Republicans Being Tone-Deaf Again

The Republican Party continues to have a problem with its members being politically tone-deaf.

From Yahoo! News: “Speeches by far-right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos (yuh-NAH’-poh-lihs) and former pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli were canceled Friday night after heated protests erupted at the University of California, Davis. University police put up barricades as protesters shouting “shut it down” grew increasingly rowdy in the hours leading up to the talks. The UC Davis College Republicans, who sponsored the event, chose to cancel about a half-hour before the event began.”

ABC7News.com quotes the leader of the UC Davis College Republicans as saying, “We came here to have an event that would promote free speech, and we didn’t get to have any speech.”

The UC Davis College Republicans sure do have a strange way of promoting free speech.

Milo Yiannopoulos and Martin Shkreli? Seriously?

If the UC Davis College Republicans simply want to promote free speech, then why didn’t they get David Duke to be a guest speaker? After all, he is a U.S. citizen and a Republican, unlike Milo Yiannopoulos.

What? David Duke doesn’t represent GOP values? Are the UC Davis College Republicans implying that Milo Yiannopoulos and Martin Shkreli do represent GOP values?

Whether or not they meant to do so, that is just what the UC Davis College Republicans have done.

From USA Today: “UC Davis Interim Chancellor Ralph J. Hexter, who had staunchly defended allowing the event, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the protests and cancellation.”

I agree on principle that the event should not have been shut down. Nevertheless, it wasn’t necessary for the UC Davis College Republicans to have selected Milo Yiannopoulos and Martin Shkreli as speakers. Why choose them in the first place? Was it too costly to get anyone else?

Republicans would do well to refrain from picking unnecessary fights. Republicans do themselves no favors by living in a political bubble – one that prevents them from realizing just how tone deaf they appear to be to the rest of the nation.

Dial Up The Wayback Machine
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners January 13, 2017
  • Jwb10001

    WTF?

  • yetanotherjohn

    shut up he explained.

  • TheyTukRJobz

    Milos Y is chosen because he’s both an entertaining speaker and because the topic of his speech is FREE SPEECH. And, yes, also because it gets lots of publicity and huge reactions. Which is part of why he is invited.

    Half of the why he is invited is because the reaction helps expose the intellectual rot infesting universities and the universities’ acceptance of fascistic violence to silence certain “unpopular” viewpoints. Exposing the collusion of the universities to squelch conservative views is an important first step in reforming academia. It isn’t going to get done by being nice.

    • yetanotherjohn

      The David Duke strawman argument is telling. If you follow his formula, to be for freedom of speech you must not only be willing to let those you disagree with speech (e.g. lets the NAZI’s speak), but must put the NAZI’s up to speak under your banner. I can think of no reasonable person who has made that the litmus test for supporting free speech. I’m not sure why David doesn’t like Milos, maybe David feels his manhood is threatened by an openly gay speaker, but his arguments make no sense.

  • jim_m

    I see that you have never actually listened to Milo because his opposition to radical left wing politics is not racist, he does not promote islamophobia, and you have uncritically accepted the smears of the left.

    In fact you make the argument for the left that some speech ought to be suppressed and that offensive speech is not covered under the 1st amendment. The left characterizes Yianopoulos the way they do to silence his criticism of their politics. Yes, he is vulgar and crude, but that does not change the validity of his position.

    You have taken common cause with the fascists trying to destroy the country.

  • jim_m

    David, what do you find so offensive about someone defending the 1st amendment? Why do you think that only certain people should be allowed to defend the constitution much less be able to use their rights?

    You are an offense.

  • PBunyan

    David Robertson wins the Projection award yet again! People like David, who obviously have no clue about the values of the GOP, should probably refrain from commenting on the values of the GOP.

  • pennywit

    I see no good to knuckling under to this kind of pressure. If the local GOP wanted to bring in Milo, fine. I can’t stand him, but he has a right to speak.

