Trumpster fire watcher?

Sasse-Dumpster-01Donald Trump went to Capitol Hill yesterday and met with a group of Republican U.S. Senators. Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, who has never ceased criticizing Trump for nearly the past year, attended the meeting.

And Trump took it to him.
One person present said, “Trump’s not afraid to call a spade a spade.”

According to the AP:

Trump engaged in a lengthy monologue suggesting he had inside knowledge about Hillary Clinton’s intention to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with liberal judges. And, he said to the Nebraska senator, “Surely, you don’t want Clinton, Sasse,” or words to that effect.

Senator Sasse didn’t speak to reporters, but his press flak said,

“Mr. Sasse continues to believe that our country is in a bad place and, with these two candidates, this election remains a dumpster fire. Nothing has changed.”

(Mister Sasse?)

Anywho, it is unclear here what Ben Sasse’s obsession with dumpster fires is.

Back in his Facebook Manifesto, Sasse wrote, “There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two “leaders.”

There was the above reference after the meeting.

Then, when asked about the convention, Sasse’s press dude again said, “Sen. Sasse will not be attending the convention and will instead take his kids to watch some dumpster fires across the state, all of which enjoy more popularity than the current front-runners.”

Then again, usually when one comes across what they deem a dumpster fire, there is an effort to do something about it.

Rather than sit and watch.


Comey’s real decision

In the mean time, we’re reminded that Hillary Clinton threw out this doozy (a few years ago).

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Got that America?
Oh, and one big guess who get to decide what’s “good”.

And a quick follow-up on Hillary’s email scandal:

I wasn’t the first to come to this conclusion, but Charles Krauthammer and Scott Adams wrote it before I got the chance:

FBI Director Comey bent himself up like a pretzel regarding the law on Hillary’s server, because — like Chief Justice Roberts on the ObamaCare decision — he didn’t want to take the legal fall on what will be a political question.

Roberts made up the law to let voters ultimately decide if they want to keep ObamaCare. Similarly, Comey made up the rejection of the law to let voters decide if they think Hillary’s scandal should keep her from being President.

Hard to see it any other way.



The Pro-Gambling group, “Keep the Money in Nebraska” says that it has achieved their goal of getting enough signatures to put an expanded gambling question on the November ballot.

If that’s on, there will be on the ballot, among other questions:
State Senators
Death Penalty

Who’s sitting this out?

In the mean time, for more on the whole casino and expanded-gambling thing, click here for my podcast interview with former State Senator Scott Lautenbaugh on The Wheels Down Politics Show!


Windmills, NOT…financial reports

After her election to be Chair of the Nebraska Democrats, it seems that Jane Kleeb is following suit with her fellows in the national ranks, and has decided that the rules don’t apply to her.

Per Bud Synhorst at the Nebraska GOP:

“Apparently the Democratic Party’s leadership doesn’t believe in transparency with voters. The laws of reporting campaign finance are clearly outlined by the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission and the Democrats did not file their paperwork, clearly hiding their finances from the voters.

Campaign finance reports were to be submitted to the Accountability and Disclosure Commission on Monday, June 20th following the May 10, 2016 election.”

Don’t worry though. She’ll likely buy FFA jackets and boots for all the party leadership to wear.


But how can you keep up on the talk of Nebraska politics?

Keep getting your Nebraska political news (and more!) all weekend long by following @LeavenworthSt on the Twitter and Liking Leavenworth St. on The Facebook, and/or subscribing for email updates on new posts (up top on the right).

Stay cool.

[To discuss the murders in Dallas, please refer to the previous post.]


  1. Oracle says:

    SS, Jane doesn’t take office until December. But using Republican logic and reversing the direction of time, I guess she’s responsible for the late NADC filing.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      I seem to recall Jane having a campaign disclosure problem during her campaign for Hastings school board a few years ago.

    • TexasAnnie says:

      Also, let us know what you think about Donald protecting “Article XII” of our seven article Constitution, Street Sweeper!

      • The Grundle King says:

        So when will you make it official and start putting a (D) behind your name when you post?

