Browse By

Manhattan Cult Worships Donald Trump

Things are getting spiritual in the Republican presidential primary. Over the weekend, Donald Trump suggested that the U.S. federal government needs to get into the business of choosing which religions citizens can practice, and which ones will be outlawed. Trump said that many mosques should be forced to close in the United States, and that those that remain open should be subjected to intense government surveillance. Trump came to this decision in spite of the fact that no significant terrorist event has ever been organized in an American mosque.

On Monday, Trump took the spiritual pitch of his presidential campaign to another level last night, however, when he declared that he has a special psychic ability to know when a terrorist attack is going to take place. “I predicted terrorism because I can feel it… I can feel it like I feel a good location … I really believe I have an instinct for this kind of thing.” Donald Trump did not predict the terrorist attack in Paris last week, but as is the case with many practitioners of divination, Trump’s followers were not dissuaded by the gap between reality and their leader’s boasts.

donald trump cultIn an Irregular Times exclusive, we have learned that the fervent faith of Donald Trump’s ability to transcend the truth is not just a manifestation of political enthusiasm. It’s part of a full-fledged religious movement.

45 feet below the corner of Broad and Beaver streets, acolytes enter the Temple of Trump, an underground chamber devoted to Trump worship. The room is a modified sewer junction, refinished in white marble, though the faithful insist that it once was a secret bank vault.

Before entering the Temple, worshippers must pass underneath a fan that blows their hair all to one side. Wearing crimson robes and putting on baseball caps that read, “Make America Great Again”, they form a ring, and begin their chant: “Yuge! Yuge! Yuge!”

After a few minutes, the dark ceremony begins. A Temple Elder emerges from the shadows to walk around the ring, raising his hands above his head in random, jerking motions, until, in one brief movement, he plucks the cap from one of the acolytes, and shouts “You’re fired!”

The unlucky person who now is missing a cap becomes the ritual scapegoat for the night. The ring of Trumpists turns on this person, who is pronounced “Mexican”, and is placed in an iron cage known as the “Detention Facility”. The remaining acolytes divide the possessions of the outcast amongst themselves, and then chase the “Mexican” through the tunnels under Manhattan until he or she is completely lost. They call this “Securing The Borders”. With the sacrifice, the group makes a donation to a Super PAC supporting Trump’s presidential campaign, then retires to a phone bank to make angry calls to cable TV news networks while eating bon bons.

Rumor has it that Trumpist temples are spreading rapidly across America, meeting in oak groves, American Legion halls, and dollar stores after business hours.

123 thoughts on “Manhattan Cult Worships Donald Trump”

  1. ella says:

    Marco Rubio, a ‘don’t vote for Republicans’, what has that to do with Trump. Shame on you. Your ‘Trump Temples’, how did you make that up?

    In the one article that concern’s Trump, this quote: “Trump’s terrorism-induced ESP. In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump warned that the United States should keep an eye on Osama Bin Laden. But, in that same book, he also predicted that weapons of mass destruction would soon be used against an American city, a prophecy that has yet to come to pass.”

    I’d say the planes that were flown into the Towers passed for weapons of mass destruction. Just saying.

  2. ella says:

    You know the weather is actually pretty important these days. El Nino is really kicking up out in the Pacific and storms are already dusting the plains with tornadoes and heavy rains. It is only November.

  3. Korky Day says:

    You’re all paying a lot of attention to Donald Trump.
    Nader called him a circus.
    So he’ll probably win.
    People are not going to vote for a BORING candidate when they have the choice of Trump. If he wins, we’ll just have to try to steer him toward better policies. But I suspect he’s hip enough to learn. He’s not controlled by big money. He IS big money. But maybe well-intentioned. Hope so.

    1. Dave says:

      Trump seems to have no definable ideology, but neither do the voters. At least it’s a good match.

      1. Korky Day says:

        He has an ideology. Read a book by him. He’s just not dogmatic, which makes him a pragmatist and populist.
        I like that.

        1. Leroy says:


          What is his Ideology?

          I have read his books. All of them.

          The oyster ideology that I have ascertained is “I Am The Donald Ego”.

          That and he is all over the place, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

          Not that long ago he was a devout Democrat.

          He has donated MUCH MORE to Democrat candidates than to Republican candidates.

          He was (is?) personal friends to the Clinton’s.

          You use the words Ideology and Populist and Pragmatic a LOT.

          YET I have this feeling that you really don’t know specifically what they mean….

          1. Korky Day says:

            You read all his 17 books, leroy!
            I’m impressed. (List at end.)
            I have read only his first book. Don’t you think this example shows his pragmatism and refusal to be dogmatic?: On Medicare and social security, he says they work, so why mess with them?
            He could, like some Republicans, say that those programmes are socialist, so I’m against them. He doesn’t.

            He has a big ego. So what? Are you going to vote for a candidate with low self-esteem? There aren’t any.
            Just because the others try to hide their big egos doesn’t mean they don’t have them.
            If he’s always doing things to make himself look good, that could turn out well.
            I LIKE that he doesn’t hide the real Donald Trump. Remember in his first book (p. 214) he hired extra trucks to drive around the work site to give the impression that it was more active than it was?
            He admits his deception and the reader cannot help but love him, anyway.

            ‘That and he is all over the place, depending on which way the wind is blowing.’ You’re just proving my point that he’s a populist. He’ll do ANYTHING to make us happy! Not so bad.

            All in all, which other candidate would make a more capable executive, leroy?

            The 17 books by Donald Trump:
            1. Trump: The Art of the Deal (1987), ISBN 978-0-345-47917-4
            2. Trump: Surviving at the Top (1990), ISBN 978-0-394-57597-1
            3. Trump: The Art of Survival (1991), ISBN 978-0-446-36209-2
            4. Trump: The Art of the Comeback (1997), co-written with Kate Bohner, ISBN 978-0-8129-2964-5
            5. The America We Deserve (2000), with Dave Shiflett, ISBN 1-58063-131-2
            6. Trump: How to Get Rich (2004), ISBN 978-0-345-48103-0
            7. The Way to the Top: The Best Business Advice I Ever Received (2004), ISBN 978-1-4000-5016-1
            8. Trump: Think Like a Billionaire: Everything You Need to Know About Success, Real Estate, and Life (2004), ISBN 978-0-345-48140-5
            9. Trump: The Best Golf Advice I Ever Received (2005), ISBN 978-0-307-20999-3
            10. Why We Want You to be Rich: Two Men – One Message (2006), co-written with Robert Kiyosaki, ISBN 978-1-933914-02-2
            11. Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and Life (2007), co-written with Bill Zanker, ISBN 978-0-06-154783-6
            12. Trump: The Best Real Estate Advice I Ever Received: 100 Top Experts Share Their Strategies (2007), ISBN 978-1-4016-0255-0
            12. Trump 101: The Way to Success (2007), ISBN 978-0-470-04710-1
            13. Trump Never Give Up: How I Turned My Biggest Challenges into Success (2008), ISBN 978-0-470-19084-5
            14. Think Like A Champion: An Informal Education in Business and Life (2009), ISBN 978-0-7624-3856-3
            15. Midas Touch: Why Some Entrepreneurs Get Rich-And Why Most Don’t (2011), co-written with Robert Kiyosaki, ISBN 1-61268-095-X
            16. Time to Get Tough: Making America No. 1 Again (2011), ISBN 978-1-59698-773-9
            17. Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again (2015), ISBN 978-1-5011-3796-9.

          2. Leroy says:

            Well, I would love to reply, but anything more than a sentence gets refused (what a great site). Will try again later – since I did save it.

          3. Korky Day says:

            There’s an error, but this system won’t let me fix it (as I easily could if it were Facebook). There are 2 books numbered #12. So 18 in total.


          4. Korky Day says:

            So, J Clifford, you have time to make cosmetic changes in these pages, but not to let us fix our typos, as we can in Facebook?

          5. Jim Cook says:

            Korky Day,

            That’s a fundamental change that would involve granting you and all visitors administrative privileges to edit the central database, which is clearly inadvisable. The alternative is to require all visitors who want to comment to register for an account first, which is unnecessarily limiting.

