ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [384] -- Copulating Rodents!

[ Posted Friday, March 25th, 2016 – 17:49 PDT ]

That really should be "Copulating Rodents, Batman!" for full effect. Or it should just come right out and use the original term being euphemized. But somehow we couldn't quite bring ourselves to use either one of those in our title today.

Confused? Join the club. The Republican presidential nomination race has previously devolved to the level of an elementary school playground (penis-measuring in a national debate), and has now risen to at least high school (if not a college frat house) with the vicious battle going on between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz over who can insult each other's wives the most. This morning, "the beans" may have actually been spilled, as the National Enquirer is now reporting not on Ted Cruz's wife, but instead on his (alleged) five girlfriends. I'd say "we're down the rabbit hole now, folks," but there is in fact a better rodent-based metaphor, from the dim and distant past. Here is the full explanation, from Cruz himself:

It is a story that quoted one source on the record: Roger Stone, Donald Trump's chief political adviser. It is attacking my family. And what is striking is Donald's henchman, Roger Stone, had for months been foreshadowing that this attack was coming. It's not surprising that Donald's tweet occurs the day before the attack comes out. And I would note that Mr. Stone is a man who has 50 years of dirty tricks behind him. He's a man for whom a term was coined for copulating with a rodent. Well, let me be clear: Donald Trump may be a rat, but I have no desire to copulate with him.

The Washington Post article then helpfully explains: "The copulation reference was to a term coined to describe Stone and other political allies of Richard Nixon who spread rumors and foiled the campaign events of rivals." Another of these Nixon allies was none other than Karl Rove, a man George W. Bush called "turd blossom." But let's not get distracted. Back to the term in question, which is (warning -- avert your eyes if you are easily offended): "ratfucking." Originally the term had nothing to do with rodents, as the "rat" was short for "rations" -- it was a military term to describe soldiers who would comb though the rations packages and steal all the good stuff while leaving the less-tasty stuff behind for everyone else. But a rat is a rat, in the world of politics. And here is where we find ourselves, in the historic (or perhaps "infamous" will be more popular for future historians) election season of 2016. Call it the pest-control election, and you won't be far from the reality.

Spring has sprung, so maybe it's just sex scandal season. We say this because the Republican governor of Alabama also seems to be in some mighty hot water. There's even an audio tape of him talking dirty to a woman who is not his wife, if the Cruz-Trump dustup isn't juicy enough for you.

Back out on the presidential campaign trail, we had another Tuesday night of watching the returns come in. Arizona had some pretty massive problems, which might just have been caused (ya think?) by the Republican official who decided shutting down 70 percent of the voting sites would make everything run smoothly. Trump and Cruz both took a state, winning every single delegate. But Trump emerged with a larger delegate lead than he had heading into the night. A few more nights like this one and maybe the Republicans will stop having feverish dreams of an open convention -- especially if the Cruz rumors continue to fly.

It'll be interesting to see, in all of this, what the establishment Republicans are going to do. Last week, before the National Enquirer (who, it must be said, broke the very true John Edwards sex scandal, a while back) ran the Cruz girlfriends story, the establishment types had closed ranks behind Cruz. From Mitt Romney to Jeb Bush to Lindsey Graham, all were begging the voters to vote for Cruz, even if they found him to be as repulsive as the establishment GOP used to, one week earlier. The endorsements were so halfhearted, in fact, some started calling them "endursements" (because they must be endured by the giver). Big GOP donors are now quietly putting money into an attempt to salvage their down-ballot congressional races if Trump does become their party's nominee (the strategy is essentially: "How to distance yourself from your party's choice for president"). Look for this effort to pick up steam, now that Cruz is going to be answering tabloid questions for a while.

The pro-Israel group AIPAC met last week, and all presidential candidates except Bernie Sanders spoke to them. Donald Trump gave a speech that was rather timid for him (he even read it off a TelePrompTer), but it so outraged some in the audience that AIPAC later had to apologize for even inviting him.

On the Democratic side of the campaign trail, Bernie Sanders had a good night last Tuesday, taking two out of the three states that were voting (by almost 80 percent in both Idaho and Utah), and raking in a bigger haul of delegates than Hillary Clinton (who won Arizona). You might not have heard any of that (except for Hillary's win) in the mainstream media, who has apparently decided that Bernie is just not worth covering anymore, no matter what the voters have to say. Sanders may have another impressive night tomorrow, when Alaska, Hawai'i, and Washington all caucus. There's little polling to go by, but Bernie seems to have a good shot in all three.

Hillary Clinton just can't seem to do anything right, according to the folks at Fox News. After berating her for months for being too shrill and shouty, they were unimpressed by her big foreign policy speech at Stanford this week. Comments ranged from: "Did you notice that calm and collected tone of voice right there?" to: "She's a little too calm.... You see more passion from Democrats when they're attacking Republicans than when they're attacking the actual enemies of the United States." In other words, Hillary yells and screams too much, right up until she doesn't yell and scream enough, which are both to be condemned. With an incoherent media mouthpiece like this, it's no wonder the Republicans find themselves in the mess they're now wallowing in, is it?

Paul Ryan made a speech, to impress all the sane people still clinging to the Republican Party (a number which seems to shrink almost daily), and also to try to distract people from the huge budget fight happening on his watch among House Republicans. He got up on his high horse to speak of all the messiness which regularly erupts from the mouth of Donald Trump (although Ryan refused to name him, so we guess it could equally apply to the messiness which Ted Cruz blurts forth, also on a regular basis). Politics, begged Ryan, should be above all this unseemliness. Things were so much nicer and better back when he first got involved with Congress, and we should return to those halcyon days.

There's only one problem with all of this, and that is that it is complete and utter moose poop. Firstly, when Ryan first worked in Congress, none other than Newt Gingrich was busy leading his own revolution. Known publicly as a "bomb-thrower," Gingrich's style of politics was the precursor for Donald Trump's style. It might be put (in the most genteel way possible) as: "Take no prisoners!"

The other problem is that, while Ryan did denounce his own framing of all of America as either "takers" or "makers," he forgot to mention the fact that for over seven years his own party -- aided and abetted by Ryan himself -- has dedicated itself to the absolute destruction of President Obama's agenda. Not just the opposition to everything Obama has wanted to do, but instead a policy of fearmongering and utter destruction.

Need proof? How about all that high-minded fact-based opposition to the dreaded Obamacare? Remember all the sane and reasoned arguments Ryan and other polite Republicans put forth to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? We don't. Instead, we remember idiotic dark fantasies about non-existent "death panels" and all the rest of the scaremongering.

To put this as politely as Ryan wants political discourse to be: "You cannot ignore everything your party has done to lead up to this point -- especially the fact that no matter how much you denounce Trumpism and Trump's tactics, you and almost all other Republicans are still going to back Trump if he wins your party's nomination." You can either denounce him, hold a moral position, and refuse to support him, or you can drown in the thick goo of your own naked hypocrisy. You simply can't have it both ways, Mister Speaker.

In other non-campaign news, Republicans in North Carolina have now banned any local non-discrimination law which would get in the way of being able to discriminate against the people they don't like. Georgia is considering similar legislation. Seems that the lack of politeness has gone a bit beyond the presidential race -- maybe Paul Ryan will address this in an upcoming speech. Or something.

Marijuana legalization got a big boost this week, from the Supreme Court (of all places). They tossed out a case where two states were suing the federal government to crack down on Colorado. Federal law is undoubtedly supposed to supercede state law, but the legalization experiment was instead given a big green light by the court. This could become an issue in November, because the next president will get to choose the next Attorney General, which will have a dramatic impact (one way or the other) on federal marijuana policy, going forward. This won't just be an issue in the four states which have already legalized recreational use (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Colorado), but will also be important in all the other states considering putting legalization on the ballot this year.

Which brings us to a gem of a quote, to close on. This was actually from 1994, from a former member of the Nixon White House, John Ehrlichman. He summed up the reasons why Nixon ramped up the War On Drugs so much -- which should be a point of discussion now that we're beginning to dismantle this ugly legacy. The real reason for the War On Drugs? It's exactly as bad as you'd think, in Ehrlichman's own words:

You want to know what this was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black people, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

Which is exactly what millions of hippies and black people have long suspected, in fact. Good to know it wasn't all just rampant paranoia, or anything. On that less-than-happy note, let's move along to this week's awards.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

There's a tight race happening for an open Senate seat from Maryland, and Donna Edwards is running a very impressive primary campaign against Chris Van Hollen. We must admit being impressed by Edwards the one time we got to hear her speak, and it seems like she's got EMILY's List in her corner, so this might be a race worth watching.

There were two impressive Democrats last week in particular. On Tuesday night, Bernie Sanders scored two victories to Hillary Clinton's one, which was impressive enough but what was even more impressive is that he picked up more delegates than her. You'd think this would be news, but it was virtually blacked out in the media the next day. Now, partly this was due to the fact that the Arizona returns came in a long time before the Utah and Idaho ones did, which meant the news of Bernie's wins missed the deadline for a lot of East Coast newspapers. But this doesn't fully explain the shoddy coverage. Take, for instance, the Washington Post political columnist Chris Cillizza, who regularly runs a "winners and losers" column after each primary election night. Cillizza not only didn't put Bernie in the "winners" department, he barely mentioned Bernie at all. That's a pretty inexcusable way to treat the candidate who won two states (to Hillary's one) by overwhelming margins, and who got more delegates than Hillary.

Even having said all of that, we're only going to give Bernie an Honorable Mention this week. He'll no doubt be in the running for next week's MIDOTW award, especially if he (as expected) has another big night tomorrow (when Washington, Hawai'i, and Alaska Democrats caucus).

The reason why Sanders didn't win the big prize this week was because there was history being made by President Obama, in Cuba. For the first time in almost 90 years, an American president visited Cuba. That's a big deal.

Cuba, right up until Obama took office, had become the last relic of the Cold War. Picture your refrigerator. In the freezer, if you cleared it out, you'd likely find a package of something in the back so ice-bound as to be immovable. That was America's Cuba policy, from President Kennedy all the way through Dubya's time in office. It was a solid block of ice, so covered with hoarfrost and rime that you'd need a chisel to even pull it out into the light of day.

Obama has always wanted to be a transformative president, and on Cuba he certainly has lived up to this goal. He entirely deserved his visit to the island, after thawing the relationship that many (us included) thought would not unfreeze in our lifetimes. There is no sane reason for treating Cuba the way we have been, at least not after we normalized relations with communist China or communist Vietnam (a regime we actually lost a war to, mind you). America does business with all sorts of evil and totalitarian countries all over the planet, so why should Cuba be any different? Our embargo is nothing but a joke to the rest of the world, and it took Obama to realize that it simply was not working, after over a half a century of being ineffectual.

Of course, two caveats apply. We've got a long way to go before the Cuban-American situation is truly thawed. The embargo still exists, as does the "wet foot/dry foot" immigration policy which automatically guarantees Cubans who manage to make it to our shores an immediate green card. Both are going to need to be revised, obviously. This work will remain for some future president to accomplish. But without Obama's initiative, we would never be at the point we are now.