      • TexasAnnie says:

        I’m Independent. So why would I identify with a party of which I do not belong. It may seem strange to you, Grundle, but honor still has value for me.

      • The Grundle King says:

        Honor is not a strange concept to me. The only concept that I find strange is when people show themselves to be one thing, but insist on calling themselves another.

      • HTH says:


        Not knowing a ton about TA’s political beliefs, perhaps this will help: Democrats are a party. Liberal is an ideology. Mixing those two up is a fallacy. Same goes for conservatives and Republicans.


      • TexasAnnie says:

        FYI: I was Libertarian (which may account for both conservative and liberal ideals) but since being a delegate to the Libertarian Convention in 2008, the Bob Barr fiasco, I have registered Independent. Thus, I am INDEPENDENT.

    • Sparkles says:


      It was 12 years ago, June 29, 2004. It was a fundraiser in California for Barbara Boxer.
      HRC was addressing an elite audience of Democratic supporters, a crowd of some America’s wealthiest families. A crowd who were at the time benefiting very handsomely from GW’s generous tax cuts for the wealthy.
      In fuller context her statement was:
      “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that (their tax cuts) short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
      “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few … And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”

      Pretty horrible stuff, huh?
      But our conspiracy addled friends on the right, it no doubt stirs visions of Hillary in a Wehrmacht uniform and Marxist soldiers marching down America’s Main streets implementing a nefarious Agenda 21 master plan.
      Just ask our local nuttery- Bill Kintner, Charlie Janssen, Dave Bloomfield and Tom Hansen – they’ll tell you all about Agenda 21, no doubt in fevered tones.

      Republicans long ago ran out of ideas and abandoned entirely the presentation of solutions for America’s pressing problems.
      It’s so much easier to simply phone it in. To link arms with Fox ‘News’ and hate radio in crafting tales of Jack Booted Thugs, Death Panels, abandoned Wal-Mart as Detention Camps and armies of Marxist soldiers amassing around a small town perilously near you.

      ka-ching, ka-ching

      • Sparkles says:

        I may be mistaken, but I think Sweeper inadvertently forgot to add that link when today’s post originally went live. (??)

        I’m with Annie, I don’t recall seeing the link until I just now looked again at the story. If found it courtesy of a google search (which I must admit was equally as easy).
        The link I found took me to Snopes, where the line, lifted out of context, was part of one of those inane right wing chain emails. This one, with a collection of out of context quotes in which you via multiple choice you were supposed to guess if each quote was said by either Marx, Lenin, Kim Jong Il, Pinochet, Goebbels, Saddam Hussein etc..
        It was only at the end of the email they disclosed the quotes were from none other than EVIL HILLARY CLINTON – the HORROR!!

        The email wraps up thusly:
        “Be afraid. Be very, very afraid and vote – Anybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it’s time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind!”

      • TexasAnnie says:

        Thanx again, Sparkles! After seeing Capt. O’s statement I was surprised to see that a link is provided. I don’t know if it was there or not but when I read something interesting with a link, my habit is to stop at that point and READ the link.

  2. SMH at dumpster fire comment says:

    Sasse is the kind of guy who would watch a car on fire, taking and iPhone video of it, doing nothing to save the people inside. And then we would lecture us on driving safely. He has zero solutions except to watch the dumpster burn.

  3. The Grundle King says:

    If Sweeps has grown weary of hearing the term ‘dumpster fire’ being used to describe this Trump/Clinton race, might I offer an alternative?


    Indeed, let’s call a spade a spade. This election has all the appeal of the odor of burning rotten flesh with a little plastic and styrofoam thrown in. Take your pick as to which candidate smells like burnt flesh, and which smells like burnt plastic.

  4. Tweet Tweet says:

    #NEVERSASSE Benny is the trash in Trumps dumpster. Doing the press tour, Sasse still doing his stump speech about how horrid everything is but still doesn’t provide any suggestions or solutions.

  5. Sparkles says:

    Scott Lautenbaugh.. I know you’re out there.

    I’m counting you to run up the score this fall on Pat Loontjer and her Dumbing Down the Good Life crowd.

