You obviously don't know the definition of blather.

Of course I do. You obviously don't know the power of blather. Many voters you deal with actually want to blather on and on, and so you're blathering... sometimes with that crazy uncle... listening to unbelievable stuff that people believe... because they saw it online.

Are you finally admitting that Obamacare was written by the Heritage Foundation?
Or are you still denying it?

What kind of blathering idiot would admit that? C'mon... You know it's not actually factual to say "Obamacare was written by the Heritage Foundation," but I do catch your meaning. :) Bill for bill, I would say Obamacare contains ideas from HEART

“S. 1770 — 103rd Congress: Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.” http://www.GovTrack.us. 1993. November 18, 2016 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/s1770

That contained ideas from the Heritage Foundation. Now, this is getting boring.

Why are you talking about the NSA?

Ummm... I was probably getting bored or maybe I had a drink.

You're in denial if you think Obama didn't make progressive campaign promises and break them.

Whoa! I never said that. Uhhh... you're doing that thing you do where you assume and presume more than what I actually said. Not unlike Michale, it has become a surprisingly endearing yet sometimes infuriating thing. I just said "people forget" how he actually campaigned, and I think it would serve people well to remember that Obama also presented himself as the guy who would work across the proverbial aisle and work with Republicans... bragged about his ability to do it and even had Republicans in his very first ads... Hey... he probably touched one of them "R's" and some of it rubbed off on him.

Couldn't you just kick Obama's rear end? Oh, I could. I wanted single payer for the people. :(

Eight years... two terms, two campaigns.

Hey, there's still a little time left. Maybe BO's got one more trick up his sleeve? I'm guessing he does, although we might never hear what it was... we might!

Are you drunk?

Then or now? Let's see... it's about 2:15 p.m. here... it only takes me 1 drink to get that way... 8 minus 2...

I will be in 6 hours. :D

You obviously don't know the definition of blather.

Are you finally admitting that Obamacare was written by the Heritage Foundation?
Or are you still denying it?
Have you been drinking?
Why are you talking about the NSA?

"People do forget... many of the lefties I know have short memories where Obama is concerned, particularly regarding his "running as a progressive."

You're in denial if you think Obama didn't make progressive campaign promises and break them.

Eight years... two terms, two campaigns.
Are you drunk?

A

Like I said, truly convincing.

Like I said... third time's a charm (?)... "I don't waste a good argument where I see it would do absolutely no good whatsoever."

You certainly have plenty of time to waste on blather.

Oooh... Blather. I'm very impressed and flattered you managed to ask every single person I've ever talked to about how they respond to my blather or arguments, as the case may be... that must have taken years.

Gee, who else claims to have arguments but can't be bothered to present them?

I never said I "can't be bothered," I said I have better ways to waste my time. Some of the greatest things accomplished in people's lives actually come to them while they're busy wasting time. You know, work hard, play hard? :)

Oh yeah... that's Trump.

Oh, shock... I actually thought you would say it's Michale. :D

Obama selling out progressives doesn't equate to campaigning like Republicans genius.

I never suggested that it did, just noted that Obama seemed to be an interchangeable character depending on who it is that disagrees with you or that you're lecturing and/or personally insulting... for instance, you stated:

* Obama ran as a progressive and then stabbed us in the back.

* Mimicking Repubs and catering to their base is not a path to victory for Dems.

* Well, Obama didn't win twice by mimicking Republicans, so you are obviously mistaken.
I do care about the Democratic party, so even if we agree to disagree, I will challenge such false claims.

Obama is a sore subject to progressives, don't I know. It might not suit your agenda, but Obama, very much like Trump, possesses a crossover appeal... many on both sides of the ideological political spectrum convinced that their agenda was Obama's agenda. That appeal was by design and not remotely an accident.

Obama's first commercials ever aired featured an Illinois lawmaker, a Republican, gushing about Obama and his ability to work across the aisle. It was a direct appeal to Republicans and Democrats. People do forget... many of the lefties I know have short memories where Obama is concerned, particularly regarding his "running as a progressive."

Maybe you're just too young to have been around? Here let me spoon feed you a link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGqyMtnO7E

Your ignorance about Obamacare being the corporate subsidies for insurers approach originating from the Heritage Foundation is very revealing. It is called history. Do you need to be spoon fed a link? Are you unaware that Romneycare was based on their right wing approach too?

As I responded before to your insult, I know the history of PRISM and the NSA... from the perspective of holding a security clearance and taking an oath... from the inside looking out... not the other way around. I know the history of healthcare in America from the ACA to Romneycare to Hillarycare to Theodore Roosevelt, whom I refer to as the "OP"... original progressive.