The second thing is that Obama's visit to Cuba was overshadowed by another incident of terrorism in Europe. The Belgian tragedy happened during Obama's trip, and while we do agree with the president's decision not to cancel the rest of his schedule, it did shift America's attention away from Cuba.

In the future, though, the juxtaposition of the two events will likely fade. What historians will remember is that "Obama opened Cuba," in much the same way they always say "only Nixon could go to China." For finally pulling the last vestige of the Cold War out of the deep-freeze and chucking the obviously outdated "total isolationism" Cuba policy on the refuse pile of history where it belongs, President Obama is clearly the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate President Barack Obama on his White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Bill Moyers wrote a column this week, outlining his top two choices of Democrats who should be so ashamed of themselves that they should just immediately resign. We've addressed both officeholders in previous columns' MDDOTW awards, though, so we merely mention his picks in passing.

Bill Clinton got in a little hot water this week, for an off-the-cuff condemnation of Barack Obama's entire term in office -- which is not exactly the message his wife wants her campaign to portray. While Hillary has all but promised "four more years" of Obama policies, Bill had this to say out on the hustings (emphasis added):

If you don't believe we're ever going to grow again, if you believe it's more important to re-litigate the past, there may be many reasons that you don't want to support [Hillary]. But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that when we were practicing trickle-down economics and no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her because she's the only person who basically had good ideas, will tell you how she's going to pay for them, can be Commander-in-Chief and is a proven change-maker with Republicans and Democrats and Independents alike.

The "awful legacy" of Barack Obama? Clinton later had to walk back and clarify what he meant to say, but it still earns him a (Dis-)Honorable Mention from us.

We've also got a (Dis-)Honorable Mention on the other side of the Democratic race, as well. Senator Elizabeth Warren recently said, about Bernie Sanders's campaign: "He's out there. He fights from the heart. This is who Bernie is. He has put the right issues on the table both for the Democratic Party and for the country in general so I'm still cheering Bernie on." That's all fine and good, but these quotes were followed by the line: "Warren said she will make an endorsement in the 2016 race, but declined to make one Thursday."

This can be read two ways. Either Warren is just holding back her endorsement until the nominee has wrapped up the primary season, or Warren is being coy and waiting for precisely the right moment to endorse Bernie. That moment, however, has long since passed. Bernie could have used a Warren endorsement, and the earlier it had been made the better. The prime time for Warren to have endorsed Bernie would have been just before Super Tuesday, in fact, when Hillary beat Bernie in Massachusetts by a little over one percent -- then it might have done him some good. It's been obvious since Warren herself declined to run that the closest Democratic candidate to her world-view was Bernie Sanders, but Warren continues to play it coy with her explicit endorsement. Unless she really means just to endorse "whichever Democrat wins the nomination," it is woefully late for Warren to make a primary endorsement. Not exactly a profile in courage, Senator.

But this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is the daughter of Illinois state representative Cynthia Soto. Jessica Soto was apparently putting up campaign signs for her mother outside her opponent's campaign office. Bob Zwolinski tried to stop her and her companion from doing so, and a verbal and physical confrontation followed. They beat Zwolinski "with a bottle and a metal object." He then posted a rather gruesome photo of his own face after the attack, which was not only swollen but actually had a metal staple (from a staple gun) stuck in his head. "Politics is a contact sport," he wrote. "Apparently that's literally the case."

Now, Jessica Soto and her companion deny the charges and say they were defending themselves. But they're the ones who now face three felony counts of aggravated battery, so we're going to go ahead and give Soto this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. In a campaign that has turned nasty and violent over on the Republican side, this is the last sort of thing Democrats need in the news.

[Jessica Soto is a private citizen, and it is out blanket policy not to provide contact information for such persons, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 384 (3/25/16)

Before we get to the talking points, we have an interesting link for anyone who cares about Irish history. This weekend is the centennial of the "Easter Rising" of 1916, which was the biggest step towards Irish independence ever taken. The attempted revolution failed, in the end, but it directly led to the Republic of Ireland's independence from Great Britain, the most monumental political realignment that had happened on the island since 1690. Anyone interested in reading more about this story can check out this helpful guide in the Irish Times, which covers what took place one hundred years ago in Dublin.

Back to the present, and American politics. We have a mixed bag of talking points this week. We'll begin with some nice things to say about President Obama, and we'll finish (as we often do) with some very snarky things to say about Republicans. And we promise, we won't even touch upon wives, girlfriends, or rodents copulating! How's that for fair?

 

1
   Winning the battle of public opinion

This one should be used whenever any Republican sanctimoniously speaks of letting "the American people" have their say in Supreme Court nominations.

"Which 'American people' are you talking about, precisely? Because where I'm sitting, the American people have spoken twice -- by electing President Obama. As for current public opinion, CNN just released a poll showing that 64 percent of Americans -- that's two out of every three -- think that the Republicans in Congress should hold hearings on Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland. Over half of Americans think Garland should be confirmed, in fact. A full 57 percent think Obama should be the one to make this choice, not the next president. In fact, the only group surveyed without a majority in favor of Obama's nominee were Republicans. So let's be entirely clear, here -- what you're saying is that Republicans should get a chance to vote on the next Supreme Court justice. Be a little more precise in your phrasing -- because a clear majority of 'the American people' already think Garland should get not just hearings, but swift confirmation by the Senate. So stop acting like you're talking for them, please."

 

2
   Opening Cuba

Again, this was a historic week.

"This week, President Obama became the first United States president to visit Cuba in nine decades. For over half a century, it was completely unthinkable that any president would do so, because a policy from the depths of the Cold War kept us perpetually at arm's length from a country a mere 90 miles from Florida. Guess what? The Cold War is long over. We won. It's been over a quarter-century since the Berlin Wall came down, in fact, and almost as long since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Our Cuba embargo was a joke the rest of the world laughed at. Not even our closest allies agreed with it. Obama was the first president since John F. Kennedy to realize that our Cuban policy simply was not working and was long overdue for a change. A big part of Obama's foreign policy legacy will be the fact that he'll always be remembered as the president who opened Cuba back up."

 

3
   And the public agrees, once again

Not everyone has noticed this, so it's worth pointing out.

"Ever since the primary season began back in January, an interesting thing has been happening. As Americans listen to the Democratic candidates talk about expanding Obama's record as president, and as they watch the trainwreck of the Republican presidential campaign, President Obama's job approval numbers have been steadily climbing. Obama's got a higher job approval rate than he's had since the beginning of his second term, in fact. He now regularly polls above 50 percent approval. Perhaps it is because, stacked up next to Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and the rest of the Republican field, Obama looks a wee bit more presidential. I think what's really going on is that the Republican campaign is reminding a whole lot of people why they voted for Obama in the first place."

 

4
   Paul Ryan's amnesia

This talking point is taken directly from a very good takedown article in Salon, which appeared after Paul Ryan made his plea for everyone to sit down and sing "Kumbaya" together. Seriously, his attempt to school Republicans on proper ways to conduct politics are pretty laughable, for those without amnesia. It's as if the past seven years didn't even exist, or something. Also worth pointing out is the fact that Ryan will still support Trump if he becomes the nominee, which pretty much destroys his "moral high road" posturing.

It was perversely appropriate for Paul Ryan to deliver this speech, with those lines, on March 23: the six-year anniversary of President Obama signing the Affordable Care Act into law. The Republican response to the A.C.A.'s passage has been to scare people -- you'll lose your coverage and then probably be murdered by the death panel -- and to oppose it without offering an alternative. There have been God knows how many votes to repeal or weaken the A.C.A. in Paul Ryan's House of Representatives over that six-year time period, but the number of legislative alternatives to Obamacare put forth by the GOP can be counted on zero fingers. The Republican policy during the Obama administration, on healthcare reform and pretty much every other issue area, has been to stoke fears and wring political benefit from unyielding opposition.

 

5
   Another crack in the wall

We're up to three, and counting....

"I see that a third Republican senator has now called on their own leadership to do their jobs as laid out in the Constitution, and give Merrick Garland a proper hearing. Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas now joins Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois in calling for the Senate to do its damn job. Both Kirk and Moran are up for re-election this year, but then so are a whole bunch of other Republican senators. Bet Moran won't be the last crack in the wall of GOP obstruction to appear. Because if Republicans follow through on their pledge to collect their paychecks without doing their constitutional duty, then Democrats are going to hit them hard over the issue, out on the campaign trail. You can take that to the bank, in fact."

 

6
   The fear spreads

This is just too, too amusing. And it's only March! Imagine how much worse things are going to get down the road....

"I find it interesting that already some big Republican donors are throwing their money behind an effort to salvage their party's chances in November's elections. They know full well that having Donald Trump at the top of their ticket (or Ted Cruz, for that matter), is going to be devastating for their down-ballot candidates. People are now openly talking about the possibility of not just seeing Republicans lose control in the Senate, but also for control of the House to possibly slip from their fingers. This is a truly stunning turn of events -- millions of dollars are already lining up to create Republican House and Senate campaigns which are centered around disavowing their own party's presidential nominee. They're trying to limit the damage that Trump or Cruz will do to the party as a whole, but this rear-guard action seems as doomed to fail as every other attempt to take down Trump. Still, the spectacle of the big money guys in the Republican Party lining up to denounce their own party's leader in the fall is really unprecedented."

 

7
   With friends like these...

Ted Cruz is getting some awfully bizarre endorsements lately. Now, Ben Carson not showing much excitement for Ted Cruz is one thing (Carson doesn't show excitement about much of anything), but the real standout among recent Cruz endorsers is Lindsey Graham. Graham appeared on "The Daily Show" recently, and had these warm words for the man he has now endorsed for president. Graham, quite obviously, is stuck between a rock and a very hard place, when the best he can come up with is:

I prefer John Kasich, but he has no chance.... [Ted Cruz] was my fifteenth choice, what can I say? ... He's not completely crazy.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

196 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [384] -- Copulating Rodents!”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    A few years ago my Mother gave me the entire I Love Lucy series on DVD. One of the later episodes portrayed Lucy meeting Ricky when she takes a pleasure cruise to Cuba. I remember thinking, watching it, how absurd it was that we still had this insane Cuba policy. Definitely BIG KUDOS to Obama for this move.

    Today's anecdote: middle-aged, tired-looking black man waiting behind me for his pizza take-out. What did he think of the election season so far?

    "It's been a circus. I can't wait for it to be over -- it seems like we just had an election. Just a circus."

    Is he leaning towards anyone?

    Not really. Not yet.

    I got the feeling he's just worn out and probably won't vote. Made me sad.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, President Obama's trip to Cuba was both historic and important and, yes, even impressive.

    But, President Biden's speech yesterday at Georgetown University Law School was at least impressive enough to garner an honourable mention.

    He spoke about the importance of not letting the dysfunction of the US Senate migrate to another branch of government, speaking of the Supreme Court.

    He also reminded how US foreign relations are compromised as world leaders question the capacity of the Obama/Biden administration to deliver on any number of issues given the general dysfunction of the US Congress.

    I am surprised that this sad state of affairs is not taken more seriously by more Americans.