  • Par4Course

    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
    ― George Orwell

    There is no point to the First Amendment if it only protects “mainstream” views. David, the fact that you think Milo Yiannopoulos and Martin Shkreli were “inappropriate” spokesmen for free speech is all the more reason they were. Neither of them are speaking for White Supremacy, Ethnic Cleansing, terrorism or the violent overthrow of the government. Because many people disagree with their views or actions is no reason they should not be First Amendment speakers.

  • Sky__Captain

    If there is tone-deafness, it is from David Robertson only.
    Or is he simply missing the point completely?
    Or is he misrepresenting the views of the UC Davis College Republicans?

    Could it be all of the above?

  • Paul Hooson

    I certainly will not be critical of Republicans as a whole, but Donald Trump’s weekend war of words on Twitter over civil rights leader, John Lewis, who is a connection to Dr. Martin Luther King, doesn’t seem wise either. John Lewis has a right to his opinions for right or wrong, without any response from Mr. Trump. I think most other Republicans would be wise enough not to walk into something like this. It would be impossible to imagine any members of the Bush family or other mainstream Republicans or conservatives walk into such a poorly timed and petty war of words on Martin Luther King Day as this.

    • yetanotherjohn

      You are right. Lewis has a right to say anything he wants. But you don’t seem to afford Trump the same right. Why doesn’t Trump have a right to respond to what Lewis says?

      Your words: “John Lewis has a right to his opinions for right or wrong, without any response from Mr. Trump.”

      The wisdom of responding seems to be your issue and that can be debated. But why should we not look at the wisdom of what Lewis said. The fact that Lewis marched 50 years ago against democrats who were denying him his civil rights does not make his arguments against civil transfer of power of a republican legitimate.

      For to long, the left has not seen push back when they spew forth their garbage. Perhaps it is useful to see this sort of food fight for no other reason than to wake the left up that if they want to hurl accusations (racist, sexist, etc) that they had better come armed with convincing arguments or expect to find their speech countered in similar ways. Would our society as a whole be better off with more civil discourse? Absolutely. But if one side is permitted to fling poo with impunity, then do not be surprised when the other side loft some turds back.

      • Paul Hooson

        As president, words do matter, so Mr. Trump needs to quickly grow up from personal fights with SNL, NATO, the German Prime Minister, living civil rights legend John Lewis, many Republicans in Congress, and other petty fights he has picked this past week. Mr. Trump has until Friday to put on the big boy pants and become an adult for the first time in his life, let alone to be president. After the 9-11 attacks, I could sleep assured that President Bush would have this country safe in the event of this crisis.

        My sincere prayer is that Mike Pence, the Trump children and other adults have enough influence on the boy king to stop his tantrums and grow up enough to rule this country in a reasonable fashion.

        • You have a problem with the sitting President’s call to punch back twice as hard, or only when non-dhimmocrats do so?

          • Paul Hooson

            I have no problem with any president of either party picking appropriate fights. Instead, last week has been displays of juvenile tantrums to events that don’t rise to a president’s level of concerns.

            In addition, while Vladimir Putin strokes Trump’s ego, Putin moved substantial numbers of troops and weapons into Crimea this past week. Moved weapons and troops into another area near the Polish border as well as nuclear capable Iskander short range missiles. Also, Israeli spy satellites last week discovered that Russia has moved these Iskander short range nuclear capable missiles into Syria on launchers. What does Syria need nuclear capable missiles for? What part of these military moves by Putin are not an issue of deep security concerns for NATO or Israel or other allies, while Trump seems to give Putin a pass and condemn NATO? If this was the late 30’s, military analysts would say a country is gearing for a coming war with such military moves. With the Obama Administration nearly out the door, Mr. Putin knows that this administration is unlikely to react this late, nor is the incoming president, where Putin moving troops or weapons into some sensitive areas will go without protest or challenge.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            In case you haven’t noticed, Rs for years have not responded in kind to the Ds’ attacks. We’re sick of it. If Obama can say we need to move to the back of the bus, we can say: “Screw you!”