    As you’re no doubt aware. according to a 2014 study, Nebraskans deposited $327 million dollars in Iowa casinos in 2013.
    Iowans have been rebuilding their infrastructure, funding their public pensions, educating their youth, feeding their hungry and providing assistance to their needy with Nebraskan’s money for nigh on a quarter century now!

    An inquiring mind might ponder – now why would Nebraskans do that?
    The answer to which of course is.. Jesus.

    • bynd says:

      Jesus = 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual up building.

      So you give government more money. And call that smart. And you harm the least able to afford it. It would seem that integrity and supporting gambling are mutually exclusive.

      First they came for business, and I didn’t speak out because I was not part of the business structure, then they came for the rich, and I did not speak out because I was not rich, then they came for the middle class, and I did not speak out, for I was not part of the middle class, and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

      “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that (their tax cuts) short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

      And who will determine how much is enough and what is for the common good? Fools.

      You want efficient giving for the less fortunate, up the return on charitable giving. They are more efficient than the government, they cost less than the government. There is already enough money in the system to pay all those on welfare and the Feds who lose their jobs, because no more welfare to administrate, $50,000. per year. So tell me Sparkles, why are you opposed to giving the needy $50,000.00 per year?

      • TexasAnnie says:

        Nonsensical idea bynd in that “charitable” giving equals giving to YOUR preferred charity. So it works out like govt. anyway. A much better solution is that everyone GIVE to the govt. at the same rate, no exceptions and no exclusions, with the govt. in turn dispensing equitably. That’s the Libertarian ideal. This is not ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal.’ By the way, why doesn’t YOUR church tithe to the govt?

      • bynd says:

        TA: First of all, the tithe is not a relevant term for today. 2 Cor. 9 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
        Although my church leaders teach the tithe, I go some where else during this sermon series. No church is perfect.
        Our church supports many things and institutions. Indeed they could care less about government and politics in the metro area. They stay out of it. There is no reason they should give the government squat.
        I’m not sure why you ask if any church tithes to the government. Why would they waste money in such an inefficient way that does believe in the same things they do? Why do you folks love the Constitution when it benefits you but not when you believe it doesn’t? How short sighted to demand churches pay taxes then they would become fully integrated into the political system and governance. And please, spare me they already are bs.

        I find it rather ironic, you who states the government is so dysfunctional when it comes to funding special needs wants to give the government more money so they can still ignore the special needs folks. Also, it seems you are in conflict that you believe the government can spend your money better than you can. Finally, 20% – 30% is lost when government takes your money and gives it to whom they please.

        Finally, have you not paid attention to what goes on today? Every malady and cause has it’s own charity. If the cause is good enough, then they will survive. Odd you think your fellow citizens don’t have the common sense on where to put their monetary support for those who need it. Even worse, you seem to believe the government can spend your money more wisely than you. How little you think of yourself.

        I do believe the above writer was right, you seem to need a D in front of your name.

      • Khan says:

        I’m all for a flat tax. But don’t pretend, TA, that you or anyone “gives” anything to the government. It takes. The idea that anyone should turn over their means to the government for “equitable dispensation” sounds as far from the libertarian ideal as one could imagine.

      • Anonymous says:

        bynd: I read nothing in the Constitution stating “charities” don’t have to pay taxes. Likewise, nothing in there stating corporations don’t have to pay either. Those are only laws and as such should be changed in my opinion. And you assume too much about my belief concerning the funding of special education. My gripe is, and has been (check my old posts on this topic) that the federal govt. passes laws requiring special education, sets out a funding schedule, AND THEN does not appropriate funding. And state govt., especially Nebraska in my observation, will not properly fund and administer special education unless forced to by federal oversight or a lawsuit. Do you realize, bynd, that EVERY State Constitution REQUIRES a system of public education? Yet I still have the proof in my file drawer that when Nelson was governor, for three years running, some of the most severely disabled wards of the state were unconstitutionally denied a public education altogether. And guess what, bynd, the churches and charities didn’t step in. They did run private schools, but not for severely disabled wards! I don’t think I will ever recover from that knowledge of the Nelson and unicameral collusion to cheat disabled children: It literally cost me my belief in America for a time.