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Well, Liz Mair really ramped up the GOP’s War On Women 2016 by tweet-trolling that publicly available naked picture of Melanomia Trump and now the National Enquirer is reporting that mistakes have been made. Apparently, pervy Terd Cruz has a thing for kinky sex. You know, the kind that doesn’t involve Jesus or his wife (who happens to be way out of Drumpf’s league). Now Chris is right, the Enquirer is actually a reliable source for this type of story, but I don’t believe this one about Lyin’ Ted having freaky sex with 5 other women. Enquiring minds want to know what planet these alien women came from. Cruz has blamed Trump, but I think this is just another one of the Canadian’s dirty tricks. He planted that story to troll The Donald. Long Dong Don can’t tolerate having the Trumpthugs believe that Donald “I get more pussy than you do” Trump has been one-upped by a hot-blooded Cuban. It was time for the GOP to drop all that political correctness about that icky sex stuff anyway.

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    8 finches or fist-fights?

    Birdie Sanders was a refreshing change from watching Trumpthugs violently attack Americans for their signage.

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Bernie would end the reefer madness.

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Which brings us to a gem of a quote, to close on."

    Here's another: Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell's answer when she was asked who was to blame for Arizona's 5 hour voter suppression lines.

    "Well, the voters for getting in line, maybe us for not having enough voting places"

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The pro-Israel group AIPAC met last week, and all presidential candidates except Bernie Sanders spoke to them. Donald Trump gave a speech that was rather timid for him (he even read it off a TelePrompTer), but it so outraged some in the audience that AIPAC later had to apologize for even inviting him.

    This was a case of AIPAC showing their true colours and, I predict, of this lobby group's waning influence and growing detachment from a more rational American Jewish community.

    AIPAC's leadership was right to apologize, not for its invitation of Trump but, for its members' enthusiastic applause for Trump's outrageous insults towards President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

  9. [9] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM,

    "AIPAC's leadership was right to apologize, not for its invitation of Trump but, for its members' enthusiastic applause for Trump's outrageous insults towards President Obama and Secretary Clinton."

    In their defense, they did laugh at the orange clown when he said: "I’ve studied this issue in great detail, I would say actually greater by far than anybody else." about "the disastrous deal with Iran”

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    Did the crowd not applaud enthusiastically when Trump called the Iran deal disastrous?

    I remember a moment or two when the audience was not impressed but, it was their overall very positive reaction to the Republican frontrunner that stuck in my craw.

  11. [11] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It's true that they were mostly appalling as they applauded Fuhrer Drumpf. I wasn't giving absolution for that. I was just giving a little credit. They at least knew he was lying even if they liked his lies better than the truth. The Trumpthugs just swallow it whole.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You don't think your average Trump supporter is just like the AIPAC riff-raff, in that regard? I think they all believe their own lies so well that they are naturally attracted to Trump.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    I remember a moment or two when the audience was not impressed but, it was their overall very positive reaction to the Republican frontrunner that stuck in my craw.

    Maybe their right and your wrong..

    "We can't just ignore a possibility simply because we don't happen to like it."
    -Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

    :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hardly.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know.. I just had to throw that out there. :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    BTW, you were missing a couple of apostrophes, ya know. :)

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, John, don't you agree then that Trump supporters have simply found someone who talks and thinks the way they do and they now feel completely free to voice their hate for the other?

    Trump is not leading his supporters - he is simply giving them a shame-free outlet. I see this happening even among some people on my side of the border.

  19. [19] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Yes.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    What are you going to do when Trump is elected POTUS???

    I mean, when Trump is elected POTUS, that means that the majority of Americans WANTED him as their leader...

    Will those millions and millions of Americans be wrong?? And ya'all here are right??

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't you feel that there is something inherently wrong with attacking people and denigrating them JUST because they think differently than ya'all do??

    I mean, isn't that what ya'all have been accusing the Right Wingery of for the last decade???

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM,

    "Trump is not leading his supporters"

    The Orange One didn't didn't turn Trumpthugs into xenophobes, but he has sold them some extraordinarily stupid lies (Mexico is going to pay for the Drumpf Wall, he has the best words, he'll deport over 10 million people, he doesn't have micro-hands).

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    he doesn't have micro-hands).

    You seem to be obsessed with the size of Trump's..... hands..

    Must be hand-envy.. :D

    heh

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The "Right Wingery" is wrong about much of what they advocate. One need not be a rocket scientist or a Philadelphia lawyer to figure that out.

    The "Right Wingery" made the necessary space for the Trump candidacy.

    If Trump is elected President, then we will see what he is capable of accomplishing, for better or for worse.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    The "Right Wingery" is wrong about much of what they advocate.

    As is the Left Wingery...

    The "Right Wingery" made the necessary space for the Trump candidacy.

    But it was the incompetence of the Democrat Party that made the space usable...

    If Trump is elected President, then we will see what he is capable of accomplishing, for better or for worse.

    I can't tell you how happy I am to see that you acknowledge that President Trump COULD make things better...

    Trump is giving the American people a chance to be PROUD of their country again.. Under Obama many MANY Americans are ashamed of their government..

    Trump might just change that...

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wouldn't put any quatloos down on that, Michale.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nobody would have put any quatloos on Trump being the GOP nominee..

    And yet.. Here we are...

    So.......... :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You really have to know how to discriminate between different outcomes and their corresponding probabilities, based purely on common sense, if nothing else.

    Otherwise, you could lose a boatload of quatloos.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    If I would have bet a boatload of quatloos on Trump being the GOP nominee, it wouldn't have been ME who lost.. :D

    The point is, ya'all have been completely and unequivocally wrong about Trump at EVERY turn..

    Why should we think ya'all will be right about THIS Trump prediction???

    Why not just come out and say it.. You are fervently hoping and praying that Trump DOESN'T win..

    And that's it..

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That is absolutely it, Michale.

    I just wish you weren't so happy about that prospect.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    How ironic..

    Organisers cancel Sunday's Brussels attacks 'March Against Fear'
    http://news.yahoo.com/organisers-cancel-sundays-brussels-attacks-march-against-fear-160850318.html

    Organizers canceled the MARCH AGAINST FEAR because of security ...er... fears... :^/

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, furthermore, you're still not discriminating about different outcomes and their consequences. Which explains why I would beat you bad at online poker.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just wish you weren't so happy about that prospect.

    I am ECSTATIC...

    For two reasons..

    1. It's going to be nice to actually be PROUD to be an American again..

    and

    B. As far as fraking up this country, Hillary would make Obama look like a second-story man...

    With Trump, there is no where to go but UP..

    With Hillary, there is no where to go but DOWN...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the future, though, the juxtaposition of the two events will likely fade. What historians will remember is that "Obama opened Cuba," in much the same way they always say "only Nixon could go to China." For finally pulling the last vestige of the Cold War out of the deep-freeze and chucking the obviously outdated "total isolationism" Cuba policy on the refuse pile of history where it belongs, President Obama is clearly the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

    Cuban agents brutalize democracy protesters after Obama visit
    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/cuban-agents-brutalize-democracy-protesters-1393527552835638.html

    Yea.. Obama did a LOT of good in Cuba.. Good for Obama...

    Not so much for Cubans.. Or Belgians... Or anyone else on the planet.. :^/

    But hay.. It's all about Obama... :^/

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    I disagree with calling Elizabeth Warren out for a dishonorable mention.

    Prior to Clinton entering the race, nearly every Dem Woman in Congress signed a letter urging Clinton to run.

    After doing this, there's no way Warren could run herself (remember that movement, prior to Sanders), nor could she endorse Sanders. This is just a matter of being honorable (rather than dishonorable).

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    After doing this, there's no way Warren could run herself (remember that movement, prior to Sanders), nor could she endorse Sanders. This is just a matter of being honorable (rather than dishonorable).

    As in "honorably" following the herd???

    I'm cornfused...

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    1. It's going to be nice to actually be PROUD to be an American again..

    not proud to be an american now?

    Now everybody do the propaganda.
    And sing along to the age of paranoia.

  38. [38] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Not sure what confuses you, Michale [36]. If a colleague says to me, "you really need to do this, it would be good for all of us," and then I did it and they turned around and undermined me, I would think they were a bad person [expletives deleted].

    Perhaps you're complaining about whether Warren should have signed that letter, fair enough. But once she did do it, undermining Clinton would be dishonorable.

    Of course, as a conservative, you probably don't understand such concepts as how honor actually functions in the real world (without thinking about how it benefits you personally). Sort of like a modern GOP voter.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, as a conservative, you probably don't understand such concepts as how honor actually functions in the real world (without thinking about how it benefits you personally). Sort of like a modern GOP voter.

    Except, of course that doesn't apply to me, as I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 (which I insanely regret) and I have voted Democrat in Senate races on several occasions..

    But I can understand why you would be confused. What with following the Weigantian herd and all.. :D

    Perhaps you're complaining about whether Warren should have signed that letter, fair enough. But once she did do it, undermining Clinton would be dishonorable.

    That sounds suspiciously like Bush's STAY THE COURSE mentality..

    When Warren signed that letter, there wasn't any threat of Clinton being indicted.. Now, it's almost a certainty..

    It would be illogical in the extreme to NOT change one's mind given the new circumstances..

    I mean, it's not as if Clinton is on the same PLANET as honorable...

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    not proud to be an american now?

    Not so much....

    I guess Michelle Obama is rubbing off on me..

    "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."

    I'm just sayin' :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speak2,

    Having said the afore, I concede I *did* misunderstand your original comment..

    Prior to Clinton entering the race, nearly every Dem Woman in Congress signed a letter urging Clinton to run.

    When you said that, I thought you had meant to single out Warren insofar as she was NOT one of the "nearly every Dem Woman".

    In THAT context, Warren would be simply "following the herd"..

    Since your subsequent comment, I read your original comment in a different light and now understand what you were trying to say..

    So, my apologies..

    Having said THAT, I still maintain that an encouragement to run is not binding and should be subjected to change to reflect the current circumstances..

    Put another way. If Clinton had ALREADY been indicted, every Dem Woman who signed that "Encouragement To Run" document would likely pledge their support to Sanders and there, I am sure you would agree, would be no dis-honor in that...

    But regardless of all of that, I *DID* misunderstand your original comment and I sincerely apologize for that..

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I hope you will forgive me but you made a comment in last week's FTP that I want to bring forward...

    With all other things, including selective excerpts from Biden speeches in 1992, context is not only relevant but absolutely essential lest things be rendered meaningless. :)

    Apples and Alligators..

    The ONLY "context" that is required to interpret Biden's speech is the current political climate..

    That is the only relevant context...

    Put another way, if in the future, we find ourselves in a situation whereas we have a GOP POTUS and a (gods forbid) Dem Senate and there is a SCOTUS vacancy so close to a Presidential Election, I am sure that Democrats will reinstate The Biden Rule and that Biden will re-spin the previous re-spin of the original spin (my head is spinning :D ) to favor the current Democrat agenda..

    And so it goes... and so it goes...
    -Billy Joel

    :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Problem With Hillary, Chez, Is I Don’t Vote Republican
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton_b_9349590.html

    Pretty good stuff... :D

    See, if I were a Republican, stuff like that would bother me..