Or do you have a another excuse for not knowing the basic facts of a policy that's been debated endlessly for 8 tears?

"Eight tears"? Freudian slip? There's simply no denying that whining progressives have been crying about Obama, the ACA... stabbing them in the back, twisting the knife. So Obama ACTUALLY WAS that guy who would work across the aisle with Republicans... exactly that guy he revealed he was on Day 1 of his campaign for the presidency. Need a hanky?

Like I said, truly convincing.
You certainly have plenty of time to waste on blather.
Gee, who else claims to have arguments but can't be bothered to present them?
Oh yeah... that's Trump.

Obama selling out progressives doesn't equate to campaigning like Republicans genius.

Your ignorance about Obamacare being the corporate subsidies for insurers approach originating from the Heritage Foundation is very revealing. It is called history. Do you need to be spoon fed a link? Are you unaware that Romneycare was based on their right wing approach too?
Maybe you're just too young to have been around?
Or do you have a another excuse for not knowing the basic facts of a policy that's been debated endlessly for 8 tears?

A

And, watch your language around here. This is a civilized blog, you understand ...

Mopshell and Kick,

Foul language is not appreciated around here, you know ...

Around where, Elizabeth? The United States? You might have heard we've elected a foul-mouthed con artist extraordinaire to lead our country... so that elitist condescending attitude so many have cultivated toward Americans might be taking a backseat here for awhile. Those who are easily offended by "foul language" might want to turn their heads and cover their ears until the storm blows over.

Where I come from in the South, donkeys are referred to as "asses," and nary a soul bats an eye at its use. You are free to skip my posts if you're offended, but I will not be censored while the menfolk are free to speak... free from condescension.

I enjoy this blog because more than most, the author speaks his mind, sometimes colorfully, doesn't play gotcha or attempt to scorn his readers/commenters while pouring them into a mold of his own making. Having said all that, I will happily censor myself if CW wishes. I have seen every colorful word I can think of being posted by what I presume to be men; may I please have a list of acceptable "foul language" from the womenfolk?

Thank you. :)

Not a single substantiated argument in your rant.

I believe I made that perfectly clear in my second sentence wherein I stated: "I don't waste a good argument where I see it would do absolutely no good whatsoever." Not sure why you were searching for an argument, substantiated or otherwise, where you were told from the outset that none would exist.

Of course, the "It's beneath me" defense is quite endearing and reminds me of someone who lost an election once.

I never said "it's beneath me;" I said I have better ways to waste my time.

If only Hillary had listened to you with your years of experience and truly convincing tactics, she'd be feeling good about it too.

I'm very impressed and flattered you managed to ask every single voter there about how they would respond to my arguments... that must have taken days.

You couldn't find an argument so you made up your own. :)

Obamacare is a right wing, corporatist approach and was written by the Heritage Foundation.
Look it up.

Look it up!?! *LOL* :)

So to Mopshell you explain: "Well, Obama didn't win twice by mimicking Republicans, so you are obviously mistaken," and Neil is admonished about Obama's "right wing corporatist approach" to Obamacare along with a list of other progressive grievances.

I guess Obama is whatever you need him to be depending on who you're lecturing. :) *LOL*

I know exactly in whose back I'm twisting the knife.

I commend your decision to leave the supposedly not at all Wall Street coddling Democratic party. Finally a glimmer of hope emerges.
Did you use a knife to cut yourself free?

I don't belong to any party; you just presumed and assumed I did and responded accordingly. Your grievances and problems are not mine, never have been and never will be. :D

Now, how funny is THAT!!!! :D

Or, I could simply change my posting name to A

Heh :D

Not a single substantiated argument in your rant.

The "I'm right, you're wrong, because I said so" approach is truly convincing and dripping with years of experience.

Of course, the "It's beneath me" defense is quite endearing and reminds me of someone who lost an election once.

Oooh... Nevada.
If only Hillary had listened to you with your years of experience and truly convincing tactics, she'd be feeling good about it too.
I'm very impressed and flattered you managed to ask every single voter there about how they would respond to my arguments... that must have taken days.

Obamacare is a right wing, corporatist approach and was written by the Heritage Foundation.
Look it up.

I know exactly in whose back I'm twisting the knife.

I commend your decision to leave the supposedly not at all Wall Street coddling Democratic party. Finally a glimmer of hope emerges.
Did you use a knife to cut yourself free?

A

Heh.

Foul language is not appreciated around here, you know ...

If Michale grows up, let me know and I'll try switching the filter off for a while.