        And when it comes to public schools, bynd, I DO BELIEVE that govt. can spend my tax dollars more efficiently than I! As you can imagine, this was a bone of contention between myself and anarchists identifying as “Libertarians” when I worked for and within the Libertarian Party. (Hell, I petitioned the party on the ballot in Nebraska three times!!!) Way back, when I joined the party, the platform had very specific language to the effect that CONSTITUTIONS must be adhered to, or, peacefully changed according to constitutional amending guidelines.

        Which brings me to your response Kahn. Since I left the party, I see that the Libertarian Platform has veered away from language requiring strict constitutional adherence. Yet if you will look at the platform adopted May 2016, you will learn that Libertarians DO NOT support the flat tax, but DO support taxes necessary to provide programs and services REQUIRED by the U.S. Constitution. (Section 2.4).

        I actually started reading Ayn Rand in philosophy classes many decades ago. And while she clearly did not support unfettered taxation, she did believe that any taxes necessary to finance government must be equitable. As you can read above, bynd took offense to the notion that churches should pay taxes. Yet churches are corporations which benefit from the same security, transportation and governance administration that you and I get, but which we have to pay for. I don’t give a damn whether they do “good works” BECAUSE as I pointed out above, they select whom they will serve and it’s probably not going to be severely disabled wards of the state.

        And finally, I DO GIVE my taxes to my governments, especially my local public school system. Literally! I could use my acreage to run goats for five years and then claim an agricultural assessment for another year and then convert to a wildlife assessment (only have to give ’em water and plant some food sources) and voila then reduce my acreage property taxes by about 90%! But I choose to support my schools instead.
        P.S. I also provide food and water for the wildlife that comes near my home, because I care…

      • Khan says:

        TA: You could have saved a lot of time and typing by simply stating that while you may have been a Libertarian, you’re not an actual libertarian. No need to go on quacking like a statist to prove the point.

        Exercising or not exercising the the rights you do have under the existing tax laws may give you warm fuzzies in your particular situation. Whatever. Hopefully you don’t have the opportunity to see if you feel the same way about your perceived benevolence to the government after an IRS audit.

      • Anonymous says:

        …and Khan you could have stated your opinion correctly by capitalizing your second use of the word libertarian. A perceived actual libertarian uses the capital ‘L” whereas those with libertarian ideals (who often register Independent) use the lower case ‘l.’ But never mind, as with my jump from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party (when Gingrich put out a contract on America), I now identify and register Independent because I learned, in turn, that when it comes to political motivation, party leaders usually can’t be trusted.

        When the “Trump delegates” abstain from voting on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention very soon, y’all will get a dose of the medicine I had to swallow!

      • TexasAnnie says:

        Street Sweeper:
        Why doesn’t the ‘Name’ line retain the name as it did before?
        I forget to check it.

    • HTH says:

      Tony, do you support Trump because he also believes blacks and Hispanics are more violent than whites, or do you hold that opinion all by yourself?


      • Fudge says:

        I support Trump because he’s going to build a big fuc*ing wall on the southern border, he’s going to ship illegal aliens out of this country, and he’s going to have the backs of the cops in this country who are trying to enforce the law. His presidency is going to be glorious.

      • The Grundle King says:

        What’s funny is that this ‘Fudge’ moron actually believes that Trump can, and will, do any of that.

    • Sparkles says:

      “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
      ― Mark Twain

  6. repenting lawyer says:

    Sweeper, Given that Fried and McConnell suggested ACA would survive if for no other reason than the taxing case, they are eminent conservatives, it is unfair accuse Roberts of making up his decision. Because of their comments I went back and reread the old Library of Congress commentary on the Constitution and the point seemed obvious to me as well. I mentioned in class well before the case was submitted that students might be surprised at what counted as a tax under the legislative power. You may not like his decision, but making up the grounds is unsupportable. The limitations on the Commerce Clause with which he agreed are much closer to made up, though they fit into the Constitution in Exile back to the early 30s position of a lot of Conservatives.

