boston Globe, in seeking corroboration from people who knew of the assaults and other abuse AT THE TIME THEY OCCURRED, could have significant legal ramifications for the notoriously litigious Donald Trump in the same way the Boston Globe investigation resulted in successful law suits.  Trump has already been embarrassingly unsuccessful in attempting to suppress the New York Times, much as the Catholic archdiocese was unsuccessful in stopping the Boston Globe a decade and more earlier.  That reporting is potent stuff.

From Wikipedia, citing the Boston Globe as their source:
Settlements in the Boston, Massachusetts suits were estimated to be up to $100 million. In some cases insurance companies have balked at meeting the cost of large settlements, claiming the actions were deliberate and not covered by insurance. This was additional financial damage to the Archdiocese, which already faced the need to consolidate and close parishes due to changing attendance and giving patterns. In June 2004, much of the land around the Archdiocese of Boston headquarters was sold to Boston College, in part to raise money for legal costs associated with scandal in Boston. 
Given the success of such corroborated law suits in Boston, it would perhaps be wiser for Donald Trump to start banking his money instead of looking for what he will do next, after losing his bid for the presidency to Hillary Clinton. The information being accumulated was helpful to law suits in Boston and could very well be very helpful in law suits against Trump. I would argue he might not be able to afford his own cable network, given his real estate businesses are doing poorly, particularly his latest venture down the street from the White House, which has an exceptionally high vacancy rate.  It's not like he can return to the Apprentice after being replaced by a very successful and far less abusive host, Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Trump is pretty much failing on all fronts other than the racist revolutionary bigot militia crowd.  As Sarah Palin found to her loss, popularity among the right wing extremists does not translate well into cable tv success.

It would not surprise me to see Trump sued, by multiple accusers, for damages from his misconduct.  If that were to be the case, we could expect to see some of that unreleased MGM owned Apprentice footage where crew and guest stars report Trump speaking at length in exactly the same manner he spoke on the Billy Bush bus.  At least one of his accusers is from the Apprentice, and others have come forward from that show to corroborate Trump's offensive language and behavior.

It would also not surprise me this evening to see Hillary Clinton speak to the new accusers and the substance of their accusations, as well as the credible reporting done by the Times, People Magazine, and by attorneys like Gloria Allred.  Back in 2012, this happened, relating to Allred, who was acting on behalf of a transgender woman competing in one of Trump's terrible pageants. 

From the Daily Beast:
Trump, forever incapable of turning away from obvious bait, hit back in a nasty call with TMZ.
Before even being asked a question, Trump said: “I think Gloria would be very very impressed with me, I really do,” referring to his penis with the subtlety of a train crashing through a building.
“I think she’d have a whole brand new image of Donald Trump,” he continued through the laughter of the TMZ staff. He went on to say that Talackova could compete if she chose to do so but joked that he might have changed his mind if he knew that Allred was involved.
Hillary Clinton will be her usual substantive, dignified, poised presidential self tonight.  We can comfortably expect that no one invited by Donald Trump will throw her off stride.  And we can expect a circus pandering to the gullible, tasteless and stupid to be the response from Donald Trump, as he has already indicated by his guest list.  For anyone in doubt, Trump is what conservative losing looks like, and it is ugly, not entertaining.

Please feel free to boo Trump from the comfort of where you choose to watch the debates, but you might want to resist throwing you popcorn at the television or computer screen.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

In anticipation of tthe Wednesday night 3rd debate

I predict Trump will lose, lose the debate, lose the election.
I predict Trump will continue to embarrass himself.
I predict Trump will continue his failed attempt to focus NOT on his opponent Hillary but on still-popular former President Bill Clinton and President Obama.
I predict Trump will be consistently, persistently factually inaccurate to an extreme degree.
I predict Trump will continue to claim the election is rigged and to promote conspiracy theories, and to whine whine whine whine whine about how he is a victim.  Trump is a victim of no one but himself.

I predict Trump will NOT be focusing on his 'proof' that his accuser of sexual assault in the first class of an airline, reported by the New York Times, was false.  His proof turned out to be a proven serial liar and self-professed pedophile pimp from the UK, who does not appear to have been in the US at the time, who has never had the funds to fly first class, and who would have been only 17 or 18 when the attack occurred and who had no legitimate business or other purpose to be in the US at that time.

It is worth noting that President Obama may be the most popular president in history, as he concludes his second term.  As of multiple polling from October 6 through October 17th , Real Clear Politics shows him with a polling average of 52.7 approval.

