During "Meet the Press' interview James Comey dismisses report by House Intelligence Committee and suggests that Trump will lie under oath.

Courtesy of NBC News: 

Former FBI Director James Comey on Sunday dismissed the findings of a GOP report claiming there is no evidence President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians during the 2016 election. He added that, as a former prosecutor, he has “serious doubts” about Trump’s credibility as a potential witness. 

Comey called the recently released report by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee “a political document” during an interview on “Meet The Press.”

“That is not my understanding of what the facts were before I left the FBI and I think the most important piece of work is the one the special counsel's doing now,” Comey added.

Asked whether the committee has served a good investigative purpose overall, Comey said, “not that I can see.” 

The former FBI director also said politicization has “wrecked the committee, and it damaged relationships with the FISA Court, the intelligence communities. It's just a wreck.”

Yeah it's hard to argue with Comey on this.

The House Intelligence Committee with Devin Nunes in charge was NEVER going to find anything problematic about Trump's interactions with Russia.

Comey also weighed in on Trump's seeming inability to tell the truth:

“I have serious doubts about his credibility,” Comey said of Trump, adding that he worries about whether the president would be truthful under oath or not.

“Sometimes people who have serious credibility problems can tell the truth when they realize that the consequences of not telling the truth in an interview or in the grand jury would be dire,” Comey said. “But you'd have to go in with a healthy sense that he might lie to you.”

In other words Trump will almost certainly lie under oath, and that will essentially be his undoing.

Which is something that probably EVERYBODY knows, with the possible exception of Trump himself. 

Rand Paul laments fact that it is hard to get anything done on immigration with everybody calling Donald Trump a racist.

Sen. @RandPaul: "You can't have immigration compromise if everybody's out there calling the president a racist." #MTP pic.twitter.com/2VW99zjER3

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) January 14, 2018

Courtesy of Mediaite: 

Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press this morning, the Kentucky lawmaker told host Chuck Todd that some people in the media have gone “completely bonkers” with “ad hominem” attacks on the president over his widely condemned remarks. Paul added that he wanted to see immigration reform but felt it was difficult if folks continue to criticize Trump. 

“You can’t have immigration compromise if everybody’s out there calling the president a racist,” Paul exclaimed. “They’re actually destroying the setting — and he’s a little bit of it — they’re destroying the setting in which anything meaningful can happen.”

You know he could tell Trump to stop being such a goddamn racist, instead of bitching about people acknowledging that fact on Meet the Press.

Donald Trump is a racist, and everybody knows it.

Which is why if there is any real progress made on immigration it will be made in spite of Donald Trump, not with Donald Trump's help.

On "Meet the Press" author Michael Wolff says the 25th Amendment is talked about all of the time. Update!

Courtesy of NBC News: 

Concern in the White House about President Donald Trump’s fitness for office has become so great that members of the president’s administration routinely talk about a constitutional solution, the author of an explosive new book claimed in an exclusive interview on “Meet The Press.” 

Michael Wolff, the author of “Fire and Fury,” alleged Sunday that the 25th Amendment, which would allow the president’s cabinet to remove him from office, is a concept that is "alive every day in the White House." 

Wolff said White House staffers he talked to would say things like "we're not at a 25th Amendment level yet." Others, he said, called Trump's behaviors "a little 25th Amendment."

Like I said, this is becoming more and more viable every day.

And if they are talking about it in the White House with this kind of frequency, they know it as well.

Update: As if to prove he is unfit for office Trump tweeted this out just tonight.

 Now if you are trying to figure out what an "enormously consensual presidency" is you are not alone, so was everybody on Twitter.

Trump later removed it and replaced it with one that made a little more sense.

“His is turning out to be an enormously consequential presidency. So much so that, despite my own frustration over his missteps, there has never been a day when I wished Hillary Clinton were president. Not one. Indeed, as Trump’s accomplishments accumulate, the mere thought of...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2018

Because you know, quoting from articles by sycophantic reporters so that you can talk about yourself in the third person is SO MUCH saner. 

"Covfefe."

"Stable genius."

"Enormously consensual presidency."

It's like with every tweet Trump just makes a 25th Amendment solution all the more viable.

Donald Trump Jr. promotes silencers on guns in order to get more "little kids into the game."