          • Paul Hooson

            I’m not much of a fan of partisan politics as much as reasonable solutions from reasonable officeholders. I continue to pray for a MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON where Trump grows into the job and serves this nation well.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            If you really want Trump to serve this nation well, pray that the Ds grow into adults in a very short time.

          • Vagabond661

            John Lewis drew first blood, bucko.

          • He drew first, shot off his mouth, and wilted under return fire.

          • Scalia

            Mr. Trump chooses to fight with civil rights legend…

            Correction: Lewis hit Trump below the belt with a Left hook. Lewis chose to pick a fight with Trump, not vice verse, but nice try at revisionism. If you have to make things up to make a point, you really don’t have a point to make, do you?

          • Jwb10001

            I don’t remember your complaining when Obama went directly after Limbaugh, isn’t that punching down? Or what about the continual punching at Fox News? You see Paul when you have selective concern you become identified as a hack. Should Trump constantly respond to everything he sees as a slight? Probably not, but hey they all do it he just does it 140 characters at a time. By the way were you aware that Lewis pulled this same stunt with Bush? Seems Lewis is acting more like a typical politician then a civil rights leader.

        • Scalia

          You mean that Lewis the civil rights icon needs to quickly grow up from personal, petty fights with the president-elect. Tell Lewis to put on his big boy pants and quit trying to destabilize our democracy by parroting fake news.

        • yetanotherjohn

          Now your talking about the wisdom, not free speech. So you have shifted your argument under pinnings.
          I can understand the strategic idea of punching up, not down. There is also the tradition of the president keeping above the fray and letting his surrogates do the dirty work.
          But lets examine this case. He skipped the 2001 inauguration for W. Why? You guessed it, Bush wasn’t “legitimate”. Lewis is not the one in charge of deciding who is or is not legitimate. We have a procedure for him to air his issues. All he had to do was find one, just one, senator who agreed there was a question of legitimacy. He couldn’t find one, even with some of the loony toons on the left.
          So if someone decides you aren’t “legitimately” jewish, you are just going to ignore them right. Or are you go to fight back? Trump decided to fight back and I am reminded of Lincoln’s words … “I like him, he fights”.

          • Scalia

            Lincoln said that of Grant:

            I can’t spare this man, he fights!

        • pennywit

          My sincere prayer is that Mike Pence, the Trump children and other adults have enough influence on the boy king to stop his tantrums and grow up enough to rule this country in a reasonable fashion.

          You make Donald Trump sound like Joffrey.

      • Brucehenry

        In this particular case Lewis hurled no accusations of racism or bigotry. His criticism was of Trump’s toadying to Putin and the suspicion (which you and other Wizbangers dismiss out of hand) that Russia attempted to influence the election to benefit Trump.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          John Lewis said Trump’s presidency was illegitimate and he wouldn’t accept it. If I remember correctly, the left thought that kind of remark was against everything America stood for.

        • jim_m

          We dismiss it because the accusation are borne out of leftist butt hurt and not from any substantial reality. 0bama did far more toadying to Putin 8 years ago with his obviously bogus claims that Russia was not a geopolitical threat and the hysterically inept reset button.
          You are just pissy because this is the proof that 0bama’s foreign policy is every bit as immature, adolescent and anchored in juvenile fantasy as we have been telling you for the last 8 years.

          • Brucehenry

            Okay sure let’s say the Russians had nothing to do with the Wikileaks “revelations.” Maybe they didn’t.

            Obama never said, to my knowledge, that Russia wasn’t a geopolitical threat (BTW it was FOUR years ago, not eight, that this was being debated). He and his supporters mocked the notion that Russia was the “Number One” geopolitical threat. At the time it did seem a little over the top, what with ISIS getting started and China flexing its muscles and all.

            If the “reset button” was hysterically inept,” what do you call what Trump is doing? Is it not an attempt to “reset” our relationship with Russia? Are our NATO allies not wondering WTF will happen next?