    But it doesn't... :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    See, if I were a Republican, stuff like that would bother me..

    if you were a republican, you'd be pretty much the same as you are now. folks like you who are conservative but who unlike you haven't fallen for trump's BS, have been writing stuff like this:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/26/this-man-can-save-us-from-trump-and-clinton.html

    JL

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You and your Republican cohorts choose to ignore the bottom line of what Biden said only because that ignorance furthers your own agendas.

    Also, I find your lack of pride in being American very disheartening.

  46. [46] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Michale:

    Fair enough. I wrote it like that because I didn't want to look up whether every or nearly every woman signed it, but Warren definitely did.

    I should also apologize for going to far and ranting. That part is my bad.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    my head is spinning

    That much is obvious and has been for some time, now. :(

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    all other things said, the article you cited was a well framed and factually supported defense of the pro-bernie, anti-hillary position.

    I don't agree with that position at all, but the facts can't be refuted.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    You and your Republican cohorts choose to ignore the bottom line of what Biden said only because that ignorance furthers your own agendas.

    The "bottom line" of what Biden says is completely dependent on the political winds...

    At the time he said it, he was pushing for NOT having a nomination process because that was what suited the Dem agenda at the time..

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    all other things said, the article you cited was a well framed and factually supported defense of the pro-bernie, anti-hillary position.

    Thank you.. :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fair enough. I wrote it like that because I didn't want to look up whether every or nearly every woman signed it, but Warren definitely did.

    I should also apologize for going to far and ranting. That part is my bad.

    Machts nichts :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    At the time he said it, he was pushing for NOT having a nomination process because that was what suited the Dem agenda at the time..

    False.

    Please stop wholly misrepresenting what Biden said about the Supreme Court nominating process and try defending the unprecedented nature of what the Republican-controlled Senate is doing today in failing to fulfil their constitutional duty with respect to their advise and consent role in filling a Supreme Court vacancy.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Unlike your antics here, Michale, Senator and Vice President Biden has demonstrated a non-partisan love of country and has worked tirelessly for more than 40 years to defend the constitution and do what is right for America and Americans.

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wish more Americans would take the time to listen to what Joe Biden has to say - on any subject, at any time.

    Like the link I provided at the top of this comment thread.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please stop wholly misrepresenting what Biden said about the Supreme Court nominating process and try defending the unprecedented nature of what the Republican-controlled Senate is doing today in failing to fulfil their constitutional duty with respect to their advise and consent role in filling a Supreme Court vacancy.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree.. I use Biden's own words to defend my position..

    Now, you can argue he didn't really MEAN what he said. You may even be right. But I don't pretend to be able to get into his head so I can only go by what he said..

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden meant every single word of what he said. There is just no accounting, sometimes, for how people choose to interpret what he says to further their own petty agendas.

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden meant every word of what he said and means every word that he says.

    Deal with it. And, not by selectively quoting to advance a juvenile agenda that is ultimately very destructive to America and Americans.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I use Biden's own words to defend my position..

    That is a completely dishonest statement.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden meant every word of what he said and means every word that he says.

    Exactly..

    So, when Biden said:

    As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

    The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

    ....... I am sure he meant it...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is a completely dishonest statement.

    No, it's a completely factually accurate statement..

    As Biden's actual words prove beyond ANY doubt..

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What about the part of that same speech where Biden said that if President Bush consulted with the Senate on a prospective nominee during an election year OR moderated his selection of a nominee in an election year absent consultation with the Senate then President Bush would have Biden's support of said nominee?

    And, there is something else that you continue to ignore because it does not support your own obvious agenda ... and, that is the fact that President Obama has bent over backwards to consult with the Republican-controlled Senate on the Merrick nomination and has taken moderation to brand new heights. Indeed, Obama made a selection that he knew had the support of Republicans and support that was voiced very recently by none other than Republican Senator Orrin Hatch.

    Lastly, anyone who says that they are using the "Biden Rule" to defend the naked obstructionism in the US Senate over this nominee is only exposing their own disingenuousness and abject partisanship.

  62. [62] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    have you read the rest of the speech?

    JL

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Need you ask?

  64. [64] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    yes, i do.

    JL

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, let me put it this way ... either Michale has read the speech or listened to it, in full, and bothered to check out the link at the top of this thread, and has chosen to ignore it all OR he has not read the speech and yet continues to comment about it.

    What's worse?

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That is a trick question, by the way. :)

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    i think the former would be worse than the latter.

    JL

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think they are both pretty lame, Joshua. And, I say that with a great deal of sadness.

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    in either case, since there's been so much misinformation out there, i think we should clarify what biden actually WAS proposing (hypothetical as it was, since there was no SCOTUS vacancy at the time). biden essentially promised in case of a sudden vacancy between june 25 and the election, to hold hearings and vote yes on any remotely reasonable nominee between election day and the inauguration of the next president.

    JL

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, that has been clarified on more than one occasion.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    have you read the rest of the speech?

    I have..

    But post the transcript and I'll show you why ya'all are wrong..

    (hypothetical as it was, since there was no SCOTUS vacancy at the time).

    Hypothetical though it might have been at the time, the reason Biden was saying it was because there was information that a justice would soon be retiring.

    Biden was simply laying the foundation for what would have happened had, in fact, the justice retired..

    Michale

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lastly, anyone who says that they are using the "Biden Rule" to defend the naked obstructionism in the US Senate over this nominee is only exposing their own disingenuousness and abject partisanship.

    If I weren't such a nice guy, I would say the same thing about the person who ignores the Biden Rule.. :D

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What is the Biden rule?

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've already posted the speech. What's your problem?

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    yeah, definitely worse.

    JL

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden was simply laying the foundation for what would have happened had, in fact, the justice retired..

    Yes, that is precisely what he was doing.

    To paraphrase (which is not to be confused with selectively quoting out of context), if President Bush consulted with the senate or, absent consultation, moderated his selection of a Supreme Court nominee, then Biden would support that nominee.

    This, essentially, is the Biden Rule. The Biden Rule, in other words, is to faithfully follow the spirit and letter of the US constitution.

  77. [77] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    if there were a biden rule, it would be:

    "SCOTUS nominees in the second half of an election year should be confirmed in the lame duck session."

    oh, the horror.

    JL

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've already posted the speech. What's your problem?

    You posted the 1992 speech??

    Where???

    Oh, you must be talking about the 2016 re-spin....

    Doesn't cut it...

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    "SCOTUS nominees in the second half of an election year should be confirmed in the lame duck session."

    Nope..

    As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

    The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.
    -Joe Biden, 1992

    I've posted mine.. Where's yers?? :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

    Plain english, people..

    It doesn't get any plainer than that...

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The silly game you are playing here does not amuse me.

    Nevertheless, here is the Biden quote that you refuse to acknowledge:

    "I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate"

    "Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."

    And, stop calling us "people", Michale. It belittles your argument, such as it is.

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Happy Easter, everyone ... I'm finished with this thread.

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Post the entire transcript of the 1992 speech and I will prove you wrong..

    I can't seem to locate the transcript..

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Happy Easter, everyone ... I'm finished with this thread.

    Of course you are.. :D

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, stop calling us "people", Michale. It belittles your argument, such as it is.

    Fair enough...

    As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

    Plain english, Weigantians... It doesn't get any plainer..

    Those are BIDEN's OWN WORDS...

    Now, if ya'all want to make the case that he didn't really MEAN what he said back in 1992, by all means, make that case..

    But USE words *FROM* 1992 to make that case..

    The back-pedaling and re-spin in the here and now hardly constitutes a case.. It's smacks of nothing more than political spin to fit a current agenda....

    The mere fact that Biden and the Democrats have invested so much in back-pedaling and re-spin indicates the level of concern they have for the Biden Rule...

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    This morning, "the beans" may have actually been spilled, as the National Enquirer is now reporting not on Ted Cruz's wife, but instead on his (alleged) five girlfriends. I'd say "we're down the rabbit hole now, folks,"

    Would you like me to post all the National Enquirer headlines about the Clintons???

    I honestly don't think ya'all do... :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    okay, you asked for it. considering how difficult it was for me to get and read from the congressional record, i sincerely doubt that you've read the whole thing as you claim.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mnTGGmsUI2vHQtXVTYjvZw2frfV9MRhtbNjkGN92yvQ/edit?usp=sharing

  89. [89] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    So....Given your logic above in supporting the so called "Biden Rule"....

    You have no problem going along with the McConnel Rule and the Grassley Rule....They did say ithose words and what they meant is clear.

    and in the case of the McConnel and Grassley Rules they have said the words more than one one nomination occasion.

  90. [90] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Would you like me to post all the National Enquirer headlines about the Clintons???

    well, if that's what you believe, then you've got nothing to worry about.

    http://cdn.magzter.com/1369067063/1443509929/images/thumb/390_thumb_1.jpg

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua, I can't thank you enough for your efforts in locating the full transcript of this speech.

    It is quite an interesting read and just another reminder of what a masterful Senator and outstanding public servant Biden was and is.

    Thanks, again ... from the bottom of my heart!

  92. [92] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    my pleasure.

    :)

    JL

  93. [93] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    (actually my wife deserves the credit - she's the one who found it for me.)

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In that case, please extend my deepest appreciation to your better half! :)

  95. [95] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    she says you're welcome. also, senator biden made some additional comments afterward. see below:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LH8l-h8j6JcxFJvv0P1sPyxBka6pt2Hc5VRBZzG27dg/edit?usp=sharing

  96. [96] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    considering the size of the document, my wife suggests using the outline view.

    JL

  97. [97] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    it should also be pointed out that the current GOP'ers are somewhat invoking the "Thurmond Rule" which supposedly doesn't exist according to the current majority leader....What happened?

    Now, our Democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called Thurmond rule under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a Presidential election year. I am concerned that this seeming obsession with this supposed rule--which, by the way, doesn't exist; Senator Specter has researched that thoroughly and there is no such rule. Anyway, I am concerned that this seeming obsession with this rule that doesn't exist is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are urgently needed to fill vacancies.

    No party is without blame in the confirmation process, but what is going on now--or, more accurately, what is not going on--is yet another step backward in politicizing the confirmation process--something we had all hoped we would get beyond.

    It is the American people, especially those in the five States that make up the Fourth Circuit, who are suffering the consequences, and I am sorry the majority leader doesn't think that matters.

    Madam President, I yield the floor.

    Mitch McConnel senate floor July 2008

    I suppose "this is different" and absolutely, NO ideological slavery is taking place here....nothing to see, move along, we aren't screwing the american people by abdicating our constitutional duties.... move along.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Maybe I am being persnickety..

    But could you get me a PDF that's searchable???

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    okay, you asked for it. considering how difficult it was for me to get and read from the congressional record, i sincerely doubt that you've read the whole thing as you claim.

    And anyone else has??? :D

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    sorry, no. if you want to search the thing up directly, feel free, but it was a bit of a project even to get it into a google doc.

    JL

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact that it's so difficult to find a proper transcript should tell ya'all something..

    If Biden didn't truly say what ya'all claim he didn't say, then you would think the Left Wingery would be plastering it all over hell and back...