So @DonaldJTrumpJr appears in this commercial praising silencers as wonderful and for kids then pushes the Silencer bill! How much💰💰 Junior? pic.twitter.com/liofkmQ2mx

— Olga_Lautman NYC ✨ (@olgaNYC1211) October 3, 2017

This of course happened before this most recent mass shooting, but still....it happened.

Of course what could we actually expect from this guy?

You can read more about this over at the Washington Post.

On Meet the Press author makes case that without white supremacy there would be no President Trump.

Courtesy of Media Matters: 

CHUCK TODD (HOST): This is what you wrote about in the election, you were not subtle in pointing the blame directly at systemic racism and bigotry. And this is what you write: "The implications that systemic bigotry is still central to our politics, that the country is susceptible to such bigotry, that the salt of the earth Americans whom we lionize in our culture and politics are not so different than those same Americans who grin back in lynching photos are just too dark. Instead, the response has been an argument aimed at emotion, the summoning of the white working class, emblem of America’s hardscrabble roots, inheritor of it's pioneer spirit as a shield against the horrific and empirical evidence of trenchant bigotry." You've said even tougher words about this president. 

TA-NEHISI COATES: I have, yeah. 

TODD: You don't think he'd be here without white supremacy. 

COATES: No, no, I don’t. 

TODD: Explain that. 

COATES: Well, I think it's pretty easy. I mean, you have a political candidate who literally begins his presence or his campaign in birtherism. That was how it started. I don't think birtherism was a mistake and it wasn't a minority-held opinion – it wasn’t a small minority held opinion within the Republican Party. You had eight years of an African-American president, and if not majority to at least plurality of the Republican Party believed that Barack Obama was not legitimate because he was not born here. And Donald Trump saw that, played on that, and that was how he launched his campaign. I just don't think that was a mistake. And he's continued with that all the way through. You have a president who had no problem going on TV saying, "Someone can't judge me, a federal judge can’t judge my case because he's a Mexican," it doesn't get much more explicit than that. TODD: Solely a reaction to the election of Barack Obama? 

COATES: Yes. 

TODD: Do we have -- do we get Donald Trump without Barack Obama as president? 

COATES: I don't think so. I don't think without that reaction. That doesn't mean there weren't other factors contributing to a Trump presidency ultimately. I would argue that white supremacy is an indispensable factor. Which does not mean there weren't other factors that were there too. But I think if you take that on, no, no. I don’t think it’s a mistake we've never had a president who’s never held political office or never been an independent -- had a military posting or anything at all. No experience with the within the public sphere at all. To just hand it off like that. I think Trump is different. He's not Marco Rubio, he's not Mitt Romney, this is a very, very different thing. And I think 50 years from now, historians are going to ask themselves how this actually happened and I think the answer is going to be the reaction to Barack Obama's presidency.

This is one of those cases of hearing something, and even if you had not already been thinking it, you automatically know it is correct. 

The election of Donald Trump was ABSOLUTELY a racist reaction to President Obama.

There is no doubt about it.

And not only that but Trump KNEW that was where he was going to find his support.

That is why he keeps throwing out red meat to the racists.

Who else can be counted on to respond favorably to calling Mexicans drug dealers, restricting access to America from Muslim countries, defending neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, and suggesting that Puerto Ricans are lazy?

No, Coates is right.

Donald Trump is the president the white supremacists feel they deserve, and they hope that his presidency will wipe away the blemish that they feel the Obama presidency left on "their" country.

On Meet the Press Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all but reveals himself to be a Russian operative.

Okay take a look at this from the MTP transcripts: 

CHUCK TODD: 

Can you get on a better footing with them if you don't address this issue of the Russian interference? I mean your counterpart, the Russian foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov, said that you guys didn't even talk about this issue of Russian interference in our election because, as he put it, President Trump himself says it's fake news, so it's not an issue. Why haven't you brought it up with them? 

SECRETARY REX TILLERSON: 

Well, Chuck, I think we have such a broad range of important issues that have to be addressed in the U.S.-Russia relationship. Obviously the interference in the election is one of those. I think it's been well documented, it's pretty well understood, the nature of that interference, here and elsewhere. And you know, these are not new tactics on the part of the Russian government, directed not only at us but at others. But again, I think we have to look at this relationship in its broadest contours, and there are many, many important areas which require our attention if we are to bring it back to a relationship that we believe is necessary for the security of the U.S. 

