Holocaust Memorial suspect held after bail on unrelated case is revoked; city has spare panel for replacement

McConnell et al. unequivocally stated that their primary goal was to make Obama a lame duck President through out his two terms. Obama nevertheless had a job to do. He did the job with the only tools available.

Bush Jr. meanwhile ruled via signing statements. What laws passed were irrelevant. He simply applied signing statements so that he could interpret the law however he saw fit (which is not the job of the President).

Rationalization Trump's failure as a man and President sounds like a white knuckle admission that Trump, as a human being and President, is a disaster and catastrophe. Instead of admitting what anyone who did not vote for him saw as clear as a cloudless Spring day your argument has to create false comparisons to Obama's terms.

It is embarrassing and psychically painful when people will go to extremes of alternative facts and out right lies to deny that they allowed themselves to be played. Admitting one was wrong - even when white knuckling it - is the first step.

NEW YORK (AP) — Over and over again, Donald Trump says he opposed the Iraq War before it started. But no matter how many times the Republican candidate for president says it, the facts are clear: He did not.

The guy lies about everything, all the time. He always has. If you didn't know that when you voted for him, you weren't paying attention.

I come from the generation that recognized the immorality of Vietnam. That war was supported by both parties until both parties lost support for continuing the occupation and attempt to conquer North Vietnam. So to me a person's claim to support or oppose a conflict is not something that carries a lot of weight. I believe that most intelligent people realized that Iraq was a gross mistake but that the blood lust released by 9/11 made standing against it nearly impossible. So my perception is that opposition or support from a politician for war - especially a war that is happening elsewhere - is a matter of expedience. Congress and the citizenry were more that willing to allow Nazi Germany to conquer Europe. If the U.S. had joined with Britain to defeat Germany then the horror of WW II would not have happened.

Trumps's supposed opposition to Iraq is to me a minor point when considering everything that he presented as a candidate. He rationalized the audio where he stated that women would throw themselves at him and he could grab their genitals whenever he wanted to. Instead of acknowledging that this was a statement of immaturity he actually brushed it off.

What of his economic plan for dealing with an economy that was growing? Instead of acknowledging that the economy was healing from the worst depression since the Great Depression he pretended that nothing had happened.

Add that he spent 7 years promulgating a lie about Obama's citizenship and then suddenly changed him mind?

I can not see how the one issue of Trump's supposed opposition to Iraq is sufficient to outweigh the negatives.

The side issues of dividing on every story is not relevant to reasons for voting for Trump. "Aggravated violence in comment form" isn't relevant either. However it needs to be stated that the most violent form of media since the 80s has come from Rush Limbaugh and his cohorts.

As for easy recourse to violence in politics and overseas that is a question that assumes a great deal. How is violence in politics defined? We don't have the Weimar parties of Germany engaging in violence to beat down their opposition. There is no S.A. that is using thug tactics to eliminate opposition parties. Most overseas governmental activity is diplomatic not violent. However if we include the violence that is more than just the violence of the army, but include the overthrow of governments that U.S. has objected to over the past 100 years, then that balance of diplomacy versus violence as a tool of government changes considerably.

So I stil wonder why anyone, after examining the full picture that Trump presented, voted for him. Obviously he fooled over 60 million voters. I imagine several of his votes were actually anti-Clinton votes. Kenneth Starr and his cohorts turned the Clinton name into a dirty word. It is ironic that the man who made sex in the White House dirty thing (as opposed to the grossness of Trump) would be guilty of hiding sexual violence. That Clinton was a woman I am sure also prompted many votes. Better a man who grabs women's genitals instead instead of a women (quite the irony compared to Bill Clinton).

But then Catullus understood that where wisdom is concerned, it is always lacking. As he wrote, "Oh, this age! How tasteless and ill-bred it is!"