            Now I happen to agree that Russia has been rather needlessly provoked since Bush 41 left office. It’s one thing to accept as NATO and EC members those states like Poland and Hungary, and quite another to make overtures to former “Soviet Socialist Republics” like Ukraine. But this policy predates Obama, going back to Clinton and enthusiastically continued under Bush 43.

          • jim_m

            0bama openly mocked the notion that Russia was a threat. To sit here now and claim that he saw them as a threat is yet another dishonesty from you.

          • That happens as often as he puts hands to keyboard…

          • Brucehenry

            Nope. “Number One” threat. And it’s STILL not the case that Russia is the “number one” geopolitical threat to the US.

            Or is it, Jim? You seem to excoriate Obama for wanting to “reset” the US-Russia relationship but applaud Trump for wanting to do the same. Only Trump not only wants to reset the relationship, he seems to want the US to toe the Russian line. He actually said, during the campaign, that “Russia is not in Ukraine.” This just months after Putin invaded and annexed Crimea.

            In fact this obsequious toadying is what’s feeding the suspicion that the Russians wanted Trump to win. Is there any statement Trump has made about foreign policy, in Europe or the Middle East, that’s not fully in accord with what the Kremlin wishes?

            He calls NATO obsolete. He implies that sanctions against Russia will be lifted whether our allies agree or not. He shrugs about the tragedy of Aleppo.

            IS Russia the number one geopolitical threat to the US Romney said it was, Jim? Or is it the potential ally Trump says and implies it is?

          • jim_m

            Yes it is, has been and will continue to be.

          • Brucehenry

            So I look forward to you excoriating Trump in the near future when he lifts sanctions and otherwise folds on every Putin demand. I’m sure you’ll rail against his “weakness” and “fecklessness” and “betrayal of our allies” when he does what he has promised to do.

            Oh I forgot his “hysterically inept” attempt to “reset” relations with our NUMBER ONE GEOPOLITICAL FOE.

            Just kidding you’ll excuse every Trump lick of Putin’s boot because Trump’s not bl… — I mean liberal.

          • jim_m

            I’m sure you are every bit the juvenile jackals as Rubio is demanding that Trump’s paint himself into an ideologically corner. I agree that they are a threat but that there are certainly opportunities for agreememt and proper negotiations will include making concessions do we get what we want.

            You on the other hand have backed every betrayal of our allies and every capitulation to out enemies. If it were up to me people like you would be filling large ditches.

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            Yeah, My dad hanged your friends at Nuremberg. Hope you get the same.

          • Brucehenry

            And thanks for demonstrating that I am correct — you have already shifted from how we must STAND UP to Russia to gee can’t we all get along?

          • jim_m

            The difference is that I have never seen things as black and white as you, in your 3rd grade intellect, are forced to do. I could criticize Bush for his approach to the war while still agreeing that it was necessary. You fail to understand that such a position is even possible. I disagreed with Bush about the auto bailout, while still understanding that the auto industry was still important, another concept that you can’t wrap your tiny pea brain around.

            I will disagree witht Trump in how he approaches things and will say so when I do. The difference is that you sucked obama’s dock for 8 years and you can’t see why anyone could possibly disagree with anything he ever said or did.

          • Scalia

            Same here. I dislike Trump, but I’ll defend him against scurrilous leftist attacks and will support him when he advances a conservative agenda.

            I’ve worked with a lot of Democrats. Some of them are so obsessed with their causes, they can’t ever laugh at either themselves or anybody on their side. For example, I showed a Dem the video clip where Biden said that he never doubted that Obama’s judgment was flawed. He couldn’t even crack a smile. No wonder they’re filled with such hatred. Politics has become their religion.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh OK when you explain it that way it all makes sense. Your ability to see things in shades of gray, unlike me.That’s why you could disagree with Obama on so many things but still….oh wait, you never could express a thought about Obama without revealing a visceral hatred of the man himself.

            I really envy your intellect, Jim, it’s a thing of beauty.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          The left’s obsessive outrage with Russia [allegedly] disclosing truthful information about Hillary and the DNC in what they claim to believe was an attempt to influence the election is in marked contrast to its yawn at Harry Reid’s lie about Romney not paying taxes.