    But we know he DID say:

    As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

    No one has denied that Biden said those words...

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    sorry, no. if you want to search the thing up directly, feel free, but it was a bit of a project even to get it into a google doc.

    Yea, GOOGLE DOC doesn't allow for searching, apparently..

    I read an article that has EXACTLY what I am looking for.. I thought I saved it in my BOOKMARKS, but no luck... I'll dig around for it..

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    link the article, i'll see if i can find it.

    JL

  104. [104] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i can search in google docs, not sure why you can't.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK.. I found a way to search and I found EXACTLY what I was looking for..

    But GOOGLE DOCS won't let me COPY n PASTE, so I have to use a JPG...

    http://sjfm.us/temp/biden1.jpg

    What this says is that AFTER Bush is re-elected (or if Clinton is elected) then.. AND ONLY THEN will Biden give his consent for the normal Senate processing process to proceed...

    So, yes.. Bide IS saying what Liz quoted above...

    But he is saying that that SHOULD occur ONLY after Bush has been re-elected or Clinton has been elected..

    Im other words, Biden is explicitly stating exactly what the Republicans are saying now..

    Wait til AFTER the election for the process to move forward...

    Sorry, peo.... Weigantians...

    Yer wrong on this one...

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I'm afraid you are so focused on your extreme partisan agenda that you keep failing to see the forest for the trees.

    You only see the words and you misunderstand the meaning and don't care a whit about context. That is a common failing of yours. It's easy enough to correct, though. But, it will entail a less partisan approach to politics and I'm not convinced that you will ever be open to that sort of discussion.

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You actually highlighted the Biden Rule in your link above!

    The Biden Rule: A Democratic president must seek the advice and consent of a Republican Senate and compromise.

    Well, don't look now but, President Obama has followed the Biden Rule, in spades!

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wait til AFTER the election for the process to move forward...

    Do you think that is what Republicans intend to do?

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I read an article that has EXACTLY what I am looking for..

    Indubitably, Michale. :)

  110. [110] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    yeah, pretty much.

    @michale,

    But post the transcript and I'll show you why ya'all are wrong..

    that should have read: "but post the transcript and i'll read through it to see whether y'all are right or wrong."

    seeing as you already lied about having read it to begin with AND presumed a conclusion a priori, my present confidence in your objectivity in the matter is not very high.

    JL

  111. [111] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    also, biden said if the president did NOT seek advice and consent of the senate, he would "reject the nominees," NOT refuse to meet or allow hearings on them.

  112. [112] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    OOOOO....we are opening up to the rest of the document? it is unfortunate that you have not read the whole thing.

    I see you conveniently ignore the paragraph directly above the one you highlighted. We wouldn't want you to be a slave to ideological views, unlike the rest of us simple Weigantians.

    As Elizabeth so aptly points out the President has followed the so called "Biden Rule" in spades. but just in case you are failing to grasp the meaning of his words...please see below from the same section of the congressional record

    (as an aside M-[61] the first time we discussed the "rule" which, under your dear leaders criterion, doesn't exist, the answer should be obvious... )

    Now see below...

    Put another way, if the President does not restore the historical tradition of genuine consultation between the White House and the Senate on the Supreme Court nomination, or instead restore the common practice of Presidents who chose nominees who strode the middle ground between the divided political branches, then I shall oppose his future nominees immediately upon their nomination.

    This is not a request that the President relinquish any power to the Senate, or that he refrain from exercising any prerogatives he has as President. Rather, it is my statement that unless the President chooses to do so, I will not lend the power that I have in this process to support the confirmation of his selection.

    As I noted before, the practice of many Presidents throughout our history supports my call for more Executive-Senate consultations. More fundamentally, the text of the Constitution itself, its use of the phrase `advice and consent' to describe the Senate's role in appointments demands greater inclusion of our views in this process. While this position may seem contentious, I believe it is nothing more than a justified response to the politicizing of the nomination process.</br

    FACT: The president has called the Senate Leadership to the WH to discuss the situation and the fact he was going to be nominating someone and who was on the list.

    FACT: The president has nominated a judge that strides"the middle ground" so much so that to the point he is neither liberal or conservative enough for either political ideology.

    FACT: The judicial nominee the president has put forward has the reputation and respect of both parties as being a balanced and fair judge (at least until he was nominated and then, boy howdy, were those comments walked back).

    FACT: The constitution says "advise and consent" not "refuse to consider"...

    FACT: Over 64 percent of the american public wants a hearing on the nominee. Please note that is not "wants the nominee confirmed".

    FACT: The current GOP position is in direct oposition to the constitutional precepts that they claim to cherish more than the president currently does

    As you are want to say....

    "These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed"

    If the GOP wants to bring back the "thurmond rule" so be it, but put on the big boy pants and stand by that rule rather than taking one paragraph out of context.

    Personally I side with the majority of Americans and belive that congress should do what we are paying them 170K plus to do, which is govern, they need to hold the damn hearings and if they don't like the guy they can refuse to "consent".

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    also, biden said if the president did NOT seek advice and consent of the senate, he would "reject the nominees," NOT refuse to meet or allow hearings on them.

    Semantics..

    Liz,

    The Biden Rule: A Democratic president must seek the advice and consent of a Republican Senate and compromise.

    Fine. And the compromise is that Obama name his nominee and that the Senate won't consider that nominee until after the election.

    The essence of compromise..

    JL,

    seeing as you already lied about having read it to begin with AND presumed a conclusion a priori, my present confidence in your objectivity in the matter is not very high.

    I thought we have moved past these false accusations of "lying"... {{sssiiggghhhh}}

    GT,

    I see you conveniently ignore the paragraph directly above the one you highlighted. We wouldn't want you to be a slave to ideological views, unlike the rest of us simple Weigantians.

    You mean the paragraph where Biden says ". But when the President continues to ignore this difference and to pick nominees with views at odds with the constituents who elected me with an even larger
    margin than they elected him, then his nominees are not entitled to my support in any shape or form."

    You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. :D

    The president has nominated a judge that strides"the middle ground" so much so that to the point he is neither liberal or conservative enough for either political ideology.

    That's an opinion, not a fact..

    FACT: Over 64 percent of the american public wants a hearing on the nominee. Please note that is not "wants the nominee confirmed".

    And the vast majority of Americans opposed MANY of the projects of Obama and the Democrat Party. And they were ignored.. Funny how the will of the people is ONLY important to ya'all when it goes yer way, eh?? :D

    FACT: The current GOP position is in direct oposition to the constitutional precepts that they claim to cherish more than the president currently does

    Another opinion, not a fact...

    Ya'all can spin it all you like.. Ya'all can dissect the meaning of 'is' until the cows come home..

    But you simply can't escape Biden's own words...

    It's really THAT simple...

    There will not be a nomination process until AFTER the election.

    Get used to it..

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the bi...

    http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/SCOTUS,%2003-24-16,%201992%20Biden%20Speech.pdf

    There's a PDF of the Biden Rule... Searchable and CnP-able...

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    [71]have you read the rest of the speech?

    I have..

    [99]okay, you asked for it. considering how difficult it was for me to get and read from the congressional record, i sincerely doubt that you've read the whole thing as you claim.

    And anyone else has??? :D

    i.e. you wrote something in [71] that you knew not to be true, then acknowledged in [99] that what you had written was in fact not true, and that you had known it was not true.

    granted it's a small lie, a fib if you prefer, but still a statement of fact that was knowingly, demonstrably untrue. and about liz's favorite american politician to boot. *sigh* indeed.

    JL

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rut Roh,

    Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

    The final step before an indictment is handed down..

    Interviewing the suspects...

    Ya'all better get yer donations and T-shirts ready... Clinton is going down!!

    And, on that hallowed day, I will celebrate with a tall cold beer... :D

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    i.e. you wrote something in [71] that you knew not to be true, then acknowledged in [99] that what you had written was in fact not true, and that you had known it was not true.

    granted it's a small lie, a fib if you prefer, but still a statement of fact that was knowingly, demonstrably untrue. and about liz's favorite american politician to boot. *sigh* indeed.

    So nit-picking is the standard now, eh? {{{siiighhh}} indeed...

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you SURE you want to go with the "exact words" scenario???

    Because it didn't work out too well for Greg Brady... :^/

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    e. and about liz's favorite american politician to boot.

    Oooo nice touch.. :^/

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    i.e. you wrote something in [71] that you knew not to be true, then acknowledged in [99] that what you had written was in fact not true, and that you had known it was not true.

    Actually, that's a lie..

    At the time I wrote that, you had not posted the full transcript of the speech.. So when I said I had read the rest of the speech, I didn't know at the time that there was a "rest of the speech" I hadn't read. At the time I made the statement I had thought that what I read was all there is.. It was only seeing your transcript did I realize I hadn't read the entire speech..

    So, I wasn't lying.. I was simply mistaken..

    You see, that's what's wrong with the Left Wingery.. Ya'all get all hysterical about "lies" that are not, in fact lies, but rather mistakes...

    But, gods forbid, when a Left Winger actually and KNOWINGLY lies...

    Ya'all ignore it. Completely and unequivocally ignore it..

    In short, YA'ALL are the *LAST* people on the planet that want to be pointing out other people's "lies"....

    fini...

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    i.e. you wrote something in [71] that you knew not to be true, then acknowledged in [99] that what you had written was in fact not true, and that you had known it was not true.

    Actually, that's a lie..

    I was being facetious...

    What you posted was not a lie, but rather you were just mistaken..

    You see, *I* can tell the difference... :^/

    But it's not fun, falsely being accused of lying.. Is it? :^/

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    But getting away from false accusations of lying and back to the SCOTUS Nominee question..

    GT,

    FACT: Over 64 percent of the american public wants a hearing on the nominee. Please note that is not "wants the nominee confirmed".

    Really?? That's a "fact"... Well, that seems strange because I found two polls that put your "fact" into question..

    Would you like to see the next Supreme Court justice appointed by President Obama before the election in November or appointed by the president who will be elected in November?

    Appointed by President Obama: 47%

    Appointed by President elected in 2016: 46%
    -CBS News Poll

    Would you prefer the U.S. Senate vote this year on the replacement nominated by President Obama or leave the position vacant and wait to vote next year on the replacement nominated by the new president?

    Vote this year on replacement: 43%

    Leave vacant and wait: 42%
    -NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll

    Now, GT... I am not going to accuse you of LYING.. Mainly because I said we would get away from false accusations of lying..

    But you must admit. Your claim of "FACT" is completely and unequivocally WRONG...

    I won't even bother re-iterating how funny it is that the will of the people ONLY matters to ya'all when that will goes yer way...

    That would be redumbnant.. :D

    Michale...

  123. [123] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    "mistake" my left butt cheek, you're compounding one fib with another. even if you hadn't known before, which is doubtful, you knew there was a "rest of the speech" because i told you there was, and you quoted it [71]. if, even after quoting my post that told you about it, for some reason you still really didn't believe that it existed, your response wouldn't have been that you'd read it.

    it's no big deal really, not as if anyone got hurt, so man up and admit that you got caught claiming to have done something you knew you hadn't.

    JL

    p.s. two quotes from will rogers:

    -If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

    -Never miss a good chance to shut up.

