ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [421] -- Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

[ Posted Friday, January 13th, 2017 – 17:47 PST ]

We know there's that pesky clause in the Constitution and all, but doesn't it seem like today would have been more appropriate for Donald Trump's inauguration? That's our way of saying "Happy Friday the 13th" to everyone, we should point out. Ahem.

During certain periods of the year, we have been known to overuse sports metaphors when talking about politics. But our guess is that the favorite quotes to overuse for the next four years will be those from Lewis Carroll's Alice In Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass. We were reminded of one of these while watching the week unfold, from a Trump press conference to the confirmation hearings to the Republicans smacking into reality on their "repeal and replace with nothing" dreams for Obamacare. Here's the quote:

Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Yep, it was that kind of week. Ben Carson got off the most amusing line of the entire week, in fact. While responding to a question from Senator Elizabeth Warren about whether he'd be sending Housing and Urban Development funds straight to Donald Trump's pocket, Carson stated unequivocally: "It would not be my intention to do anything that would benefit any American." Well, glad you cleared that one up, Dr. Ben! Nothing like setting the bar as low as humanly possible, eh?

The other laughable statement of the week came from a little-noticed hearing for James Comey, where he was asked whether the F.B.I. has investigated reported relationships between members of the Trump campaign and Russia. Comey hilariously responded: "I would never comment on investigations, whether we have one or not, in an open forum like this. So I really can't answer it one way or another." Senator Angus King pointed out the absurdity of this statement, given Comey's recent history of doing precisely that (when the target was named Hillary Clinton): "The irony of your making that statement here, I cannot avoid." Later in the week, the F.B.I. Inspector General announced that an investigation of Comey had begun, for his naked interference in the presidential campaign. About time -- although more than a little late. If this investigation had been opened immediately after Comey gave his first press conference on Clinton's emails last summer, then his subsequent letter to Congress might never have been written, to put it bluntly.

The Republicans in Congress have notably become Wonderland characters on their own, as they flail about trying to square the circle on their plans for Obamacare. They're doing a great imitation of the dog that caught the car, and didn't know what to do with it, in fact. For those who haven't had enough impossible things to ponder before breakfast, here's a quick rundown of the irreconcilable Republican positions:

  • Obamacare is universally bad -- there is nothing good or beneficial about it.
  • Repealing Obamacare means a "rescue mission" for the country (Paul Ryan's term).
  • However, Republicans have no replacement ready, meaning that returning everything to the pre-Obamacare era is what is actually on the table at the moment.
  • Obamacare actually saves the government lots of money.
  • Republicans are against adding anything to the deficit.
  • But repealing Obamacare is so important that they'll agree to ten trillion dollars added to the national debt over the next decade.
  • Also, tens of millions of people will lose insurance if Obamacare is repealed with no replacement.
  • Meanwhile, Republicans are assuring those people who do get Obamacare benefits that they'll be fine under the Republican plan -- the one that doesn't exist -- even though Obamacare doesn't benefit anybody at all, in their opinion.

That about sums up the quandary Republicans now face. Charles Dodgson might call it being trapped in circular logic. Congressional leaders are actually now getting pushback -- from fellow Republicans -- over "repeal and replace with nothing," for two big reasons. First, the deficit hawks can actually see how repealing Obamacare is going to blow up the budget. Second, there are actually sane Republicans who realize a whole bunch of their own constituents are going to be left to die on the streets if their insurance disappears.

At the moment, Republicans are committed to coming up with a full replacement plan -- one that, according to Donald Trump, will be cheaper and better and won't throw anybody off their insurance -- by January 27th. So it looks like it'll be a busy couple of weeks, folks! The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act took about a year and a half to pass Congress, but Republicans will replace it inside of two weeks -- despite coming up with absolutely nothing for the last seven years.

Not enough impossible things to believe? Here's a former top aide to George W. Bush, outlining what Trump has promised to do immediately upon taking office:

On the first day of his presidency, Donald Trump will face a serious governing challenge of his own creation.

He has promised a tax cut that will, by one estimate, reduce federal revenue by $7 trillion over 10 years. He has promised an infrastructure initiative that may cost an additional trillion. He has promised to rebuild the military. He has effectively promised not to make changes in Social Security and Medicare. And he has promised to move swiftly toward a balanced federal budget.

Taken together, these things can't be taken together. Trump has made a series of pledges that can't be reconciled. If he knew this during the campaign, he is cynical. If he is only finding out now, he is benighted. In either case, something has to give.

And that's without even mentioning the impossible Obamacare replacement goals!

Let's see, what else is going on? Donald Trump infamously alluded to the size of his penis during a presidential debate, so it wasn't all that surprising that he'd address reports of hiring Russian prostitutes to... um... "shower him with gold" (shall we say), during his press conference. Buckle up, America, we're in for a seriously wild ride for the next four years....

Trump also made news this week by his continued bromance with Vladimir Putin, which is causing noise complaints from residents of Simi Valley, California -- because Ronald Reagan is whirling so fast in his grave that neighbors now require ear plugs to block out the din.

Trump appointed his son-in-law as senior advisor, and announced a not-blind-at-all trust for his holdings, which will be run by his two sons, Tweedledee Trump and Tweedledum Trump. This virtually assures that he will be in violation of the Constitution (the "emoluments clause") starting on Day One. What could possibly go wrong with that arrangement?

One thing worth noting is that Donald Trump is likely going to enter office with the lowest public approval rating of any president since public opinion polling began. He is barely above an average of 40 percent approval (he's actually below 40 in several polls), when even George W. Bush (right in the midst of all the Bush v. Gore fiasco) was polling around 60 percent approval just before taking office. Most presidents experience their highest public approval ratings of their entire presidency in their first week in office, it is worth mentioning. Maybe Trump will give Dubya and Richard Nixon a run for "lowest presidential approval rating of all time," who knows? He'd have to sink into the low 20s before that happens, but at this point it seems a real possibility.

And we have to end with a story that got almost zero attention, because Fox strove to keep it so quiet. Seems that the network had to pay out yet another sexual harassment complaint settlement, this time to a woman who accused Bill O'Reilly of improper behavior. The letter sent by her attorney laid out what she'd be accusing O'Reilly of in a lawsuit, which "included details of unwanted propositions and harassing phone calls, during some of which O'Reilly apparently was masturbating." We leave it as an exercise for the reader to come up with your own "no-spin zone" joke.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We're just going to go with the obvious this week, and hand out two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards, to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

Never have we appreciated them more than in their final days in office, especially considering who is about to replace them. Barack Obama gave a very moving and poignant farewell address (much more on that in the talking points section), and he surprised Biden with a Presidential Medal of Freedom this week, which gave Biden a chance to share the spotlight at the very end.

Barack Obama achieved some goals, fell short on others, but he was a decent man and a role model to the nation throughout his presidency. Donald Trump has had more scandals since he's been elected (some might even say "in the past week") than the Obama administration had for their entire eight years in office. That is a record to be proud of.

And even while all the cameras are turned to the Trump circus, Obama is still making historic changes on his way out the door. Getting rid of the "wet feet, dry feet" policy towards Cuban refugees was inevitable once Obama opened Cuba back up, but Obama made sure it happened before the next administration takes office.

Cuban immigrants will still get special status in America (from the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act), which will take an act of Congress to change. But there is now no reason that Cubans entering the country should be treated any differently than people from any other country. Obama said in his statement: "Cuban nationals who attempt to enter the United States illegally... will be subject to removal." They will be treated "the same way we treat migrants from other countries." That's only fair, at this point, and it'll be tough for Trump to overturn a policy that gives certain undocumented immigrants a free pass, one assumes.

No matter what historians think of the rest of his legacy, Barack Obama will go down in history as the president who re-opened Cuba. That's pretty impressive right there.

For all the good that they both have done, for never embarrassing the nation, and for moving American society forward in many ways, President Obama and Vice President Biden certainly deserve their swansong Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards. They both shall be missed, that much is certain.

[Congratulate President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden via the official White House contact page, to let them both know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We certainly were pretty disappointed with the confirmation hearings, since other than notably pointed questions by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, there wasn't a lot of grilling happening from Democrats on the committees.

But instead, coincidentally enough (on Friday the 13th), this week we have a whopping thirteen winners of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. We'll list them all at the end, but the most noticeable was unquestionably Senator Cory Booker, who has obvious plans to run for president next time around.

These 13 Senate Democrats all voted against allowing the importation of prescription drugs from Canada, which would save whoppingly huge sums of money. Twelve Republicans crossed the aisle in favor of this bill, but this was offset by the 13 Democrats who voted against it. Jezebel pointed out a funny coincidence about this group:

Between 2010 and 2016, a handful of the Democratic senators who voted "nay" were amongst the top Senate recipients funded by pharmaceutical companies: Sen. [Cory] Booker received $267,338; Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) received $254,649; Robert Casey (D-PA) received $250,730; Michael Bennet (D-CO) received $222,000.

Funny how that works, isn't it? Their stated opposition was because the bill "didn't do enough to assure safety," which is laughable -- this isn't the Third World we're talking about, the bill only would have allowed drugs in from Canada. Also, R. J. Eskow pointed out a contradiction to this stance:

But here's the big question: If Booker and the other Democrats are so concerned about drug safety, why did they vote for the 21st Century Cures Act? Sold as a path to innovation, the bill was actually a massive giveaway to drug companies that wanted an end-run around safety regulations.