          6. Korky Day says:

            Thanks, Jim Cook. Considering the trade-offs, you might have made the best choice. Maybe you could let those of us correct our typos who don’t mind opening an account. Maybe I’m the only one who cares, though, I don’t know.

        2. Leroy says:


          Political ideologies

          Main article: List of political ideologies
          Note: discussion of political ideologies is not compatible with the more theoretically informed use found in Marx and post-Marxist thinkers. Arguably, this more narrowly political version of the concept does not even belong in the same wiki entry as the other, more expansive concept discussed above. Here, “ideology” simply means a political doctrine; the previous discussion covers approaches to the concept that are deeper and more far-ranging than that. In any event, following this much narrow usage, it can be said that political parties base their political action and program on an ideology. In social studies, a political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths, or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. (In the more theoretically expansive version, for example, one would never say that “many” political parties have an ideology; in terms of the theory already discussed, ALL of human thought and action is encompassed by ideology.)

          Political ideologies have two dimensions:

          Goals: how society should work

          Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement

          An ideology is a collection of ideas. Typically, each ideology contains certain ideas on what it considers to be the best form of government (e.g. democracy, theocracy, caliphate etc.), and the best economic system (e.g. capitalism, socialism, etc.). Sometimes the same word is used to identify both an ideology and one of its main ideas. For instance, “socialism” may refer to an economic system, or it may refer to an ideology which supports that economic system.

          Ideologies also identify themselves by their position on the political spectrum (such as the left, the center or the right).

          Lost of Political Ideologies:

        3. Leroy says:


          “The most basic definition of the adjective dogmatic is that it is related to dogma — doctrines relating to morals and faith — but what it has come to mean is attitudes that are not only based on unproved theories but are also arrogant in nature. The root of dogmatic is the Greek word dogmatikos.”

          The part “based on unproved theories but are also arrogant in nature” describes Trump to a T.

    2. Leroy says:

      “People are not going to vote for a BORING candidate when they have the choice of Trump. If he wins, we’ll just have to try to steer him toward better policies…”

      That’s what this country has gotten to?

      Vote for the least boring presidential candidate and then STEER THEM TOWARDS BETTER POLICIES???

      This is crazy!

      1. Korky Day says:

        Unless you agree with all a candidate’s policies, you’re always going to try to steer them. That’s what 99% of us politically active people do.

        Which candidate do you agree with 100%, Leroy?

  4. Korky Day says:

    That’s because he’s a populist and a pragmatist, Dave. He wants to make deals instead of fighting, which might please everyone in the long run.
    Theoretically, that’s good.

    Also, he starts from a base of patriotism and a bias toward the free market, which aren’t always good. But he says it’s crazy to kill Medicare because it works. See the pragmatism?

    1. ella says:

      Trump has a great deal of common sense and his supporters hear it. A bit sardonic, but look at the population of the country that grew up in front of an XBox, playing games, with their eyes glued to a cell phone. Well one eye, many have learned how to walk and drive with one eye. Patriotism, pride of self and nation, self respect, confidence that tomorrow might actually BE better. Yea, that seems appealing to a lot of people. Not to mention the thought that, even though they are ageing, without any job prospects, (who took that away?) that they can still survive, maybe until they go through a natural death. Oh, yes, that is called HOPE. There are a few reasons why a lot of people feel that slipping away. Both Democrat and Republican – probably a few parties in-between. Did you watch the last Democratic debate? Nothing there, but Bernie. Looking at the Republican field, the best, other than Trump, have nearly been eliminated, or are way down there. But there is some young blood there. Trump is needed right now, and he will step up to the plate if called to. He is versatile, flexible, someone who can bring the country together, while bringing out its’ divisions. Okay, I’ll be quite now.

  5. Korky Day says:

    Cute little parody.
    However, the insinuation that Trump will use super-PACs is false and cowardly.
    Trump and Sanders are doing so well because they refuse to be bought.
    All the other Duopolists are for sale.
    Please vote for one of those 2 if you’re in the Duopoly.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      If you’re going to use strong words like that, Korky Day, you should check your facts first.

      CNN, December 17 2015: Ex-Trump adviser launches anti-Rubio, pro-Trump super PAC


      Donald Trump can say “this Super PAC promoting me is not associated with me.” But then again, that’s what all the candidates say.

      1. Korky Day says:

        Thanks, Jim Cook. That’s troubling news. I’ll watch. If the super PAC takes ONLY small donations, it won’t be so bad.

        Trump will stop Stone, I think, if the heat gets too much.

        1. Leroy says:

          Super PACs are not allowed to be associated with the candidate. It isn’t allowed. Even Trump says that “this PAC promoting me is not associated with me”.

          And what happened to his promise of accepting NO donations, of self-funding his campaign? That lasted about a month. And for months now he has spent MORE of his donors money than his own. Wow.

          And then I thought that, according to you, minor low levels individuals can steer a candidate away from those BAD elements of his character and policies to GOOD policies – so small donors would, according to YOUR logic be just as bad.

          1. Korky Day says:

            You said, Leroy, ‘he has spent MORE of his donors money than his own.’

            However, it might all be small donors. He says he won’t take money to make him beholden. Those are people who want, with almost no encouragement from his campaign, to donate. Of course he’s going to spend that money first because he can’t spend it on anything else.

            He says he is spending much less than he expected because he doesn’t need to spend more to top the polls.

            You (Leroy) continue, ‘according to you, minor low levels individuals can steer a candidate away from those BAD elements of his character and policies to GOOD policies – so small donors would, according to YOUR logic be just as bad.’

            Except that those small donors are not exerting UNDUE influence. Tiny ‘influences’ from each of millions of people are quasi-democratic. Big influences such as almost all the other candidates have, are obviously undemocratic.

          2. Leroy says:

            So what?

            His PROMISE (in June, 2015) was that his campaign would be completely self-funded. In July he admits he is accepting “small donations of $2700 per donor or less”. By August his official reports to the FEC shoes he is spending considerably MORE money from donors than from his own funds.

            Nothing but more of his lies!

          3. Korky Day says:

            He seems to have changed his mind, which I don’t like, but he still isn’t using big money, which is the much more important point.

    2. Leroy says:

      Policies and beliefs matter more than personalities.

      The policies and beliefs of these two candidates are EXACTLY OPPOSITE.

      Sanders is a Progressive, borderline Democratic Socialist (Far Left).

      Trump is an ultra-conservative, borderline Fascist. (Far Right)

      People who can’t understand the difference and base their judgement strictly on PERCEPTIONS of who is “being bought or not” and personalities should NOT vote (IMO).

      1. Korky Day says:

        I don’t agree at all that Trump and Sanders are opposites. They are both somewhat populist, willing to engage the ‘center’ of political power in the USA. Sanders is more dogmatic. Trump has never been extreme in terms of USA politics.
        He just seems extreme to you because he expresses instead of hides the attitudes of most Republicans.

        1. Leroy says:

          Yes, the both are “populist” if your definition is populist in the sense of being high in the polls of one particular party.

          You repeatedly avoid the POLICIES issue.

          Forget personalities and whether or not they are “Washington Insiders” (BTW, Sanders IS a Washinton Insider, being an elected official at the Federal level since 1991; in the U. S. House of Representatives 1991 to 2007 and U. S. Senator since 2007 – almost 27 years “inside the beltway).

          Tell me in what way Trump and Sanders are “similar” in POLICIES. Specific policies, without the fantasy of how individual usual voters – even blocks of voters – “steer candidates (*)… and I have been involved in politics for my (long) adult life, having served in two elected offices and been a precinct committeeman for over a decade.

          (*) You understand that at Presidential Candidate Election Conventions the delegates also adopt a Party Platform that is the POLICIES that the candidate agrees to run on, right? You do know that, correct?

          Trump is absolutely EXTREME simply because he does express the most base, racist, antisemitic, xenophobic, misogynistic, mockery of disabled people, pure hatred of a PORTION of Republicans – not most Repuicans, no poll has EVER showed him near 50% of Republican voters.