    -There are three kinds of men:
    The ones that learn by reading.
    The few who learn by observation.
    The rest of them have to touch an electric fence.

  124. [124] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    three, three quotes. NOBODY expects the spanish inquisition! Four!

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    For someone who is saying "it's no big deal", you seem to be making it one. FOUR quotes!?? :D

    OK, the fact is, I thought I had read all of the document. I guess I should have made SURE I had read it all before I made the claim..

    So, mea culpa...

    In my defense, I DID ask several times for the transcript so I could confirm I had read all of the document.

    My bust that I didn't wait..

    Sue me.. :D

    MY point is still valid.. Ya'all are so quick to scream "LIE LIE!!!" but when it's one of yer own who is doing the lying, things are quite muted...

    In other words, I would be more willing to accept the accusations of LYING if it wasn't applied solely and completely based on partisan ideology...

    Michale....

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    what other weigantian has wittingly expounded multiple falsehoods recently, and what were they? show me who and when, and i'll be happy to condemn that too.

    JL

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    what other weigantian has wittingly expounded multiple falsehoods recently, and what were they? show me who and when, and i'll be happy to condemn that too.

    It wasn't a Weigantian and why should that matter?? Isn't lying lying??

    Are Weigantians held to a higher standard than Democrat Party leaders??

    But to be fair, you (and a couple others) have been known to condemn the liars of our group. JFC for one.. A few others that are no longer with us.. So, Kudos To That, Credit Where Credit Is Due, blaa blaaa blaaa...

    Having said that, GT's recent foray into "FACTS" that weren't really facts certainly could qualify. At least using the definition that you seem to go by ie MISTAKE=LIE

    But irregardless of all that, when I made the claim I wasn't referring to Weigantians but rather Democrat Party (so-called) Leadership...

    Now, if you want to make one standard for Democrats, another standard for Republicans, a third standard for Weigantians and a fourth sub-standard for Weigantians Who Don't Toe The Ideological Slave line, then I guess we can do that. Just make sure you issue the proper proclamations so I can follow the rules..

    :D

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    with politicians it's not even fair - they all lie so much it can be hard to keep track of. but politifact does a pretty good job. bernie is the only one of the group that has yet to tell a real pants-on-fire whopper, while trump leads the pack by a mile with 22. ted cruz runs a far distant second with 7, while kasich has 3 and hillary has 2.

    JL

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    with politicians it's not even fair - they all lie so much it can be hard to keep track of. but politifact does a pretty good job.

    Yes, Politifact does a pretty good job giving cover to the Left Wingery..

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

    , while trump leads the pack by a mile with 22. ted cruz runs a far distant second with 7, while kasich has 3 and hillary has 2.

    A perfect case in point..

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    M, M, M.....really?

    Now, GT... I am not going to accuse you of LYING.. Mainly because I said we would get away from false accusations of lying..

    Thanks, Err... I think....most people I have discussions with just come out say what they are thinking vs trying to drag me into some other battle I have no part of...

    But you must admit. Your claim of "FACT" is completely and unequivocally WRONG...

    Unfortuntely, for you is is an actual and honest fact...let us look into some other polls, shall we ?

    Monmouth University, should 69% should not 25%

    CNN/ORC Should 64%, Should not 31%

    ABC/ WP should 63%, should not 32%

    Those three alone average out to around 64 percent. Now if your quibble is about the overall numbers go ahead and cherry pick all you want but overwhelmingly it is fact that the american populace want congress to do as I am asserting and fulfill their constitutional responsibilities by holding hearings and either consenting or not.

    Let's keep looking at my "incorrect" fact, shall we?

    In the latest iteration of the CBS poll, you are sighting. The numbers have become should 53% should not 42% and for the NBC poll should 48% should not 37%. I think I will go with numbers from March vs the February numbers you are presenting.

    To further support my assertion that the American public wants to see the Senate perform their job lets look at some other questions asked.....

    Bloomberg politics poll asked Turning now to some judicial issues, President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to the Supreme Court to fill the current vacancy. Do you think Republicans in the U.S. Senate are right or wrong to refuse to hold confirmation hearings on any Obama nominee, no matter the person or qualifications?",

    Right 27%, Wrong 62%, Unsure 11%

    CBS/NYT asks, As you may know, Senate Republican leaders have said they will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court justice nominated by Barack Obama because they want to wait until the next president is in office. Do you think Senate Republican leaders are doing this mostly for political reasons or mostly because they think it is the best thing for the country?"

    Political reasons 73%, It's best for the country 23% unsure 3%

    or...Hows about NBC/WSJ which asks, The U.S. Constitution requires the president to nominate a candidate to fill an opening on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate has the responsibility to confirm or reject a nominee. Republicans who control the Senate say they will not hold confirmation hearings and have no plans to consider a nominee put forward by President Obama. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision not to consider President Obama's nominee, or do you not have an opinion one way or the other?"

    approve 28% disapprove 55% and 16% no opinion, 1% unsure.

    I probably need to keep going but....I gotta get on a plane and go talk to some bad people who got caught doing some bad things ....

    In closing, Dude, no matter how you slice it my fact is correct, a clear majority of Americans want the senate to do their job....or in other words follow the constitution.

    Before you put on your butt hurt undies and break out that tired old "will of the people only matters argument of yours"...again...consider that there are even questions that indicate no matter which party is in charge the answer is hold the frigging hearings.

    Now what happens once they hold hearings is an entirely different discussion...assuming the arseholes in Washington grow up and hold the hearings

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanks, Err... I think...

    Yer welcome..

    .most people I have discussions with just come out say what they are thinking vs trying to drag me into some other battle I have no part of...

    Apparently, my point was clear enough.. :D

    But I'll give you this.. You are partially correct..

    The polls you cherry pick show what you claim..

    Other polls show something different..

    That's the danger of relying on polls to make your point. I have always said and this bears it out..

    Polls show the biases of the poll TAKERS... And that's about it..

    We can argue what the definition of 'is' until the cows come home...

    But. regardless of all your polls, regardless of all your "facts"....

    One FACT stands out above all else..

    As of right now, the GOP is not going to process the nominee... And their justification for it is the Biden Rule...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed"

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    One FACT stands out above all else..

    As of right now, the GOP is not going to process the nominee... And their justification for it is the Biden Rule...

    that's not a fact, it's a prediction. if accurate, it doesn't bode well for republican senate hopes, which are already in deep trouble with a trump nomination.

    as liz and i demonstrated factually and you've already apparently forgotten, the "biden rule" if one existed, would be that SCOTUS openings during the second half of an election year be nominated and confirmed during the lame duck session.

    JL

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look... It's real simple...

    The GOP is using the Senate rules to push their agenda..

    Just like Democrats used the Senate rules to push THEIR agenda when THEY had control..

    Ya'all cheer on the Democrats when THEY do it and denigrate and castigate the Republicans when THEY do it..

    Hoo-hum, same ol same ol...

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's not a fact, it's a prediction.

    No.. In the here and now, right at this moment.. It's a FACT...

    that's not a fact, it's a prediction. if accurate, it doesn't bode well for republican senate hopes, which are already in deep trouble with a trump nomination.

    yea, yea, yea.. Ya'all said the same thing about something or another during the 2014 Senate races...

    "OOoooO!!!! Republicans gonna PAY!!!!!"

    as liz and i demonstrated factually and you've already apparently forgotten, the "biden rule" if one existed, would be that SCOTUS openings during the second half of an election year be nominated and confirmed during the lame duck session.

    That's ya'alls spin on the Biden Rule..

    MY position comes from Bidens EXACT words..

    As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

    The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

    EXACT words... No spin required...

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why ya'all can't win this debate...

    Ya'all have to "interpret" (ie spin) what Biden has said to fit the current political agenda/climate...

    All I have to do is use Biden's EXACT words to refute the spin...

    Credit where credit is due, however. Ya'all are making a valiant effort.. :D

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I'm not at a computer now, but you're just flat wrong Michele, just like you were before you'd read the full text. I'm hoping you have now.

    Biden explicitly says he will NOT prevent hearings on a potential nominee by Bush, and will vote yes on Bush's nominee if the Senate is consulted, but that he advises it should happen after the first week of November, since it was already the last week of June. That's not spin, it's in the speech. There is no debate, you keep being proven wrong, ignore it, rinse and repeat.
    But feel free to continue.

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK... On the drive home, I had more time to mull this over and I think I have hit on the way to show ya'all how wrong you are..

    The imputes for Biden's speech on these Judiciary Rules was the rumor that SCOTUS Justice would soon be retiring..

    So, what we have is a contentious Presidential Election and let's postulate that a SCOTUS Justice *DID* in fact, retire..

    Now, are ya'all telling me that, after making a 90 minute speech on why it's perfectly logical and rational to ignore a nominee during a Presidential Election, Senate Judiciary Chairman Biden would turn to Bush and say:

    "Why yes, Mr President. Go ahead and make your nominee.. We will process him or her with all the haste we can muster.. What?? No, we don't care that YOU get to choose the next SCOTUS Justice. Huh?? Oh, of course, we would prefer President CLINTON would choose HIS nominee, but the opportunity has come up in YOUR last year of office, so we'll be happy to process YOUR choice with haste and aplomb, with a song in our hearts and a smile on our lips... Please. Choose your nominee. We insist!!"

    If ya'all REALLY believe that's how it would have gone done, then I have some REALLY awesome swampland in FL I wanna sell ya!

    Of course, the reality is that, had there been an opening in the SCOTUS as was rumored in 1992, then the Democrat Senate would be doing EXACTLY as the Republican Senate is doing now...

    Don't bother trying to deny it.. You can't...

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden explicitly says he will NOT prevent hearings on a potential nominee by Bush, and will vote yes on Bush's nominee if the Senate is consulted,

    Really!???

    Biden said he would vote to approve ANYONE that Bush nominated free and clear???

    Now I *KNOW* yer full of carp! :D

    We can go round and round and it STILL won't change Biden's EXACT words..

    Biden said it, I believe it, that settles it..

    The debate is over!! :D

    Annoying that is, iddn't it... :D

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    Paula wrote:

    While the rounds continue of Michale thinking he's somehow proved his point and everyone else understanding concepts like "hypotheticals" and "context" (and taken-out-of) I'd add one more point: Michale seems to think he scores something by claiming the Repubs are just doing something the Democrats supported in the past. He ignores the basic inaccuracy of the example as used by the repubs, but he also ignores the complete idiocy of the entire argument. But that's literally the level the repubs argue at: "we're doing something you said (even though we didn't) because right now it would be handy if you had (even though we hadn't), but the notion of their being any, other, rationalization at ALL, is skipped.

    So since when do Repubs do what Dems supposedly-but-not-actually recommend? Since when do they do something because Joe Biden supposedly-but-not-actually recommended it? Since when do they need to use Dem approval for anything? They are using this fake-argument because they got nothin. Nothing. They know it's bullshit, but figure they can fool their water-carriers by proclaiming "the Dems said so!" 20 years ago. Not because it's a real support for their utter stonewalling, but because it's as good a fake tit for tat as any other juvenile tit for tat in their toolbox.