Again, strange how that works, isn't it? These senators vote against safety when big Pharma tells them to, and for safety when that would negatively affect Pharma's bottom line. Curiouser and curiouser!

Here's the complete, shameful list of which Democrats care more about drug companies than consumers: Michael Bennet (Colorado), Cory Booker (New Jersey), Maria Cantwell (Washington), Tom Carper (Delaware), Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), Chris Coons (Delaware), Joe Donnelly (Indiana), Martin Heinrich (New Mexico), Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota), Robert Menendez (New Jersey), Patty Murray (Washington), Jon Tester (Montana), and Mark Warner (Virginia). Looks like there are a lot of drug companies in New Jersey, Delaware, and Washington, from that list. For being corporate suckups rather than fighting for the little guy, all unlucky 13 get a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Rather than provide everyone's individual contact information, if your senator(s) are on that list, use the main Senate contact page to get his or her email, if you'd like to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 421 (1/13/17)

Today's talking points section is being pre-empted by a review (with extended excerpts) of President Obama's farewell address. It's rather long, but although we've done these "analyze the speech" sorts of columns pretty regularly, we probably won't be doing many for the next few years. So if you're tired of the format, this'll be the last one for a while, we promise.

Obama's farewell address is already being compared to George Washington's, not for oratory prowess, but for the similarities in the warnings given. Washington expounded on what he saw as the biggest danger to the nascent democracy -- political parties (or "factions," as Washington called them). Barack Obama's address was a number of things -- a review of his legacy and a big thank-you to the American public, among others -- but what made it notable were the warnings from Obama on partisanship and political polarization. Obama certainly got a face full of all that, pretty much from Day One, so he's definitely given the matter some thought.

In any case, this is going to be long enough as is, so let's just move on to the most notable (and quotable) parts of Obama's final big speech. You can read the whole transcript if what follows isn't enough for you (although since it's the White House's official website, who knows if this link will work next week or not). No editing of the text has been done in our excerpts, except for removing all the "(Applause)" indications (which make it harder to read).

 

President Barack Obama's Farewell Address

President Obama started his speech out by giving a big shout-out to the people of Chicago (which, of course, the crowd loved), and then laid out his own definition of what it means to be an American:

This is where I learned that change only happens when ordinary people get involved and they get engaged, and they come together to demand it.

After eight years as your President, I still believe that. And it's not just my belief. It's the beating heart of our American idea -- our bold experiment in self-government. It's the conviction that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's the insistence that these rights, while self-evident, have never been self-executing; that We, the People, through the instrument of our democracy, can form a more perfect union.

. . .

So that's what we mean when we say America is exceptional -- not that our nation has been flawless from the start, but that we have shown the capacity to change and make life better for those who follow. Yes, our progress has been uneven. The work of democracy has always been hard. It's always been contentious. Sometimes it's been bloody. For every two steps forward, it often feels we take one step back. But the long sweep of America has been defined by forward motion, a constant widening of our founding creed to embrace all and not just some.

If I had told you eight years ago that America would reverse a great recession, reboot our auto industry, and unleash the longest stretch of job creation in our history -- if I had told you that we would open up a new chapter with the Cuban people, shut down Iran's nuclear weapons program without firing a shot, take out the mastermind of 9/11 -- if I had told you that we would win marriage equality, and secure the right to health insurance for another 20 million of our fellow citizens -- if I had told you all that, you might have said our sights were set a little too high. But that's what we did. That's what you did.

You were the change. You answered people's hopes, and because of you, by almost every measure, America is a better, stronger place than it was when we started.

Obama then moved on to warning of the dangers he saw America facing right now and in the near future (this is par for the course for presidential farewell addresses, it's worth mentioning):

That's what I want to focus on tonight: The state of our democracy. Understand, democracy does not require uniformity. Our founders argued. They quarreled. Eventually they compromised. They expected us to do the same. But they knew that democracy does require a basic sense of solidarity -- the idea that for all our outward differences, we're all in this together; that we rise or fall as one.

There have been moments throughout our history that threatens that solidarity. And the beginning of this century has been one of those times. A shrinking world, growing inequality; demographic change and the specter of terrorism -- these forces haven't just tested our security and our prosperity, but are testing our democracy, as well. And how we meet these challenges to our democracy will determine our ability to educate our kids, and create good jobs, and protect our homeland. In other words, it will determine our future.

To begin with, our democracy won't work without a sense that everyone has economic opportunity. And the good news is that today the economy is growing again. Wages, incomes, home values, and retirement accounts are all rising again. Poverty is falling again. The wealthy are paying a fairer share of taxes even as the stock market shatters records. The unemployment rate is near a 10-year low. The uninsured rate has never, ever been lower. Health care costs are rising at the slowest rate in 50 years. And I've said and I mean it -- if anyone can put together a plan that is demonstrably better than the improvements we've made to our health care system and that covers as many people at less cost, I will publicly support it.

Because that, after all, is why we serve. Not to score points or take credit, but to make people's lives better.

Obama then moved on to address the state of race relations in America, first pointing out, "I've lived long enough to know that race relations are better than they were 10, or 20, or 30 years ago, no matter what some folks say," which is undeniably true; then he moved on to challenge Americans to do better in the future, offering up some interesting specifics:

For blacks and other minority groups, it means tying our own very real struggles for justice to the challenges that a lot of people in this country face -- not only the refugee, or the immigrant, or the rural poor, or the transgender American, but also the middle-aged white guy who, from the outside, may seem like he's got advantages, but has seen his world upended by economic and cultural and technological change. We have to pay attention, and listen.

For white Americans, it means acknowledging that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow didn't suddenly vanish in the '60s -- that when minority groups voice discontent, they're not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness. When they wage peaceful protest, they're not demanding special treatment but the equal treatment that our Founders promised.

For native-born Americans, it means reminding ourselves that the stereotypes about immigrants today were said, almost word for word, about the Irish, and Italians, and Poles -- who it was said we're going to destroy the fundamental character of America. And as it turned out, America wasn't weakened by the presence of these newcomers; these newcomers embraced this nation's creed, and this nation was strengthened.

Obama then admitted that we all are going to have to try harder, and pivoted to a more general point about the state of our politics:

And that's not easy to do. For too many of us, it's become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or on college campuses, or places of worship, or especially our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. The rise of naked partisanship, and increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste -- all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it's true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there.

And this trend represents a third threat to our democracy. But politics is a battle of ideas. That's how our democracy was designed. In the course of a healthy debate, we prioritize different goals, and the different means of reaching them. But without some common baseline of facts, without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent might be making a fair point, and that science and reason matter -- then we're going to keep talking past each other, and we'll make common ground and compromise impossible.

Obama then thanked the military, called being Commander-in-Chief "the honor of my lifetime," and offered advice that (while not mentioning him by name) seemed directed at the next man to lead our military:

But protecting our way of life, that's not just the job of our military. Democracy can buckle when we give in to fear. So, just as we, as citizens, must remain vigilant against external aggression, we must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are.

And that's why, for the past eight years, I've worked to put the fight against terrorism on a firmer legal footing. That's why we've ended torture, worked to close Gitmo, reformed our laws governing surveillance to protect privacy and civil liberties. That's why I reject discrimination against Muslim Americans, who are just as patriotic as we are.

. . .

So let's be vigilant, but not afraid. ISIL will try to kill innocent people. But they cannot defeat America unless we betray our Constitution and our principles in the fight. Rivals like Russia or China cannot match our influence around the world -- unless we give up what we stand for -- and turn ourselves into just another big country that bullies smaller neighbors.

Obama then issued a call to action to all Americans:

Our Constitution is a remarkable, beautiful gift. But it's really just a piece of parchment. It has no power on its own. We, the people, give it power. We, the people, give it meaning. With our participation, and with the choices that we make, and the alliances that we forge. Whether or not we stand up for our freedoms. Whether or not we respect and enforce the rule of law. That's up to us. America is no fragile thing. But the gains of our long journey to freedom are not assured.

. . .

It falls to each of us to be those anxious, jealous guardians of our democracy; to embrace the joyous task we've been given to continually try to improve this great nation of ours. Because for all our outward differences, we, in fact, all share the same proud title, the most important office in a democracy: Citizen. Citizen.

So, you see, that's what our democracy demands. It needs you. Not just when there's an election, not just when your own narrow interest is at stake, but over the full span of a lifetime. If you're tired of arguing with strangers on the Internet, try talking with one of them in real life. If something needs fixing, then lace up your shoes and do some organizing. If you're disappointed by your elected officials, grab a clipboard, get some signatures, and run for office yourself. Show up. Dive in. Stay at it.

Obama then gave a heartfelt thank-you to the members of his family and to Joe Biden (Michelle Obama's praise got the biggest applause of the entire night, it's worth pointing out), before finishing on a very high note indeed:

I am asking you to hold fast to that faith written into our founding documents; that idea whispered by slaves and abolitionists; that spirit sung by immigrants and homesteaders and those who marched for justice; that creed reaffirmed by those who planted flags from foreign battlefields to the surface of the moon; a creed at the core of every American whose story is not yet written: Yes, we can. Yes, we did. Yes, we can.

One last endearing footnote from Obama's final speech as president: at one point, even though constitutionally impossible, the crowd broke into a chant of "Four more years! Four more years!" It's hard, at this point, not to sympathize with that sentiment. We'll miss you, President Obama, probably faster than any of us thought.