Just keep in mind one thing, Neil my friend..

Your Michale Crutch Filter (MCF, patent pending) is simply one WordPress update away from being rendered useless and impotent..

So, I wouldn't become too addicted to it if I were you.. You might find yerself reduced to a babbling idjut.... :D

PS- I'm not a Democrat.

Really??? Do tell.... :D

:D

Do you think Sheriff David Clarke would make a good AG???

You are lucky that I'm not moderating this blog.

You're CW's QEI so surely you have the influence to get Kick and me and all other females banned from the site if that's what your little heart desires.

This is why I am so surprised that there is such shock at the results of the election??

The seeds for the utter decimation of the Democratic Party were planted long long ago in 2010....

Anyone who ignored Party loyalty and Ideological purity, such as yours truly, could have.... AND DID.... see this coming....

How much power and latitude Trump gives said lackey is the key...

For example..

If President Trump wants to hire HRC as the head of the janitorial staff...

I would have no problem with such an appointment.. :D

The facts clearly show that Trump cut the RNC loose in the last weeks of the election...

Trump's selection of RNC BS *MAY* be a sign of rapprochement but I doubt it..

I am sure that one of the requirements for RNC BS taking the job is that he relinquishes all connections with the RNC... In other words, RNC BS works for Trump now, not for the RNC...

Trump could pick Hillary Clinton for a position and I would trust Trump that he knows what he is doing.. Right up to the point that he does something TANGIBLE that I believe violates our agreement...

Simple picking a lackey doesn't qualify...

How much power and latitude Trump gives said lackey is the key...

I LOVE Bruce McGill!!!

He was awesome as god in QUANTUM LEAP :D

For example, in comment 155 you gave an opinion stated as a fact that "nothing else works". Well, Obama didn't win twice by mimicking Republicans, so you are obviously mistaken.

I do care about the Democratic party, so even if we agree to disagree, I will challenge such false claims.

Said the alt-lefty who described Obama's signature legislation as: Right wing corporatist reform developed by the Heritage Foundation... nowhere near progressive.

:D

Kick,

You are lucky that I'm not moderating this blog.

At one point or another, aren't we all?

"Indeed.

I was twisting the knife.

Indeed you were, with lots of assumption and presumption and with little regard to whose back you're twisting it in.

This is about Hillary supporters who haven't recognized the truth in your words or mine.
I feel compelled to keep twisting that knife until they recognize reality because there will need to be viable and effective opposition to Trump, and the next election campaign is underway already. Democratic gains in the next election require that the failures of the Clinton wing are not repeated.

That knife you are twisting will come in handy when someone needs it to cut themselves free. :)

I will promise not to do so in comments directed to you though.

Lucky Liz.

You are lucky that I'm not moderating this blog.

Not only didn't you mince words, you dismissed my claim with condemnation and derision, and without any argument... proving my point perfectly. Pathetic.

I knew that paragraph was coming, and that was by design. :) I don't waste a good argument where I see it would do absolutely no good whatsoever. I will say that one day you'll run across someone just like you used to be. ;)

Hillary's Wall Street coddling ideology so prevalent in the Democratic party needs to go.

Someone drank the Kool-Aid.

All the exit polls make it clear that the establishment economic policies the corporatist Dems like Hillary support are the main reason Hillary lost the rust belt states.

No, actually, they "all" don't.

Defend them if you can, but insulting me doesn't qualify.

I've got better things to waste my time on. :)

Unless you wanted to lose, your "life-long experience" didn't lead to wise decisions in 2016 so you should probably find another argument.

Most of my work this year was done in Nevada where there was a blue wave. I feel pretty good about it... so ... :) I can tell you how your argument would have played in Nevada, but it wouldn't make a dent... *LOL* :D

Your extremist attacks on patriotic whistleblowers are identical to the Republicans. It's certainly not a liberal or progressive policy position. If it's not ignorance causing you to do it, I apologize for assuming the best.

"Extremist attacks"? I've never been called an extremist before, another first. The fact that you refer to Manning and Snowden as "patriotic whistleblowers" tells me everything I need to know; you really have no idea what you're talking about.

If Dems want to win again, and win back the support of voters like me and the working class, then maintaining the status quo and attacking the critics who tried to warn Dems is insane.

You really do have no idea what you're talking about.

"Lighten up" is exactly the wrong approach.
You need to get serious, fast.

Lighten up on this board and those who disagree with you.

And, maybe read those articles, accept some responsibility, and consider if there's something to learn from them that may help you from making the same mistakes that caused the disastrous election results for the Democratic party again.

