The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

[GreenGoo]

Assert a position your opponent does not hold, then describe how that position is hypocritical. But we're the ones who refuse to engage in honest dialogue.

In any case this latest Drumpfism is less ambiguous than his last one, which wasn't particularly ambiguous. He's basically saying that people want to kill/hurt Hillary, and she'd be dead/hurt if she wasn't protected by secret service.

I guess my response is...who gives a shit? Someone should tell him he doesn't need to vocalize every inane thought he has. I'm struggling to see what this has to do with Making America Great Again.

There's already been one "attempt" on his life. Whoopididoo.

[GreenGoo]

I'm with the Smutmeister on this one. It's a ham-handed way of saying it, but he is playing to the cheap seats after all. The subtext is "liberals need guns, too; liberals are hypocrites!" not "Kill Hillary!"

Lol. You serious Clarke? Is there *any* context around his comments that would imply that?

I might give it to you if Drumpf had been a gun advocate or had at least made the assertion that you believe he's making, before.

Honest to holy fuck, this is how he gets away with this shit. He's not that smart.

[Alefroth]

And I think he's pointing out liberal hypocrisy and is not inciting assassination. And so on this day we shall disagree. Let it be written. Let it be done. I'm sure there's a law against inciting people to kill a high profile nominee for the POTUS. Who's falling down on the job?

Liberal hypocrisy my ass. One side in general believes that firearms should be restricted to people who are qualified and in positions where they need weapons for a reason, and the other in general believes that firearms should be freely available to anyone that wants them. Neither world view would advocate taking guns away from law enforcement, the military or the secret service.

Jesus christ!

Surely you've heard this argument before. Here is an article for your education.

Flying Spaghetti Monster!

I'm surprised you aren't addressing the hypocrisy of Trump properties not allowing open carry.

[Unagi]

Reuters: Clinton's Electoral College Lead is Dwindling. Hillary is crapping in her pant suit right now. Better hurry up and convince those millennials not to vote for Gary Johnson...! Gary! Gary! Gary!

Which, you intellectually know only serves a Trump victory - so it's weird that you claim to not really support that, when you come across like this. ya see?

[geezer]

And I think he's pointing out liberal hypocrisy and is not inciting assassination. And so on this day we shall disagree. Let it be written. Let it be done. I'm sure there's a law against inciting people to kill a high profile nominee for the POTUS. Who's falling down on the job?

Liberal hypocrisy my ass. One side in general believes that firearms should be restricted to people who are qualified and in positions where they need weapons for a reason, and the other in general believes that firearms should be freely available to anyone that wants them. Neither world view would advocate taking guns away from law enforcement, the military or the secret service.

Jesus christ!

Surely you've heard this argument before. Here is an article for your education.

Flying Spaghetti Monster!

I'm surprised you aren't addressing the hypocrisy of Trump properties not allowing open carry.

Are you really?

[malchior]

Read at risk of sanity - spoiler: birther idiots gonna idiot no matter what Trump says

[Holman]

Read at risk of sanity - spoiler: birther idiots gonna idiot no matter what Trump says

Just as long as you remember there's nothing deplorable about it.

[gbasden]

Surely you've heard this argument before. Here is an article for your education.

Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Just because I've heard the argument before doesn't mean it's any less intellectually bankrupt.

[Default]

Surely you've heard this argument before. Here is an article for your education.

Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Just because I've heard the argument before doesn't mean it's any less intellectually bankrupt.

You are going to need armed security to protect your president from gun nuts. Nothing hypocritical about that.

[LordMortis]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... itizenship

On a side note, if a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump shouldn't all third party votes tally as Trump votes?

... Also, void of Trump subtext, I read the statement as one of hyperbole about disarming the police... Blue Lives Matter or whatever the crazy response has been to police brutality and racial inequality of justice, etc... Coming from Trump's mouth it changes the message. Even with Trump subtext, it doesn't sound like an ambiguous second call to assassinate Clinton (I think the first was, though I rather doubt is was serious) but rather an incoherent attempt to say "GUNS GUNS GUNS SECOND AMENDMENT GUNS HILLARY WILL TAKE THEM GUNS" and I think his audience will translate it as such.

[Smutly]

And I think he's pointing out liberal hypocrisy and is not inciting assassination. And so on this day we shall disagree. Let it be written. Let it be done. I'm sure there's a law against inciting people to kill a high profile nominee for the POTUS. Who's falling down on the job?