          Harry Reid bragged about his lie, stating that it “…helped keep Romney from winning the election. ‘They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win did he?’ Reid said…”.

          Thus, a lie from a Democrat US Senator slandering the R nominee and influencing an election is OK. But the truth from Russia about the D nominee is worthy of calling the election illegitimate. Strange logic.

          • Scalia

            And the Left didn’t mind the leaking of classified material via the Pentagon Papers. The public had a right to know what was going on in Vietnam, said they, but they foam at the mouth over the publication of emails. Incredible.

          • Brucehenry

            So which is it? Did Russia not do it, or does it not matter that they did it?

            And what does Reid have to do with anything? Is Reid a foreign country suspected of hacking into his opponent’s confidential communications?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Did the Russians do it? If someone put a gun to my head and made me bet the farm, I’d say, with no degree of certainty, yes.

            Does it matter that the Russians hacked stupid John Podesta’s email along with the DNC’s? Of course it does.
            But why did it not matter when over two years earlier the Russians hacked the White House’s, the Executive Office of the President’s and the State Department’s emails? Why was nothing done then? Why are the emails of John Podesta and the DNC more important to Ds than the emails of the administration carrying on their official duties? Because they shined a light on Hillary and the DNC’s perfidy? Why was it that Obama told Putin to “cut it out” in October, but nothing was said publicly until the election was over?
            Because you arrogant Ds thought Hillary was destined to win. Now, that she hasn’t, you will use the excuse of the public finding out the truth about Donna Brazile cheating during the debates and the DNC shafting poor old Bernie to attempt to delegitimize and cripple the Trump administration.
            As I said before, I was no Trump fan. But the left’s unhinged and un-American response to his election has endeared him to me.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes that’s the typical “conservative” mindset: “if it pisses off liberals I like it.”

            I happen to think it was unhelpful for Lewis to call Trump “illegitimate.” But it was over the top, un-presidential, and just plain ignorant of history for Trump to respond by calling a man who was one of the original 13 Freedom Riders, a man who was nearly killed in Selma, “all talk talk talk and no action.” And it was either ignorant or a lie to claim that Lewis’s district is in “horrible” shape.

            Trump has been delegitimizing and crippling his own administration since the election with his tweets and adolescent pouts and rages. Lewis and the democrats are almost bystanders to that.

            If I were a Congressman who planned to boycott the inaugural, I wouldn’t use the Russian hacking as a reason. I would just say I was too disgusted to watch a buffoon like this guy take the oath of the highest office in the land.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Twitter is for 15 year olds and D-list celebrities and Trump is not 15 and unfortunately is no longer a D-list celebrity.

            If anyone wondered when Trump was going to start acting “Presidential,” apparently the answer is never.

          • Just short of 8 years and no sign of acting “Presidential” on the part of the current President…

          • Scalia

            Our “presidential” candidates (Bush I, Dole, McCain & Romney) lost. We put GOP majorities in Congress, and we still lost many battles. We’re now taking a more results-oriented approach, and that does not involve pleasing the likes of Buster.

          • Indeed.

          • Scalia

            Ok, Buster. You’ve had plenty to say about Trump’s lack of presidential deportment. I’ve also commented on the same. Now, have you any words relating to the spoiled-brat syndrome that is afflicting many Democrats? Are you proud that your leaders are throwing Romper Room tantrums all over the country? Does it bother you at all that the ones who pontificated about accepting election results threw that out the window the instant Clinton lost?

          • Scalia

            How about the following for a class act? The Bush’s have no fondness for Trump, but this is what “dad” had to say:

            Dear Donald

            Barbara and I are so sorry we can’t be there for your Inauguration on January 20th. My doctor says if I sit outside in January, it likely will put me six feet under. Same with Barbara. So I guess we’re stuck in Texas.

            But we will be with you and the country in spirit. I want you to know that I wish you the very best as you begin this incredible journey of leading our great country. If I can ever be of help, please let me know.