CHUCK TODD: Mr. Secretary, though. This is fundamental. They interfered with our democracy. I just don't understand how this is not a top issue for you to deal with with them in order to, essentially, start with a clean slate. Can't start with a clean slate until maybe they either own up to what they did, or we punish them in a way that they're not going to do this again. 

SECRETARY REX TILLERSON: Well, Chuck, I think it's important to understand we're not trying to start with a clean slate. I think terms like having a reset are overused. You cannot reset. You cannot erase the past. You cannot start with a clean slate. And we're not trying to start with a clean slate. 

We're starting with the slate we have. And all the problems that are on that slate. We don't dismiss any of them. We don't give anyone a free pass on any of them. They're part of the entire nature of the discussion we're having with the Russians. And yes, there are a large number of issues that we have to get around to addressing in order to put this relationship back together, if that is indeed possible. 

CHUCK TODD: During your confirmation hearings you made clear you didn't have-- obviously you hadn't been briefed on the intelligence reports, the 17 different agencies that came to the conclusions that the Russians did make an effort to interfere in this election. Obviously there's an investigation going along to see if there was any collusion in this interference. Since you've become Secretary of State in February, have you been briefed? Have you seen this intelligence now? Is it clear in your mind that it is a fact the Russians interfered in our elections? 

SECRETARY REX TILLERSON: I have seen the intelligence reports, Chuck, and yes, I don't think there's any question that the Russians were playing around in our electoral processes. Again, as those intelligence reports also have indicated, it's inconclusive as to what, if any, effect it had. 

CHUCK TODD: I understand about the impact, but the fact that they got into it, what should the repercussions be now, in your mind? 

SECRETARY REX TILLERSON: Well, they're just part of that broader landscape of conversations, Chuck. And I think, you know, the real impact is it serves yet again to undermine the trust between the United States and Russia. And as I have said, and the president has said, you know, we're just at a very, very low level of trust between our two countries right now. And so what we're exploring is how do we begin the process of restoring that trust. And ultimately it will touch on all of these issues.

Yes, that "low level of trust" is directly related to the Russians hacking our election, and restoring that trust means that THEY do something to make amends and promise to stop screwing with out democracy.

Until that happens all America should be doing is thinking up ways to make Russia pay for their meddling, with sanctions and refusals to allow drilling in the Arctic. 

Time and time again Chuck Todd gives Tillerson the opportunity to condemn Russia for interfering in our election process, and to identify some consequences that we are prepared to use to punish Russia for that interference.

And EVERY SINGLE TIME Tillerson minimizes the impact that the Russian hacking had on our election, and on elections around the world, and continues to suggest that we should work to repair our relationship with them.

I swear a Kremlin spokesperson could not have done a better job of defending Russia.

I watched this with my mouth hanging open.

Tillerson did not even TRY to portray himself as anything other than Putin's poodle.

Chuck Todd points out that right after the press reports on ties with Russia, Donald Trump increases his attacks on the media. Things that make you go, "Hmmm."

Courtesy of Mediaite: 

“One issue that doesn’t seem to hurt the president right now, at least in the eyes of his supporters, are the reported ties he and his aides may or may not have with Russia,” Todd said. 

He continued, “And whenever stories break on that subject, press bashing — which is always part of the president’s arsenal — seems to escalate.” 

Todd then played a prepared clip detailing numerous instances where Trump went on the attack against the media directly after mainstream press reports related to potential Russian ties. The MTP host pointed to tweets, news conferences, and speeches that were devoted almost entirely to media attacks following damning Trump-Russia stories.

You know subconsciously I think I noticed this, but having it laid out like this is very enlightening.

Clearly Trump is terrified of where this reporting will lead and is desperate to undermine the credibility of the press before it blows his presidency out of the water.

In his very first press briefing Trump press secretary, Sean "Baghdad Bob" Spicer, lies about inaugural crowd size and attacks the press.

H-o-l-y shit!

Courtesy of TPM: 

5:39 PM: After a delay of about an hour we appear to be moments away from what is expected to be a White House statement on the crowd size issue. 

5:40 PM: Spicer complaining about MLK bust and giving various excuses why the inaugural crowd was much bigger than anyone said. 

5:41 PM: Spicer claims crowd was the largest crowd ever to witness a presidential inauguration. 

