Mike Pence: Evolution Denier. Tobacco Denier. Climate Denier. And finally, Traitor.

June 2, 2017



They can’t help themselves.

Which comes first? Tobacco shilling or Climate denial? Ignorance, or bigotry? Don’t let it confuse you.  It’s all very, very clear.


Before there was North Carolina’s bathroom bill, there was a Mike Pence-endorsed bill that gave “protections” to religious people who wanted to refuse service to LGBTQ people in the state. The problem in Indiana, however, was that Pence missed the cultural shift and underestimated those who would stand in opposition to him and his bill. Boycotts were called, conventions and speeches were canceled along with concerts, and the dollars were quickly draining from Indiana‘s tourism at a time when the state was already struggling financially. The CEOs of Yelp and Salesforce said they would reduce investment plans in the state and Apple CEO Tim Cook denounced Pence’s law in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

“Our image. Our reputation as a state that embraces people of diverse backgrounds and makes them feel welcome…is at risk because of a new law,” the editorial in the IndyStar read.


Here Joy Reid analyzes Pence’s veracity in the face of questions about fired Security Advisor, and apparent Russian agent,  General Mike Flynn.

More at Buzzfeed.

20 Responses to “Mike Pence: Evolution Denier. Tobacco Denier. Climate Denier. And finally, Traitor.”

  1. Sir Charles Says:

    Incredible. This country is governed by liars and lunatics.

    • This country elects them….

      • 1happywoman Says:

        There was a “record” turnout for the 2016 elections, meaning that almost 40 percent of our citizens didn’t bother to vote. To me, that’s what’s most shameful.


        • So what are your plans for those Bernie supporters who didn’t come out to put Hillary over the top? I know two progressives who said there was no way they could vote for ‘Bill’s wife’. Meanwhile, are you conspiracy folks sure it wasn’t Goldman Sachs manipulating the primary system to ensure their choice would be the nominee?

          • Torsten Says:

            Hillary: 65,844,954 (48.2%)
            Donald: 62,979,879 (46.1%)
            Difference: 2,865,075 (2.1%)

            Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/index.html

            Expressed as a ratio, 4.5% more people voted for Hillary than for Donald.

            Or do you agree with Donald’s conspiratorial allegations that the difference is due to illegal voting?

            To this outside observer, with no particular talent for political strategy, that should have put her over the top, except for that electoral college thing you have there. Seems like an anachronism.

          • andrewfez Says:

            Goldman is one of the big investors in clean energy. By 2025 they’ll have $150B in clean energy investments.

            Click to access report.pdf

          • funslinger62 Says:

            Torsten, the electoral college is a very necessary entity that prevents the largest few states with over 50% of the population from drowning out the wishes of the less than 50% who live in most of the other states.

            It isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s better than pure popular vote. A true democracy would be a disaster for minority opinions. Even ones involving the protection of minorities. That is why a representative republic is much more preferable.

            The current problem with the U.S. electoral college is a serious issue called gerrymandering. It creates voting districts that aren’t truly representative of the people.

            Voter districts do need to be redrawn as populations change. But the politicians shouldn’t be in charge of redrawing the lines. That’s the equivalent of putting the arsonist in place as the fire chief.

            Until this gerrymandering issue is addressed the electoral college will continue to be abused by the parties in control of the redistricting.

          • Torsten Says:

            Thanks for the reply funslinger. I understand the concerns regarding tyranny of the majority and why it was originally set up this way.

            I’m also aware of the gerrymandering, and to an outsider this is a deeply troubling weakness of the system. Without the having the benefit of American civics classes or reading the history of how the current process came to be, it’s stunning that the definition of voting districts (“ridings” where I live) is not left to an independent, non-partisan body.

          • In a Torsten World, the Yankees would be declared winners of the World Series if they won against the Dodgers, if they won games 1, 2 and 3 with scores of 12 to 0, 8 to 3 and 11 to 5, and lost games 4, 5, 6, and 7 with scores of 0 to 1, 3 to 4, and 1 to 3. Add it all together and it’s Yankees 31 to Dodgers 16, thus the winner is obvious even despite over a hundred of years of established agreed-upon-by-all-participants precedent to the contrary.

            The question you fellows need to ask is whether you live in the real world or in the Torsten World. Meanwhile, I ask again, for all of us out in the real world: What are your plans for the Bernie supporters who didn’t put Hillary over the top in key electoral states?

