What’s on the obverse side of this editorial coin?

Clinton testifies about Benghazi.

You can always count on the Sun to bash Republicans for being, well, Republicans.

In today’s rare locally produced editorial the Sun attempts to chastise five Nevada Republican congressional candidates for failing to repudiate their party’s presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

The editorial says it is startling “that there are still Republicans running for office, including those seeking election to the U.S. Senate and House from Nevada, who still stand by Trump.” It then calls them out by name: Joe Heck, running for the retiring Sen. Harry Reid’s seat; Danny Tarkanian, seeking Heck’s congressional seat; Cresent Hardy and Mark Amodei, seeking re-election; and Mary Perry, opposing incumbent Dina Titus.

Here is the gist of the piece:

There’s no other way to read this: They think the White House is an appropriate destination for a narcissistic, belligerent bully who threatens violence if he doesn’t get his way, insults women, mocks the disabled, disparages minorities, refuses to release his tax returns because he’s hiding something, encourages Russians to engage in cyber-espionage against the United States, brags that an economic plan will help the middle class when it actually will raise their taxes and further enrich the wealthy including himself, lies when boasting that his companies have offered employee child care, suggests the U.S. default on its debt and hang our creditors out to dry — much like how he ran his companies into bankruptcy — admires Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saddam Hussein for their leadership, proposed that U.S. citizens accused of terrorism be tried before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, which is illegal, and seriously and repeatedly claimed preposterously that President Barack Obama founded ISIS.

That these five Nevada candidates for Capitol Hill — Heck, Tarkanian, Hardy, Amodei and Perry — say Trump should be our president and represent the United States to the world is unfathomable and deplorable.

On the obverse side of the coin, one might ask how Reid and Catherine Cortez Masto, who is seeking his Senate seat, and Titus could support a woman for president who lies about her lies, attacks the women abused by her husband, hides White House files, lies to the faces of the parents of those killed in Benghazi, deletes email files that are supposed to be public records, steals White House furniture, makes $100,000 on a $1,000 cattle futures investment, uses the Secretary of State office to enrich her family Foundation, charges a quarter of a million dollars for speeches, supports income redistribution, promises continued economic malaise, lands under sniper fire in Bosnia and spends decades in the public spotlight without having a single accomplishment to show for it.

The Sun editorial concludes with this thundering thumping of the five pitiful, pusillanimous and pathetic Nevada politicians who deign to not denounce their party’s candidate: “To raise Trump on their shoulders betrays their willingness to dishonor the presidency and reveals that they share values that define Trump as a political, social and moral misfit.”

As for the Democrats backing Clinton, do they share values that define her and them — as her accomplices — as politically, socially, morally, economically and criminally unfit for any office of public trust? Unfathomable and deplorable?



22 comments on “What’s on the obverse side of this editorial coin?

  1. Barbara says:

    Yes, both candidates are unfathomable and deplorable. In fact that phrase is beginning to describe too many politicians in both parties.

  2. Winston Smith says:

    Partisan bullshit is so very tiresome…

  3. Steve says:

    Imagine a debate with Gary Johnson at the third podium.

    Two candidates childishly calling each other names and one balanced, thoughtful and experienced at handling people just like those two.

    It might just happen.


  4. Steve says:

    They are finally being included in the questions. Takes a bit of time to get there.

  5. Steve says:

    Had to double check. CPD uses 5 national polls as their criteria. They select those polls near Labor Day and announce their decisions prior to Labor day.
    They don’t go by an average of all polls, they average the results of the selected polls.
    Then they send the invites.
    CPD has told all venues to be ready for three places on the stage.

  6. Winston Smith says:

    Hopefully Johnson would explain these five simple facts to the other candidates:

    1. All humans have natural rights that cannot be legitimately abrogated by government without due process.
    2. All legitimate government power originates from explicitly delegated individual powers.
    3. Those individual powers may be withdrawn if abused by government.
    4. The Founders created a Constitutional Republic, and all legitimate federal powers must be explicitly delegated by the states through the amendment process.
    5. Government is created only to protect our natural rights.

    Those five things, understood by all Americans before 1860, should be at the top of any political discussion/debate.

  7. Patrick says:

    Few things are more infuriating than a “libertarian” trying to tell anyone what a “government” is for. Kinda like an atheist explaining the purpose of religion.

    Governments are created for the purpose they are created for, by the people who creat them. Those not involved in the creation of the government, who had nothing to do with the reasons for the establishment of the government or the purpose of that government, and heck, don’t even believe in the establishment or the reasons for the government, are not in any position to try and tell others why the government was established, or what the purpose of that government is.

    We all know Winston that you have no use for the current (or any) government, as that term is generally understood and that’s just the way it is.