5:43 PM: Spicer is basically in primal scream mode now. 

5:46 PM: Verbatim quote: "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration. Period. Both in person and around the globe."

This lunatic literally used his very first interaction with reporters as the official press secretary to scream lies at them.

This was NOT the first time those floor coverings had been used, they were also used during Obama's 2013 inauguration.

There were NO magnetometers used.

And there were more metro rides during Obama's inauguration in 2013, than on the day of Trump's. (Also don't forget that a number of those rides on the 20th were actually protesters.) (Source.)

So THIS is how the Trump administration begins.

By the way Kellyanne Conway had this exchange with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press today:

"Alternative facts are not facts. They are falsehoods," Chuck Todd tells Pres. Trump's counselor Kellyanne Conway this morning. WATCH: pic.twitter.com/Ao005dQ13r

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) January 22, 2017

Damn, this is going to be a long four years!

Top Democrat on Senate Intelligence Committee believes that yes Russia altered the outcome of this election.

Courtesy of NBC News: 

A top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee said she believes Russia tried to interfere in the election and that their activity ultimately altered the outcome. 

"The answer is yes on both cases," California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said when asked on NBC's "Meet the Press." 

"I've had all of the major classified briefings. I have been astonished at what has been a two-year effort [at] Russia to spearfish, to hack, to provide disinformation, propaganda wherever it really could. And I think this has been a very sophisticated effort," Feinstein added.

Feinstein has seen the classified information about these hacks provided by the intelligence agencies so she is speaking with great knowledge about this topic.

I no longer think that anybody can definitively say that without these hacks Donald Trump would still have been elected.

And once you throw in Comey's letter that removes the last vestiges of doubt.

Sure Donald Trump WILL be sworn in as president this week.

But the fact is that the majority of Americans will never see him as legitimate and will always wonder who he is representing. Himself, the American people, or the Kremlin?

New Trump team strategy, hacks happen every election period and this one did not change the outcome.

Damn do I dislike this woman!

Courtesy of The Hill: 

Instead of focusing on the crux of the report — that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a multifaceted campaign aimed at helping Trump take the White House — members of the president-elect's team emphasized Russia's failure to actually disrupt the country's democracy and influence election results. 

Incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said Sunday he thinks Trump accepts the findings of the intelligence community. 

"He is not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular hacking campaign," Priebus told "Fox News Sunday." 

But, he alleged, that's not new. 

"It happens every election period," he said.

Okay that is simply not true.

But even if it were true it would not matter unless the people doing the hacking released that information out into the new media in order to benefit the candidate they wanted to win.

Here is more of Kellyanne's spin on this topic: 

She said foreign entities hacking the U.S. is not new and sought to pivot from discussing election meddling, alleging that under President Obama there have been hacks of the Department of Defense and Department of State. 

"Very concerning," she said of such cyber attacks on NBC's "Meet The Press," noting there was " very little punishment." Americans should know the country is "woefully unprepared for cybersecurity in the 21st century," she added. 

At the same time, she maintained that Russia's attempt to meddle in the presidential race had failed. 

"They did not succeed. They did not succeed to embarrassing this country on the world stage," she said. 

"They did not succeed in throwing the election to Donald Trump. That's very clear in this report."

As I have mentioned before that last part is not even mentioned in the report.

So to sum up the Trump team's talking points are, there is nothing new about this, it did not change the outcome of the election, and the news media is blowing this all out of proportion.

It may be a little challenging, but remember THESE are the REPUBLICANS, talking about RUSSIA.

Russia was the GOP's go to bogeyman for decades.

But now that they have actually undermined our democratic process we get, "Move on, nothing to see here."

And they are not alone, Trump voters seem to be in total agreement: 

“Sour grapes,” explained Bob Marino, 79, weighing in on the recent spycraft bombshell from the corner table of a local McDonald’s. 

“Sour grapes,” agreed Roger Noel, 65, sitting next to him. 

“Bunch of crybabies,” Reed Guidry, 64, offered from across the table. 

But Mr. Gubert came to a different conclusion. 

“If that’s what it took,” he said, “I’m glad they did it.”

And that is how America was taken over by a hostile foreign government boys and girls.

NOT after a long and destructive world war, but with a few simply hacks, a compliant media, and a complacent electorate. 