-- 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

 

227 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [421] -- Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "this week we have a whopping thirteen winners of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award."

    I think that Tammy Baldwin deserved it for this absurdity:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dairy-pride-tammy-baldwin_us_58780a57e4b0e58057fe0349

  2. [2] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Eric and his brother Don
    agreed to take Trump's assets
    because they know the family trade
    and all its many facets.

    Now Dad's supposed to stay away
    And let the boys decide each deal
    And if you think that is gonna work
    You must think Unicorns are real!

    - Balthasar

  3. [3] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    John [1] I think that Tammy Baldwin deserved it for this absurdity

    Well she is a Senator from Wisconsin. Next, I suppose the Senator from Texas will be caught promoting a bill that affects the beef industry. :-)

    That said, the bill is a bit of a stretch. Would we have to rename everything called 'milk' that doesn't come from a cow? How about goat's milk? The Milky Way? Milk Chocolate? Chocolate Milk? Milk of Magnesia? Powdered Milk? What would you call powdered milk, other than 'powdered milk'?

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If this investigation had been opened immediately after Comey gave his first press conference on Clinton's emails last summer, then his subsequent letter to Congress might never have been written, to put it bluntly.

    Right. And, if that investigation had been opened immediately after Comey gave his first press conference on Clinton's emails last summer, then, given subsequent developments ... she may have been indicted, after all.

    Of course, I understand that such a scenario is beyond the comprehension of most Democrats. But, they would still have had a fall guy to blame it all on. It just wouldn't be Comey ...

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Excellent choices for MIDOTW awards.

    And, just for the record, congratulations to Vice President Biden on his most deserving honour of receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom With Distinction from a loving brother and gracious President on behalf of a grateful nation, as these two statesmen shared the spotlight, once again, at the end.

  6. [6] 
    dsws wrote:

    Republicans are against adding anything to the deficit.

    In what universe? Republicans like to use the deficit as a rhetorical cudgel when they're opposed to something for non-fiscal reasons, sure. But they've never met an unpaid-for tax cut they didn't like.

    ... importation of prescription drugs from Canada, which would save whoppingly huge sums of money

    It would save some people money, while costing other people money. It wouldn't enable any goods or services to be produced with appreciably less labor, capital, or natural resources.

    There is no really satisfactory way of pricing pharmaceuticals.

    Developing drugs, including testing them for safety and efficacy, is inherently expensive. Those costs have to be paid if we're to have better medications. But medicine bears little or no resemblance to an ideal-market commodity where buyers know what they're getting and sellers have to compete with a large number of other sellers.

    Animus toward foreigners is almost always an easy way to a bad conclusion. Selling pharmaceuticals to foreigners, even if at a lower price than Americans pay, tends to make the drugs less expensive than they would be if we made the drugs only for domestic use.

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I guess we're not in Kansas anymore, now that Senators received contributions from the pharmaceutical industry and then voted how the industry wanted them to.
    I am beginning to suspect that (as impossible it is to believe) that legislators are influenced by the contributions to their campaigns- and possibly even on other issues than pharmaceuticals.
    It might even affect Republicans as well as Democrats.
    It is almost as if there were a symbiotic relationship between the Big Money contributors and the two party system.
    If only there were some way that citizens could break the connection between the Big Money contributors and the current major parties and their candidates just by working together with each other to demand something better.
    Of course, if there were such an approach it would probably be ignored. It would be labeled as impossible even though it is more possible than many of the impossible things that many in the media think are possible- like believing that a candidate could take hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from an industry and not be influenced by those fees. I suspect those fees might also have at least the same influence as a campaign contribution.
    The Democrat that informs citizens about such an approach would be my choice for MIDOTW. The one that knows about such an approach that does not inform citizens would be my choice for MDDOTW- but that would be a list of infinite length.

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    "Hope you enjoyed the peace because, as of now, we're back in the game.."
    -Gene Hackman, CRIMSON TIDE

    :D

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Americans don't know how to take a REAL holiday ...

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's my way of saying, ah, welcome back, Michale!

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    The other laughable statement of the week came from a little-noticed hearing for James Comey, where he was asked whether the F.B.I. has investigated reported relationships between members of the Trump campaign and Russia. Comey hilariously responded: "I would never comment on investigations, whether we have one or not, in an open forum like this. So I really can't answer it one way or another." Senator Angus King pointed out the absurdity of this statement, given Comey's recent history of doing precisely that (when the target was named Hillary Clinton): "The irony of your making that statement here, I cannot avoid."

    Of course, the FACT that Comey had *NOT* commented on the Hillary investigation until after it was **CLOSED** means absolutely nothing here, eh?? :D

    Regardless, the OTHER fact remains.. Comey wouldn't have had ANYTHING to comment on if Hillary had not ran her State Dept as if she was above the law...

    That is ONE FACT that no amount of partisan spin can change..

    The Republicans in Congress have notably become Wonderland characters on their own, as they flail about trying to square the circle on their plans for Obamacare. They're doing a great imitation of the dog that caught the car, and didn't know what to do with it, in fact. For those who haven't had enough impossible things to ponder before breakfast, here's a quick rundown of the irreconcilable Republican positions:

    TrainWreckCare is going down.. No amount of partisan spin will change THAT simple fact either...

    Let's see, what else is going on? Donald Trump infamously alluded to the size of his penis during a presidential debate, so it wasn't all that surprising that he'd address reports of hiring Russian prostitutes to... um... "shower him with gold" (shall we say), during his press conference. Buckle up, America, we're in for a seriously wild ride for the next four years....

    Especially when the MSM ya'all so despised during the Obama years have actually become *LESS* credible than the NATIONAL ENQUIRER...

    And there ya'all will be, egging and cheering the biased MSM on....

    Here's the complete, shameful list of which Democrats care more about drug companies than consumers: Michael Bennet (Colorado), Cory Booker (New Jersey), Maria Cantwell (Washington), Tom Carper (Delaware), Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), Chris Coons (Delaware), Joe Donnelly (Indiana), Martin Heinrich (New Mexico), Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota), Robert Menendez (New Jersey), Patty Murray (Washington), Jon Tester (Montana), and Mark Warner (Virginia). Looks like there are a lot of drug companies in New Jersey, Delaware, and Washington, from that list. For being corporate suckups rather than fighting for the little guy, all unlucky 13 get a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

    The funny thing is, if those had been REPUBLICANS, ya'all would have painted the *ENTIRE* Republican Party with the actions of those 13...

    So, obviously, you agree that we can paint the ENTIRETY of the Democratic Party with the brush of those 13....

    Right??? :D

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    Americans don't know how to take a REAL holiday ...

    Not necessarily... :D

    The definition of "holiday" is as individual as the people who define it.. :D

    That's my way of saying, ah, welcome back, Michale!

    Thanx ya.. :D Had a blast.. Belize was really REALLY fun... :D

    NOTE TO ALL: Anyone who wants to discuss anything from the past 7 days, go ahead and bring it forward to this commentary...

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    'Liberal snowflake' Hollywood stars come under fire for 'pathetic' video which shows them singing 'I Will Survive' about Trump's inauguration
    Video features Emma Stone, Amy Adams, Natalie Portman reciting the classic
    It was created by W Magazine and released days before Trump is sworn in
    But his biggest fans called the celebrities 'snowflakes', said they 'sound awful'
    One couldn't believe Matthew McConaughey would do something so 'uncool'
    The clash continues the intensifying debate over Hollywood activism

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4120208/Celebrities-come-fire-Trump-supporters-Survive.html

    BBBBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    The opposition to Trump has gotten downright pathetic and embarrassing...

    I truly hope the Left Wingery can up their game, because THIS is just sad.....

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    We certainly were pretty disappointed with the confirmation hearings, since other than notably pointed questions by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, there wasn't a lot of grilling happening from Democrats on the committees.

    What I tell ya???

    The Democrats are leader-less, rudder-less and morale-less....

    They couldn't mount proper questioning of Trump's nominees....

    Trump is going to steam-roll over Democrats as if they were nothing... Which is pretty close to an accurate depiction...

    Right now, the Democratic Party couldn't defend a strawberry scone....

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    This was supposed to be the week President-elect Trump's nominees endured tough grilling and determined opposition in Senate confirmation hearings. "Trump Cabinet picks face extreme vetting ahead of confirmation," USA Today reported last month, predicting that several Trump picks could face a very difficult time on Capitol Hill.

    Now Week One is ending, and the tough grilling mostly didn't materialize. And all of Trump's first week of nominees seem headed toward confirmation.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2611789

    For all their tough talk, Democrats are just laying down and showing their bellies...

    Democrats know the score.. The vast majority of patriotic Americans overwhelmingly and decisively voted for President Trump....

    Democrats know they have lost and will only offer up a lot of lip service before the fact and a lot of mewling and groveling during the fact....

    This week is likely how the next 8 years are going to be...

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    If this investigation had been opened immediately after Comey gave his first press conference on Clinton's emails last summer, then his subsequent letter to Congress might never have been written, to put it bluntly.

    And if Hillary hadn't used an illegal, unauthorized, hackable private bathroom closet email server, then there never would have been ANY Press Conference from FBI Director Comey...

    If Loretta Lynch had refused the horizontal bop invite from Bubba Clinton, then Comey would have been content to let Lynch handle any press conference...

    If Hillary had come clean right at the first, when the NY Times released the private email server info, there would likely have been no horizontal Bubba bop, no real investigation and we would have President Elect Clinton..