You can shove your articles straight up your ass. There are 51 separate elections, asshole, and I can assure you that your BS wouldn't have played too well in more than half of them. :)

PS- I'm not a Democrat.

I always do...

You're just not always right.. :D

Fair enough. :)

"I always believe you, Max but you're not always right."
-Bruce McGill, TIME COP

Bruce McGill! Did you have to quote him? He's the jerk that Trump got to do the voiceovers in his commercials, a guy I wanted nothing to do with from the minute I met him. I spent a week in my younger days working on a movie set and listening to him do nothing except talk about himself, exactly what people who have dated Trump say about him. Yuck!

No more quoting Bruce McGill! :)

Hiring RNC BS (nod to CW :D) in NO WAY acknowledges any fealty to the RNC..

I disagree because he does owe his presidency to the RNC and how much work they did for him, work that campaigns usually handle themselves. He relied heavily on the RNC, and his choice for the White House is his exercise in dancing with the one that brung him. I will also say that I do expect Trump to change staff frequently.

I think ya'all have proven beyond ANY doubt that Trump listens to what people have to say and then does whatever the hell he wants....

If that were true, he would have chosen Chris Christie as his VP running mate.

Trump is the man at the wheel.. Whomever he chooses as his support staff in NO WAY determines his course of actions..

Of course it does.

'Sides.. As I pointed out to JM above.. Ya'all would slam Trump regardless of who he chooses...

Depends on who he chooses, and could you please stop speaking about people here like they agree on every single thing? Obviously... we don't. :)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/opinions/trump-failed-first-test-cupp/

One of my close friends is a research professor in materials science who has worked with multiple Nobel Prize winners, including Higgs when they were both at Edinburgh University.

He expects a severe drop in funding in the U.S. for research, particularly from the DoE, so is over in Switzerland interviewing for positions there.

So Trump is managing to bring knuckleheads into the White House and lose the smart people who can work anywhere in the World.

a racist old white man as a strategy expert
an ineffective old white man as chief of staff, and
a bitter and angry old white man lined up for secretary of state

I'm sure we'll see far more diversity - we've still got the religious nut, the ex-military martinet, and the if you shout loudly they will understand English demographics to go.

Did I miss any?

But the simple fact is, as long as Neil continues to call his shit "shinola", I'll be pointing out, "No, Neil.. Your shinola is nothing but shit..."...

And yet, my FACTS, my peer research and my high quality statistics turned out to be dead on ballz accurate and your "facts", your "peer research" and your "high quality statistics" turned out to be nothing but Party bullshit...

Funny how that is, eh?? :D

:D heh

God knows, I have been frustrated by the same things that frustrate you. But, with the appropriate effort, I have found that the frustration does wane.

It was the pointlessness of it all that got to me. If somebody can't distinguish between facts and their own opinions and starts evading any requests for supporting points based on peer research or high quality statistics, then it isn't and argument, it is contradiction.

To see the difference, watch this Monty Python sketch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY

TRANSLATION: Chicago will always be a shithole with hundreds of innocent Americans brutally murdered every year....

I know you'd rather dig into history right now, I don't blame you one bit, but I just read that Pelosi is moving up the election for her position in an attempt to keep her job.

Her actions are emblematic of the tone deaf Democratic leadership. Another Hillary type trying to rig an internal election to put herself before the wellbeing of the party is exactly the wrong message to send.

I hope you can find some time to chime in about this in a column soon.

The Dems need new blood in all leadership roles.

I would also like to know who you might think would be good replacements.
Thanks.

A

No.
You are the one who is confused.
Ignorance is apparent, but not an excuse.

I'm glad you care about yourself and your country.
But if you cared about the Democratic party, which is what was specifically being referenced, you wouldn't be spewing nonsense about the nature of their problems and what they need to do in order to win elections.

For example, in comment 155 you gave an opinion stated as a fact that "nothing else works". Well, Obama didn't win twice by mimicking Republicans, so you are obviously mistaken.

I do care about the Democratic party, so even if we agree to disagree, I will challenge such false claims.

A

Your one man victory parades when you believe you smacked others down despite blatantly failing are legend.
I've been laughing at you for it since our first encounter.

Other than that, you took the words right out of my mouth.

A

Indeed.
I was twisting the knife.

The Clinton's are now powerless and irrelevant.
This is about Hillary supporters who haven't recognized the truth in your words or mine.

I feel compelled to keep twisting that knife until they recognize reality because there will need to be viable and effective opposition to Trump, and the next election campaign is underway already. Democratic gains in the next election require that the failures of the Clinton wing are not repeated.