Breaking it down by individual polls listed over at RCP, the approval numbers are:
Gallup               54
Rasmussen        51
NBC/ WSJ        53
Fox News          57
GWU/ Battleground    53
Economist/Yougov    49
Reuters/Ipsos      52

During the previous election, it was harder to get a ticket to an event where Bill Clinton was appearing than it was to get in to see the President.  There aren't a lot of current stats for Bill Clinton, but his second term average, per this Gallup poll, was 61% for his second term, with a high point of 73% approval.   Polling had President Bubba's approval rating for early to mid-August of this year at 53%, with his prior recent approvals running 57% to 60%.

So, as a strategy, attacking EITHER Bill Clinton or Barack Obama is not a particularly clever idea, and the notion of attacking Bill's infidelities, from 20 years ago, when there haven't been any new scandals, and when he was hitting some of his highest approval ratings back during the Monica Lewinsky days..........again, not likely to result in helping Trump's declining numbers.

What it is likely to show is that Trump lacks substantive critical thinking and that he is weak on policy positions.  He fails fact checks before he gets out of bed every morning, with his twitter wars.
His supporters are leaving him like rats leaving a slowly rather than rapidly sinking ship -- in stead numbers, if not in a rush to depart.  His surrogates are meeting hostility because of the rubbish they are presenting.  Now the surrogates are trying to criticize the first lady, who is arguably more popular than either president has been.  Social media and prominent comedians are mocking Trump more than ever.

New sources continue to emerge - one of the latest being Penn Jillette, who asserts that the way Trump spoke on the Billy Bush bus was the same way he spoke on the set of the apprentice when he knew cameras were rolling, AND that the offensive language was NOT ONLY demeaning to women, but also demeaning to people of color, particularly blacks and Hispanics.  The man who was the executive producer of the Apprentice has come out with a scathing repudiation of Trump as a potential president.  Trump's replacement on the Apprentice, former Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has similarly repudiated Trump, and announced he will vote for Hillary.

The Mark Burnett statement:
“Given all of the false media reports, I feel compelled to clarify a few points. I am not now and have never been a supporter of Donald Trump’s candidacy. I am NOT ‘Pro-Trump.’ Further, my wife and I reject the hatred, division and misogyny that has been a very unfortunate part of his campaign.”
The Schwarzenegger statement:
For the first time since I became a citizen in 1983, I will not vote for the Republican candidate for President.
Like many Americans, I have been conflicted by this election – I still haven’t made up my mind about how exactly I will vote next month. I have been a proud Republican since I moved to the United States in 1968 and I heard Nixon’s words about getting government off our backs, free trade, and defending our liberty with a strong military.  That day I joined the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.
But as proud as I am to label myself a Republican, there is one label that I hold above all else – American.  So I want to take a moment today to remind my fellow Republicans that it is not only acceptable to choose your country over your party – it is your duty.
And finally 700 Evangelical women have signed an open letter denouncing Trump, and taken a goodly swipe at the male Evangelicals who continue to support Trump also, per The Christian Post:
"As Christian women we are appalled by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's recorded remarks that disparage women and condone sexual assault," the statement, which was issued last week, states. "Such language cannot be dismissed as 'locker room talk.' Mr. Trump must offer public contrition that fully acknowledges the seriousness and depravity of his actions."
Another 2,500 students at Liberty University signed an anti-Trump letter, and 75 prominent Evangelical leaders signed a rejection of Trump letter from
"Donald Trump's campaign is the most recent and extreme version of a history of racialized politics that has been pursued and about which white evangelicals, in particular, have been silent," the declaration says. "The silence in previous times has set the environment for what we now see." "For this reason, we cannot ignore this bigotry, set it aside, just focus on other issues, or forget the things Mr. Trump has consistently said and done," the declaration continues. "No matter what other issues we also care about, we have to make it publicly clear that Mr. Trump's racial and religious bigotry and treatment of women is morally unacceptable to us as evangelical Christians, as we attempt to model Jesus' command to 'love your neighbors as yourself.'"
It is also worth noting that while no major newspaper in the country has endorsed Trump, a number of prominent newspapers are coming out either in support of Hillary, or at the very least against Trump, including the two most prominent Christian newspapers.

THAT will be the context in which Trump does his pathetic little counter-punching shtick on Wednesday night. The one thing you can reliably expect he will NOT do is be either dignified or substantive, or that he will focus on either his real accomplishments which are few, or what he has to offer the nation.

I don't expect we will see anything more of Melania, since her efforts to defend Trump involved claiming he was like a little boy, but it is entirely possible if not before the debate, before too much longer that we will see more Trump scandal emerge, particularly something from the Apprentice of his appearances on Stern's radio show, and with new accusations from women coming forward.

Because the one sure bet is that there is much more scandal to come out from Trump's past and present, not less.  And the other sure bet is that he will behave badly, sooner or later, if not during the debate.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Voter Fraud Nonsense

Republicans like to claim, and have claimed for years, that fraud is the reason they lose or have lost, some close elections.

When challenged for proof, they have none.  When their allegations are investigated, such as in the Coleman - Franken race, they evaporate like smoke.