Liberal hypocrisy my ass. One side in general believes that firearms should be restricted to people who are qualified and in positions where they need weapons for a reason, and the other in general believes that firearms should be freely available to anyone that wants them. Neither world view would advocate taking guns away from law enforcement, the military or the secret service.

Jesus christ!

Surely you've heard this argument before. Here is an article for your education.

Flying Spaghetti Monster!

I'm surprised you aren't addressing the hypocrisy of Trump properties not allowing open carry.

My understanding is that businesses in most conceal carry / open carry states have the right to ban guns on their premises. I live in Louisiana where pretty much everyone owns lots of guns. In many places of business, you are not allowed to have guns (concealed or otherwise). At my work, you are not allowed to have them in your vehicle in the parking lot. If you do, the first consideration is termination.

So, I researched Trump's position on this because I knew nothing about his stance on open carry. He's said he's "very strong on the 2nd Amendment". I found an ABCNews article which says there are mixed messages from the Trump Organization depending on who you talk to. So, I assume that you can in some places and can't in others. Maybe it's a don't ask don't tell kind of situation.

My guess is that he doesn't really feel that strongly about it and supports it because he thinks that's what he's supposed to do as the RNC candidate. He also probably doesn't micro-manage his properties down to that level of detail because there seems to be some autonomy for local management or lack of a clear policy. So, you can decide if he's a hypocrite or, more importantly, if it matters to you.

[Smutly]

Reuters: Clinton's Electoral College Lead is Dwindling. Hillary is crapping in her pant suit right now. Better hurry up and convince those millennials not to vote for Gary Johnson...! Gary! Gary! Gary!

Which, you intellectually know only serves a Trump victory - so it's weird that you claim to not really support that, when you come across like this. ya see?

Gary > Trump >>>> Clinton

It's true. I will be happy with any political misfortune of the Clintons. Is it 'weird' because I don't think like you?

[Smutly]

And I think he's pointing out liberal hypocrisy and is not inciting assassination. And so on this day we shall disagree. Let it be written. Let it be done. I'm sure there's a law against inciting people to kill a high profile nominee for the POTUS. Who's falling down on the job?

Liberal hypocrisy my ass. One side in general believes that firearms should be restricted to people who are qualified and in positions where they need weapons for a reason, and the other in general believes that firearms should be freely available to anyone that wants them. Neither world view would advocate taking guns away from law enforcement, the military or the secret service.

Jesus christ!

Surely you've heard this argument before. Here is an article for your education.

Flying Spaghetti Monster!

I'm surprised you aren't addressing the hypocrisy of Trump properties not allowing open carry.

Are you really?

As usual, substance added to discussion = 0

[Holman]

Reuters: Clinton's Electoral College Lead is Dwindling. Hillary is crapping in her pant suit right now. Better hurry up and convince those millennials not to vote for Gary Johnson...! Gary! Gary! Gary!

Which, you intellectually know only serves a Trump victory - so it's weird that you claim to not really support that, when you come across like this. ya see?

Gary > Trump >>>> Clinton

It's true. I will be happy with any political misfortune of the Clintons. Is it 'weird' because I don't think like you?

No one doubts that Johnson is superior to Trump.

What's baffling it that you don't let it rest at "Johnson > Clinton." I'd say you're wrong, but it's not an absurd position for you to take.

But casting Trump as several orders of magnitude better than Clinton? That's just incomprehensible, especially when you do it without offering the tiniest bit of argument in *support* of Trump.

Again, it's looking like derangement syndrome.

[Smutly]

Reuters: Clinton's Electoral College Lead is Dwindling. Hillary is crapping in her pant suit right now. Better hurry up and convince those millennials not to vote for Gary Johnson...! Gary! Gary! Gary!

Which, you intellectually know only serves a Trump victory - so it's weird that you claim to not really support that, when you come across like this. ya see?

Gary > Trump >>>> Clinton

It's true. I will be happy with any political misfortune of the Clintons. Is it 'weird' because I don't think like you?

No one doubts that Johnson is superior to Trump.

What's baffling it that you don't let it rest at "Johnson > Clinton." I'd say you're wrong, but it's not an absurd position for you to take.

But casting Trump as several orders of magnitude better than Clinton? That's just incomprehensible, especially when you do it without offering the tiniest bit of argument in *support* of Trump.