On Meet the Press Chuck Todd wonders out loud if he just conducted the Bernie Sanders exit interview.

Wait, poor people don't vote? And why does Sanders automatically assume that if there were more poor people voting that they would vote for him?

But it was that last bit that really interests me.

Here it is courtesy of the Meet the Press transcript:

CHUCK TODD: Let me wrap up the question this way. Do you feel as if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and you're not, but Donald Trump is the opponent, do you have a responsibility to do what it takes to get your voters to support Hillary Clinton? 

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I will do everything that I can to make certain that Donald Trump is not elected president. But if that scenario plays out, the major responsibility will be on Secretary Clinton to convince all people, not just my supporters, that she is the kind of president this country needs to represent working people in this country, to take on the big money interests who have so much power, to fight for what the American people want. 

CHUCK TODD: Your supporters are, for the most part, very skeptical of Hillary Clinton. Very, very skeptical. Tougher on her, frankly, than you ever are. You know, people talk about all this back and forth. What do you think she-- what's your advice to her on winning your voters over? 

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I think she's going to have to be very explicit about supporting a program, which stands up for the needs of the middle class and working families, which, most importantly, makes it clear that she is prepared to take on Wall Street in a very clear way, take on the billionaire class, come up with a program that makes health care for all in this country a right within the next several years. I think those are some of the issues she's going to have to bring forth. 

(END TAPE) 

CHUCK TODD: So did we just hear, intentionally or not, the Bernie Sanders exit interview? We'll get to that later in the show.

I do not like the fact that Sanders lays out a laundry list of items that he suggests that Hillary MUST do in order to win over his supporters. I would think that for real progressives simply stopping Donald Trump would be more than enough.

I am also not convinced that this will be Sanders' last interview on MTP or that he is preparing to close up shop anytime soon.

Personally I think he should but obviously the Sanders' campaign is not soliciting my advice.

(H/T to Raw Story.)

Damn Sarah Palin is simply not going to let this Bill Nye thing go!

Palin's Facebook post links to a Salon article written on February 14th, 2014 about a then upcoming debate between Nye and the climate science denying Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn on Meet the Press.

The point of the article was that MTP was being lazy in not getting an ACTUAL climate scientist to come on debate Blackburn who is, insanely enough, the Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

However if Palin had bothered to read the article more carefully she might have noticed this portion:  

But Bill Nye is not actually a climate scientist. He is a former mechanical engineer turned television entertainer, and now professional edu-tainer. He’s clearly well-informed on the subject of climate science, and he has done quite a lot to popularize and explain the research. Against very well-funded opponents, he has long been a prominent voice for scientific literacy. I have no doubt that Bill Nye could out-debate Marsha Blackburn — or indeed pretty much any Republican elected official — on the subject of humanity’s responsibility for climate change and its probably catastrophic effects. What’s insulting (and insane) is that there is to be a “debate” at all, on one of America’s supposed premier news talk shows. 

What’s scary is that the side of this debate that is wrong, and that is wrong in a way that will very probably lead to worldwide disaster in a few generations, is taken seriously because it is the side taken by one of America’s two dominant political parties.

In other words Salon in no way is suggesting that Nye is ill equipped to debate Blackburn on this topic, but rather lamenting the fact that news programs such as Meet the Press are still acting as if there is a debate left to have on the subject.

However those are simply facts and in the world occupied by the likes of Marsha Blackburn and Sarah Palin, facts are not allowed.

Here is George Clooney's MTP interview in its entirety.

This is important to share because since fairly early yesterday the only part of this interview that has been showing up repeatedly on the internet is this part: 

CHUCK TODD: 

Let me start with dinner you co-hosted on Friday night, a big fundraiser. I know that you have plans for later tonight. Do you look at how much is being raised and, I think the cost of the friday night dinner $353,000 a couple to be a co-chair, do you look at it yourself and think, "That's an obscene amount of money?" 

GEORGE CLOONEY: 

Yes. I think it's an obscene amount of money. I think that, you know, we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco and they're right to protest. They're absolutely right. It is an obscene amount of money. The Sanders campaign when they talk about it is absolutely right. It's ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics. I agree completely.

That is the portion which has been pushed hard by the pro-Sanders people.

However as you watch Clooney's entire answer, and he is quite eloquent in his response, you learn that while he admits it is an obscene amount of money it is also a necessary amount of money as much of it is going to the Democratic party to support down ballot races.