I will promise not to do so in comments directed to you though.
I hope that's good enough.

A

"I'm fatter....er.. FLATTERED..."
-Eddie Murphy, The Nutty Professor

:D

You go first, I insist ... :)

I'm tryin' I'm tryin'... :D

I think we'll have a better place for discussion if we all succeed in listening to each other.

After you...

altohone -

Lying isn't going to help the Dems.

You seem confused about the definition of a lie in this particular instance.

Not that you seem to care.

Yeah I do care about living out the rest of my life in a recession thanks to Americans. We thought you were our allies.

You mistakenly believe I am "debating" you... I nailed you in comment #171 and then dismissed you...

Responding to your continued mistakes is not a debate, but rather a simple correction of the record and my amusement of your continued use of the "poopyhead" equivalency.... :D

That's really going to be up to the Clintons, don'tcha think???

The Clintons have been the power behind the Democrat Party, overtly and covertly, for over two decades..

Such power is not relinquished willingly, especially by those who so obviously relish the power...

I see a prolonged struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party for at least a decade...

You will find that a more robust discussion will ensue if comments are less personal.

[144]

Do you always learn the wrong lessons?

Evidently your view regarding "robust discussion" does not apply to your serving up personal insults.

[111]

Because, most of us are sensitive souls, you know.

I take it your use of the word "most" infers you don't believe "all" is the case.

You engage in trollery.
Calling you a troll is simply factual, and you are contradicting yourself yet again as you have claimed not to care.
Need a hanky?

You and Donald also engage in stereotyping based on race... one classic form of racism.
If you don't like the label, don't do it.

It is also factual that you constantly conflate Dems with the left even when discussing right wing corporatist policies they embrace. You are lying, and aiding the corrupt establishment when you do that.

You may not like my facts, but your trollery dismissal of them is projection. Unsubstantiated lying about me is pathetic, but expected. Trolls are too lazy to be honest debaters.

A

But since we're back on the topic, your list of examples that show Hillary lacks sufficient integrity is far too short.

My list wasn't meant to be exhaustive, naturally. And, many examples fit under the same headings I mentioned.

But, what do you say we try to move on from the path of devastation left by the Clintons ... :)

"Mopshell [92] It is not the president's job to bother himself with economic issues. It is the US House which writes the budget.

Agreed."

Absolutely incorrect.

Economic issues are certainly part of the president's job.

All presidential campaigns include promises on economic issues, the president should fight for needed changes, and our economy is the ultimate national security matter in a world where we are the sole superpower.

A

It's a lot easier to do now, I'll be totally honest with you... :D

heh

Mopshell was clear.
He/she thinks Hillary has more integrity than anyone else in the Democratic party.

I disagree completely, and offered Biden as an example since I know he's one of your favorites.

There are many other examples though.

But since we're back on the topic, your list of examples that show Hillary lacks sufficient integrity is far too short.

Hillary using a private server to avoid the FOIA was troublesome regardless of the content of her emails.
Numerous votes favoring her donors were troubling.
Wikileaks exposed a dozen other examples.

A

I think you are mis-characterizing the Trump base, or at least the key part that gave him victories beyond the standard Red States everybody expected him to win.

The message from them seems pretty clear - nobody is doing anything for them and Trump has promised to. Many of them voted for Obama hoping for a change, so they don't want their social programs slashed - for many in their communities, SS and Medicare is all they have as a future safety net. They obviously don't care about gay marriage, abortion, or the other social issues Republicans have been railing about. They might want to ban Muslims and throw out immigrants, but again, why not vote for Romney if that was their primary goal.

The key constituency that gave Trump the win in MI, PA, NC and WI want their old life and communities back. They want jobs. They want their kids and neighbors to stop feeling that there is nothing to live for so become addicted or kill themselves in a more direct manner. I predict Trump will do nothing for them, even if he really wants to because congress will stop him. I hope they fail and Trump really does deliver on the hopelessness and helping the poorest, especially if he pushes back on the social issues (he is claiming that Gay Marriage is a done deal and the abortion should be a state's rights issue). We'll see.

All of them refuse to give ANY credence to any facts, thoughts or opinions that are not completely in lockstep with their own..

Anyone who doesn't agree 1000% is a troll, a poopyhead, a racist, a sexist or any one of a hundred different bogus labels...

It was that exact attitude that totally lost the election....

Seriously..

How can anyone expect to have an adult and intelligent conversation with someone who starts their argument with the equivalent of "hay, poopyhead.."?? :D

Geez... what about Biden, right?
(that's a joke, though I believe factual as well)

What's that supposed to mean?