          The PPP poll released on the 18th (of Republican voters):

          “PPP’s newest national Republican primary poll finds Donald Trump holding his largest lead yet in the wake of Tuesday night’s debate. He’s at 34% to 18% for Ted Cruz, 13% for Marco Rubio, 7% for Jeb Bush, 6% for Ben Carson, 5% for Chris Christie, 4% each for Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee, 2% each for John Kasich and Rand Paul, 1% each for Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum, and less than 1% each for Jim Gilmore and George Pataki.”

          That is roughly 3 out of 10 Republican voters.

          Even in New Hampshire, where 32% of Republicans currently favor Trump, 26% say they would NEVER vote for him:

          Meanwhile I will await your list of POLICIES where Trump and Sanders are similar.

          (Did you watch the Democrat Debate? EVERYTHING bystAnders discussed in policy matters was the OPPOSITE of what Trump believes in and supports… and Sanders himself said in the debate that he and all of his Democratic opponents for the presidency, on their “worst day,” had a lot more to offer than any of those “Republican extremists.”… he didn’t say, “not counting Trump who is a lot like me in our policies).

          1. Leroy says:

            Now I will concede that out of that base of roughly 1/3 of Republican voters who strongly support Trump, a majority of those support Trump no matter what.

            In fact over 60% of them would gladly follow him into a (far right) Third Party run for President if he doesn’t get the nomination and bolts (violating the word he gave).

            The numbers of various polls run from 55% to 68% (not of ALL Republican voters, just Trump supporters) would vote for him as a Third Party candidate over the nominated Republican candidate – or anyone else.


          2. Leroy says:

            Meanwhile, speaking of Trump’s supporters IN THE POLLS, a very interesting article:

            “For months now, commentators and political insiders have been making various arguments about why Donald Trump can’t win the Republican Presidential nomination: he’s too extreme; he has no political experience; his campaign will eventually implode; the rest of the Party will unite against him; he’s just a protest candidate; and so on. As we draw closer to the start of the primaries and Trump’s lead in the national polls persists, some of these arguments are still being put forward, if not with quite so much vehemence.

            But another skeptical case is being made about Trump’s prospects…

            Many of Trump’s supporters are disaffected folks who are only marginally attached to the political process. A good number of them won’t show up at the voting booths. So despite the fact that none of the other candidates has been able to overtake him, the polls are overstating his support and understating the probability that he won’t get the nomination.

            ‘The ‘who’ that will defeat Trump is not another candidate, but is most likely to be the Republican voters who actually turn out in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and the other contests,’ Alfred J. Tuchfarber, the founder of the respected Ohio Poll, wrote earlier this week in a guest post for Sabato Crystal Ball. ‘About 75%-80% of the Republican primary voters in the early states are not likely to vote for Trump.’

            John Cassidy
            JOHN CASSIDY

            DECEMBER 18, 2015
            Will Donald Trump’s Supporters Show Up at the Polls?
            BY JOHN CASSIDY
            Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa, earlier this month. The Trump campaign might be expanding the G.O.P. electorate in a manner that some of the polls aren’t fully picking up.
            Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa, earlier this month. The Trump campaign might be expanding the G.O.P. electorate in a manner that some of the polls aren’t fully picking up.
            For months now, commentators and political insiders have been making various arguments about why Donald Trump can’t win the Republican Presidential nomination: he’s too extreme; he has no political experience; his campaign will eventually implode; the rest of the Party will unite against him; he’s just a protest candidate; and so on. As we draw closer to the start of the primaries and Trump’s lead in the national polls persists, some of these arguments are still being put forward, if not with quite so much vehemence. But another skeptical case is being made about Trump’s prospects, which goes like this:

            Many of Trump’s supporters are disaffected folks who are only marginally attached to the political process. A good number of them won’t show up at the voting booths. So despite the fact that none of the other candidates has been able to overtake him, the polls are overstating his support and understating the probability that he won’t get the nomination. “The ‘who’ that will defeat Trump is not another candidate, but is most likely to be the Republican voters who actually turn out in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and the other contests,” Alfred J. Tuchfarber, the founder of the respected Ohio Poll, wrote earlier this week in a guest post for Sabato Crystal Ball. “About 75%-80% of the Republican primary voters in the early states are not likely to vote for Trump.”

            Tuchfarber, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati, pointed to an interesting discrepancy that has emerged in recent polling in Iowa and South Carolina. Some pollsters, in sampling for people likely to vote in the Republican primaries and caucuses, include all voters who are registered Republicans. The polls that apply this screen, which include those from Fox News, Quinnipiac University, and CNN, have tended to show Trump doing well. But other polls, including those from Monmouth University, Winthrop University, and the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg, apply additional screens, such as only questioning those Republicans who have voted in previous primaries or who express a strong interest in the race. And these polls tend to show considerably lower numbers for Trump.

            For example, the latest Quinnipiac poll in Iowa, which applied the broader screen, showed Trump with a narrow lead over Ted Cruz: twenty-eight per cent to twenty-seven per cent. The most recent Des Moines Register/Bloomberg survey, which applied the tighter screen, showed Trump trailing Cruz by ten percentage points: twenty-one per cent compared to thirty-one per cent. This phenomenon is also evident in South Carolina, where the third G.O.P. contest will be held. A recent Fox News poll there showed Trump with a twenty-point lead over the second-place Ben Carson, while a Winthrop survey had Trump ahead by just eight points, with Cruz in second place.

            Which methodology is the right one? “The Monmouth and Winthrop polls use sampling methods that are about as good as a pollster can use at this point in the process,” Tuchfarber wrote. He argued that the pollsters whose surveys show Trump with a big lead are implicitly assuming that all registered Republicans turn out to vote, which is unrealistic, particularly in Iowa, where voting in a caucus is a lengthy process. Much of Trump’s support comes from blue-collar voters, he said, calling them ‘substantially less likely to actually turn out than are upscale voters, especially in caucuses, but also in primaries.’ Tuchfarber went on: ‘Trump’s true level of support is much more likely to be near the Monmouth, Selzer, and Winthrop estimates. That puts him in the 20%-25% range, not 30%-35%.’

            As an experienced pollster—the Ohio Poll has a good record of forecasting state elections—Tuchfarber’s views demand to be taken seriously. Other savvy analysts, such as the Times’s Nate Cohn, have put forward a similar argument. Indeed, I’ve also heard it made by people close to the Clinton campaign, who continue to believe that Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz will emerge as the G.O.P. candidate.

            (And this is even though the Clinton campaign would MUCH RATHER face Trump as the candidate as polls show Clinton trouncing Trump time and time again; he is THE candidate that they’d most rather face!)

          3. Leroy says:

            In the same PPP poll:

            “Speaking of the Democrats things are pretty stable on their side. Hillary Clinton leads with 56% to 28% for Bernie Sanders and 9% for Martin O’Malley.”

            (While I strongly support Sanders, because he is the OPPOSITE of Trump and basically the opposite of Cruz, Rubio, Carson, etcetera, and find that a shame, the fact is that on the Democrat side, Clinton is the “populist” candidate… look up the word).

          4. Korky Day says:

            If Clinton were a populist, her movement would be driven by The People, not Big $.

            populism ‎
            (philosophy) A political doctrine or philosophy that proposes that the rights and powers of ordinary people are exploited by a privileged elite, and supports their struggle to overcome this.
            (derogatory) The practice of appealing to the interests of the common people.

          5. Leroy says:

            Her movement is being driven by the polls. Most Americans are “common people”, not part of the Wealthy Class”.

            So when her poll numbers are 56-59% then that means she has a popularity with “common people” – if it was just the Wealthy, her poll numbers would be like 5-10%!

          6. Korky Day says:

            You’re not convincing that Clinton is a populist. Popular, yes. Populist, no.

            It’s her (begged) money that’s buying her popularity. Democrats feel resigned to accepting her, not that they have any enthusiasm for her.