Again, it's looking like derangement syndrome.

If you consider that there is a different segment of society which believe illegal immigration needs to be addressed and that entitlement programs are bankrupting the country, then you might be able to comprehend that there is a segment of society which would rather a Donald Trump than a Hillary Clinton. Also, as reprehensible that you believe Donald Trump is there are people (generally that same segment I mentioned) who feel equally as strong about Hillary Clinton. I realize you can't / don't / won't be concerned with those issues. I'm not asking you to. But to ignore a large part of the populace who is concerned is to ignore reality. So, I guess I'd suggest that you work on your comprehension skills? Other than that, I got nothing for you.

[Holman]

That's not what astonished me. That's just "Trump > Clinton."

What's, again, incomprehensible is your "Trump >>>> Clinton."

[Smoove_B]

entitlement programs are bankrupting the country

Your choice of language here is telling. So that I'm clear, could you please list out which specific "entitlement programs" are bankrupting the country?

[Smutly]

That's not what astonished me. That's just "Trump > Clinton."

What's, again, incomprehensible is your "Trump >>>> Clinton."

Well, given that Trump may win the popular vote, you tell me why this is possible. If your answer is over half of the country is racist then wow.

[Default]

entitlement programs are bankrupting the country

Your choice of language here is telling. So that I'm clear, could you please list out which specific "entitlement programs" are bankrupting the country?

That usually parses to "anything that doesn't help me right now and as soon as I don't need it, it should be eliminated because nobody else deserves it but meeeeee".

[Holman]

That's not what astonished me. That's just "Trump > Clinton."

What's, again, incomprehensible is your "Trump >>>> Clinton."

Well, given that Trump may win the popular vote, you tell me why this is possible. If your answer is over half of the country is racist then wow.

Lots of people are very wrong for lots of different reasons. Trump has appealed to open racism far more than any candidate in my lifetime, but, no, that's not the only reason for his position in the race.

But, again, my question was about you. You didn't say "Gary > Trump > Clinton." You said "Gary > Trump >>>> Clinton."

[malchior]

entitlement programs are bankrupting the country

Your choice of language here is telling. So that I'm clear, could you please list out which specific "entitlement programs" are bankrupting the country?

And also expand on how a country that prints its own currency goes bankrupt.

[TheMix]

entitlement programs are bankrupting the country

Your choice of language here is telling. So that I'm clear, could you please list out which specific "entitlement programs" are bankrupting the country?

That usually parses to "anything that doesn't help me right now and as soon as I don't need it, it should be eliminated because nobody else deserves it but meeeeee".

This confused me as well. But, since I don't really know much about the government budget, I went looking.

Based on what I found, apparently he considers Military, Medicare, or Social Security spending to be "entitlement programs". I guess I can't actually argue about that (well, except maybe for Military spending). I do believe that I'm "entitled" to Social Security and Medicare once I reach the appropriate age. I did, after all, pay into them.

But I am curious as to what "solution" he would propose?

Smutly?

[tjg_marantz]

Benghazi

Says who?

Hilary Goddamn Clinton

[Smutly]

entitlement programs are bankrupting the country

Your choice of language here is telling. So that I'm clear, could you please list out which specific "entitlement programs" are bankrupting the country?

That usually parses to "anything that doesn't help me right now and as soon as I don't need it, it should be eliminated because nobody else deserves it but meeeeee".

This confused me as well. But, since I don't really know much about the government budget, I went looking.

Based on what I found, apparently he considers Military, Medicare, or Social Security spending to be "entitlement programs". I guess I can't actually argue about that (well, except maybe for Military spending). I do believe that I'm "entitled" to Social Security and Medicare once I reach the appropriate age. I did, after all, pay into them.

But I am curious as to what "solution" he would propose?

Smutly?

I gave a half ass description which I shouldn't have knowing my audience. I'll be more specific. My mistake in not doing so and you have my apology for not giving a detailed answer. I was trying to explain to someone that there are people 'out there' who are concerned about 'issues' (regardless of how you think or feel about those issues) which would cause them to have different priorities in supporting HRC or DT. To continue saying that 'it's incomprehensible' is to not acknowledge that there are people out there that disagree with you.