    But please, for the love of God, don’t try to tell the people that did establish the government, believe in the need for the government, and actually support the government established for the purposes that it was, that the only “real” or “legitimate” or even actual intent of those who established the government in this country, was for the sole purpose of “protecting natural rights” because that’s more than nonsense, given your obvious intelligence, it can only be a misrepresentation of an outright lie.

  8. Steve says:

    More sham distraction from the sham king.

    As liberals love to say, people (and party’s) “evolve”

    This time, sanity is found in the only viable third party. The Libertarian Party.
    Patrick’s fav and his “enemy” are the bat shit crazy party.

  9. nyp says:

    It’s all Abraham Lincoln’s fault.

  10. Steve says:

    Woo Hoo! Nyp crows in with a good one!

  11. Winston Smith says:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Minnie Mouse

    As per usual, patrick, you don’t believe our Founders. The philosophical basis for our nation, the Declaration of Independence, and the structural basis for our nation, the Constitution, back up my five points.

    I guess it’s too bad that the Founders studied Locke, Montesquieu, and Smith, besides Greek and Roman history, and dare I say, the Bible, to develop their political philosophy. Maybe we should adopt Marx and Engels’ political philosophies instead, so our government could just do whatever the fuck it wants, and not worry about any “legitimacy”.

    Oh wait…

    BTW, once again, claiming that libertarians, or me in particular, don’t want any government or should move to Somalia (boy, is that one getting old), is just silly. From what I can tell, the Anarchist faction of the libertarians is fairly small, but big government types (primary on the Left) just love to mischaracterize anyone wanting a reduction in the size and power of our corrupt, usurping government as anarchism.

    Now, that disingenuousness may play well at your normal haunts, but here, not so much…

    War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength

  12. Steve says:

    Winston, trying to have an open discussion with people like Patrick is questionable, at its best.

    Every singe word, statement or participle will be studied for ways to change it into a statement that looks like a response but twists the original into a completely different meaning. This is how Patrick does many of his subject changing sham arguments.

    It’s also why he so dislikes my presence, I catch his crap and throw it right back at him.

    Sadly, some fall for it and swallow it like it’s vegan, gluten free brownies. Then they smile and say to themselves, “mmmm tasty”.

    All you will get with Patrick is much of the same, while Rincon occasionally seems receptive to logic. Both of them go back to their respective echo chambers and revert right back to their blindness.

  13. Patrick says:

    As I said Winston, a libertarian preaching about what purpose a government has, especially the government of the a United States, has as much value, as the preaching of an atheist about the purpose of religion.

    Specifically, claiming that this government was created “only” to protect “our natural rights” is probably a wish, hope, and desire of all libertarians, but it is nowhere supported within the Constitution. Likewise, the assertion that the only “legitimate” powers exercised by the federal government being limited to those expressly granted by the states is possibly a hope, a wish, and a desire of a libertarian, but of course this is never the way the Constitution was intended, nor interpreted, since it was adopted.

    And because I know that you have seen extensive presentation by me, on this page, of quotes from the a”founding fathers” with regard to their positions, and even better, recitations of the ways some of the founding fathers acted, that are precisely inconsistent with your arguments about the reasons why this government was established, and for what purposes it was established, I won’t repeat them here, except to say that NONE of them, would agree with your assertion about the “only” purpose of this government.

    And, to respond to you, in a fashion consistent with yours; while your positions may play well amongst your crowd, they still remain unsupported, and unsupportable. And I won’t pretend they are simply because some sycophants agree with you here.

  14. Steve says:

    “intended” “Interpreted”

    Plain words need not apply.

  15. Winston Smith says:

    Patrick, ever read the Tenth Amendment? Oh yeah, you’re a Leftist, I forgot…

  16. Patrick says:


    Haven’t we had discussions about the redundancy before?

    I would point out to you though that the Tenth Amendment does still more damage to your claim about the “only” purpose of government since there are no limits set within the Constitution, on what states may do to their…subjects.

  17. 14th fixed that: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  18. Barbara says:

    I think Ronald Reagan was thinking of Patrick when he said that liberals aren’t ignorant, they just know so much that just isn’t so.

  19. Patrick says:


    Well let’s assume that some libertarians agree that the Fourteenth was “properly” adopted, and further that they agree that it makes the bill of rights applicable to the states, even though we both know, there are many who don’t.

    Because the fourteenth was not adopted until long after “the founders” were gone or long past “founding”, Winston’s claim about the “founding fathers” establishing the Constitution with the “only” purpose of protecting “natural rights” is still unsupported. Right?

    And Barbara you can speak directly to me if you wish or you can be snipping from afar, just know, as I’ve told you before, I will let it go once or twice, but I will happily join if it continues.

  20. Steve says:

    The 14th was adopted under the constitutional process for change.
    It wasn’t “interpreted” or “intended” into place.

    Barbara is right, except with people like Patrick the description is far to soft.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s