    There are dozens and dozens of crossroads in this whole sordid affair where DEMOCRATS could have altered the course of history simply by putting country **BEFORE** Party...

    But Democrats were selfish, greedy and wholly without honor or integrity...

    And, for that, we have President Elect Trump....

    Democrats have **NO ONE** to blame except themselves..

    Go ahead.. Tell me I'm wrong... I double dog dare ya... :D

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    “They are all so phony. Every time I hear any of the Democratic senators, including my own boss, talk about diversity, I cringe, because it’s all one big lie. That they’ve been allowed to enjoy this reputation as a party that values diversity, while doing next to nothing of substance to align their actions with their words, is expert-level deception.”
    -Democrat Senator Staffer

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-democratic-staffer-exposes-soft-bigotry-senate-dems-article-1.2893049

    This is why, while ALL politicians disgust me, Democrat politicians earn my special disgust...

    Because, in addition to being the lying, thieving, stealing, greedy cretins that all politicians are, Democrats are also the biggest hypocrites on the face of the planet....

    They talk the talk just fine.. But they are completely and utterly incapable of walking the walk...

  18. [18] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    delayed response from Playboy Presidents
    comment 16

    "Again, perhaps different definitions of cool.

    Very different. It's really a comparison of Trump's garish, 'in-your-face' version, and Obama's 'intellectual sophisticate' version.
    In their day, Flint embraced the former, Hefner, the latter."

    Um (see CW's response on the word from that thread), nonsense.

    "In your face" and "Intellectual sophisticate" are loaded terms.
    Intellectual sophisticate" is a term that would aptly apply to few politicians, and there is ample evidence that Obama doesn't qualify despite his pretension. I certainly agree about Trump, but the comparison using the terms is hollow.

    A few examples-
    The "in your face" anti-fracking activists who cite verified scientific evidence in their efforts are far more intellectually sophisticated than the pro-industry defense by Obama that ignores it.
    The in your face activists for single payer are far more intellectually sophisticated than the corporatist Obama who entrenched the for-profit industry.
    Or, take the panel of experts that Obama established to review forensic evidence. They found that only DNA evidence had scientifically valid underpinnings and that everything from burn patterns in arson investigations, bite mark evidence, and even fingerprints did not have a scientifically valid basis for use. Obama's Justice Department responded by saying "thanks, but we're going to keep using the scientifically questionable approaches and let "experts" swear in court that they are valid tools for convicting people despite hundreds of cases of innocent people being falsely convicted".
    Is that "intellectually sophisticated?
    Is that cool?

    ---

    Anyway, the idea that "in your face" is somehow not "cool", and that "intellectual sophisticates" are doesn't work generally.
    It's like the attitudes expressed by the (at the time) PC intellectual sophisticates who ragged on rock music. Or the later rock fans who ragged on punk rock.

    Cool is relative, of course, but I would argue pretension to sophistication never will be.

    Playboy dangling high end consumer goods to masses who can't afford them is only cool to some.

    Or take an example used in the column... the guy who spent $750 on a top end stereo may be far less cool than a guy who buys a $30 stereo and spends the rest going to live concerts.

    ---

    In any case, Trump is no Flint, so I'd disagree with your comparison just on that basis.

    But your seeming denigration of Flint for championing blue collar workers is kind of ugly.
    Bernie was definitely cooler than Hillary.
    Obama pretended to be their champion too, so there's another problem with your comparison.

    I guess it just boils down to not liking your idea of cool.
    Sorry.

    A

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    The vast majority of patriotic Americans overwhelmingly and decisively voted for President Trump....

    Drivel, unless you are defining patriotic as being a Trump supporter, which is too sad to even discuss.

    Trump is massively unpopular already. He has generated more scandals as a President-elect than the last 8 years of Obama. His nominees have directly contradicted his positions during their testimony, and his determination to repeal the PPACA is lining up to be the first moronic decision of his Presidency.

    I really feel for the people who are going to be hurt by the PPACA repeal, but I hope there is some justice here and that at least 80,000 Trump voters in MI, WI and PA wake up and realize they are now likely to lose their house and future because of their own stupidity.

    Chris Ladd (http://politicalorphans.com/our-last-professional-president/) is pointing out that we are now, for the first time since the 1930's, going to have a completely unqualified resident of the White House. The Asimov quote springs to mind, and it is sad that some people (but not a majority by a long stretch) still need to learn that their ignorance isn't equivalent to others knowledge.

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    Drivel, unless you are defining patriotic as being a Trump supporter, which is too sad to even discuss.

    You define it as drivel SOLELY based on ideology...

    I define "patriotic" as one who chooses country over globalization...

    One who chooses COUNTRY over Party...

    THAT definition only applies to Trump supporters...

    A vote for Hillary is a vote FOR globalization and AGAINST country...

    "Now, if the bitter taste of that is unpalatable to you, I am truly sorry."
    -Captain Jean Luc Picard, THE DEFECTOR

    Trump is massively unpopular already......

    .... With the Left Wingery and the Leftist MSM.....

    There... Finished it for you...

    He has generated more scandals as a President-elect than the last 8 years of Obama.

    Only amongst the Left Wingery and the Leftist MSM..

    Unarguably, the LEAST credible groups on the face of the planet...

    I really feel for the people who are going to be hurt by the PPACA repeal, but I hope there is some justice here and that at least 80,000 Trump voters in MI, WI and PA wake up and realize they are now likely to lose their house and future because of their own stupidity.

    Trump Is Toast-esque prediction #325

    Chris Ladd (http://politicalorphans.com/our-last-professional-president/) is pointing out that we are now, for the first time since the 1930's, going to have a completely unqualified resident of the White House.

    But the problem is, ya'all define "qualified" as someone who has royally frak'ed up the country..

    Obama was also "unqualified" when he was elected...

    The Asimov quote springs to mind, and it is sad that some people (but not a majority by a long stretch) still need to learn that their ignorance isn't equivalent to others knowledge.

    If, by "ignorance" you mean NOT choosing Hillary Clinton, then I am ECSTATIC to wallow in "ignorance", as YOU define it..

    The simple fact is, Americans are hopeful for this country on a scale unseen in the last 8 years.. Businesses are coming back to the US in droves.. ALL because Trump was election..

    And THAT just chaps yer ass to no end... :D

    And THAT

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    I really feel for the people who are going to be hurt by the PPACA repeal, but I hope there is some justice here and that at least 80,000 Trump voters in MI, WI and PA wake up and realize they are now likely to lose their house and future because of their own stupidity.

    And yer hoping like CRAZY that THAT will exactly happen. :D

    You see what I mean about Party before Country??

    Party uber alles???

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Inauguration Protesters Plan To Destroy Property And Disrupt Balls
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/14/inauguration-protesters-plan-to-destroy-property-and-disrupt-balls/#ixzz4Vm0NmHEv

    Another example of PARTY UBER ALLES...

    If this was HILLARY's inauguration we were talking about, you would condemn these groups hysterically to the high heavens...

    But, because they are out to destroy TRUMP'S inauguration, you are silently supportive....

    A textbook example of Party Before Country....

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    So the NY Daily News' new line is:

    "OK, we give in, Trump is a bigot and racist, but look, they aren't as diverse as we think they should be!"

    And this from a right wing rag.

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    First sign of enhanced U.S.-Russia relations under Trump: An invite to Syria talks
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/first-sign-of-enhanced-us-russia-relations-under-trump-an-invite-to-syria-talks/2017/01/13/81d443d6-d9b9-11e6-9f9f-5cdb4b7f8dd7_story.html?utm_term=.f7d545970b91

    Thanx to Trump, the US now has a seat at the Syrian Peace Talks table...

    A big, mighty and well-deserved FRAK YOU!!! to the Obama Administration... :D

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    "OK, we give in, Trump is a bigot and racist, but look, they aren't as diverse as we think they should be!"

    I have already put that TRUMP IS A RACIST bullshit to rest...

    It's simply not factually accurate...

    It's funny you don't want to talk about the Democrats hypocrisy on diversity..

    Nope, it's not funny....

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    But the problem is, ya'all define "qualified" as someone who has royally frak'ed up the country..

    Obama was also "unqualified" when he was elected...

    Then Obama became very very VERY well qualified...

  27. [27] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Thanks for your response in comment 18 in "Obama's farewell".

    Ah... no.
    Transformational has a specific meaning.
    Dodd-Frank didn't achieve it.
    It was meant to address the problems that deregulation caused, but will not prevent the next massive fraud by Wall Street.

    Crack sentencing disparity likewise doesn't qualify.
    If you read the consent decrees by Justice for Ferguson, Baltimore and Chicago... which are just like previous consent decrees for other jurisdictions that remain plagued by injustices in law enforcement... the real issues of criminal justice reform are NOT being discussed now.

    Just like Dodd-Frank, it is pseudo reform meant to allow the status quo to continue.
    Not "transformational".

    Look, if Dems hope to achieve gains at the local, state and federal level, honest and accurate analysis of Obama's "achievements" is necessary (among many other things).

    All these "Obama was great" columns by pundits are setting the stage for Democratic politicians who will think voters will be satisfied with appearance over substance, like Obama. I think that's a recipe for failure... not just as a tactic electorally because voters will assume a failure to deliver in the past and the whitewashed assessments of it is indicative of future results, but even if Dems succeed in regaining power, they won't actually pursue needed, true transformational policies.