    A bunch of seven-year-olds in suits.

  140. [140] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... an insult to seven-year-olds, everywhere.

  141. [141] 
    Paula wrote:

    [140] Sigh. Yep.

  142. [142] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    a few germane biden quotes from the june 25, 1992 floor speech:

    1.

    Moreover, the tradition against acting on Supreme Court nominations in a Presidential year is particularly strong when the vacancy occurs in the summer or fall of that election season.

    2.

    "Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

    3.

    "If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."

    4.

    "I will say the same thing to Bill Clinton: In a divided Government, he must seek the advice of the Republican Senate and compromise. Otherwise, this Republican Senate would be totally entitled to say we reject the nominees of a Democratic President who is attempting to remake the Court in a way with which we disagree."

  143. [143] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    One quick parting shot before I take a nap...

    MY position comes from Bidens EXACT words..

    So... one of three things is going on here.

    A) You still have not read the entire speech, but have simply click bated your research on it to appear as if you had.

    B) You are under the impression that somehow the congressional record has been falsified and we are not using Biden's EXACT words when questioning the justification of the so called "Biden Rule". (which under your dear leader McConnell doctrine makes the existence of said rule impossible, we have done the research!)

    C) You think we are lying, or mistaken in how the english language is applied and we are all using an alternative left wing pokery jiggery secret dictionary.

    Personally option C is a little far fetched even for you....maybe. Now, lets pick up some highlights here.

    Those are BIDEN's OWN WORDS...
    But USE words *FROM* 1992 to make that case..
    Comment 86

    But you simply can't escape Biden's own words...
    It's really THAT simple...

    comment 113

    EXACT words... No spin required...
    MY position comes from Bidens EXACT words..
    comment 134

    All I have to do is use Biden's EXACT words to refute the spin...
    comment 135

    We can go round and round and it STILL won't change Biden's EXACT words..
    comment 138

    Soooooo... glad to see we agree on something REPEATEDLY. Exact words are good.So now AGAIN for some EXACT words from Biden in the same speech as copied from the document YOU posted from the GRASSLEY senate website..... Again, EXACT words...

    Put another way, if the President does not restore the historical tradition of genuine consultation between the White House and the Senate on the Supreme Court
    nomination, or instead restore the common practice of Presidents who chose nominees who strode the middle ground between the divided political branches, then I shall oppose his future nominees immediately upon their nomination.
    This is not a request that the President relinquish any power to the Senate, or that he refrain from exercising any prerogatives he has as President. Rather, it is my statement that unless the President chooses to do so, I will not lend the power that I have in this process to support the confirmation of his selection.

    As I noted before, the practice of many Presidents throughout our history supports my call for more Executive-Senate consultations. More fundamentally, the text of the Constitution itself, its use of the phrase `advice and consent' to describe the Senate's role in appointments demands greater inclusion of our views in this process. While this
    position may seem contentious, I believe it is nothing more than a justified response to the politicizing of the nomination process.
    To take a common example, the President is free to submit to Congress any budget that he so chooses. He can submit one that reflects his conservative philosophy or one that straddles the differences between his views and ours. That is his choice. But when the President has taken the former course, no one has been surprised or outraged when Democrats like myself have responded by rejecting the President's budget outright.

    What was it you said?.....

    We can go round and round and it STILL won't change Biden's EXACT words..

    Biden said it, I believe it, that settles it..

    The debate is over!! :D

    Could not have said it better myself....Glad to see you agree.

    EXACT words... No spin required... wonderful thing...

  144. [144] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, so, after more than 140 comments - many of them, non-brief - a unanimously held conclusion that Biden's words are truly a wonderful thing!

    Of course, I knew that all along ... :)

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhh I see..

    So, ya'all cheery pick your Biden quotes to "prove" your case..

    And I cheery pick Biden quotes to prove my case.

    And, somehow, YA'LL are right and I am wrong??

    How does that work, exactly?? :D

    Gotcha... heh

    Like I said above. It doesn't matter what you or I think..

    The Republicans are not going to process Obama's nomination until after the election. THIS IS FACT...

    As an aside, comment #137 was ignored.. Gee.. I wonder why?? :D

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    First of all, the "advice and consent" provision of the Constitution is a restriction on the President's power, not an imposition of a duty on the Senate. It says nothing about the Senate's having a duty to hold hearings, or vote, on any Presidential nominee, whether for the Supreme Court or for any other federal institution. The power to consent is the power to refuse to consent....
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/29/supreme_hypocrisy__130127.html

    These are the facts of the case.. And they are undisputed.

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    Put another way, if the President does not restore the historical tradition of genuine consultation between the White House and the Senate on the Supreme Court
    nomination, or instead restore the common practice of Presidents who chose nominees who strode the middle ground between the divided political branches, then I shall oppose his future nominees immediately upon their nomination.

    This is not a request that the President relinquish any power to the Senate, or that he refrain from exercising any prerogatives he has as President. Rather, it is my statement that unless the President chooses to do so, I will not lend the power that I have in this process to support the confirmation of his selection.

    To take a common example, the President is free to submit to Congress any budget that he so chooses. He can submit one that reflects his conservative philosophy or one that straddles the differences between his views and ours. That is his choice. But when the President has taken the former course, no one has been surprised or outraged when Democrats like myself have responded by rejecting the President's budget outright.

    So, basically, what Biden is saying is that, if the President won't choose a nominee that is acceptable to Democrats, then Biden will refuse to process the nominee...

    Oookaayy.. While not exactly analogous to the current situation, it really boils down to the same thing...

    Democrats using the rules of the Senate to push their own agenda..

    Which is EXACTLY what Republicans are doing in the here and now..

    Thank you. You proved my point for me...

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz [144],

    agree completely. biden's speech in its entirety was a brilliant and principled stand on cooperation and moderation in nomination battles.

    @paula,

    as you say, they got nothing, so they're manufacturing what they can. "A for effort," and at least the equal of most twelve year-olds.

    @gt,

    good luck on that. as trump himself said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," and michale seems to be of that bent regarding all his positions.

    @michale,

    RE: [137] see [142:2-4]
    RE: [138] not what i wrote.

    biden uses the words "consult" or "consultation" 5 times, and "moderates his selections/choices" twice, and he promises his support on either condition, not "free and clear."

    RE: [147] zero implication of refusing to vote or hold hearings. key word is "reject" which is a category of vote [142:4]. Also explicit denial that a delay from june to november would be used to give the nominee to the next president [142:2].

    JL

    also see: [136]
    you keep being proven wrong, ignore it, rinse and repeat.
    But feel free to continue.

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    biden uses the words "consult" or "consultation" 5 times, and "moderates his selections/choices" twice, and he promises his support on either condition,

    Political promises are like political lies..

    We've seen how Democrats keep their promises..

    you keep being proven wrong, ignore it, rinse and repeat.

    No, you keep THINKING I am being proven wrong, but it's nothing more than cheery picking Biden excerpts to make your case..

    Which is what I am doing.

    The only difference between ya'all and me is that I am honest about what I am doing...

    Come ta think of it, that's the difference between us a LOT of times.. :D

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for the record, I don't search footnotes..

    If you want to address something I have said, then yer going to have to quote it..

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    How do you think the sudden vacancy of the Supreme Court should be handled ... by President Obama and by the Senate?

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Should??

    I think that President Obama and the Senate should sit down and hash out the best choice over beers..

    How it WILL be handled??

    Obama pushes his agenda, Democrats push their agenda and Republicans push their agenda.. And everyone demonizes the other..

    And so it goes and so it goes...

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    but it's nothing more than cheery picking Biden excerpts to make your case..

    Which is what I am doing.

    given that cherry-picking selected bits and pieces is your professed manner of supporting your assertions, it's understandable that you might believe others must be doing the same, and that claims to the contrary are dishonest.

    however, in this case your belief is mistaken. liz and i have read the entire, outstanding document and know what it means, both in terms of the clarence thomas nomination and the political climate on june 25, 1992. perhaps you don't know or care what then senator biden was talking about, only whether or not it supports your false conclusion. perhaps not, but either way, if you can't be bothered to scroll up and click, that's on you.

    in this case you've proven yourself wrong, ignored it, rinsed and repeated.
    But feel free to continue.

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    ven that cherry-picking selected bits and pieces is your professed manner of supporting your assertions, it's understandable that you might believe others must be doing the same, and that claims to the contrary are dishonest.

    Ya'all ARE doing the same...

    Yes, ya'all have claimed to have read the whole thing..

    But ALL your comments cheery pick just the parts that support your agenda..

    Have you quoted any parts that DON'T support your agenda?? Of course not.. Why should you??

    But the fact is ya'all are doing the EXACT same thing that I am doing..

    Ya'all just can't admit it..

    Which clearly shows who is the honest one here and who is not..

    Michale

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama pushes his agenda, Democrats push their agenda and Republicans push their agenda.. And everyone demonizes the other..

    Ya see, this is the fact that NONE of ya'all can grasp...

    Fundamentally, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans..

    They both utilize the same methods to achieve the same goals..

    But ya'all are stuck in this fantasy world where you believe that Democrats are good and true and Republicans are the Devil's spawn...

    As such, it's no different than religion...

    And then there are the agnostics like me... The ones who KNOW that BOTH Partys are frak'ed up beyond recognition...

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think that President Obama and the Senate should sit down and hash out the best choice over beers..

    Well, the record shows that that is essentially what President Obama did. Not sure what refreshments were served. In any event, he chose a nominee that he knew would be amenable to Republicans. Senator Orrin Hatch even suggested that Obama should nominate Garland and then speculated that Obama would never do that!

    President Obama chose compromise and consultation and moderation - some might even say, to a fault.

    And, yet, Republicans still choose to obstruct.

  157. [157] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Fundamentally, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans..

    A more accurate statement would be that some people choose to believe that there are no fundamental differences between the Democrats and Republicans when, indeed, there are, particularly from a policy perspective.

  158. [158] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale [154],

    the difference between cherry-picking (or other logical fallacies of incomplete evidence) and making a valid logical argument is that the former hides or ignores evidence to the contrary, while the latter acknowledges it.

    liz and i have neither hidden, ignored nor obscured the paragraph you repeatedly quote. we have clarified its true meaning by adding additional true evidence and context, not hiding, failing to acknowledge or otherwise subtracting from the body of fact.

    you are correct that the strategy you have used is called cherry picking, but you're the only one who's been doing it. everybody else has added additional true information, while you have not.

    other than correctly naming (although repeatedly misspelling) your own practice of cherry-picking data, you've proven yourself wrong, ignored it, rinsed and repeated.
    But feel free to continue.

    JL

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    liz and i have neither hidden, ignored nor obscured the paragraph you repeatedly quote. we have clarified its true meaning by adding additional true evidence and context

    No.. You have spun the "true meaning" to fit your partisan agenda...

    There's the difference..

    you are correct that the strategy you have used is called cherry picking, but you're the only one who's been doing it. everybody else has added additional true information, while you have not.