            Who’s got more class, Bush or Lewis? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/757e1db63affeebc49df525df5177f203cd03df061cb8d312bc0d3482fea571d.jpg

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Re: Reid. No he’s not a foreign nation. He was a US Senator, sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws of the US, who made national headlines just before the 2012 election, by lying about Romney not paying his taxes. He did it to influence the election.
            The left tries to discredit the truth, but depends on lies.

        • yetanotherjohn

          Read the constitution and notice where those issues are supposed to be brought up. Notice that Lewis couldn’t find one democratic senator to join him in raising those issues where and when it matters. To say that Lewis didn’t hurl accusation of racism or bigotry is to say only those would be illegitimate. You are part of the problem and for that we all reap a Trump presidency.

          • Brucehenry

            No, I don’t know what you’re talking about but I only meant to point out that Lewis’s reasoning in saying that Trump is “not legitimate” had nothing to do with race or bigotry, only that Trump is suspected of receiving foreign help in getting elected. You said “if they want to hurl accusations (racist, sexist, etc) then they had better be prepared…” This was in the context of Lewis’s remarks.

            Another commenter, on this thread I think, said that Lewis had “played the race card” or that his “race card had been declined” or some other tired cliche, and my (admittedly tangential) point was that umm, no, not in this case he hadn’t.

          • Sky__Captain

            However, Lewis and his Democrat media allies are blatantly attempting to use the race card as a shield to protect Lewis from any criticism.

        • Olsoljer

          Lewis’ claim to fame is 50 years ago he got his ass beat for demonstrating.
          You infer he is legitimized in his belief the Russians attempted to influence the election to benefit Trump, despite no concrete proof they did. The various intel agencies still contradict themselves and each other concerning involvement. WIKILEAKS flat out denies they obtained the documents from the Russians and furthermore states the information was given to them by disillusioned members of the democratic party. You and your ilk ignore the bottom line that the published material was simply correspondence originated from within your own organizations, and presented to the public, It simply exposed the TRUE duplicitous machinations of your politics. (Something the lame stream media seem incapable of reporting).
          You all present with self righteous indignation that an individual or foreign entity would dare to “hack” ? Grow up! It happens every day and every government (including ours) does it or attempts it for whatever purposes. (Remember “spying” on Angela Merkel?) Our intelligence agencies job is to detect and prevent it. It certainly doesn’t help when some ditzy moron in government uses an unsecure server to conduct state business and send highly classified information.
          The democrats influenced the election by revealing themselves and assisted in getting Trump elected. The real winner was the American People. Lewis and all the other whining crybabies should stay home.

          • Brucehenry

            No I “implied” it. YOU “inferred” it. That’s how English works.

            And you “implied” (not “inferred”) that Lewis deserved his ass-beatings “for demonstrating.” I would just ask you, if anything ever deserved to be demonstrated against, was it not the apartheid of the Jim Crow South? If anything deserved to be demonstrated against, was it not the denial of voting rights in Selma, Alabama in 1965?

    • Scalia

      The fact that a person is/was a civil rights leader does not insulate him from criticism. He ridiculously questions Trump’s legitimacy, and Trump was right to respond. What’s wrong with you? The Left gets to make up wild accusations against Republicans, and we don’t have a right to respond? You can forget it, buddy. Lewis put his foot in his mouth, and we’re happy to ram it further down his throat.

    • pennywit

      I do think President-elect Trump would do better not to respond to John Lewis, or (especially) to Saturday Night Live with diatribes. It makes him look like an easily manipulated, thin-skinned weenie. IMO, the best way to handle them is to a) compliment John Lewis’s service to the cause of civil rights while disagreeing with him and b) completely ignore Saturday Night Live. In my opinion, a president is better off staying above such petty annoyances.