    In other words, I don't want you to crack the whip to harm Obama's legacy. What can be achieved in the future is at stake.

    ---

    BTW, in response to your comments to others about not mentioning Republican obstructionism, I think you are correct.
    The column was about what Obama achieved or could have achieved in spite of, or even against the Republicans.
    What the GOP was doing is irrelevant.
    Their obstruction didn't cause Obama to fail to rally his supporters, pursue better policies, convince the Blue Dogs, or effectively use the bully pulpit.
    Those were his decisions, and I am very pleased with that part of the column.

    A

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    Latinos set to toast tequila to Trump

    Next week, a group of patriots, who happen to be Hispanic, will gather to celebrate the inauguration of President-elect Donald J. Trump.

    It will be the kind of moment that runs counter to the narratives of the political and the media elite, but to those of us in the room, our celebration makes perfect sense.

    If news of our inauguration party surprises you, recall that 29 percent of the Hispanic vote went to Trump. Remember, too, that Latinos are feeling the sharp pain of economic adversity that Trump has convincingly promised to change.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/314233-many-latinos-eager-for-trump-to-jump-start-economy

    That's a common theme amongst Trump supporters..

    Not ideology...

    Patriotism....

    Trump supporters aren't Democrats..

    Trump supporters aren't Republicans...

    Trump supporters are AMERICANS first and foremost...

    That's why Hillary voters are trying to tear down Trump...

    Because they want to tear down America.....

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    That's why Hillary voters are trying to tear down Trump...

    Because they want to tear down America.....

    And yes..

    I honestly and truly believe that Hillary Clinton and her supporters do NOT have America's best interests at heart...

    The priority for Hillary and her supporters is pushing a Progressive agenda, even if it's at the expense of the country.

    With Hillary supporters, it's Party first and country a distant second..

    With Hillary, it's Hillary first, Party second and country a distant, distant, DISTANT third...

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    Interesting take on the STAR WARS v STAR TREK debate from the perspective of the political...

    http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/why-peter-thiel-fears-star-trek?intcid=mod-latest

  31. [31] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    delayed response to comment 3 in Obama's Farewell

    "So was the extraordinary and unprecedented leaking they did on his watch (Obama must be the unluckiest president ever!), the impacts of which upon the statecraft and national security of the United States are still not, apparently, fully understood"

    Blaming the whistleblowers is pathetic.
    Implying there may yet be national security impacts when none have yet occurred is dubious.

    A

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    altohone [18]: Al, you seem to have missed the entire point of both CW's column, and my follow up comment.

    We weren't discussing my definition of cool, or your definition of cool at all. We're discussing A definition of cool that we grew up with, best exemplified, perhaps, by the character Don Draper from Madmen on a good day. You can argue 'til your politics turns turquoise blue, but it's a fact that a lot of folks think that Obama has that kind of cool.

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Implying there may yet be national security impacts when none have yet occurred is dubious.

    You just can't be that naive.

  34. [34] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    29

    The progressive agenda has broad national support.
    Even Trump has promised to defend Social Security and Medicare.

    Your complaints and conflation of the issues you take with Obama and Hillary and the progressive agenda were never valid.
    Particularly your claim that equality for the LGBT community was unpatriotic or harmful to the country.

    I've noticed Trump supporters elsewhere blaming the left for Obama's establishmentarian economic and foreign policies too. It just doesn't make any sense when the left has been actively fighting those policies.

    As for comment 25
    "I have already put that TRUMP IS A RACIST bullshit to rest"

    No, you haven't.
    You just think you have.
    Stereotyping based on race is racism.
    He does it.
    You do it.
    Of course you don't want to believe it's racist, but it is.

    Spin and refutation are not the same.
    But spin away.

    A

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    You can argue 'til your politics turns turquoise blue, but it's a fact that a lot of folks think that Obama has that kind of cool.

    And a lot of folks think that TRUMP has "that kind of cool"....

    Of course, you don't...

    But that's because your entire outlook on Obama *AND* Trump is totally, completely and unequivocally based on ideology...

    Obama's "cool" is totally and completely ideologically based...

    Trump's "cool" is totally and completely based on patriotism...

    That's is why Democrats and the Left Wingery is simply incapable of defeating Trump...

    Democrats can't FATHOM Trump's appeal because Democrats know nothing about patriotism...

    Democrats are all about ideology...

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I honestly and truly believe that Hillary Clinton and her supporters do NOT have America's best interests at heart..

    Why are Trump and his supporters still prosecuting the election against Hillary Clinton? Hillary's gone dude. Zed's ded. If Trump keeled over tomorrow, Hillary still wouldn't get the job, so why are you still gnawing at that bone? Still, I can't blame you for wanting to lick the bowl, since all you have for dessert is crow...

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And a lot of folks think that TRUMP has "that kind of cool"..

    Oh, come on. Romney has more moments of 'that kind of cool' than Trump. Trump has no taste and no class. He's the foul-mouthed son of a foul-mouthed man, and all of the cash that he throws at that problem can't hide it. Trump thinks he's Rockefeller, when in truth, he's just an unsympathetic version of Gatsby.

  38. [38] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    32

    No, you missed the point.
    The Playboy kind of cool from the era CW mentioned wasn't actually cool.
    Obama's isn't either.

    You want to believe otherwise.
    I just disagree.
    And I was just trying to explain why I disagree.

    Accept that we have different opinions on the issue.

    People into opera think opera is cool.
    There's no need to get your panties in a bunch because I'm not into Obama's kind of cool.
    You'll never sell me on opera either.
    And when a gaggle of opera fans insist they are right, I'll keep disagreeing, because they don't get to decide.

    As for comment 33, are you claiming there have been national security risks caused by whistleblowers, or that some will still arise?
    If it's the former, make your case instead of insulting me as if you don't have to make one.

    A

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2017/01/fuck-you-rural-elitists.html?m=1

    I'm warning you now, the url is the tamest part of this post, however I've heard the same thing frequently from people who used to be patient and believe that fact-based solutions from people who live in the real world would always win out over the Trumps, Brexits, etc..

    More and more people are getting bored with the ignorance that Trump supporters revel in and their self centered and insulting "patriotic common sense". In fact all it is is a a call to go back to a time when Christian white men were the elite - so in fact the whole Trump "Make America Great Again" is the biggest pile of elitism floating around in the swamp at the moment. The anger it is generating from the decent people who would never vote for a pussy-grabbing liar is going to surprise the right wing and their "oh my white problems are so difficult you just don't understand my way of life" drivel.

    About time.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Stop playing games, Alice.

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Accept that we have different opinions on the issue.

    Accepted.

    are you claiming there have been national security risks caused by whistleblowers, or that some will still arise?

    If you're talking about Wikileaks, Snowden, or little Miss Manning, of course I am. I've heard that said by too many sources. Folks on the far left might delight in the embarrassment of administration officials caught listening in on Germany, but that had real-life consequences. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. The left continues to defend Wikileaks even after its' evident Russian connections are named publicly. That's naivety.

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neilm [39]: great article. Loved, bookmarked. By the way I also enjoyed the article you linked to back at [19]. And did you notice that the 'scholarly article' by George Bush linked to in the body of that article was essentially a description of ACA, presented as Republican Policy? My, how times change.

    I have to say I also found the article that Michale links to at [30] very interesting. I imagine that we each read it very differently.

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump's "cool" is totally and completely based on patriotism...

    What are you talking about. Trump is in Putin's pocket - it is obvious that Putin has the goods on him and Trump needs to dance to his master's tune.

    You can like Trump for being a big middle finger to the Democrats if you want, but stop the patriotic nonsense - he is selling America down the river for his own needs.

    Trump should be tried as a traitor immediately. The evidence is there and all that is saving Trump so far is the willful blindness on the part of the Republican Party who have shown year after year that they only want power - America be damned (remember they tried to wipe out our credit worthiness a couple of years ago, and now they are trying to let Iran off the hook on proliferation inspections).

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you're talking about Wikileaks, Snowden, or little Miss Manning, of course I am.

    Indeed.

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It could be that all of this cozying up to Putin is about forming an alliance that Trump believes is what he needs to put an end to terrorism, once and for all.

    Talk about naïve.

  46. [46] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Finally getting around to your column...

    "For all the good that they both have done, for never embarrassing the nation"

    Um, I was embarrassed numerous times, for the harm they caused at home and abroad.

    From the speech-

    "change only happens when ordinary people get involved and they get engaged, and they come together to demand it"

    We did.
    Obama ignored it and his campaign promises.

    "shut down Iran's nuclear weapons program without firing a shot"

    Zero evidence that Iran had a nuclear weapons program was ever presented, and it would have been if they had any such evidence.

    "you might have said our sights were set a little too high"

    See my response in "Obama's farewell".
    Candidate Obama had higher sights.

    "You were the change"

    Obama prevented necessary change.
    Don't put it on us.

    "growing inequality"

    Got worse under Obama.

    "The wealthy are paying a fairer share of taxes"

    Fairer than under Bush... the lowest of bars... but still far from a fair share.

    "if anyone can put together a plan that is demonstrably better than the improvements we've made to our health care system and that covers as many people at less cost, I will publicly support it"

    It's called single payer, and Obama publicly opposes it. Liar.

    "we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it's true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there"

    Obama, secure in his neoliberal bubble, only accepted information from his neoliberal counterparts, true or not, and ignored the evidence that is out there.

    "we must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are.