Chuck Todd finally acts like a newsman and calls Donald Trump out over his claims of seeing Muslims celebrating 9-11.

Courtesy of the New York Post:  

On “Meet the Press” Trump again insisted he saw celebrations in New Jersey following the terrorist attacks– despite no video coverage backing up that claim and police denying it happened. 

“I saw it. So many people saw it, Chuck. So why would I take it back, I’m not going to take it back,” Trump said. 

Todd pounced: “Just because somebody repeats something doesn’t make it true. And I guess, that’s actually, that’s the worst — ” Todd said shaking his head with a look of disgust. 

Trump cut in to say people were saying in Sarasota, Florida over the weekend they were in New Jersey at the time also saw Arabs cheering the deadly terrorists attacks. 

“People were saying,” Todd chimed in. “Mr. Trump, if I said, “Well people have said, Mr. Trump is not worth $10 billion and people were saying …’ you would say that was crazy. You wouldn’t make a business deal based on retweets and based on hearsay. You’re running for president of the United States. Your words matter. Truthfulness matters. Fact-based stuff matters, no?” 

“Take it easy. Chuck, just play cool.” Trump retorted. 

“I have a very good memory, Chuck.,” Trump added. “… I saw it somewhere on television many years ago and I never forgot it.”

Well good for Chuck Todd for holding Trump's feet to the fire over this BS claim. 

And fuck Trump for continuing to report this lie which can only cause more divisiveness and animosity towards American Muslims.

Asked to come up with one thing he can accomplish in the next six months Paul Ryan pulls a blank.

Courtesy of Think Progress: 

Appearing on Meet The Press, newly elected House Speaker Paul Ryan was directly asked by host Chuck Todd to name one thing he could accomplish in the first six months that “the country will be impressed with.” 

Ryan did not answer. 

Instead, Ryan went through a litany of Republican talking points. “Working families are falling behind, the economy is stale… our foreign policy is a disaster,” Ryan said.

Of course Ryan cannot answer this question, because the answer is that they will accomplish absolutely nothing.  Changing the Speaker, changes nothing about the dysfunction of the Congress.

The only way the Republicans can get anything accomplished, while they are in the middle of such all consuming internal strife, is by winning the White House.

And if they do that, then we are all well and truly fucked.

Ben Carson does not believe that women should have ultimate control over their bodies, wants to overturn Roe vs Wade.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

“The mother should not believe that the baby is her enemy and should not be looking to terminate the baby,” Carson opined to NBC host Chuck Todd. “We’ve allowed purveyors of division to think that baby is their enemy and they have a right to kill it. Can you see how perverted that line of thinking is?” 

When it came to the rights of women, Carson insisted that they should not have the legal choice to terminate unwanted pregnancies. 

“Think about this. During slavery — and I know that one of those words you’re not supposed to say — but I’m saying it,” Carson said. “During slavery, a lot of the slave owners thought they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave, anything that they chose to do. And what if the abolitionists had said, ‘You know, I don’t believe in slavery, I think it’s wrong. But you guys do whatever you want to do.’ Where would we be?” (So a fetus is a slave? I don't get this analogy at all.)

“Ultimately, I would love to see [Roe v. Wade] overturned,” the candidate insisted. “I’m a reasonable person,” Carson remarked. “And if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, [I’ll listen].”

Among the reasonable explanations for terminating an unwanted pregnancy that Carson felt were not "reasonable" included rape or incest.

Carson did concede that in the case of preserving the life of the mother, which he claimed was a very rare circumstance, there is "room to discuss that."

I watched this when it aired on Meet the Press today and I have to say that I got an incredibly creepy vibe from Carson. And instead of his soft spoken manner putting me at ease, it kind of reminded of Christoph Waltz playing the Nazi Colonel in the Quentin Tarantino movie "Inglorious Basterds."

And nothing about that character puts one at ease.

Remember, currently Ben Carson is either ahead of or right behind Donald Trump in the polls.

And here you thought the scariest thing about this October was the ghosts and ghouls associated with Halloween.

Donald Trump claims to have a conceal carry permit in New York. Calls mass shooters "geniuses."

Look at that buffoon talking about how tough he would be with a gun. (By the way he claims to have said "Oh they're going to be shocked" and not "shot" in that clip.)