Proving my point again.
Trollery is lazy and dishonest.

A

Thanks for saving me the effort.

I guess I was wrong about Mopshell.

Geez... what about Biden, right?
(that's a joke, though I believe factual as well)

A

Now, now ... :)

No troll.
You are a troll because you persist in using the tactics of trollery.

The fact that some of your comments are valid and factual doesn't change the reality.

I know.
I don't use the MCF.

A

Unfortunately, Al trips on his shoelaces before he even leaves the starting gate.. :D

.... though, this time around, the problem was also the messenger, herself.

No doubt... It was a two-fer...

We're working on that - all of us ... and I think we'll have a better place for discussion if we all succeed in listening to each other.

In responding to Al [132], you wrote,

And, I would respond with: if you think HRC is everything the Republics claim, your opinions are profoundly corrupted by propaganda.

Of course, she wasn't the caricature the Republicans and their supporters claim.

However, to ignore her obvious and substantial errors in judgement with respect to handling and managing sensitive emails and the use of the Clinton Foundation for political gain and, most importantly, her pathetic response to why she lost to Donald Trump and how she ran her campaign with a thinly veiled sense of entitlement may well condemn the Democrats to the political wilderness for the foreseeable future.

If the troll could distinguish between Dems and the Left, your point would be valid.

They aren't synonyms... though the establishment Dems want voters on the left to believe it too.

A

No.
An excerpt from other media sources should have the name of the writer.

Focus.

A

Nothing else works.

That is a very sad commentary. I hope you don't really believe that ...

... though, this time around, the problem was also the messenger, herself.

Lying isn't going to help the Dems.

Not that you seem to care.

A

altohone -

But I will say, if you think Hillary has the most integrity in the Democratic party, you are seriously out of touch with reality.

And I would respond with: if your think HRC is everything the Republics claim, your opinions are profoundly corrupted by propaganda.

...because you are not normally off the deep end.

You should ask CW's Queen Elizabeth about that. I doubt she'd agree with you.

Mimicking Repubs and catering to their base is not a path to victory for Dems.

Nothing else works.

Gay marriage.
An advancement on a progressive social issue.

Action on climate change.
Minimal and insufficient and coupled with an anti-progressive, massive expansion of domestic fossil fuel extraction and nuclear power.

Boosting renewable energy.
A valid progressive advance, but also minimal (as far as government support goes) and see above.

Reformed healthcare.
Right wing corporatist reform developed by the Heritage Foundation... nowhere near progressive.

Dodd-Frank.
Pathetically ineffective and mostly not implemented... not progressive.
Too big to fail got bigger, inequality got worse, fraud went unpunished.

Consumer protection agancy.
Good on small issues to the extent they were pursued (very selectively), AWOL on the big financial issues.

Nuclear agreement with Iran.
A positive development offset by numerous anti-progressive wars, policies, actions.

Opened up Cuba.
Progressive, but Wall Street is happy too.

Expansion of Pell Grants.
Pathetically insufficient and nowhere near the systemic reforms needed. Possibly even counterproductive as it subsidizes and allows the drastic cost increases to continue.

Saved the U.S. auto industry.
That's what I'm talking about.
A real progressive victory on economics.
But without progressive reform on trade, Wall Street regs, government support, and tax policy, the offshoring of auto industry jobs has continued.
There's no reason production and parts manufacturing can't return with such progressive reform... not to mention other industries.

Gays in the military.
A now legalized reality that was true for ages... but in the progressive social issue category.

Women in the military.
Better late than never. See above.

To summarize, your list is flawed and the scope has been narrow... progressive advances on social policy are crumbs in comparison to the corrupt neoliberal economic policies that have not only remained but have also been expanded by Dems.

For example, gay marriage is great, but if the couple can be defrauded out of their house and savings and they lose their jobs, the marriage won't last.

A

Oh yes and those banks will be doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, right??

Of course not.. They will put the hurts on the illegal immigrants' remittances, knowing that the immigrants have no place else to go..

So, likely these banks will choose a "rate" very slightly below what the government would take...

And, of course, the US government will ALSO be keeping an eye on those canadian banks and ALSO get a cut from the banks' new source of income...

Let's face the FACTS here, Neil.. Mexico get's BILLIONS from the US.... Mexico will STILL get billions from the US....

MINUS the cost of the border wall...

This is the reality that you simply refuse to acknowledge....

John M

If Paul Ryan could not get House Republicans to agree on and pass ANY of their 12 individual appropriation spending bills during the past year that they have had a majority in the House, what makes you think they are going to be able to pass ANY kind of budget come January?