            She’s bought by the wealthy. Admit it.

            Bernie might beat her if he were younger, could say his S’s like a sober person, and didn’t sound so preachy. Because he’s not bought. Because he’s a populist and she isn’t.

          7. Korky Day says:

            Thanks, Leroy. I discuss Trump’s policies more in the thread ‘Donald Trump Summed Up in Six Seconds’.
            One example of how Trump and Sanders are similar is health insurance. Both want to make it much cheaper and less bureaucratic (as Obama wanted originally, maybe!).

          8. Korky Day says:

            Trump also promises cheaper college and more jobs.

            From reading his first book, I think he might be more capable and willing to follow through than other well-meaning but less energetic politicians like Clinton, Sanders, and Obama.

          9. Leroy says:

            Trump promises all kinds of things. And often changes from one position to another… but 90% of the time NEVER gives any details as to HOW!

            What year was that book published?


            Written in 1985-86.

            Trump didn’t register as a Republican until 1988!

            In fact, he has switched parties at least FIVE times (actually, it is SIX, as the article – which I will provide later – missed one; the year he was with the Reform Party, but in their nomination convention only won one state).

            One book…

          10. Korky Day says:

            Leroy, you write to me, ‘You understand that at Presidential Candidate Election Conventions the delegates also adopt a Party Platform that is the POLICIES that the candidate agrees to run on, right? You do know that, correct?’

            I’ve ‘known’ that for half a century.
            However, if Trump gets the nomination, he’ll likely get the platform he wants, too, from the same delegates.
            But even if he didn’t, you’re not naive enough to think that it would make any difference, are you?

          11. Leroy says:

            You’re naive if you think that if he doesn’t follow the Party Platform that he will ever get anything done. The President is just ONE element of three branches of government. And if he ignores his Party Platform, forget getting things passed through Congress… And forget about that second term (that is not only naive, that is ignorant).

            And quit playing the age card with me. I have no doubt that I am older than you!

            And, besides, what you have “known” (think that you know) “for the past 50 years” has been wrong. Totally and absolutely wrong.

          12. Korky Day says:

            Dear Elder Leroy,
            You wrote, ‘You’re naive if you think that if he doesn’t follow the Party Platform that he will ever get anything done.’

            No, I never thought that. Rather, I thought that after platforms are passed, they are seldom thought of again. Saying what they think the public wants to hear trumps quoting their platform every time! Not even the opposition brings it up very often, especially after the election.
            Usually because the candidate has updated his/her position to make it MORE popular, not LESS popular than the platform.

          13. Korky Day says:

            Leroy wrote, ‘Trump is absolutely EXTREME simply because he does express the most base, racist, antisemitic, xenophobic, misogynistic, mockery of disabled people . . .’

            Most of those accusations are unfair and based on twisted interpretations.

            Do you want Mexicans to come into your town without any having screened them for organized crime or rape convictions?
            No. Nor does anyone.
            So that wasn’t a racist comment by Trump.
            Besides, Mexican is a nationality, not a race.
            Islam is a religion, not a race. He’s never said one racist thing that I can find. His daughter married a Jew. He works closely with all races.

            He’s extreme only in that he’s extremely open about his feelings, which happen to coincide with those of most people. Everyone is intrigued by a guy that open and fearless.
            They might not agree with him, but they agree he has guts to go on stage and open up and emote.
            It’s therapeutic for the nation. Get the feelings out and then we can deal with them.

            His opponents are embarrassed that he hasn’t learned to hide those feelings, as they have, mostly.
            All the public, nevertheless, is enthralled at watching his act and how it is evolving.
            He’s just a beginning politician. He’s learning, I can see. No longer criticizes people’s looks.
            The more he improves, the better his chances in November.

        2. Leroy says:

          When you provide the list of similar policies of Trump and Sanders, please provide documentation, not fantasyland opinions.

          1. Korky Day says:

            I don’t provide references for everything I say.
            Neither do you, Leroy.
            Tell me in what cases you doubt me, and I might look them up for you.

          2. Leroy says:

            I doubt you in EVERY case that I described.

            You just refuse to look at the evidence that is out there every day. Even in Trump’s own Tweets and speeches… which you twist around in a failed attempt to make it seem like that wasn’t what he really said.

            And, no, I have posted more links than ANYONE here and have realized they aren’t even being read. Additionally, this particular Blog only accepts one link per post or it kicks it out erroneously as Spam.

            You are basically as wrong on the Trump issue as a human could possibly be…

            And didn’t ask for specific REFERENCES…I asked for a list of POLICIES where Sanders and Trump are so similar.

            Immigration? (BTW, All immigrants are strongly vetted before legal entry into this country… And illegal immigrants are deported; Obama’s administration deported more illegals in his first 4 years than GWB did in two terms). Again, Trump is full of shot. NO legal immigrants are getting into the country without very strong vetting. Trump just says all this crap as if it is actually going on to play up “the fear factor” for dummies like you.

            His anti Mexican and anti Latin American comments makes him anti Hispanic. His anti Black comments make him racist. His anti Islamic comments make him an Islamophobe. His anti women comments make him misogynist.

            The things you DON’T understand are mind-boggling.

            But POLICIES…


            Foreign policy?

            Defense Spending?

            Addressing the GWOT?

            The Environment?

            Climate Change?

            Taxation of the rich?

            Attacking Incomeome inequality?

            Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

            THOSE are policies. And Sanders and Trump have exactly opposite beliefs on those policies.

            Generics don’t matter.

            Beliefs do.

            And if you think that Trump can beat Hillary Hinton (or Bernie Sanders)

          3. Korky Day says:

            ‘illegal immigrants are deported; Obama’s administration deported more illegals in his first 4 years than GWB did in two terms)’, you say, Leroy.
            Maybe, but there are still millions in the country.

            As fare as anti-Black, I’ve heard nothing from Trump.

            There it’s quite justified because they believe in killing infidels when they get enough power in a country. And they believe in lying until that time. It’s in the Koran.

      2. Korky Day says:

        I’d rather have a middle-of-the-road nice guy who accomplishes a lot of good things than someone ideologically perfect who accomplishes nothing.
        So personality does matter.
        We’re all trying to predict.

        1. Leroy says:

          One last Reply.

          I knew that Hondo was trying to send a message.

          And I am starting to grasp that message was “Just WHO for REAL is Korky Day”?

          So I have started looking into that. I forgot about the fact that highlighted Usernames are tied to a website as to WHO they are – ala RWM.

          As in:

          So YOU would “rather have a middle-of-the-road nice guy”???

          Exactly what STATE in the United States of America do you cast your presidential preference vote?



          North Carolina?


          I will never again post a Reply to one of your posts or comment or replies. Not directly. But who Korky Day is and his fascination with who becomes the AMERICAN president most definitely WILL see further print.

          Eh, Kirk?

          What state? Because I haven’t found one so far with your real name listed as a registered or past voter.

          1. Korky Day says:

            I guess I should be flattered, Elder Leroy, that you are taking such an interest in me personally.

            If I were the paranoid type, I’d clam up and be afraid. I’m not, though. Nevertheless, I don’t see why I should tell you the details of my life more than I’ve already published. Unless maybe you and I are getting very friendly and meeting in person. Let me know if you are coming to western Canada. I’d enjoy meeting you.

            You are not asking anyone else such questions, so the ball is in your court to demonstrate why I should answer more questions. But why? If you find that you don’t like me personally then you will feel more justified in rejecting my ideas? I’d rather that my ideas stood or fell on their own merits, without regard to who is speaking them. Reasonable?

  6. Korky Day says:

    Trump is by far the best speaker of all the candidates I’ve heard.
    I don’t mean pronunciation, I mean his effect.
    A pep rally.

    Sanders not too bad, but more like a sermon.

  7. Korky Day says:

    If anyone besides Trump wins the Republican nomination, they won’t be able to appeal to non-Republicans, so they’ll lose the general, as did McCain and Romney.
    Trump is charming and intelligent enough to pull off a victory against any Democrat.
    But the Republican bigwigs would rather lose the election than nominate Trump because they can’t control him.