    • Anon says:

      RL, the lay person sees the law as, a tax- a law made up by John Roberts, and a handoff by Comey. Throw away the law books the law is fluid when politics or affluence is involved

    • Professor,

      This is a political blog, so let’s all talk like adults here.

      Can you, and Roberts, find some arcane legal excuse to not annul the law that was easily unconstitutional? Of course. It happens every day, and when they’re on the other side, they’re called dissents.

      In this case, the adults in the room look at the politics of the situation and realize that those calling the shots, at the end, knew the politics.

      Roberts knew that in the end ObamaCare was a political decision, and he decided that it should be left to the elected officials and those who elected them. If they don’t want ObamaCare, they can take care of it at the ballot-box, and not by some judicial fiat.

      The same with Hillary’s Server-Gate. There was no intent required for gross negligence –which is what Comey described. And if you REALLY wanted intent, the server itself is you intent to get around the laws.

      But in any case, Comey wasn’t going to let the FBI take the hit for deciding that Hillary couldn’t be the first woman President. So instead he found some arcane notion — or call it super-duper fact base, if that makes your legal mind feel better. In any case, he made the political decision to leave it to the voters to decide if what Hillary did was bad enough to not be President.

      Comey’s not a dope, and he made a political, not legal decision.
      And he’s willing to take the slings and arrows for it.

      -JK a/k/a SS

      • Oracle says:

        Lots of rationalization and bad fiction in your reply, SS. Nice theory, but appears that you also accept it as irrefutable fact.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Sweeper, nobody but a few r originalists like Barnet thought theACA was unconstitutional, the commerce clause decision was a particular shocker, and Roberts was party to that. It is part of what Judge Noonan called “the shrinking of the nation.” That shrinking was in part aimed at effecting commerce caselaw going back to an early Hughes opinion, his NLRB decision, and Wickard. To turn no duty to rescue into some kind of limit on Article I was silly. What Roberts said with regard to taxation is well supported by the cases as the summary of those cases shows
        While I like being a grown up but I take what the Justices write seriously and refrain from exercises in quaiFreudian jurisprudence. I do not find inflaming the ignorant on Con Law a healthy pursuit, and I accept the good faith of the back to the thirties types even though I disagree with them
        A prosecutor or investigated making a decision on the prudence of prosecution is always dealing with a mix question law and fact, but I do not see the political only decision you see. We all have are blinders, whose are at work here we probably can not resolve, and there is no Archimedean point.

      • Professor,
        I understand that you want to believe that all anyone looks at is the law.
        But that’s just not the case.
        And considering that none of the parts of the ObamaCare decision unanimous, I’d suggest that there were some wise minds who thought the law had serious problems.
        And Comey looked like a pretzel with the twisted logic he was trying to apply.

  7. Sparkles says:

    “It took me a long time, and a number of people talking to me through the years, to get a sense of this: If you are a normal, white American, the truth is you don’t understand being black in America and you instinctively under-estimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk,..
    ..”It is more dangerous to be black in America. It is more dangerous in that they are substantially more likely to end up in a situation where the police don’t respect you and you could easily get killed. And sometimes for whites it’s difficult to appreciate how real that is and how it’s an everyday danger.”
    Newt Gingrich – likely Trump VP pick (aka – soon to be failed Trump/Gingrich ticket)
    July, 8, 2016

    • HTH says:

      I have never had to call out such a blatantly racist assertion, so you’re my first, Tony! Congrats. I’ll spell it out for you, though, since I know concepts are difficult for your type: you (falsely) claimed that blacks and Hispanics commit most violent crime, which is why they are in jail more than whites. You support your (false) claim with a narrow set of statistics focusing solely on homicide (which, realize your reference was to jail populations as a whole, whereas your statistics concern a minutiae of even violent crimes, nevermind nonviolent drug offenses). Regardless of the veracity (which, again, there is none) of your claim, your belief must be based on one of two things: (1) you believe that blacks and Hispanics are subject to systemic pressures and difficulties that foster violence; or (2) you believe blacks and Hispanics have, inherently, a higher propensity for violence than whites.