First up, I concede that you make a very valid point here; there is no arguing that this wasn't the case - it most assuredly was.

Nevertheless, I do believe there won't be any problem passing Ryan's original budget in full. I think it didn't work before because he was trying to cater to all factions during his first stint as speaker. You'd have to be a far better operator than Paul Ryan to make that approach work.

This time he has the Trump base on his side which is fully in line with the freedom caucus. He can privatise Social Security, eliminate Medicaid and cut Medicare because he will also give them full repeal of the ACA. He can do away with food stamps altogether because he will give the euphemistic "job creators" a massive tax cut.

Pretty much he can put into his budget everything he's ever wanted to do and promised in return to deport all undocumented immigrants and "anchor babies" to Mexico (whether they came from there or not). He will promise to eliminate the EPA and probably USPS as well. These are all things the freedom caucus wants.

In the upper chamber, Cruz will be pushing for the elimination of the IRS. Not sure he'll get it but if he does, it will be an interesting to see how that works out.

Let me amend that to say Liz, Joshua and Altohone ALSO had facts..

Sorry, I let my hyperbole get in the way of my common sense.... Apologies...

I'll try and reign it in...

Spot on. There are too many supply chains that move parts repeatedly across both the Canadian and Mexican borders that will collapse if Trump dicks around with NAFTA. In fact, given that Mexico has what we need and want (cheap labor) and that Trump has vowed to send them 1-2M more workers while laying off an equal number here, only makes their position only stronger - if I were them I'd dream up some large infrastructure project and demand that Trump pays for it - maybe a $10B gun buy back program?

The "remittances" approach is also a joke. Let me introduce you to financial reality - sending money to Canadian banks that have ATMs in Mexico is not that difficult to figure out, especially when these banks start advertising heavily on every Spanish TV channel.

He goes on and on that I "had no facts.." when it is painfully obvious that I was the only one WITH the facts....

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the vast majority of the Democrats are going to be like Neil here...

It's going to be the same problem Democrats had after the 2010 shellacking and the 2014 Nuclear Shellacking..

"The problem is not our message... The problem is our messaging"

The problem *IS* the message....

The Democratic Party better learn that really fast or they never will win another election in our lifetimes...

Every campaign needs a candidate befitting the times, number one. And, number two, every candidate needs a mission that is real and clear and an uplifting message that speaks to all Americans and concentrates on the future while recognizing the present and learning from the past.

Couldn't agree more..

As I said from Day One... This is an ESTABLISHMENT VS ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT election..

The problem is Clinton was simply NOT credible as the Anti-Establishment candidate...

The lesson from HRC's campaign is simple to identify but much harder to put into play..

SEE THE WORLD AS IT IS, NOT AS WE WISH IT TO BE...

The Establishment is simply incapable of reliable self-analysis...

It was the EXACT same problem with the Anti-BREXIT campaign...

HRC's campaign had a heads up, they had a BONA-FIDE "trial run" in the Brexit Campaign...

But they ignored the facts and reality because it didn't fit THEIR reality and THEIR world-view...

Did you get a chance to watch that FaceBook video?? I would love to hear your thoughts on it...

https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

The Border Patrol's Commander In Chief is Donald Trump...

YES!!!

"Mexico gets BILLIONS from the US in various forms, including remittances.....

Mexico WILL pay for the wall..

Of that, there is absolutely NO DOUBT....'

One has nothing to do with the other. For one, remittances are private individual people to people economic transactions. Republicans and Libertarians especially won't want to touch that.

For another, it is a matter of National Pride. Mexico will NOT pay for any kind of wall, of that there is absolutely no doubt. If you think otherwise, then you have no clue when it comes to the Latin mindset.

Not to mention all the big American corporations who are already so heavily invested in Mexico. Trump might not listen, but do you think Republicans in Congress would pass anything that would spark a trade war with Mexico if all those corporations started screaming loudly?

Do you always learn the wrong lessons? :)

I base the label "Troll" on the times I've tried in the past to repeatedly ask for reasonable evidence to support claims.

I *DID* support each and every one of my factual claims WITH facts..

The problem is, you didn't LIKE the facts, so you didn't ACCEPT them as facts..

And, as we CLEARLY saw, EACH and EVERY one of my facts was dead on ballz accurate and it was your so-called "facts" that were found wanting....

I was right...

You were wrong...

It's that simple...

I am sure SOME do..

But SOME is not ALL and ALL is what the tribe will see when the Border Wall goes up and they are not on board...

If you truly believe that it will be that easy, you REALLY are living in a dream world.