    1. Leroy says:

      That is why EVERY poll shows Trump being crushed by Clinton.

      1. Korky Day says:

        Trump has hardly begun to campaign against Clinton.

    2. Leroy says:

      But then in your fantasyland, the RNC controls ALL the polls, right? Then why does Trump stay on top (but we’ll under a majority) of Republican primary voters? If the polls are being controlled, why don’t they drop Trump way down?

      Because the polls are relatively accurate. Trump has the support of about 1/3 of registered Republicans – and in a general election Clinton will tear him apart at the voting booths.

      1. Korky Day says:

        You must be confusing me with someone else, Leroy. I never commented about polls being controlled by anyone.

        Yes, if the election were held today, Clinton might win.
        In November, she’ll lose against Trump.

  8. Leroy says:

    2015 Lie of the Year: the campaign misstatements (lies) of Donald Trump

    PolitiFact designates the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump as our 2015 Lie of the Year.

    It’s the trope on Trump: He’s authentic, a straight-talker, less scripted than traditional politicians. That’s because Donald Trump doesn’t let facts slow him down. Bending the truth or being unhampered by accuracy is a strategy he has followed for years.

    ‘People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole (lying) never hurts,’ Trump wrote in his 1987 best-seller The Art of the Deal. ‘People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole (lying – ‘truthful lying’!). It’s an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion.’

    That philosophy guided Trump in luxury real estate and reality television. This year he brought it to the world of presidential politics.

    Trump has ‘perfected the outrageous untruth (LIE) as a campaign tool,’ said Michael LaBossiere, a philosophy professor at Florida A&M University who studies theories of knowledge. ‘He makes a clearly false or even absurdly false claim, which draws the attention of the media. He then rides that wave until it comes time to call up another one.’

    PolitiFact has been documenting Trump’s statements on our Truth-O-Meter, where we’ve rated 76 percent of them Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, out of 77 statements checked. No other politician has as many statements rated so far down on the dial.

    In considering our annual Lie of the Year, we found our only real contenders were Trump’s — his various statements also led our Readers’ Poll. But it was hard to single one out from the others. So we have rolled them into one big trophy.

    To the candidate who says he’s all about winning, PolitiFact designates the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump as our 2015 Lie of the Year.”

    See full article…

    This is from PolitiFact, not my OPINION.

    1. Korky Day says:

      The unnamed author you quote, Leroy, lied. The quote is not as in the book, which I have.
      The book does not include ‘(lying)’ or ‘(lying – ‘truthful lying’!)’.

      If you want to insert your opinion into the middle of someone else’s quote, the honest way to do it is with brackets [], not parentheses (). Even better is like this:
      ‘hyperbole [lying–Ed.]’

      However, hyperbole is not always lying. I’ll now read the article.
      Thanks, Leroy.

      1. Leroy says:


        What is there is the article’s authors statements – not mine. The quote is from the listed article.

        The DESCRIPTOR in ( ) is simply an explanation as to what they phrase means as many would understand Trump’s little made up phrases.

        Interesting that you attack it – and then decide to read the article. What a hylocrit.

        1. Korky Day says:

          I attacked it assuming you had quoted it correctly. That was my fault. Sorry. I’ll assume you’ve fiddled with the quotes in the first place from now on.

          Yes, you fiddled with it by putting in 2 parenthetical phrases ( ), which the reader supposes were in the original.
          Brackets [ ] we would suppose were added by you or someone else. You haven’t conceded that yet. Don’t you know there’s a difference?

          Furthermore, what was in those parentheses was wrong.

    2. Korky Day says:

      I retract my accusation against the authors (Angie Drobnic Holan, Linda Qiu). It looks like you, Leroy, dishonestly inserted those parenthetical phrases. Perhaps you are not a writing professional. Perhaps you didn’t know about brackets.

      1. Leroy says:

        YOU clearly don’t know about brackets.

        They are there – as any real reader would know (nobody else had a problem with understanding that fact) – to define those words / phrases used as they are not common phrases that Trump uses instead of saying “lying” or “stretching the truth” or “misinterpreting” or “exaggerating”, etcetera.

        Come back when you have read ALL of Trump’s books – and then as a fair balance, all the ones by David Brock since 1997. There’s only like four or so.

        1. Korky Day says:

          So I should read Trump’s 16 other books plus ~4 by David Brock (whoever he is!).

          I guess you just want me to shut up.

        2. Korky Day says:

          Elder Leroy, do you still not know the difference between parentheses and brackets?
          I’ve explained it twice.

    3. Korky Day says:

      Trump’s 10 ‘lies’ are mostly not serious, not serious enough to make one vote for someone else. (See list below from the article with my comments appended.)
      It’s a package deal, if you want someone energetic and passionate and not reading a teleprompter speech carefully written by the lobbyists, you can choose Trump.

      1. “I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down . . . in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering.” It’s pretty clear now that television stations inserted videos of cheering Muslims out of the USA. It’s still a problem that anyone cheered anywhere, even if the location was wrong. Everything was right but the location.

      2. “The Mexican government … they send the bad ones over.” He is speaking without a script, which is what people like. Not as accurate, but still basically true that criminals come over easily. Maybe the Mexican government is sending some of them, but we don’t have proof. Nevertheless, it might be technically false, but essentially true.

      3. “Whites killed by whites — 16%. Whites killed by blacks — 81%”. The article doesn’t mention that Trump said he just retweeted something without checking it. He admitted it could be wrong. Normal human error. Good enough for me, but not for our writers!

      4. ‘people who went to school with Obama “never saw him.” ‘ They interviewed ‘college friends’. How about younger, pre-college? Trump dropped this quite a while ago, anyway.

      5. “If you’re from Syria and you’re a Christian, you cannot come into this country, and they’re the ones that are being decimated. If you are Islamic … it’s hard to believe, you can come in so easily”. Article: ‘Syrian Christians have been admitted as refugees in recent months.’ How about not-recent months, closer to when he said that? Was it ever true? The article conveniently skips that. And maybe it shouldn’t be so easy.

      6. “some of the things that [Megyn Kelly] said [that I said in criticising women], I didn’t say”. Article: ‘We rated his denial False.’ Maybe some of the quotes were twisted or out of context. We don’t know because the article gives not further details. But, anyway, he’s learning! He doesn’t say things like that in public anymore. Maybe the voters will forgive him. I’m sure the other Republican men THINK similar things.

      7. “we’re the most highly taxed nation in the world”. I heard that in a speech and knew immediately that it’s completely wrong. However, his proposals to lower taxes might be popular even though that isn’t true. In other words, it might be relatively harmless hyperbole because his proposals don’t DEPEND on it being true.

      8. “The last quarter, it was just announced, our gross domestic product … was below zero. Who ever heard of this? It’s never below zero.” The article says that’s false. I say it is not going to swing a vote either way on this one. He promises more prosperity. Can he deliver? That’s what counts!

      9. The unemployment rate may be as high as “42 percent.” Falsle, the article says. I believe Trump might be absolutely right. Especially if you include under-employed, which he often does. All the government stats hide the true numbers. That’s Trump’s point, but the article is too sleazy to mention that. Forced unemployment is a crime I’ve been a victim of, and many people like me would support him even if if his numbers aren’t right. The oppressors are the governments who like unemployment, which is basically all of them since Roosevelt.

      10. ‘The federal government is sending Syrian refugees to states with governors who are “Republicans, not to the Democrats.” Pants on Fire. Refugees are in fact sent to states with Democratic governors.’ How many? Maybe he just exaggerated.

      ‘Russell Moore, a prominent conservative . . . Baptist Convention, has called Trump’s proposals reckless, demagogic and divisive. Moore wrote in a New York Times column that Trump’s rhetoric “preys on turning economic insecurity into ugly ‘us versus them’ identity politics.” ‘

      In other words, the poor and middle classes should not resent the growing disparity in wealth, according to Moore. No, I’m with Trump the Working Class Hero on this one.