Since I appeared to have opened a can of worms, I will talk more about the Federal Debt and economics. So, Democratic and Republican Presidents and Congress have spent spent spent. The spending is well advanced of the revenue the U.S. Government takes in. This is fact and something I hope we can all agree on. The answer? Smaller government and greater personal freedom and responsibility. As a reference point, here is the President's 2016 budget proposal. To cut the nearly 40% required to get to a balanced budget and/or grow the economy, I would do the following:

1) Enact the FairTax proposal, switching from income taxation to consumption taxation. The revenue stream to the government would become more predictable and taxation rates would be transparent. Americans would receive a monthly pre-bate to cover taxes on the basic necessities of life up to the federal poverty level plus a few extra dollars to prevent any marriage penalty. The result is that low-income and middle-income families would be exempted from paying the national retail tax on all or most of their spending. Visit here for more information (or buy Neal Boortz's "The FairTax Book").

2) Curb government spending. Eliminate the Department of Education established under Jimmy Carter. The legacy for the DoE is unfunded mandates. Eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development created under Lyndon Johnson. I won't go into detail on the scandals within HUD or the actual poor result of its work. Feel free to Google "HUD criticisms" or "HUD scandals". Major spending cuts would come from national defense (military), entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare), and Obamacare. The military would be for primarily the national defense, reducing the spending on assets needed for foreign intervention. For Social Security, I would set a policy which would lead to the eventual elimination of the institution itself (note, this differs from Gary Johnson who would implement means testing). I would do it over a long period of time so as to not jar those who currently rely on those funds. I would offer financial education on cash management strategies to deal with short-term issues, but long-term retirement strategies and how to participate in the financial economy while avoiding the sharks. With Obamacare gone and deregulation of health care, the price distortions which have plagued the system since I can remember will go away allowing competition on 'basic level' care. Mind you, this is not something that the health care sector wants because transparency and competition would result in value for the consumer and less money in their pocket. Basic care health care insurance would be more affordable and some might only opt for health insurance for severe or catastrophic illness. Moving too quickly on these initiatives could hurt the economy, so I would have to review the details and determine the timing of deregulation to avoid it. For example, I would have to stage the closure of federal agencies over time to achieve the goal. Those working for the IRS, DoE, or HUD will have to have some time to adjust to their new realities and find new jobs which, thankfully, will be created due to the boon the FairTax will provide. I would study and implement new criteria in regards to entitlements where people who cannot support themselves can get support from fellow Americans outside of private charities. There are too many examples of abuse in this system, and those abuses need to be eliminated.

3) I would protect against monopolies, but would otherwise use a hands-off approach to regulation. I would protect the environment and monitor industry to ensure clean air, land, and water. Businesses should not have the right to pollute and must have a means to protect the public in the operation of their enterprises.

4) I would simplify work visas to allow immigration to meet the labor demand. The FairTax will have anyone who purchases anything paying a Federal consumption tax, so no more 'under the table' compensation avoiding paying taxes. Immigrants on work visas may see an increase in pay because their being in the U.S. illegally will no longer be held over their heads.

5) Note that States can expand whatever programs they want as the Federal government shrinks. I imagine large urban centers may have some version of HUD, but hopefully a better crafted one than the Federal government has today. Most liberal friends of mine have become big supporters of States' rights lately with Colorado allowing marijuana to be legalized. On a side note, I would legalize drugs and prostitution and provide programs to help those with addiction.

6) Most importantly, I don't pretend to hold "the truth" and am willing to revisit the facts and make changes when I am wrong. I have very little ego and realize that there are unintended consequences which occur when you tinker with complex systems. I am here to tell you that anyone who claims that they have THE answer is full of shit. You can have reasons or hypothesis for what you want to do, but you may not completely realize the full impact of what you want to do. Some people connect dots better than others and some things aren't uncovered until you start making changes. This is from someone who has spent a lot of his career working with teams toward continual improvement efforts.

For malchior, I suggest some education on the relationship between the U.S. Government and the Federal Reserve (a private organization) along with the term inflation and the impact of it on people and then you can decide if "printing money" means that the U.S. can't go bankrupt (or, more to the point, have a severely negative impact on the welfare of the state or its people). Feel free to phone a friend in Greece.

[Alefroth]

My guess is that he doesn't really feel that strongly about it and supports it because he thinks that's what he's supposed to do as the RNC candidate.