      So which is it, Tony? Take your time.


      • Fudge says:

        When weighed against their share of the population in this country, Blacks and Hispanics do indeed commit a higher percentage of violent crimes than do Whites in America.

        Why? I’m sure there are myriad reasons and theories; none of which matter. Bottom line is – Law Enforcement in this country needs much more latitude in how they are able to root-out and engage the criminal element in this country (of ALL races)…i.e., the cops need to be given the “green-light” to go on the offensive in a major way.

      • HTH says:

        Fudge – I disagree. There are only two theories: internal or external. Those like Tony promulgate a belief that minorities have an intrinsic predisposition to violence, crime, whatever. That is racism, plain and simple. Others believe that minorities (like anyone) respond to external circumstances, which, in turn, leads to violence, crime, etc. It’s a simple case of incentives and circumstances – those with the latter view (the majority of Americans, Tony and you notwithstanding) believe (or should believe) that these external motivators/circumstances should be mitigated.

        Also, anyone who says LEOs need more latitude is either incredibly uneducated on the topic or supportive of a police state. Holy cow – I’m not sure you can give LEOs more latitude, unless you want to ignore the 4th Amendment.


  8. Tony says:

    “Nonwhites commit at least 90 percent of all violent crimes in America, and the least white cities are the most dangerous, an analysis of the latest Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) crime statistics has revealed.”
    “The FBI’s own current (November 2015) list of most wanted murder suspects in the US is a case in point. It contains 71 suspects—of which only six are white”.
    Go look it up yourself. If you have the courage to do so.

    • HTH says:

      So do you miss apartheid?

      I know you think Stormfront is a valid source, but I’m sorry to say it’s not. Check out the Bureau of Justice Statistics. They show that 60% of violent crimes are committed by whites.


      • Fudge says:

        You bring up apartheid? Why?

        For grins…since you brought it up, go do some research on the general well-being of the average South African citizen (of ALL races) from apartheid’s collapse until now (hint: life ain’t so good there now…for anyone).

      • HTH says:

        If you don’t see the connection between someone citing a phony statistic to support the assertion “whiter” cities are safer and justifications for apartheid, you’re even dumber than you seem.

        But then again, you do seem rather defensive of apartheid, so maybe I’m still giving you too much credit.


  9. Tony says:

    I bet you didn’t know that Hispanics are not a category in crime statistics. They are included with White.

    • HTH says:

      Stop pretending you care about the facts at all, Tony. You’ve already revealed yourself.

      The Bureau’s statistics blend Hispanics into both black and white categories. So wrong again. What’s your next theory?


      • Fudge says:

        So anyone who disagrees with your take on these issues by providing you with facts is automatically a racist in your book – right, HTH? Go fly a kite, dipsh*t.

      • HTH says:

        Lol. Witnesseth, Fudge/Tony attempts (barely) to refute allegations that his worldview is prejudice by making stereotypical assumptions based on a single demographical input (that I am a millennial). You can’t make this stuff up – too bad idiots get the same number of votes as the rest of us.


  10. bynd says:

    I have heard the “discussion” on racism so often it makes no difference anymore. Most are numb to it. Because? Because there is no answer. Whether or not racism is a fact, it is perceived by many. But I haven’t seen one answer from all the “experts” on this site.

    And no, I don’t have an answer nor do I believe there is one. Except for time. As we see, every subsequent generation is less discriminatory and more inclusive.

    Life sucks for some and not for others. And for some, some of the time and for others never. And there isn’t a man/woman smart enough to decide how to fix it. It sure as heck isn’t government. they have been trying for decades. And the result is?

  11. Keep the Money with Loserbaugh says:

    As I have noted before, if you have enough money you can buy signatures to put anything on the ballot.
    These attempts will fail just like the others, but Loserbaugh will get paid no matter which way the votes go.
    What a sad sack that will do anything for money.


  12. All-American says:

    There is only one ethical hyphen possible for a free US citizenry; i.e. “All-American”.