      ‘Club for Growth spent $1 million in the fall running 30-second spots in Iowa slamming Trump’s support for liberal policies.’
      I’m with Trump the Liberal Hero on this one. Might help him to win in November.

    4. Leroy says:

      Looks like my longer comment is not being accepted now.

      Strange how that works.

    5. Leroy says:

      Right. (LMAO)

      Not serious enough to not vote for him.

      I present facts from fact-finder sources by other people. Professional, expert researchers. And you TRY to explain them away… with a bunch of LIES.

      Let’s put the cards on the table.

      You repeatedly present opinions as if they are facts when actually they are lies. Every “explanation” and alibi you presented is (a) your opinion and (b) a lie.

      If his lies don’t bother you, that fine. But then you seem to have an entire fantasyland situation anyway.

      Here is a completely different fact finding organization (different from the one above).

      Their search was for the biggest political lie of 2015.

      Trump was so bad – the worst that they have seen in the 12 years they have been in operation that they… well, here, you and the readers can read it so there’s no accusations by ignorant people…

      1. Korky Day says:

        Elder Leroy, I don’t like it when Trump plays loose with facts, I’m just trying to get you to see that his growing numbers of supporters aren’t that concerned with details if the main thrust is good. Which it usually is, as I have explained.

        These are from the new list you kindly provided from factcheck . org . It’s obviously very biased against Trump:

        1. Trump claimed that thousands cheered the collapse of the twin towers. He just got the location wrong, as I’ve said.

        2. ‘Trump boasted that he “predicted Osama bin Laden.” Nope. The book Trump published in 2000 mentioned bin Laden once, and predicted nothing about bin Laden’s future plans.’
        Trump tells the story often in his speeches, and it’s clear he’s intentionally exaggerating for effect, with the audience in on the joke, not that he really is a prophet of God. To include this in a list of whoppers shows obvious pathetic bias.

        3. ‘Trump “heard” that Obama is “thinking about signing an executive order where he wants to take your guns away.” If so, he misheard. What Obama reportedly considered was requiring large-volume private gun dealers to conduct background checks, not confiscating firearms from those who own them.’
        I haven’t that in any of Trump’s speeches, but he might have said it. Not important enough for him to repeat it. And he SAYS he just heard it, not that it’s true. Sloppy, maybe, but not lying.

        4. ‘Trump said he “heard” the Obama administration plans to accept 200,000 Syrian refugees — even upping that wildly inaccurate number to 250,000 in another speech. Nope and nope. The number is about 10,000.’
        See my above comment about hearing something. He might have exaggerated. We’ll see. But again, people support him on this regardless of the numbers.

        5. ‘Trump said he got to know Putin “very well” while the two were on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” Nope. The two men were interviewed separately, in different countries thousands of miles apart.
        A 2-word quote is a fine way to hang a man. What was the whole sentence? And maybe they met elsewhere.

        6. ‘Trump claimed his campaign is “100 percent” self-funded. Nope. At the time, more than 50 percent of his campaign’s funds had come from outside contributors.’
        He might have said it that way once, but he usually says he takes small donations because it would be insulting to refuse them. No big money. He’s not controlled by donors, as are Clinton and the other Republicans. 50% so far, maybe, but he says he’s willing to spend much more, but that he hasn’t needed to yet because he’s popular without ads.

        7. ‘Trump said his tax plan is revenue neutral. Nope. The pro-business Tax Foundation estimated the Trump plan would reduce revenues to the Treasury by more than $10 trillion over 10 years, even assuming his plan would create economic growth.’
        Oh, I see. The Tax Foundation employs prophets of God.
        No, every president predicts economic growth. How much? Only time will tell if Trump delivers. It’s quite possible he will, especially as he can adjust his plan over time, adding revenue, for instance.

        8. ‘Trump told the story of a 2-year old who got autism a week after the child got a vaccine. But there’s no evidence of such a link. The study that claimed to have found a link between vaccines and autism has been exposed as an “elaborate fraud.” It was retracted five years ago by the journal that published it, and the author was stripped of his license to practice medicine in Britain.’
        Old news. Not in his presidential campaign, I don’t think, and I’ve heard almost all his speeches and interviews.

        9. ‘Trump said Mexico doesn’t have a birthright citizenship policy. It does.’
        He hasn’t mentioned this in a while. That’s about as close to a retraction as he gets!

        10. ‘Trump claimed credit for getting Ford Motor Co. to move a plant from Mexico to Ohio. Ford says that’s baloney; it made the decision years before Trump even announced his run for president.’
        No quotes, so I can’t judge of they are twisting his words or not. Besides, Trump might have done that years ago and Ford doesn’t like him so they spin it their way.

        11. ‘Trump denied that he ever called female adversaries some of these things: “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.” He used all of those terms.’
        No, he said he didn’t say all of those, not that he said none of them. Anyway, he’s getting better on name-calling. People might rather have him in spite of his faults. No candidate is perfect. He might tell the most whoppers (because he doesn’t self-censor so much) and STILL be the best candidate. Because other faults are worse. (He’s my 3rd choice so far, ahead of Clinton.)

        12. ‘Trump said in June “there are no jobs” to be had, when official statistics were showing 5.4 million job openings — the most in 15 years.’
        Maybe technically he was wrong, but are those jobs any good? Or part-time commission sales, telephone soliciting, etc.?

        13. ‘Trump claimed economic growth in the U.S. has “never” been below zero — until the third quarter of 2015. “Who ever heard of this?” he asked. Except it’s not unheard of. Economic growth has been below zero 42 times since 1946.’
        Same as in the other list. I have no further comment.

  9. Hondo says:

    Kinky Dog or whatever he /she is needs a reality check – or a psychiatrist!

    And Leroy, you need to quit arguing with her. You present good info as it is well backed with investigative journalists, expert researchers, historians, etc.

    But you ain’t never going to convince this flunky (I think it is a wannabe love affair with Trump) Kinky. She – I assume a she – is going to lie about everything that anyone post that is truly a negative about her Donald. No lie or exaggeration or alibi is too big for her to excuse him.

    So just present your info for us appreciative lurker a out here – and ignore her!

    Why try to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person?

    You simply can’t. It is impossible.

    1. Korky Day says:

      Thanks, Hondo, for the compliments.
      I’ll assume you’re a transsexual because you haven’t said otherwise.

      But why do you want Leroy to quit arguing with me? We’re both enjoying it. It’s at a fairly high level, of which you might not be capable, as you get such a thrill out of twisting my name.
      You don’t have to read our comments to each other if you don’t want to. Everyone else has that same option of reading or ignoring.

      The only reason of which I can think which might drive you to want the argument to stop is that you’re afraid I might win some people to my side.

      I want them to view Trump more intelligently, not just to write him off. He is not my first choice, by the way, which you’d know if you’d been following my comments.

      But of course, if the debate stops, he also loses a chance to win people over to his side.
      If you had stopped to think, then that other possibility would have occurred to you. Unless you think that I have the stronger argument, of course.

    2. Korky Day says:

      Hey, Hondo, don’t slink away in shame. I enjoy arguing with you and other intelligent or semi-intelligent people.

      I’ll end your suspense. I’m a man.

  10. Korky Day says:

    More for Leroy and other who think that Trump and Sanders are opposites:

    1. Korky Day says:

      Sanders and Trump pronounce ‘huge’ the same. However, Trump doesn’t slur his S’s like a drunk.

  11. Korky Day says:

    Facebook lets me fix my typos. This system doesn’t. Sorry, folks!

  12. Leroy says:


    Thanks for your message.

    I have some more for you that I’ll have to get to in a later post.

    And that reply that you got?

    That person could not be more wrong.

    And to tell you the truth, I assume that said person is a female as the only name / nickname like that I have EVER heard in the past was female (one maybe an author?).

    And yet every Hondo that I have ever heard of was male. Hondo Harrelson (TV series SWAT played by Steve Forrest), Hondo Lane (played by John Wayne in movie Hondo – also same character in the originating short story The Gift of Cochise by Louis L’Amor then fleshed out to full book), even the fact that the name originated in Egypt as a male child name meaning War God… (Also LOL, I am pretty sure that there’s a city in Texas called Hondo).