That's where the hypocrisy comes in. He takes a position he clearly doesn't hold that strongly, and basically lies to make it seem like he does, then even uses it to hit his opponent.

He also probably doesn't micro-manage his properties down to that level of detail because there seems to be some autonomy for local management or lack of a clear policy. So, you can decide if he's a hypocrite or, more importantly, if it matters to you.

Yeah, he's a hypocrite, and it isn't that important to me, but since we were making up stuff about liberal hypocrisy...

[gilraen]

I gave a half ass description which I shouldn't have knowing my audience. I'll be more specific. My mistake in not doing so and you have my apology for not giving a detailed answer. I was trying to explain to someone that there are people 'out there' who are concerned about 'issues' (regardless of how you think or feel about those issues) which would cause them to have different priorities in supporting HRC or DT. To continue saying that 'it's incomprehensible' is to not acknowledge that there are people out there that disagree with you.

TL;DR - we should have known better trying to out-demagogue you.

[Alefroth]

I'm surprised you aren't addressing the hypocrisy of Trump properties not allowing open carry.

Are you really?

Not so much

[Holman]

I gave a half ass description which I shouldn't have knowing my audience. I'll be more specific. My mistake in not doing so and you have my apology for not giving a detailed answer. I was trying to explain to someone that there are people 'out there' who are concerned about 'issues' (regardless of how you think or feel about those issues) which would cause them to have different priorities in supporting HRC or DT. To continue saying that 'it's incomprehensible' is to not acknowledge that there are people out there that disagree with you.

No, I do get that there are people who disagree with me. Try not to condescend.

A couple of times I've asked you why you hold Trump to be far-and-away superior (">>>>") to Clinton, and you keep responding that apparently we don't understand why people support him.

But I didn't ask about "people," I asked about you. If you don't want to offer any support for your position, I'm happy to wrap up the question and leave it unanswered. I'm not really enjoying our exchanges.

[Default]

Reviewed your explanation.
Yup, pretty much what I said.

[Smutly]

I gave a half ass description which I shouldn't have knowing my audience. I'll be more specific. My mistake in not doing so and you have my apology for not giving a detailed answer. I was trying to explain to someone that there are people 'out there' who are concerned about 'issues' (regardless of how you think or feel about those issues) which would cause them to have different priorities in supporting HRC or DT. To continue saying that 'it's incomprehensible' is to not acknowledge that there are people out there that disagree with you.

No, I do get that there are people who disagree with me. Try not to condescend.

A couple of times I've asked you why you hold Trump to be far-and-away superior (">>>>") to Clinton, and you keep responding that apparently we don't understand why people support him.

But I didn't ask about "people," I asked about you. If you don't want to offer any support for your position, I'm happy to wrap up the question and leave it unanswered. I'm not really enjoying our exchanges.

They both suck. She sucks WAAAAAAAAAAY more than Trump -- primarily because of her enriching herself in public service. That help?

[Smutly]

Reviewed your explanation.
Yup, pretty much what I said.

We all deserve greater freedom, my friend.

[Chaz]

Donald Trump has in the past:

- Run programs like Trump University that are essentially con operations designed to take money from people without a lot of it.
- Bragged about how the housing market implosion was going to be great for him, personally.
- Claimed to have donated the proceeds of fundraisers to charity, but only done so when it was discovered, much later, that he hadn't actually made these donations.
- Used the Trump Foundation to make campaign donations in exchange for favorable treatment by the Florida attorney general.
- Funneled money from his campaign fund to his own businesses by using facilities that he owns, and charging his campaign at a much higher rate than the going market rate. This directly enriches his businesses.

That's what I can think of off the top of my head. Yet, somehow, Clinton is worse because Trump was doing all this as a private citizen? I suppose I can see why doing it as an elected or appointed official makes you especially mad, but I still don't necessarily agree that Clinton's negatives, which are largely a matter of perception and spin, make her vastly worse than Trump, who has documented evidence* of these things.

*Well, as much documented evidence as he's willing to provide. For someone with a history of demanding birth certificates and emails, and railing about what other people are hiding, he's awfully shy about releasing documents of his own.

[YellowKing]

Forget the scandals - who has the political experience to lead the country? A former First Lady, Secretary of State, and Senator, or a real-estate mogul turned reality TV personality?