Even the supposedly most credible case about which they bally-hoo and about which you hear, time and time again is the 1960 Presidential election, specifically supposed over-votes in the Chicago area.  Please refer to the attached story from

This story debunks that incredible (totally non-credible) claim.  The Illinois election was deeply/broadly investigated and while a tiny number of votes (953) were reversed.  That's ENTIRELY within the realm of any re-count.  There were NO incidents of fraud which were proved.  The allegations were vapor, and were litigated and dismissed through.

On a personal level, my father, a man of extra-ordinary integrity, was involved in Chicago politics in the 1960's.  He has said the reason for the large majorities of Kennedy (and others) in the 60's was the effectiveness of the Daley "machine."  If you had a problem, you called your precinct captain and it got fixed.  Consequently people were very loyal to Dems.  My father would never, nor would I, nor anyone I know of, EVER have abetted fraud or put up with it, or left it unreported.  That's a profoundly offensive allegation.  The evidence doesn't support it, and there's no proof you have that it has occurred since (or then).  It's the realm of asking someone to prove something didn't happen when it should be you have to prove something DID happen.  When asked to prove THAT, the GOP failed utterly.  They litigated and they had no proof.

REAL "Principled Conservatism" in action

I applaud this, this is what principled conservatism looks like. This is the kind of conservatives that can work across an aisle for the overall betterment and security of our nation.

Predictions of what is to come

Predictions, most of which aren't happy:

1. Hillary Clinton is going to win on November 8th.  Trump may not have the class to give a concession speech and if he doesn't, Mike Pence will undoubtedly give one (to Pence's credit).

2. Hillary Clinton will almost certainly be a one-term President.  You can win an election by focusing on the misconduct of your opponent but when the country is looking for economic fairness and an end to poor pay for long hours, and you yourself are too much on the side of defending the business status-quo, you won't survive.   Clinton, and the national Democratic Party leadership, is tone-deaf to feedback from their constituents about how they are hurting, how education is too hard to access or afford, how they aren't given a fair shake by employers.  They think this election is about gender-divide.  Had Trump not been, well, Trump, Clinton would have lost this election due to that myopia.

3.  Donald Trump is hardly the worst thing which the far-right can drum up.  He's a personality cult candidate to be sure, but there will be others. I predict Trump isn't going away on 11/9 and worse, someone, perhaps even Trump, will be even more radical, more likely to stoke violence, who will come along in 2020.  Our dance with totalitarian, fact-denying, and violence prone candidates is FAR from over. 

All of which is sad, and more importantly, all of which should make us alarmed.

About those 3 right wing domestic terrorists arrested in St. Louis, one of whom is a Trump supporter...

Over the weekend, in addition to the arrests of these 3 Christian radical extremists who chose to become domestic terrorists, there was a fire bombing of a Trump political office in North Carolina. That office was also tagged with graffiti telling Republican Nazis to get out.

We need to keep an open mind to all of the possibilities. It is worth noting that at the same time, the DEMOCRATIC political campaign office was ALSO targeted around the same time, possibly by the same people who went after the GOP office.

Let me begin by condemning that event as rigorously as I condemn the 3 domestic terrorists in St. Louis. It was wrong, bad, illegal, and should be punished by a thorough fact finding investigation and what I hope will be a successful prosecution, regardless of the political views of whoever committed that crime. Perpetrators of crimes like this are usually caught.

That said, I will also add that given the prevalence of false flag conspiracy theories of every stripe of insanity on the right, and given the decline in Trump's poll numbers, particularly in a swing state like North Carolina that has a current conservative majority in their state legislature and the executive branch, I am skeptical as to who did this being a liberal extremist, although keeping an open mind.

Looking at who would benefit more from such an act, it strikes me strongly that Trump would. That he needs desperately some way to gain sympathy. Given the sheer volume of acceptance of crazy false flag actions in theory, it would not surprise me at all to see someone on the right actually commit one.

Those are the only people to whom this kind of rubbish thinking makes sense - the extremists, the Trump supporters.  They think this way.

It does NOT make sense to me that an independent candidate supporter or a Hillary supporter would do this when Hillary was winning. It does not make sense to me that someone who was serious about committing an act like this would do so comparatively little damage, except by intent.

Further, the timing of this makes sense as well, given the way Trump has been broadly mocked in the media, and approaching the 3rd debate mid week this week. This event gives Trump a whining point (not a talking point) to which he can speak.

Conservatives LOVE LOVE LOVE to play the victim when they are not. I sincerely hope that the perpetrator of that crime, like the attempted crime in St. Louis have the book thrown at them, regardless of their beliefs or their politics.

But if it turns out to have been a right winger, expect a lot more schadenfreude posts on it from me.

Elections do bring out some creative results; this was one of them.