    And that's why, for the past eight years, I've worked to put the fight against terrorism on a firmer legal footing. That's why we've ended torture, worked to close Gitmo, reformed our laws governing surveillance to protect privacy and civil liberties."

    Obama worked to weaken those values.
    Drone and conventional warfare outside of Constitutional bounds, aiding terrorists to effect regime change, not prosecuting those who implemented torture, not closing Gitmo, and legalizing mass surveillance that violates our privacy and civil liberties.

    "But they cannot defeat America unless we betray our Constitution and our principles in the fight"

    Which Obama did, just like Bush.

    "and turn ourselves into just another big country that bullies smaller neighbors"

    Venezuela, Honduras, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Ukraine, etc...
    All on Obama's watch.
    "turn" of course, suggests a change, when in fact US bullying of smaller neighbors has long been US policy... so, not only is he denying his own reality, but that of his predecessors.

    "Whether or not we stand up for our freedoms. Whether or not we respect and enforce the rule of law. That's up to us"

    Obama sold out some of our freedoms, and ignored and refused to enforce rule of law for Bushie war crimes and Wall Street fraud. Such a hypocrite.

    "If you're disappointed by your elected officials"

    If?

    "Yes, we can. Yes, we did"

    Bull.

    ---

    The most disappointing award was well chosen.
    Neoliberal corporatist Dems are ensuring the party keeps failing.

    But let's not forget who made a back room deal with Pharma to keep the issue from becoming policy for the last eight years... Mr. No We Can't Supposedly Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

    A

  47. [47] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    40

    Games like assuming anybody knows what you are referring to?

    A

  48. [48] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    41

    "I've heard that said by too many sources"

    You're citing unnamed sources as proof of a threat to our national security?
    Really?

    "delight in the embarrassment of administration officials caught listening in on Germany, but that had real-life consequences"

    Embarrassment is a risk to our national security?

    "The left continues to defend Wikileaks even after its' evident Russian connections are named publicly"

    Wikileaks has never once been shown to have published false or forged documents... but claiming "evident Russian connections are named publicly" when no such evidence has been presented publicly is about as convincing of a case as embarrassment... to be clear... not the slightest bit convincing.

    Hey, if you got a copy of the secret report that supposedly has evidence, please share, cuz it has not been made public.

    Of course, naivety in believing without seeing the evidence while accusing others of it is really impressive projection.

    Did you convince yourself too, or just Liz?

    A

  49. [49] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    43

    "The evidence is there"?

    Please share.

    A

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    Here are a couple of Terry Pratchett quotes back-to-back - if you don't know who Terry Pratchett is you are a lucky SOB - read the Diskworld Series - start with Mort or Guards! Guards! and as soon as you are hooked re-start at beginning with The Colour of Magic and work your way onwards - I feel VERY passionate about Terry Pratchett, in case it isn't coming through.

    "There are those who, when presented with a glass that is exactly half full, say: this glass is half full.

    And then there are those who say: this glass is half empty.

    The world belongs, however, to those who can look at the glass and say: What’s up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don’t think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!"

    "Always remember that the crowd that applauds your coronation is the same crowd that will applaud your beheading. People like a show."

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think I may be passionate about Terry Pratchett, too ...

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    altohone,

    The games that I am talking about are very familiar in many virtual interactions that pretend to be discussions where one person says what they believe about a specific issue and the other one (purposefully?) misinterprets it and responds by saying that it is ... oh, let's use pathetic as one example.

    When the first person declines to play along, then the other person demands to be schooled on the issue.

    I used to play that game, years ago, particularly with respect to explaining why, c2005, I thought that Joe Biden should be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee and, failing that, Obama's pick for Vice President.

    I was usually met with the familiar and wholly misguided ... criticism, to use a more polite word, followed by a demand to back up what I was saying with, you know, evidence. Whatever.

    So, of course, in those days I was only too happy to indulge in very long-winded but substantive comments to set the other person straight. Sometimes, I was even able to persuade but, apparently not persuasive enough to change a vote. That was a little joke.

    Anyway, I'm done with that kind of game-playing. Now, I just have time for discussions with people who possess the necessary basic knowledge about an issue so I don't have to explain EVERYTHING!

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    "The evidence is there"?

    It is all up on Buzzfeed.

    What, you don't think that is reliable, and so shouldn't be public? What? Like Obama wasn't born in the U.S.? Ted Cruz's father wasn't part of JFK's death?

    Listen, people are saying. All I'm doing is pointing out that I'm hearing talk about this. Lots of talk about it. Why did Flynn call Russia five times? What did he say? Why won't Trump explain what Flynn was talking to the Russian about? Why does Trump want to remove sanctions? What happened in the hotel?

    The irony of Trump complaining about fake news is delicious.

  54. [54] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al: [48] claiming "evident Russian connections are named publicly" when no such evidence has been presented publicly...

    *ahem*:

    http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties

  55. [55] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    neilm [53],

    The schadenfreude is tasty as long as we don't think too much about how much of it the orange ignoramus will be enjoying.

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar

    Why are Trump and his supporters still prosecuting the election against Hillary Clinton?

    Cite??

    Jeeze, look who I am asking to back up their claims!?? :D

    Here's a question for you... That you will ignore..

    Why are Democrats claiming that Trump is not the legitimate President??

    Still, I can't blame you for wanting to lick the bowl, since all you have for dessert is crow...

    You just HAVE to realize how utterly lame and inane that sounds, right?? :D

    Oh, come on. Romney has more moments of 'that kind of cool' than Trump. Trump has no taste and no class. He's the foul-mouthed son of a foul-mouthed man, and all of the cash that he throws at that problem can't hide it. Trump thinks he's Rockefeller, when in truth, he's just an unsympathetic version of Gatsby.

    That's your opinion. But, as I have pointed out and NO ONE has been able to refute with facts, it's an opinion COMPLETELY and UTTERLY borne of partisan ideology.

    As such, it is completely and utterly suspect...

    If Trump had a -D after his name, you would be singing a different tune..

    I have to say I also found the article that Michale links to at [30] very interesting. I imagine that we each read it very differently.

    And here I thought that ya'all would lambaste me for embracing communism.. :D

    Al: [48] claiming "evident Russian connections are named publicly" when no such evidence has been presented publicly...

    *ahem*:

    http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties

    Your "proof" is VOX.COM??? :D

    That's like me offering "proof" by way of a Breitbart link... :D

    Com'on, you can do better!! :D

    Neil,

    More and more people are getting bored with the ignorance that Trump supporters revel in and their self centered and insulting "patriotic common sense".

    Well, they better get used to it. :D

    Because, as Trump proves the Left Wingery wrong again and again, as he has done AT EVERY TURN, that "insulting patriotic common sense" is going to become more and more prevalent and acute...

    And the Left Wingery has only themselves to blame because it was THEIR insulting elitist attitude in the run-up to the utter shellacking that Hillary and the Left received that has beget this "insulting patriotic common sense" attitude...

    "If ya wouldn't start none, there wouldn't BE none.."
    -Will Smith, MEN IN BLACK

    What are you talking about. Trump is in Putin's pocket - it is obvious that Putin has the goods on him and Trump needs to dance to his master's tune.

    Trump Derangement Syndrome at it's finest!!!

    You sound EXACTLY like those Right Wing Nutjobs who accused Obama of being a Muslim agent intent on bringing Sharia Law to the US.. :D

    I know you are smart enough to see how utterly apt the comparison is.. :D

    You can like Trump for being a big middle finger to the Democrats if you want, but stop the patriotic nonsense - he is selling America down the river for his own needs.

    That's your opinion. But, like Balthy's opinion, it's an opinion borne totally and completely of partisan ideology and has absolutely no factual basis in reality..

    As such, it is extremely suspect and nothing more than a symptom of your TDS...

    "Always remember that the crowd that applauds your coronation is the same crowd that will applaud your beheading. People like a show."

    Totally untrue...

    All one has to do is look at Hillary Clinton and the Left Wingery to know that THAT is completely false..

    The Left Wingery was totally applauding her coronation...

    Are they applauding her beheading??

    Nope..

    It is all up on Buzzfeed.

    Your "proof" is Buzzfeed!???

    That's like me saying that "proof" can be found on Breitbart.. :D

    Let's be real and factual here..

    Buzzfeed, CNN, WaPoop and the vast majority of the Leftist MSM have PROVEN beyond any doubt that they are compromised when it comes to reporting facts about President Trump...

    ANYTHING they print that is negative about Trump simply cannot be believed any more....

    Places like CNN, WaPoop, Buzzfeed, etc etc are, on the credibility scale, way way WAY below The National Enquirer.....

    This is well documented..

    Liz,

    It could be that all of this cozying up to Putin is about forming an alliance that Trump believes is what he needs to put an end to terrorism, once and for all.

    OR..

    It could be that Trump recognizes that Putin is a few fries short of a happy meal due to his KGB training and that Trump feels that it's more important to keep someone like that calm....

    You have to remember that it's a LOT easier for Putin to launch a nuclear first strike than it is for Trump...

    Finally, do you realize the irony of the Left's insistent that Russia is evil incarnate, in light of the mocking the Left issued to Romney and the Right just four short years ago??

    Now THAT is a substantive debate we could have..

    Ach, what am I thinking.. NOTHING that puts Obama and the Left Wingery in a bad light is EVER a "substantive debate"...

    Silly me... :D

    CW,

    "we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it's true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there"

    Obama said THAT!!!!

    My gods, the hypocrisy...