    I’m not sure where the transsexual accusation came from – this from a person who claims such “high level” postings. IMO, it is some latent homophobia slipping through.

    Interesting how the KEY question on the verified policy positions on S vs. T (and how they are so similar on most issues – LMAO) has always been ducked.

    Anyway, more later

      1. Korky Day says:

        All Republicans flirt with fascism. The Clintons, too.

      1. Korky Day says:

        I really hope those 2 get their nominations! Make American politics grating again!

      1. Leroy says:

        Then this, just this morning.

        Another “Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire” by Trump – who reverses his position on an issue AGAIN when an opponent clearly hits a nerve:

      2. Leroy says:

        “Being called wacko by a pathological liar like Mr. Trump makes me think he is getting nervous that the American people are catching on to his pathetic policies, which include giving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to billionaires like himself while refusing to raise the $7.25 an hour minimum wage,” Sanders said in comments relayed through a spokesman.

        Sanders had previously called Trump a “pathological liar,”…

    1. Leroy says:

      Hondo, like I said, I’ll have some more in depth information to put out later (let’s just say that pneumococcal is a bit¢h).

      In the meantime….

      A man?

      I am shocked, completely shocked. Even sounded (in their dialogue like a woman). Now I am even more convinced about the homophobic slur.

      And I have looked at the word “huge” from several angles and cannot find the letter “S” (to slur) anywhere! (Now why do I do that? Laughing leads to coughing and that hurts!)

      And the thought that I “enjoy” arguing with that lying POS who claims such a “high level” (well, maybe if compared to RWM and his Nazi best – only buddy; but that’s about it) of debate. Wow!! Talk about delusional.

      I had thought of simply replying each time with:

      “Ignorance in This Age of Information is so Offensive as to be an abomination… and that in a battle of knowledge and logic and facts, I refuse to debate an unarmed man”

      Then I decided that – like with RWM and NN and Ella – that NO RESPONSE was the best response.

      And (BTW) I do a lot more lurking anymore and less posting in general for that very reason…

      “Ignorance in This Age of Information is so Offensive as to be an abomination… and that in a battle of knowledge and logic and facts, I refuse to debate an unarmed man”

      And can see why lurking (watching and reasoning) would be your primary reasoning with so much irrational behavior here!

      1. Korky Day says:

        What homophobic slur?
        No, the word huge doesn’t have an S. You must have misread my comment, Leroy.
        Sanders slurs his S’s like a drunk.
        For instance (if I remember right) ‘infrashtructure’ and ‘exshtreme’.
        He’s not the only one. It’s fairly common in some families. Maybe drunken families.

        1. Korky Day says:

          I found some examples for you of Bernie Sanders slurring his S’s.

          :10 seconds ‘shtrong’.
          5:38 ‘shtrongly’.
          8:15 ‘shtruggling’.
          8:38 ”
          8:58 ‘shtrongly’.

    1. Leroy says:

      “Being called wacko by a pathological liar like Mr. Trump makes me think he is getting nervous that the American people are catching on to his pathetic policies, which include giving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to billionaires like himself while refusing to raise the $7.25 an hour minimum wage,” Sanders said in comments relayed through a spokesman.

      Sanders had previously called Trump a “pathological liar,”…

      1. Korky Day says:

        I’m with Sanders on minimum wage and taxing the rich.

      2. Korky Day says:

        I wouldn’t advice either to call the other such names, though it is highly entertaining.

  13. Leroy says:

    As of December 24th

    Interesting order of ranking of likelihood.

  14. Leroy says:

    From the latest TruthDig.

    This is the opinion and rationale of the author of this article… NOT ME.

    If you have specific responses to it, they have a GREAT Comment Section over there. And would love your input (and you’d get more exposure as they have several thousands of subscribers)

    1. Korky Day says:

      Thanks, Leroy. Quite an interesting article.

      Another good one is in the paper magazine I just bought called The National Interest. Jacob Heilbrunn wrote, ‘The GOP Civil War’ / ‘The Republican Civil War’ pages 5-10, 2015 November.

  15. Leroy says:

    Which ONE candidate is a complete Climate Change Denier?

    There’s only ONE that totally denies Climate Change.

    Some candidates deny that humans / human activities have had that much to do with Climate Change, but only ONE – Donald – totally denies it exists….

    Meanwhile, reports of 50 degrees along the south shore of one of the Lower Great Lakes, where in has yet to snow and temps most days are in 40s, 50s, and 60s (3 days in a row recently with record-breaking HIGH temperatures in most areas).

    “Christmas Eve Temperatures Broke Records Along The US East Coast”

    1. Korky Day says:


    2. Korky Day says:

      I didn’t notice you had ‘Donald’ tucked in there.

      In his campaign speaches he doesn’t really say much, but it isn’t good.

  16. Leroy says:

    Bernie and Donald have apparently very similar policies.

    Especially on Climate Change…

        1. Korky Day says:

          I prefer Sanders to Trump on climate change.

  17. Leroy says:

    Yo, Hondo…. If you are lurking out there then it looks like my guesses as to your true motive was right eh?

    Notice no answer to what state(s) where he voted? Thats because there aren’t any! (LMAO) A Canuck resident SOOOOoooo interested in American presidential politics! Makes you wonder who he’s a Straw Man for, eh?

    And another RWM when it comes to responsibility (social, moral, and otherwise). No real jobs. Flitting around with third party ideologies. Living off society, though in this case more than capable of working (but if you count house cleaning, baking, gardening, etcetera for those who put him up, then I guess he does SOME work).

    I guess that he either never took American government classes in Riverside City College in the 1966-68 time frame (or that long ago California high school) or that there have been so many changes in the last almost 50 years – and so much lost in the memory cells.

    Maybe he thinks that the candidate elected president of the United States will also be the prime minister of Canada (and mayor of Vancouver… speaking of which, I wonder who he is currently living with there, like the leech that he is). No wonder he has only read Trump’s book from 1987 (39 years ago) – and has NO CLUE as to who David Brock is! He probably found the Trump book while dumpster diving… but only healthy dumpster food!

    Makes one wonder why he pushes the Fascist Trump position so much doesn’t it?

    I’m thinking maybe a Mossad asset (looks like, based on real names, that he could be of Jewish descent – and we all know how RWM has that nailed down, that they are all over the place). What an interesting concept. A multiple name changer former (long, long ago) American now Canadian who is a BIG supporter of the Greens in Canada but talks up Trump like the Second Coming (though claiming Trump isn’t his favorite candidate, you would know that by his postings – and, guess what, he ain’t got NO candidate, as Dr. Phil would say, he “ain’t got a dog in this fight”… but more than willing to try and convince the dumb Yankees what to do!). What was it RWM always said about the Greens? Loaded with Mossad / FBI assets and controlled by ZOG!

    And enjoy meeting me?

    After the cowardly stunt he pulled in 1968?

    I’m enlisting and he’s running???

    And he’s “not afraid”? I bet that he’s every bit as afraid as he was in 1968.

    No, Hondo, I am one of the LAST people on earth that this Chickenhawk lily-livered POS wants to meet up with.



    Be posting some more stuff later Hondo, my man.

    Pneumococcal crap be a hitch, but it is finally coming around. If I had got my flu shot two weeks earlier then I would have had that PPSV23 shot BEFORE this hit – and hopefully that would have had the strain that nailed me. Oh well, when you volunteer work in hospitals and clinics a couple times a month…

    (P. S. I got the message from my grandson and you’re right, I do know you — or at least I should say of you; and you’re also right that that is exactly how I got my nickname. The grandson said that you are back in the area. Since you see him semi-regularly have him pass on the phone number… we really should talk).

    1. Leroy says:


      I am sure you likely did, but I’m not sure how much research you’ve done (a lot, or just enough to open the barn door?)… but did you see this?

      Notice the “Likes”. You see any politicians other than Trump? Yet supposedly Trump is his third choice… or, that’s right – he doesn’t have a choice!