"Easy" is a relative term.. If the tribal leaders allows a much larger influx illegals to prey on tribal members, then the leaders may find themselves going the way of Democrat "leaders"...

The short answer is: No.

Yea... didna think so... :^/

NOT TRUE at all. I actually think his choice of Reince Preibus as White House Chief of Staff is a reasonable one.

I stand corrected.... :D

That's why I wanted your take on it Michale. Since you kept saying how it was a choice between Clinton and the establishment, and Trump and the anti-establishment, and then one of Trump's first major choices is someone who is the epitome of establishment.

My take is that I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt until he gives me real and tangible reasons not to..

For example.. If I see President Trump (I am NEVER going to tire of saying that.. :D) allowing RNC BS to push an establishment agenda that I disagree with, I will definitely let my dissatisfaction be known here in Weigantia, far and wide...

"The effect will be to funnel scumbags, drugs, rapists and murderers straight into tribal land...."

You don't think that they don't cross tribal land already? The article I read, in fact, talked about how tribal authorities were already dealing with that, had been for many years, and still were opposed to the wall anyway.

"Within 3 months, tribal elders will be BEGGING President Trump to extend the wall thru tribal land....

Easy, Peezy, Lemon, Squeezy....."

If you truly believe that it will be that easy, you REALLY are living in a dream world.

By "grow up" you mean become a Party hack who ignores facts and reality to embrace ideological mythology???

No thanks.. I'll happily remain a "child" until my dying day..

Part of free speech is being able not to have to listen to a stream of hateful diarrhea.

Part of free speech is ALSO not having to listen to facts and reality..

You are absolutely right...

BUT....

But with that right comes responsibility..

The responsibility to be honest and NOT represent yourself as a thinking and reasoning adult, but rather nothing more than a petulant child who rants and cries because the world is as it is and not as it's wished to be... :D

Of course, there IS the alternative....

But I somehow don't think yer amiable to that.. :D

Michale -

You're likely correct as well..

Can't the Left reign them in???

The short answer is: No.

"'Sides.. As I pointed out to JM above.. Ya'all would slam Trump regardless of who he chooses..."

NOT TRUE at all. I actually think his choice of Reince Preibus as White House Chief of Staff is a reasonable one. I just don't think it is going to go down with his most rabid Trump followers very well, since it is a HIGHLY establishment choice and not what his followers elected him on. That's why I wanted your take on it Michale. Since you kept saying how it was a choice between Clinton and the establishment, and Trump and the anti-establishment, and then one of Trump's first major choices is someone who is the epitome of establishment.

Such malice-infused comments, Mopshell ... where does it all come from?

I'm surprised you asked since surely it is obvious that I learned it from you. You should give yourself more credit.

"Paul Ryan has had his budget ready to go for at least two years now. It will be passed in January next year and Trump will sign it."

If Paul Ryan could not get House Republicans to agree on and pass ANY of their 12 individual appropriation spending bills during the past year that they have had a majority in the House, what makes you think they are going to be able to pass ANY kind of budget come January?

I base the label "Troll" on the times I've tried in the past to repeatedly ask for reasonable evidence to support claims. I got all the boring troll-like excuses and mechanisms ("look it up yourself", changing the subject, false equivalencies, etc. etc.) but never any links to peer reviewed evidence of anything.

I enjoy this site much more without Michale, but would welcome any poster who can support any argument, not just regurgitate right wing fairy tales for the believers. I can read Breitbart myself if I want that.

Since you apparently weren't joking, and you don't seem to be joking in your response to me, we are going to have to agree to disagree on almost all of your points, many of which are offensive (Warren does need some public speaking and fashion advice).

But I will say, if you think Hillary has the most integrity in the Democratic party, you are seriously out of touch with reality.

I'm going to hold out hope you were joking throughout your reply though, because you are not normally off the deep end.

Mimicking Repubs and catering to their base is not a path to victory for Dems.

A

"It's just so funny because I thought the Left Wingers were all about peace and tolerance and against hate..

It's so..... disappointing to learn that they are just as intolerance and hate-filled as they accuse the Right of being..."

So, if you yourself Michale are all about peace and tolerance, are you willing to go on the record right here and now, and condemn Trump's choice of an out and out white nationalist racist and antisemitic alt-righter Steve Bannon as his chief strategist???

Btw, I don't believe Michale is a troll. He is the only one around here who saw it coming, after all.

Thank you, Liz

It doesn't bother me any more.. Around here "troll" simply means someone who says something factual and accurate that the name-caller doesn't like...

"Yea.. I can live with that.."
-Keannu Reeves, THE REPLACEMENTS

:D