    The entirety of the Left Wingery and every one here in Weigantia totally and completely based their opinions on information that ONLY was ideologically acceptable..

    This is documented fact..

    Time after time, I produced polls and quotes and personal observations that PROVED Trump would win the election...

    These facts were ignored in favor of "fake news" and ONLY the real news that was ideologically acceptable..

    From the Climate Change Con to Hillary's coronation/inauguration, it's completely and utter clear that it was the Left Wingery who has become "so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it's true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there"

    If the Left Wingery wants to complain about something like that, they need to look in a mirror and clean their own house first before they even ATTEMPT to lecture others...

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    This is why your VOX article simply cannot be believed...

    Publicly available evidence, including unique code and Russian writing in the hacked documents themselves, links the document theft to Russian state-sponsored hacks.

    That "unique code" is code that has been in the public domain for over a decade and is actually based on NSA code that was stolen and hacked...

    So, if it's the CODE that is the key, then it's fair to say that the NSA hacked the Democratic Party.. :D

    You have yet to offer ANY facts that the Russians changed Hillary votes to Trump votes..

    Until you have such facts, then ANY claim of "THE RUSSIANS HACKED THE ELECTION" is nothing but hysterical bull shit...

    The ONLY thing the Russians did (even if they DID do anything) was expose the FACTS about the Democratic Party's inner workings and thought process..

    If THAT is all it took to swing the election to Trump, then maybe the Democratic Party should take a good strong look in the mirror..

    But, of course, it's easier to blame a non-existent boogeyman than to come to grips with the FACT that the Democrats are a bunch of greedy, racist, bigoted, scumbag, hypocritical assholes..

    Which is not to say that the Republicans are not the same kind of greedy, racist, bigoted, scumbag, hypocritical assholes... They are..

    But for you to pretend that Republicans are like that, but Democrats aren't??

    Well, that's just ya'all being "so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it's true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there"

    There is simply no factual evidence that conclusively proves that the Russians did ANYTHING about our elections...

    This is fact whether you want to admit it or not..

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    That "unique code" is code that has been in the public domain for over a decade and is actually based on NSA code that was stolen and hacked...

    So, if it's the CODE that is the key, then it's fair to say that the NSA hacked the Democratic Party.. :D

    You have yet to offer ANY facts that the Russians changed Hillary votes to Trump votes..

    Allow me give you an example..

    Postulate a scenario where the Obama Administration set up a program to tag illegal weapons and then released those weapons into the wild to track them back to the bad guys..

    Let's further postulate that one of those guns was used to kill a Border Patrol officer...

    Using your thought process, the Obama Administration killed or ordered to be killed, that Border Patrol officer..

    Of course, in reality, such a claim is borne of NOTHING but ideological Party hysteria and has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality..

    Which is EXACTLY what the claim THE RUSSIANS HACKED THE ELECTION is...

    Taking disparate and irrelevant information and using it as "PROOF" that the hysterical accusation is factual...

    Of course, my analogy is EXTREMELY far-fetched, because the Obama Administration would NEVER be so utterly STOOPID and MORONIC and TOTALLY CARELESS and THOUGHTLESS as to let illegal weapons flow into the hands of druggies and criminal psychopaths and killers just to push an unpopular Anti-Gun agenda....

    Right?? :D

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    I've heard the same thing frequently from people who used to be patient and believe that fact-based solutions from people who live in the real world would always win out over the Trumps, Brexits, etc..

    You mean the "patient" people who called Trump supporters "racist" and "deplorables" SOLELY because they supported Trump??

    With "patient" people like that, who needs bigots??

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    "we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it's true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there"

    You mean like the "One China" Policy..

    That is the epitome of ignoring reality in favor of a bubble-induced fantasy...

    Cue the "Oh, well.. That's different" responses....

    Taiwan is a separate and distinct country in and of itself..

    Any claims to the contrary is the epitome of what Obama is slamming...

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It could be that Trump recognizes that Putin is a few fries short of a happy meal due to his KGB training and that Trump feels that it's more important to keep someone like that calm....You have to remember that it's a LOT easier for Putin to launch a nuclear first strike than it is for Trump...

    Well, I'm not sure that the last part there isn't a difference without much distinction but, why didn't you just end your comment there?

    And, as it stands right now, it's way too easy for either Putin or Trump (or for Russia or America) to launch nuclear weapons. Also, by your analysis, might we expect Trump to cozy up to the North Korean leader, too?

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just listened to the end part of Meet the Press. The esteemed panel was talking about President Obama's farewell address in Chicago and how poignant it was. In passing, someone mentioned Joe Biden's name and everyone burst into laughter before they quickly moved on.

    What's up with that? :-(

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, I'm not sure that the last part there isn't a difference without much distinction but, why didn't you just end your comment there?

    It's a HUGE difference...

    Put another way... With my military background and my knowledge of the systems, I am completely comfortable with the safeguards in place that would prevent a rogue POTUS from unilaterally launching a first strike...

    I am also familiar (somewhat dated, I concede) with the Russian counterparts and I know that Putin could launch a nuclear strike and there would be no opposition to prevent it..

    And, as it stands right now, it's way too easy for either Putin or Trump (or for Russia or America) to launch nuclear weapons.

    That's a subjective criteria.. "Too easy" for the vast majority of the Left is based on simply HAVING the nuclear weapons..

    Also, by your analysis, might we expect Trump to cozy up to the North Korean leader, too?

    No, because the US arsenal is a vastly superior deterrent to North Korea than it is to Russia... Russia can likely match us tit for bigger tit... North Korea cannot...

    North Korea can kick us in the shins.. Russia can nuke us back to the stone age...

    I just listened to the end part of Meet the Press. The esteemed panel was talking about President Obama's farewell address in Chicago and how poignant it was.

    Poignant?? Well, I guess if you call a speech that essentially says, "Look at me!!!! Look at how awesome I am!!!! Look at all the awesome stuff I done did!!!!"..... If you want to call that "poignant", go for it...

    But for all of Obama's bragging, there is one simple fact that no one can deny...

    The American people resoundingly and conclusively negated ALL of Obama's claim by totally and completely refuting his policies...

    In short, if Obama was all that, we would be looking to Hillary Clinton's inauguration this Friday instead of Trump's...

    In passing, someone mentioned Joe Biden's name and everyone burst into laughter before they quickly moved on.

    I dunno.. That does sound pretty disrespectful and lame...

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    On the launch of nuclear weapons by Russia or the US, my point was only that it is too easy for either country to take such action and we need to work toward making that outcome far less likely than it is today.

    Disrespectful and lame are two very good words for what that panel displayed towards the vice president. Typical and familiar are two more. And, I could think of plenty others.

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Further to my point on nuclear weapons launches by the US and/or Russia is what I just heard Joe Cirincione remind us of. Which is that there are many nuclear missiles in the US and Russia which are on high alert and have been since the cold war. It's time for President Obama or the next president to take them off high alert and avoid a simple computer malfunction or mistaken communication or other disastrous error from launching these weapons by accident.

    Perhaps a President Trump would be the ideal person to do this and negotiate the same action by Putin ...

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    On the launch of nuclear weapons by Russia or the US, my point was only that it is too easy for either country to take such action and we need to work toward making that outcome far less likely than it is today.

    And MY point was that those who oppose nuclear proliferation claim that simply HAVING the nuclear weapons is tantamount to being "too easy" to launch them...

    I can tell you that it is impossible for a single person to launch a United States Nuclear strike...

    IM..... POSSIBLE.....

    Disrespectful and lame are two very good words for what that panel displayed towards the vice president. Typical and familiar are two more. And, I could think of plenty others.

    I am sure you could.. :D And you wouldn't find any argument from me on them either.. :D

    Which is that there are many nuclear missiles in the US and Russia which are on high alert and have been since the cold war.

    We were actually at the lowest alert level vis a vis Russia since WWII before Obama took over..

    But I have to say, you are sounding EXACTLY like Romney sounded in 2012... And Obama and the Left mocked Romney incessantly for that...

    Ironic, iddn't it.. :D

    Perhaps a President Trump would be the ideal person to do this and negotiate the same action by Putin ...

    I can say with complete honesty that Trump has a MUCH better chance of doing it than Hillary Clinton would have...

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Must you always be so damned partisan, Michale, turing every single conversation into a sad excuse for discussion.

    I'm sorry to say I am out of time for this, again.

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can tell you that it is impossible for a single person to launch a United States Nuclear strike...

    By the way, where the Hell did I say it was???

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump supporters aren't Republicans...

    Trump supporters are AMERICANS first and foremost...

    Trump supporters are Republicans. He is a Republican. You might not like the label, but if he wanted to run as an independent he could have - he could have run as an "American Independent" and I would have agreed with you, but he chose not to - why?

    You just know how bad the Republican Party has been for 99% of Americans and can't stand that your orange hero is one of them so you pretend he isn't.

    You are falling for Trump's con - Trump is what you want him to be - that is the skill of a top quality con man.

    Now that you've fallen for the con, Trump has total control over you. The emotional stress of admitting Trump conned you and millions like you will be too much to personally bear. It is sad, but enough people who voted for Trump think he is a POS, but they just wanted somebody they thought wasn't Hillary and would give them a supreme court pick. These people will dump Trump as soon as they don't need him any longer.

    And the political theater of watching Trump plummet on the World's biggest stage will be sweet for those of us who saw him for what he is from the start.