[Zarathud]

Or how about balancing the budget by collecting taxes again rather than unlimited tax cuts for the wealthy with no offsetting government cuts? That's what Trump and the Republicans are campaigning for and can be relied upon by all evidence to deliver.

The last balanced budget -- and surplus -- was under a Clinton, not a Republican. That's one of many reasons Clinton > Trump or Johnson.

[Holman]

Donald Trump has in the past:

- Run programs like Trump University that are essentially con operations designed to take money from people without a lot of it.
- Bragged about how the housing market implosion was going to be great for him, personally.
- Claimed to have donated the proceeds of fundraisers to charity, but only done so when it was discovered, much later, that he hadn't actually made these donations.
- Used the Trump Foundation to make campaign donations in exchange for favorable treatment by the Florida attorney general.
- Funneled money from his campaign fund to his own businesses by using facilities that he owns, and charging his campaign at a much higher rate than the going market rate. This directly enriches his businesses.

That's what I can think of off the top of my head. Yet, somehow, Clinton is worse because Trump was doing all this as a private citizen? I suppose I can see why doing it as an elected or appointed official makes you especially mad, but I still don't necessarily agree that Clinton's negatives, which are largely a matter of perception and spin, make her vastly worse than Trump, who has documented evidence* of these things.

*Well, as much documented evidence as he's willing to provide. For someone with a history of demanding birth certificates and emails, and railing about what other people are hiding, he's awfully shy about releasing documents of his own.

Slate: 191 reasons (at the time of this posting) Trump should never be president.

[malchior]

TL;DR - we should have known better trying to out-demagogue you.

I got to the Fair Tax and quit - because it is the sign that someone has bought a lot of neo-conservative economic theory bullshit hook, line, and sinker. It is not Fair, it isn't revenue neutral, it isn't realistic, and it causes all kinds of downstream issues for the states that are insurmountable. The last part is why it has never been seriously considered by anyone.

[gbasden]

TL;DR - we should have known better trying to out-demagogue you.

I got to the Fair Tax and quit - because it is the sign that someone has bought a lot of neo-conservative economic theory bullshit hook, line, and sinker. It is not Fair, it isn't revenue neutral, it isn't realistic, and it causes all kinds of downstream issues for the states that are insurmountable. The last part is why it has never been seriously considered by anyone.

Between that and predicting that somehow health care will become transparent, price sensitive, and easily price shopped I found it difficult to sign on to his manifesto. It seems to rely heavily on a lot of wishful thinking.

[GreenGoo]

I gave a half ass description which I shouldn't have knowing my audience. I'll be more specific. My mistake in not doing so and you have my apology for not giving a detailed answer. I was trying to explain to someone that there are people 'out there' who are concerned about 'issues' (regardless of how you think or feel about those issues) which would cause them to have different priorities in supporting HRC or DT. To continue saying that 'it's incomprehensible' is to not acknowledge that there are people out there that disagree with you.

No, I do get that there are people who disagree with me. Try not to condescend.

A couple of times I've asked you why you hold Trump to be far-and-away superior (">>>>") to Clinton, and you keep responding that apparently we don't understand why people support him.

But I didn't ask about "people," I asked about you. If you don't want to offer any support for your position, I'm happy to wrap up the question and leave it unanswered. I'm not really enjoying our exchanges.

They both suck. She sucks WAAAAAAAAAAY more than Trump -- primarily because of her enriching herself in public service. That help?

Maybe, but there is no evidence this is true, and less that she's stealing tax payer money. Politics is literally the exchanging of favours, and congress is designed to work exactly like that.

Trump is a conman. I'd call him organized crime if he were organized. You're suggesting an inept buffoon with the mindset of a petty thug is better (not just better, but *way* better) than someone you suspect is unethical.

It boggles the mind. It's irrational.

[Chaz]

But, see, Hillary is a really big bitch, you guys. Like, seriously, she's human garbage. Her husband's pretty bad too.

[GreenGoo]

As much as I hate Drumpf (and that's at least as much as Rip and Smutly hate Clinton, but I like to believe that my hatred is based on facts that I started gathering in the 80's) there is a seriously growing sense of schadenfreude. It would be bigger if I thought those who supported this clown would EVER take ownership of the woes he brings down on everyone's heads.

But they won't. It will be spun, it will be congress' fault, it will be the liberal media's fault, it will be Obama's fault.

And so nothing will change in the process and and everything will get worse.

Yay?