      On the other hand, Trump’s supporters elected him precisely because they like the fact he hits back at people who insult him. So, he has every incentive to continue to do so.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        I, too, sometimes wish Trump would ignore some of the insults thrown his way. Then I remember W, who tried to stay above the fray – and was pummeled. When he didn’t respond, many of his supporters lost spirit.
        Obama, on the other hand, never lost a chance to go after those who disagreed with him, including siccing the IRS, OHSA, ATF, etc. after his political enemies. His supporters applauded.
        What do you expect Rs to do? When you treat ordinary, civil, polite people like the Tea Party, who cleaned up after themselves when they held rallies, as criminals, you’re going to get paid back when the political winds change direction. We’ve learned from the best.

        • Hank_M

          “Then I remember W, who tried to stay above the fray – and was pummeled. ”

          Exactly. And in W’s case, all we heard was the increasingly vitriolic attacks. The fact W refused to respond was portrayed as an admission of guilt.

          With this Lewis “controversy”, reverse the parties and all the media would be talking about was the republican calling the dem Pres-elect illegitimate.

        • Trump will either do well, or he won’t. Even if he DOES manage to improve things here in the US (and based on what I’ve seen of his cabinet picks, I think there’s an 80% or greater chance of success) the media is going to portray EVERYTHING he does as a failure.

          Growth above 3%? It’s a FAILURE because it’s only enriching the 1%.

          Labor force participation rate increases while unemployment stays low? People are STARVING and looking to find jobs.

          People getting off food stamps because they’ve found good paying jobs for the first time in years? It’s a TRAGEDY because they’ve lost all the free time they had!

          And the media outlets will continue to fail. People will have learned – they understand the truth and media are pretty much disconnected. The NYTimes is in real financial trouble – most papers in the US aren’t doing all that hot.

          It’s going to be an interesting 4 years.

          (As an aside, funny thing I noticed is that I’m seeing a LOT of ‘Help Wanted’ signs along my commute. And there’s a lot fewer hispanics at the various fast food places I stop to grab breakfast. Which makes you wonder – how many were actually ‘legal’ in the first place?)

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Newspapers are failing because people get their news from the Internet.

            Why? Simple, because it is faster. It is the same reason that we have lost many magazines that have been around for a century. People simply receive their information in a different medium.

            I grew up in a home where there was a real lack of conversation at the breakfast table; not because we didn’t get along, but because everyone was reading a section of the paper. I tried to get my nieces enthused about reading a paper everyday, but they responded that they had no interest in reading yesterday’s news. Hard to make a compelling argument against that concept.

          • That is but one element of their pending demise; a sop of preference for the progtards.

          • Won’t disagree… we finally stopped getting the paper when my mother-in-law moved to be with one of her other daughters permanently. (She was here for a few years taking care of her grandson.) That was 5, 6 years ago…

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        Yeah, I mean SNL has never made fun of a president before, when did all of this start?

  • Vagabond661

    This is when I think David Robertson is as bad as David Duke. Or Rosie.

    • Paul Hooson

      I know you’re only being comical here, but I would never personally ever compare the independent-thinking conservative opinions of David Robertson to the opinions of David Duke who justifies the killing of millions of Jews and the waging of war on peaceful nations. The two are never comparable, where David Robertson is always a very decent person compared to David Duke, even if I do not always agree with David Robertson’s opinions.

      David Robertson would never ever light a room with a lamp and lampshade made out of my Jewish relatives, compared to what David Duke may consider doing. And Rosie is merely annoying…

      • Vagabond661

        You are quite literal. I do not know what materials david uses in constructing his lampshades. But comparing david’s opinion’s as conservative is like comparing a fish to a bicycle.

        And I doubt seriously David Duke created lampshades out of Jews. Or were you being morose to find a point?

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Where the hell is Chico?

    • Scalia

      He’s not been banned. I ran across him over at The Federalist the other day. It appears he’s been posting very little, even on other blogs.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        I haven’t seen much from him after Trump’s win. I thought he would be crowing like crazy – especially given Trump’s apparent support of Israel [heh].

    • Who?

      • Walter_Cronanty

        The one who loves Trump and dislikes Israel. I just want to tweak him about squaring that circle.

  • Bird666

    This is one dumb fucking article.