      1. Leroy says:

        And our hero in all his grandeur!

  18. Korky Day says:

    All this attention on me is hilarious. I feel a bit like a movie star now, with the tabloids (played by Leroy and Hondo) publishing alleged information about me that is mostly wrong. Most movie stars learn just to ignore the tabloids. Not worth their time to refute every silly error.

    But why me? Why not all the other near-anonymous people posting in Irregular Times? Could it be that you find me in particular somewhat intriguing in the same way Trump is, and you hate yourselves for that?

  19. Korky Day says:

    I don’t know if I like this new page format which just started today. They have hidden the search box WAY at the very bottom.
    It was at the top, where it should be. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

    1. J Clifford says:

      That’s a good suggestion. Hold tight. We have a lot of fiddling to do.

  20. Leroy says:


    Notice how a certain non American voter who loves being an agitator in AMERICAN politics and in influencing AMERICAN voters (while they vote in Canada) now claims that the stuff posted is “alleged information that is mostly wrong” – like his own Faceebook page, his own linked website (*), his own pictures! Those are the “tabloid” pages???

    Me thinks that what he FEARS is the massive waterfall that quickly approaches (of the good stuff yet to come).

    Then infers to being like a movie star who learns to “ignore the tabloids”. What’s funny is that MOST of them clearly don’t ignore the tabloids, they are responding to them all the time… as does he! LMAO!!! What a lying hypocrite.

    And then the whine about why him and his “near anonymous” status. Hey, he linked his name to that webpage that got everything – and I mean EVERYTHING – rolling.

    And it hasn’t been just him. He should check out the posts directed against Milnes. He also has way to much ego to not announce WHO he is and to remove his anonymous status… just like this scaredy cat clown – only this scrawny shaking coward has the temerity to complain about it – while trying to make a political statement that will cause someone to take the bait. Well that bait isn’t EVER going to be taken. I’d sic Mossad on him long before I’d ever engage him in ANYTHING, but especially anything political.

    And is so clueless as to not be able to figure out WHY!

    You and I know “why”, eh, Bro?

    If you’re going to talk the talk, then don’t bitch when someone makes you walk the walk.

    1. Leroy says:

      (*) The site he linked to as to identify who he is:

      He did that, not J Clifford, not Jim Cook, not anyone else.

      And Hondo, that was all that you pointed out to me. The little kick start that I needed.

      And that is NOT tabloid stuff – or (LOL) if it is, it is how own tabloid stuff..

    2. Leroy says:


      RE: Milnes.

      Not sure if your lurking and recon showed this, but just as ONE example of an article with Milnes getting his due:

      And there’s a lot more. So Kinky (Scaredy) Dog isn’t being singled out. And what might be “targeting” is due to his own mouth, shooting off outright lies, making fun of people, playing godlike… And most of all sticking his foreigner nose intimately into American political participation as if he had a dog in this fight.

  21. Leroy says:

    I was quite surprised when a certain Commenter here (who adores Donald Trump, has actually read one of Trump’s books – his first one from 29 years ago, lies through his teeth for Trump, has admitted that he hopes to see American politics become grating again [when has it not been since 1980 at least, so must have meant “become more grating], and agitates the American electoral process though NOT an American voter himself, did NOT have a clue to who David Brock was – and wasn’t going to waste his precious time (LOL, as if he has anything but time and realistically doesn’t do so for financial reason plus the fact he doesn’t have a library card – no fixed address) reading him.

    David Brock is THE smoking gun as to the Republican Propaganda Machine as he was a part of it for so long.

    Any liberal, progressive, or Independent who wants to know the inside story of that Evilness really needs to read his books, basically those published since 1997. If one is a non believer and that the Repubs sincerely want to play on a level playing field without cheating in every way that they could would have their eyes widely opened!

    1. Leroy says:

      David Brock….

      “In 1986 he joined the staff of the weekly conservative news magazine Insight on the News, a sister publication of The Washington Times.

      After a stint as a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, in March 1992 Brock authored a sharply critical story about Clarence Thomas’s accuser, Anita Hill, in (very conservative) The American Spectator magazine. A little over a year later, in April 1993, Brock published a book titled The Real Anita Hill, which expanded upon previous assertions that had cast doubt on the veracity of Anita Hill’s claims of sexual harassment. The book became a best-seller. It was later attacked in a book review in The New Yorker by Jane Mayer, a reporter for The New Yorker, and Jill Abramson, who was at that time a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The two later expanded their article into the book Strange Justice, which cast Anita Hill in a much more sympathetic light. It, too, was a best-seller. Brock replied to their book with a book review of his own in (very rightwing) The American Spectator where he was now employed.

      In the January 1994, issue of The American Spectator, Brock, by then on staff at the magazine, published a story about Bill Clinton’s time as governor of Arkansas that made accusations that bred Troopergate. Among other things, the story contained the first printed reference to Paula Jones, referring to a woman named “Paula” who state troopers said offered to be Clinton’s partner.

      Three years later, Brock surprised conservatives by publishing a somewhat sympathetic biography of Hillary Clinton, titled The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. Having received a $1 million advance and a tight one-year deadline from Simon & Schuster’s then-conservative-focused Free Press subsidiary, Brock was under tremendous pressure to produce another bestseller. However, the book contained no major scoops.

      In Blinded by the Right (2002), Brock said that he had reached a turning point: he had thoroughly examined charges against the Clintons, could not find any evidence of wrongdoing and did not want to make any more misleading claims. Brock further said that his former friends in right-wing politics shunned him because Seduction did not adequately attack the Clintons. He also argued that his “friends” had not really been friends at all because of the open secret that Brock was gay.

      In July 1997, Brock published a confessional piece in Esquire magazine titled “Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man,” in which he recanted much of what he said in his two best-known American Spectator articles and criticized his own reporting methods.

      Discouraged at the reaction his Hillary Clinton biography received, he said, ‘I . . . want out. David Brock the Road Warrior of the Right is dead.’ Four months later, The American Spectator declined to renew his employment contract, under which he was being paid over $300,000 per year.

      Writing again for Esquire in April 1998, Brock apologized to Clinton for his contributions to Troopergate, calling it simply part of an anti-Clinton crusade (*).

      In 2001 Brock accused one of his former sources, Terry Wooten, of leaking FBI files for use in his book about Anita Hill. Brock defended his betrayal of a confidential source by saying, ‘I’ve concluded that what I was involved in wasn’t journalism, it was a political operation, and I was part of it… So I don’t think the normal rules of journalism would apply to what I was doing.’

      (*) He told a more detailed story of his time inside the right wing in his 2002 memoir, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, in which he settled old scores and provided inside details about the Arkansas Project’s efforts to bring down Clinton. Later, he also apologized to Anita Hill.

      Brock directly addressed the right-wing ‘machine’ in his 2004 book, The Republican Noise Machine, in which he detailed a clearly interconnected, concerted effort to raise the profile of conservative opinions in the press through FALSE accusations of liberal media bias, DISHONEST and highly partisan columnists, partisan news organizations and PSEUDOSCIENCE academic ‘studies’, and other methods.”

      David Brock books to read:

      – Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. 2002, Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4000-4728-4

      – The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy. 2004, Crown. ISBN 978-1-4000-4875-5

      – Free Ride: John McCain and the Media with Paul Waldman. 2008, Anchor. ISBN 0-307-27940-5

      – The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine with Ari Rabin-Havt. 2012, Anchor. ISBN 978-0-307-94768-0

      – Killing the Messenger: The Right-Wing Plot to Derail Hillary and Hijack Your Government. 2015, Twelve. ISBN 1455533769

      The latter book especially should be required reading by certain posters here!

  22. Korky Day says:

    Thanks, Leroy, for the reminder about Brock. I had known about him but forgot.

    I do not, though, like you spoiling my joke by misquoting me.
    Readers will think I’m not funny.

    Here it is again CORRECT:

    I really hope [that Trump and Sanders] get their nominations! Make American politics grating again!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!