    Like I said, I am the only one being honest about using it.

    other than correctly naming (although repeatedly misspelling) your own practice of cherry-picking data,

    I wasn't misspelling it. I simply am happy because the excerpts I am posting prove my case beyond any doubt.. :D

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Well, the record shows that that is essentially what President Obama did.

    Of course that's what he did.. :^/

    A more accurate statement would be that some people choose to believe that there are no fundamental differences between the Democrats and Republicans when, indeed, there are, particularly from a policy perspective.

    Yes.. Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..

    Republicans are evil incarnate.

    I get it. I know that's what ya'all think..

    But the reality is vastly difference...

    Michale

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all think that Democrats are better than Republicans..

    Text book definition of bigotry....

    Michale

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    In any event, he chose a nominee that he knew would be amenable to Republicans.

    Yea, sure he did.. Garland supports gutting the 2nd Amendment..

    On what PLANET, in what GALAXY would that be amenable to Republicans??

    Because it sure as hell ain't on THIS planet, in THIS galaxy... :D

    Michale

  163. [163] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No.. You have spun the "true meaning" to fit your partisan agenda...

    how much clearer could biden have been than "that would not be our intention"

    that's not spin, it's just what was said by the same man in the same segment of the same speech, specifically about trying to delay a nominee until the next president takes office, which is mcconnell's and grassley's explicit goal. mcconnell and grassley say they want to delay the nomination until the next president takes office, biden said he didn't.

    you're still wrong about biden, still ignoring that fact, rinsing and repeating ad nauseum, but feel free to continue.

    JL

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    how much clearer could biden have been than "that would not be our intention"

    About as clear as "If you like your healthcare plan, you can KEEP your healthcare plan."

    Biden is JUST as clear when he said this:

    As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

    That's pretty clear too, JL...

    you're still wrong about biden, still ignoring that fact, rinsing and repeating ad nauseum,

    Yea, you keep saying that. But your rinsing and repeating ad nauseum simply does not make it so... :D

    I get it, I really do.. Democrats can do no wrong. Everything they do is pure and good.. I get it..

    "I GET IT!! I get the concept.."
    -Hades HERCULES

    :D

    But the simple fact is, had there been an opening in 1992 as Biden thought, then the Democrats would be acting EXACTLY like the Republicans are acting now...

    You can deny it all you like.. But you know and I know and everyone here knows that it would be true..

    Because, when it comes down to it, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both will push their agenda to the exclusion of ALL else..

    Anyone who says different is just displaying rank bigotry...

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yea, you keep saying that. But your rinsing and repeating ad nauseum simply does not make it so... :D

    wonderful, now you know how the rest of us feel about you.

    but feel free to continue.

  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Yes.. Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..
    Republicans are evil incarnate.

    Why do you always resort to this silliness whenever anyone says that there are fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats, particularly from a policy perspective?

    No one here has ever said anything remotely like that. Well, except for you ... hmmmm ...

  167. [167] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But the simple fact is, had there been an opening in 1992 as Biden thought ...

    Actually, Biden thought no such thing, as he made amply clear in his speech on the Senate floor.

    Biden was making a kind of proactive speech in advocating for a less politicized confirmation process going forward.

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    wonderful, now you know how the rest of us feel about you.

    but feel free to continue.

    I always do.. With or without your permission. :D

    Liz,

    No one here has ever said anything remotely like that. Well, except for you ... hmmmm ...

    Ya'all say it every time you give the Democrats a pass for the same actions you castigate the Republicans for...

    Actually, Biden thought no such thing, as he made amply clear in his speech on the Senate floor.

    Once again, you take a Democrats word at face value. Would you do the same with a Republican? Of course not.. Hence the claim that ya'all think Democrats are pure at heart and Republicans are evil incarnate..

    Biden SAID that in his speech. You don't know what he actually thought...

    But it's a funny coincidence that the speech happened RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME there was a rumor floating around that a Justice was about to retire...

    Funny coincidence, eh?? :D

    Michale

  169. [169] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    yes, that was the theme of the entire speech. it really was a brilliant bit of oratory from a great statesman. thank you for encouraging us to familiarize ourselves with biden's record; i'm really starting to understand why you like the guy so much.

    @michale,

    liz and i have read the entire speech, understand the overall meaning, and are able to put the paragraph in a more accurate context, i.e. the whole speech is about trying to make the confirmation process less political.

    have you read the entire speech yet? because every time you repeat the same inaccurate talking point about biden, it will continue to be inaccurate. as you said yourself, you cherry-picked only a small piece of biden's speech and inferred an intent to put off any potential nomination to the next president, based solely on that.

    I always do.. With or without your permission. :D

    this i well know. notwithstanding biden's categorical denial of such an intention at the time, your continued insistence that it was his intention

    - and therefore that mcconnell and grassley are fully entitled to attempt what biden specifically said he wouldn't -

    is tiresome but fully expected.

    JL

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    this i well know. notwithstanding biden's categorical denial of such an intention at the time,

    And you believe him...

    Because he is a Democrat and is in keeping with his (and your) agenda...

    your continued insistence that it was his intention

    He's a politician.. That right there loses him nearly every ounce of credibility..

    We all have our bigotries...

    I am bigoted against ALL politicians..

    Ya'all are just bigoted against Republicans...

    And so it goes and so it goes...

    Michale

  171. [171] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ya'all are just bigoted against Republicans...

    also not true. find me a republican who supports abortion rights, progressive taxation and the right to unionize, and we'll line up right behind them.

    JL

  172. [172] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    thank you for encouraging us to familiarize ourselves with biden's record; i'm really starting to understand why you like the guy so much.

    Thanks, I really appreciate that.

    Truth be known, the reason I started commenting on blogs (Bill Maher's old blog site, HuffPost, and CW.com) at all is because I wanted to do just that when Biden began his final presidential run circa 2005 - let people know who the real Biden really was and not the media-created caricature of him.

    During his Senate years, when I needed to know more about a foreign policy issue, the first place I would go would be to one of his speeches on the subject and/or one of his full Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings, including testimony and Q&A.

    If more people had been familiar with Biden's vast and informative record by the time of the 2008 Iowa caucuses, I think he would have garnered a higher share of the vote than less than one percent. Sigh.

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    also not true. find me a republican who supports abortion rights, progressive taxation and the right to unionize, and we'll line up right behind them.

    In other words, you'll like them just fine as long as they toe YOUR line.. :D

    Let me put it in a different context..

    "I'll like gay people just fine as long as they start having sex with the opposite sex, as god intended"
    -Joe Redneck

    Bigoted or not??

    Michale

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said, we're all bigoted...

    I am bigoted against terrorists, child molesters and politicians.. Just as the vast majority of Americans are...

    And I am proud of that bigotry..

    Michale

  175. [175] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For the record, you don't speak for me, Michale.

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, you don't speak for me, Michale.

    Perish the thought.. :D

    But I DO speak for the vast majority of Americans when I say that we are all sick and tired of Political Correctness and sick and tired of leaders who look to their own agenda first and to hell with the American people..

    We're mad as hell and we ain't gonna take it anymore! :D

    Michale

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all have to ask yerselves one question..

    Why is it that we are hearing a LOT about fed-up Democrats moving to Trump, but not so much fed-up Republicans moving to Bernie??

    There is a reason for that...

    Michale

  178. [178] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But I DO speak for the vast majority of Americans when I say that we are all sick and tired of Political Correctness and sick and tired of leaders who look to their own agenda first and to hell with the American people..We're mad as hell and we ain't gonna take it anymore! :D

    Is that why you support Trump?

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is that why you support Trump?

    That and Trump promises to prosecute Clinton if Lynch shirks her duty... :D

    I am also constrained to point out that Obama ran the same sort of campaign, stirred the same sorts of feelings by scapegoating people and had the same sort of passion in his supporters that Trump has in his..

    Ya'all have had your chance with a noob with no practical political experience...

    Now, it's our turn.. :D

    Michale

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    That and Trump promises to prosecute Clinton if Lynch shirks her duty... :D

    Now, if I can just get Trump to agree to release all classified information on UFOs and ETs, he would be a dream come true for me!! :D

    Michale

  181. [181] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, it's our turn.. :D

    Careful, Michale ... you're true political colours are showing. Keep that up and we'll have to start putting a big ole 'R' after your name! :)

  182. [182] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, I did that just to confuse you. :)

    Here is what post #181 should look like ...

    Careful, Michale ... your true colours are showing. Keep that up and we'll have to start putting a big ole 'R' after your name! :)

    ...well, without the bold face. Heh.

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    Careful, Michale ... you're true political colours are showing. Keep that up and we'll have to start putting a big ole 'R' after your name! :)

    Not so... Policy wise, Trump is as much Democrat as he is Republican...

    That's the part ya'all overlook...

    Trump is a political agnostics' wet dream... :D

    Michale

  184. [184] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Policy-wise, Trump is a classic know-nothing.

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    Policy-wise, Trump is a classic know-nothing.

    I respect your opinion but must point out that, at this stage of the game in 2008, Obama was a similar "know nothing"...

    We all know how THAT worked out.. :D

    Michale

  186. [186] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obama knew what his polices were and could wax lyrical on them with anyone, at anytime.

    Trump? Well, not even in the same league.

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama knew what his polices were

    Trump has the advantage of actually being SUCCESSFUL at creating businesses and such that actually put people to work and such...

    At this stage in the 2008 election, Obama hadn't done diddley squat..

    And it shows...

    I know you won't agree, but there it is...

    and could wax lyrical on them with anyone, at anytime.

    Yea, Obama could spin a good yarn, that much is true..

    But when it comes to putting his ideas into practice??

    He completely and unequivocally failed...

    Michale

  188. [188] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But when it comes to putting his ideas into practice??
    He completely and unequivocally failed...

    you mean like trump airlines, trump vodka, trump steaks, trump university, trump mortgage, trump's first two bankruptcies, trump's first two marriages, trump the board game, trump casinos (bankruptcy #3), trump magazine, gotrump (got rump?) dot com, trumpnet, trump tower tampa, trump bottled water, trump cologne, trump menswear, trump mattresses...

    and that's just the short list. comparatively speaking, obama's batting average for success is practically stratospheric.

    JL

  189. [189] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    comment swallowed?

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Most likely. Bet it was something nice, though..."
    -Ace Ventura, ACE VENTURA: PET DETECTIVE

    :D

    Michale

  191. [191] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    just that obama has a better rate of success than trump, and a much lower rate of abject failure. not that such a thing takes much to achieve.

  192. [192] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the specifics of about twenty trump failures were swallowed, so i guess folks will have to look those things up for themselves...

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    nd that's just the short list. comparatively speaking, obama's batting average for success is practically stratospheric.

    Do I have to break out your Michael Jordan quote again!?? :D

    Michale

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    just that obama has a better rate of success than trump, and a much lower rate of abject failure. not that such a thing takes much to achieve.

    The problem with that theory is what you call Obama "successes" are actually rank failures..

    TrainWreckCare is a perfect example...

    Michale

  195. [195] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    you're absolutely right, michale; the following are all lies:

    http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

    JL

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope.. Not lies..

    Just cheery picked data that ignores all the bonehead mistakes and lies Obama has made and said...

    I could do the EXACT same thing with Trump if I thought it had any real meaning...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.