    Any other additional hyphens divide Americans into herds of animals for profitable political ranching.

    Every federally designated breed has its few who are curried for a blue ribbon, has its many who are turned out to open range by Fiscal Conservatives and put in feedlots by Social Liberals, and every breed has its few that run amok and cannibalize their own and have to be put down. But until we are all just Americans, unhyphenated by law, we can not only not have true equality and prosperity, but we don’t even have humanity.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Sasse’s motive is so transparent. If he says “dumpster fire” enough in the media he hopes it will catch on, go viral on social media and have many clever memes result. All of course would tie back to Ben Sasse so he can further his media exposure. At least we have one U.S. Senator who acts like an adult in Deb Fischer.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Do you see the pattern?

    An unhappy American Black or Muslim, who isn’t interested in voting for a better America, is drawn to violent groups like Black Panthers and Islamic State that call for the murder of whites, police, and innocent Americas, and so they murder. We hear that the Dallies shooter was “acting alone and was unaffiliated with any group”. Like Muslim American shooters, unaffiliated but not uninfluenced.

    These murderous unhappy people get constant encouragement from Obama and the Democrat Left.

    Obama and Liberal politicians hypocritically deem themselves freedom fighters against American supremacy, while they themselves are empowered to make America supreme.

    Since his first days in office, Obama has automatically blamed US authorities in every encounter with blacks or Muslims. Yet Obama is our top authority. He is the police. But he talks like the shooters.

    Obama autobiographically writes of the anti-American, anti-imperialism, Socialist Marxists who raised him to hate American exceptionalism. Obama seeks a chastised America that becomes “good” by sinking to its knees before a world it must not rise above. — There is no Trump-like American Exceptionalism to Obama and the disaffected killers Obama constantly encourages. They and Obama want America to suffer. Obama sees America as the bad guy.

    The Leftist Democrat “Blame America” crowd are the antitheses of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” crowd. And it really is that simple. And voters seem to understand that even if GOP leaders, who abet the Left’s cancerous political correctness, don’t.

    Killers and cranks arise naturally in any group. But we have a “First Black President” who has made race relations far worse. An Obama who spent six years of elementary school immersed in Islamic culture and religion, who has Islamists killing American innocents more than another other President. His policies, even for a socialist, are lumpy and wasteful. But it is his mindset that is most deadly. He encourages mass murder, perhaps without knowing it. No matter. He is one sick puppy.

  15. Anonymous says:

    If Trump picks a Democrat as his running mate, and GOP leaders object, will those same GOP leaders dig up Abraham Lincoln’s corpse and piss on it?

    Nothing going on in this 2016 Presidential election is new.

    -Washington was wealthier than Trump and made his money selling drugs (tobacco and whisky).
    -Jefferson had a lot of slaves and had sex with them, which courts find inherently nonconsensual.
    -Lincoln fired an able GOP Vice President and appointed a Democrat his running mate, who after the Civil War and Lincoln’s death caused the creation of anti-freedom Jim Crow.
    -Hamilton, a war hero and former Treasury Secretary, was murdered by a sitting US Vice President.
    -Jackson shot people to death while he was President for insulting him as a bigamist.
    -Grant was a roaring drunkard.
    -Ben Franklin after his bath would stand naked in front of his main street open window.

    And that’s just the examples inside your wallet. Look at Mt. Rushmore; no President was more drug profiteer than Washington, none more slave owner than Jefferson, none more disloyal to his party than Lincoln, and none crazier or more hated by the establishment than Teddy.

  16. Clinton Fatigue says:

    When Clinton was aboard Lynch’s plane they discussed what is the case against Hillary. Lynch informed him that there is the appearance of misconduct. Bill reminded her that it depended on the meaning of what is, is. Lynch told him that she would pass on what was an answer Comey was seeking

  17. Millennial voter says:

    If there is anything more intellectually lazy than SS’s last post of “Why hasn’t [Democrat X] said this specific thing I want them to say?” it’s attacking an intellectually lazy senator from your own state to support a guy running for president because he knows he’ll get a sweet cable network deal after he loses in a landslide.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.