          • Torsten Says:

            No Russell, in Torsten’s World the Dodgers win because of the rules, just as that stupid man-child is currently president because of the rules. In your baseball example, rational people couldn’t help but notice the almost twofold difference in runs over the series. The average score suggests the Yankees should have won the series easily, but the variation between games shows, from the Yankees’ point of view, an unacceptable change that led to their ultimate failure. Maybe the reason is obvious and needs no deep analysis, but in Torsten’s World the same rational people would be asking what the cause of the differences were, if they cared. And, despite over a hundred years of agreed-upon-by-all-participants precedent, rules can be changed. Not likely for something like the World Series, but it’s been done for tie-breaking procedures for divisional championships. As usual, your sense of what I think is wrong. As for the real world, you’ve demonstrated repeatedly that when it comes to understanding climate, you are useless.

            I’m still hoping you can explain why you asked “How’s the temp trend doing at that place, by the way?” and posted this:

            here: https://climatecrocks.com/2017/05/19/useful-idiots-climate-deniers-unwitting-agents-of-russian-influence/#comment-93022

            Can you tell us what that chart means to you?

  2. “For some reason, this issue of climate change has emerged as a paramount issue for the left – in this country and around the world.” Mike Pence

    The right wing echo chamber is remote from both the changing environment, the shifting of species towards the poles, the warming oceans, the changes in ocean pH, the increasing loss of ice sheets and the scientific literature.

    I’ve heard people talk about the morass of identity politics…. I am a …. so I’m pre-occupied with …. and will disagree of course with those who are …… and no one can make me change my mind. It’s made up when it comes to those …..

    Personally, I’m a scientist. I read scientific literature to learn. I change my mind whenever I find new evidence that means my ideas are out of date and need updating.

    I like universities because they teach others to think in that way.

  3. Torsten Says:

    Pence, the Orange Hair Furor’s bootlicker.

  4. BL Brown Says:

    I agree with all the criticism of Pence and Trump — they and many other (quite likely most) Republican ‘leaders’ are corrupt, dangerous liars. But what does that imply about the voters who elected them? There is a deep, dark illness at the heart of your country, and it endangers the entire world. A good friend and prominent political scientist and philosopher at U Texas Austin said to me decades ago that the US was an oligarchy. If he was right (and it certainly looks that way after the recent House vote granting massive tax breaks to the 1%, the .1% and the .01%), then the heart of that illness is greed and ‘I’ve got mine’…

    • andrewfez Says:

      There was a Princeton study a year or two ago that confirms that the US is an oligarchy.

    • funslinger62 Says:

      BL Brown,
      until the issue of gerrymandering is addressed (why are the politicians in charge of redistricting?), the electoral college will continue to misrepresent the voting public.

      Redistricting should be handled by unbiased, multipartisan committees so that redistricting will allow the electoral college to continue to represent the voting public.

  5. Ron Voisin Says:


    Remember when Donald Trump was business partners with the Russian government and his company got 53 million from the Russian government investment fund called Rusnano that was started by Vladimir Putin and is referred to as “Putin’s Child”?
    Oh wait…that wasn’t Trump, it was John Podesta.

    Remember when Donald Trump received 500 thousand for a speech in Moscow and paid for by Renaissance Capital, a company tied to Russian Intelligence Agencies?
    Oh wait… that was Bill Clinton.

    Remember when Donald Trump approved the sale of 20% of US uranium to the Russians while he was Secretary of State which gave control of it to Rosatom the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation?
    Oh wait…that was Hillary Clinton.

    Remember when Donald Trump lied about that and said he wasn’t a part of approving the deal that gave the Russians 1/5 of our uranium, but then his emails were leaked showing he did lie about it?
    Oh wait…that was Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

    Remember when Donald Trump got 145 million dollars from shareholders of the uranium company sold to the Russians?
    Oh wait…that was Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

    Remember when Donald Trump accepted millions in donations from Russian Oligarchs like the chairman of a company that’s part of the Russian Nuclear Research Cluster, the wife of the mayor of Moscow, and a close pal of Putins?
    Oh wait…that was the Clinton Foundation.

    Remember when Donald Trump failed to disclose all those donations before becoming the Secretary of State, and it was only found out when a journalist went through Canadian tax records?
    Oh wait…that was Hillary Clinton.

    Remember when Donald Trump told Mitt Romney that the 80s called and it wanted its Russian policy back. The Cold War is over?
    Oh wait…that was President Obama.

    Man… Trump’s ties to Russia are disgusting!

    • funslinger62 Says:

      Ron Voisin,
      Pointing out the corruption of your opponents does not excuse you for your corruption. That’s classic misdirection and it’s unethical.

  6. […] Yet we really shouldn’t be surprised. This is the same person who said… […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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

%d bloggers like this: