• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral


About SteveWolfer

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Steve Wolfer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Michael, we've been friends for a long time and that makes this on-going argument about Trump uncomfortable. I'm going to follow Stephen Boydston's lead and exit till sometime after the election.
  2. Very true. There are some very bright people (twisted maybe) who sit around in the Hillary campaign gaming tactics... and progressives like to demonize and they are good at putting out bait, anticipating responses, then closing the trap. This is what they do. They have a goal, they marshal resources, they plan out moves, and they know that a theme, like a marketing campaign, needs lots of hits for it to become a meme, then a deep belief, than a viewing prism.
  3. So, if the father says something that is immature, it is okay for the candidate for president to say something immature? You say, "If I wanted to snark..." you then do snark and then you say you won't snark. What kind of argument is that. I'm not altruistic. If you disagree, and seriously think I made some point that arises out an altruism that you believe I harbor, then man-up and make an intelligible argument to that end. I don't mind condescending, which is what that seemed like (I don't like it) but I'd sure rather have arguments that can be addressed and not sneak attacks.
  4. If Johnson is courting anyone, for money or votes or to get into the debates, by advocating the appointment of a Supreme Court justice who is big government, then he has sold out - lost his integrity. Or he has eaten so many brownies that he mind doesn't make enough connections anymore to see where he is relative to where libertarian principles are. I still think that Neocons would only support him in hopes of throwing the election to the house, or to Hillary if they think she will fight the wars they favor. In the later case, that is but another sign that politics is now a train that h
  5. Michael, I didn't have you in mind. But I have to say that I see an emotional intensity in many Trump supporters that appears to drive their arguments. I see emotion first, then use of the reason to create some justifying rhetoric. They seem to almost never see anything negative about Trump. They are all on the Trump train as opposed to saying something like, "I wish Trump would do this, or not do that, but I'll vote for him anyway" - instead they appear to see every single thing he says in a favorable way, they have endless explanations for what they think Donald will actually do
  6. Judges around the country have been overturning state laws requiring voter ID. In Virginia, the governor, a long-time Hillary operative and former chair of the DNC has issued an executive order to let felons vote. Not enough time to get any of these reversed by the tattered remains of the Supreme Court (as if that would happen). The progressives are on an all out push to get undocumented aliens to vote, felons to vote, and even get some of the base to vote two or three times. They are targeting key swing states. All in all, I think we are living in that period of history where a great
  7. It is a subtle attack, better called a "deflection" with some negative overtones. People who insist on seeing some of his attacks as "questions" or, saying he was attacked first, are just showing that they no longer look at any given incident objectively, regardless of their decision of who to vote for. The fact that Islamic culture is totally screwed up is so NOT the subject, that this must be seen as a deflection. There are only two issues here. There son's death, and Trump's "sacrifice" and he could have hit them head on. No deflection needed. I'm all for attacking Islamic tradit
  8. Lots of Trump's "attacks" are indirect. Sort of a "just saying" or "reports are" type of attacks - National Enquirer stuff. For him, or at least his base, the unstated reference to that couple being Muslim is enough. It works as a deflection. He should have shown sympathy for them, ignored the guys attack on him, and turned it against Hillary. Their son was killed by terrorists and Obama and Hillary are the ones who have made the terrorism worse with their incompetence and failed policies. Hillary is politicizing this poor couple's grief. He will prevent this from happening in the
  9. After showing that Johnson is either NOT really a libertarian or will say anything, the author writes one of my favorite lines: "Is Hillary Clinton the only candidate running this year who’s actually a member of her own party?" Well, as a progressive, she is, but at her level of corruption I'd say she is party of her own. Maybe historians will look back and say that this is the year that political principles were totally abandoned and it was visible in the way that parties broke down and fractured. ---------------------- The article's author attempts to make sense of Johnson sa
  10. You don't think he wants to expand the boundaries or current Russia? Russia has lots of choices with Hillary - blackmail, bribe, or threaten force. I am a NeverHillary person. Still not a vote Trump person.
  11. Putin and his intentions are upsetting. He wants to reinstitute the USSR. I don't have any great answers to these problems. As long as there are people like Islamic fundamentalist with regional power and money, as long as an ex-KGB thug like Putin wasn't to make Russia into another USSR, there won't be any easy answers. If there was a thug in a neighborhood that kept mugging people and robbing them, they wouldn't be tolerated. If most of the governments of the world were mature and rational they wouldn't tolerate the Islamic Theocracies, North Korea, Putin, etc. And it isn't our governme
  12. I didn't say I was certain, I said, "I think the Koch brothers have integrity" - That's based upon watching an hour long interview with Charles Koch, reading their Wikipedia page, knowing where they put their political support money, and about some of their political campaigns - what evidence I do have says they have integrity. I have zero evidence to the contrary and I've already seen that the slur about supporting Hillary is phony. You've already participated in making a negative evaluation of them without evidence when you passed on that statement about them being globalists and cron
  13. It is a slur until there is some reasonable evidence that would make it a fact.