And the problem is that millions of people are hearing this cowboy language, and many of those are in complete agreement with his John Wayne attitude about gun ownership.

Somebody needs to let The Donald know that life is not a Charles Bronson movie.

If you pull a gun on people on the subway chances are you are going to jail.

However Trump was not finished saying ignorant things about guns.

In an an interview on Meet the Press this morning Trump actually said this:

In a rare sit-down interview, for broadcast on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Trump told Chuck Todd: “I have to say, no matter what you do, you’re gonna have problems. 

“Because you have sick people. They happen to be intelligent. And, you know, they can be sick as hell and they’re geniuses in a certain way. They are going to be able to break the system.”

Murderers who gun down groups of people are NOT geniuses. Not even in a "certain way."

They are also not able to "break the system." They are simply taking advantage of an already broken system in order to make share their pain with others, kill those they think are inferior, or, perhaps worst of all, simply make themselves famous,

And yes you actually can do something about gun violence, it has been done in other countries, but not while you are too scared of the NRA and 2nd Amendment Ammosexuals to dig your heels in and take a stand.

You know the kind of stand that is not considered politically. Especially by Republicans.  

Every day Donald Trump gives more than enough reasons for people to disregard his campaign as a viable alternative to the other Republican candidates and ignore what is clearly a pathetic ego driven cry for attention.

But sadly that is not yet happening, and instead he continues to sit at the very top of the Republican polls. Something which should also make every American disregard the GOP as viable political party in general.

Ben Carson, who is now polling second for the GOP nomination, comes out against the idea of a Muslim ever being President of the United States.

Courtesy of Yahoo News:  

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson says Islam is antithetical to the Constitution, and he doesn't believe that a Muslim should be elected president. 

Carson, a devout Christian, says a president's faith should matter to voters if it runs counter to the values and principles of America. 

Responding to a question during an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," he described the Islamic faith as inconsistent with the Constitution. 

"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation," Carson said. "I absolutely would not agree with that."

Perhaps somebody should direct Carson's attention to the following:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The President, like all elected officials in this country, are bound to honor and uphold the Constitution, not the Holy Bible. 

It should not matter one little bit whether the President is a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or even an Atheist.

And the fact that it does to Ben Carson, to such an incredible degree, should indicate his lack of fitness to ever be elected to public office in this country.

Presidential candidate, and neurosurgeon, Ben Carson does not know if the Bible has authority over the Constitution.

If you're convoluted response to this question is that you have to know which passage of the bible is addressing which specific portion of the Constitution then your answer is "Yes the Bible has authority over the Constitution."

Which translates to the American people as "No I should not be running for President of the United States."

Rick Santorum agrees with Mike Huckabee that the Supreme Court is not the boss of him.

Rick Santorum and his family, the LAST time he lost the GOP nomination.

As many of you no doubt remember recently Mike Huckabee claimed that the President did not have to do what the Supreme Court told him to do.

Well today on MTP Chuck Todd asked for Santorum's response to the idea that the President did not have to do what the Supreme Court mandated on gay marriage:

“I think it’s important to understand that the supreme court doesn’t have the final word. It has its word. Its word has validity. But it’s important for Congress and the president, frankly, to push back when the supreme court gets it wrong.”

Now of course this only seems to pertain to gay marriage, as Santorum has no  problem with the incredibly damaging Citizens United ruling or striking down the Voting Rights Act.

Nah Santorum is really only concerned about gay people getting the right to marry like everybody else.

Now while Santorum  did not go quite as far as Huckabee in calling for civil unrest, he did suggest that there was a blueprint for action if the Supreme Court dared to defy the will of the religious conservatives:

“Of course I’d fight it. Roe vs Wade was decided 30-something years ago [in fact 1973, 42 years ago] and I continue to fight it because the court got it wrong. 

“And I think if the court decides this case in error I will continue to fight, as I have on the issue of life. That’s the role of a citizenry. We’re not bound by what nine people say in perpetuity.”

So according to Santorum if SCOTUS decides to rule in favor of allowing marriage equality, which of course most of the country agrees with completely, then that just means that the conservatives will spend the next 30 or 40 years chipping away at it. Just like they have Roe vs Wade.

Motherfu.......

You know I actually think that Rick Santorum gives a "frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter" a bad name..