    I'm open to being surprised, maybe he isn't the crook I think he is, but he is only making things worse so far from my perspective. Cozying up to Russia after most people even in his own cabinet are appalled by the interference in the election, repealing Obamacare when he has no solution, then telling Paul Ryan he needs to pull one from thin air (hey Donald - you've been telling us about how smart you are - where's your plan to stop people dying when you pull the plug on their health insurance?), etc. just make me even sicker of the clown.

    But at least I'm not part of the problem.

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    Put another way... With my military background and my knowledge of the systems, I am completely comfortable with the safeguards in place that would prevent a rogue POTUS from unilaterally launching a first strike...

    Har har.

    (If this wasn't meant to be a joke, wow you are delusional. It has been repeatedly shown that if the President orders a strike there is no evaluation of his decision, just a series of steps to enact it that have been designed to be as fast as possible.)

    http://www.ibtimes.com/can-president-donald-trump-launch-nuclear-weapons-his-own-what-might-happen-once-he-2444328

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:
  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    Must you always be so damned partisan, Michale, turing every single conversation into a sad excuse for discussion.

    I LIKE discussion.. :D

    We agree on a lot more than we disagree on.. But saying "yep" and "yer right" all the time gets boring.. :D

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Trump supporters are Republicans.

    That's yer take because, for you, it's ALL about ideology..

    Millions of Obama voters voted for Trump..

    Were they Democrats when they voted for Obama, but were Republicans when they voted for Trump??

    Nope.. They were AMERICANS...

    I should know.. I was one of them..

    You just know how bad the Republican Party has been for 99% of Americans and can't stand that your orange hero is one of them so you pretend he isn't.

    Yea, you keep saying that..

    Yet, it's UNDENIABLE that the vast majority of Americans have handed more and more power to the GOP over the last 6 years..

    So, I am left with the choice of believing you or believing the facts.. :D

    I'm open to being surprised, maybe he isn't the crook I think he is, but he is only making things worse so far from my perspective.

    The mere fact that you automatically assume Trump is a crook simply because of the -R after his name proves you are not open to being surprised...

    No matter how good Trump does, you will always find the bad.. This is grossly apparent when you refuse to give Trump credit for ANY of the jobs he has saved and created...

    (If this wasn't meant to be a joke, wow you are delusional. It has been repeatedly shown that if the President orders a strike there is no evaluation of his decision, just a series of steps to enact it that have been designed to be as fast as possible.)

    And I am telling you that the checks that are in place completely and utterly make IMPOSSIBLE that a single person can launch a nuclear strike..

    The Two-Man applies to EVERYONE, when it comes to the authorized release of nuclear weapons.. Even the President..

    No ONE PERSON, not even the POTUS, can launch nuclear weapons..

    These are the facts, whether you want to concede them or not..

  74. [74] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    There is simply no factual evidence that conclusively proves that the Russians did ANYTHING about our elections.

    If the sworn testimony of every intel chief the US has hasn't convinced you, there's little that I could add. Your bubble seems to be secure.

    The American people resoundingly and conclusively negated ALL of Obama's claim by totally and completely refuting his policies.

    *sigh* No, they didn't. The American people, by a margin of 3 million votes, voted to continue his policies. The Electoral College, by a slim margin, gave the election to Trump. This is the second time in less than twenty years that this has happened, and indicates that the EC itself is broken, and overtly rural-centric. That was fine when most Americans lived in rural areas, but those demographics have changed, and the EC needs to change to reflect that new reality. To see just how skewed it's become, just compare Obama's recent poll numbers to Trump's.

  75. [75] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's yer take because, for you, it's ALL about ideology..

    Millions of Obama voters voted for Trump..

    Ever heard of swing voters? You are who you vote for.

    The mere fact that you automatically assume Trump is a crook simply because of the -R after his name proves you are not open to being surprised...

    I think Trump is a crook because of Trump - not his party affiliation. He admits he sexually assaults women. He has had too many nefarious business situations to count. He had to pay off the Trump U lawsuit. You just don't see any of this because all you see is your hero with an -R after his name.

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Two-Man applies to EVERYONE, when it comes to the authorized release of nuclear weapons.. Even the President..

    OK, since I posted links to prove my point, all you need to do is post facts that back you up.

    The whole point of the single President decision is that the President is the only single person capable of ordering a strike, for obvious reasons (what is the incoming nuke was 5 mins away and the other person is in the Don John?).

    Anyway, as usual you believe the things that float around in your skull, not the reality the rest of us have to live in:

    (for the Father Ted fans)

    http://i.imgur.com/uJFCfcv.gif

  77. [77] 
    neilm wrote:

    The "Spider Baby" clip from Father Ted:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AB7IDw3PNI

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    If the sworn testimony of every intel chief the US has hasn't convinced you, there's little that I could add. Your bubble seems to be secure.

    Fine.. Link the "sworn testimony of every intel chief the US has" that shows that Russians hacked to election to change Hillary votes to Trump votes..

    You can't because no such testimony, sworn or otherwise, exists..

    Yer just a Birther screaming hysterically that Trump isn't the legitimate President Of The United States...

    Ever heard of swing voters? You are who you vote for.

    Like I said.. Yer a bunch of elitists who are ruled by Party ideology and have nothing but hysteria in your corner.. :D

    I think Trump is a crook because of Trump - not his party affiliation. He admits he sexually assaults women. He has had too many nefarious business situations to count. He had to pay off the Trump U lawsuit. You just don't see any of this because all you see is your hero with an -R after his name.

    I have aptly proven beyond ANY doubt that the Party designation means absolutely NOTHING to me..

    Ya'all's problem is that you have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY when it comes to Trump..

    You have been WRONG about Trump at **EVERY** turn..

    Why should anyone believe anything you say???

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    OK, since I posted links to prove my point, all you need to do is post facts that back you up.

    Two and a half decades of military experience and the acknowledged US military expert in all of Weigantia...

    Your back up??

    "Oh I read it someplace on the internet??"

    The whole point of the single President decision is that the President is the only single person capable of ordering a strike, for obvious reasons (what is the incoming nuke was 5 mins away and the other person is in the Don John?).

    Any POTUS can order anything until the cows come home..

    But when it comes to the authorized release of nuclear weapons, that order MUST be confirmed by another person..

    If it's not, then the nukes don't fly..

    I can't make it any simpler than that...

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    RUSSIANS RELEASE HOTEL FOOTAGE OF TRUMP IN RUSSIAN HOTEL

    http://theworleys.net/temp/TrumpHotel.jpg

    Ooops.... Wrong file... My bust... :D

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    Claiming Trump is going to launch a nuclear strike is NO DIFFERENT than Right Wing nutjobs claiming Obama is going to impose Sharia Law..

    It's blatant, hysterical and totally baseless fear-mongering without a SCINTILLA of relevant fact to back it up...

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    Claiming Trump is going to launch a nuclear strike is NO DIFFERENT than Right Wing nutjobs claiming Obama is going to impose Sharia Law..

    In his first intelligence briefing Obama didn't ask three times about how to impose Sharia Law. He didn't ask why we shouldn't impose Sharia law on Texas if he needed to as a bargaining chip.

    The point you are missing is that the leader of the Right Wing nutjobs claiming Obama is going to impose Sharia Law.. is now destined for the White House.

  83. [83] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Claiming Trump is going to launch a nuclear strike is NO DIFFERENT than Right Wing nutjobs claiming Obama is going to impose Sharia Law..

    Whoa, Hopalong. No one has said that Trump is GOING to launch a nuclear strike, just that he COULD, and there'd be little to stop him. The Point is that he's given us little reassurance that he isn't trigger-happy, so why are you surprised that we're skittish about it? I thought Trump's instability was a feature, not a bug, in your world.

    Yer just a Birther screaming hysterically that Trump isn't the legitimate President Of The United States.

    Again, whoa. While it would be perfect justice for the Birther in Chief to have his own Presidential legitimacy questioned, and perfectly understand Rep. Lewis' reasons for saying what he did, I'm not there yet. There are still more clues to uncover and more twists to this story before the big reveal.

    That's what will keep this story going, you know: it's just too good a spy caper to ignore. We've watched the pilot and we're hooked, ready to binge-watch to the last episode. This isn't some cooked-up Alex Jones theory, this is the National Security Advisor to the President-Elect making hurried phone calls to the Russian Ambassador in the middle of the night. This is John le Carré territory. Good luck stopping that juggernaut.

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    The point you are missing is that the leader of the Right Wing nutjobs claiming Obama is going to impose Sharia Law.. is now destined for the White House.

    And the point YOU are missing is that Trump was a Democrat a LOT longer than he has been a Republican..

    And WHILE Trump was a Democrat, the entirety of the Left Wingery LOVED Trump...

    Ergo, the *ONLY* logical conclusion is that the entirety of the Left Wingery are ONLY devoted to the '-D' designation.. The person doesn't matter at all...

    Ya'all's opposition to Trump is nothing but Birtherism... Long on hysterical fear-mongering...

    Not a scintilla of relevant facts....

    That's it in a nutshell...

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    Whoa, Hopalong. No one has said that Trump is GOING to launch a nuclear strike, just that he COULD, and there'd be little to stop him.

    Bullshit.. Now you are just re-writing recent history..

    Ya'all have claimed that Trump WILL launch a nuclear strike and I can find the quotes to prove it...

    Regardless of that, it's well documented that Trump simply CANNOT launch a nuclear strike on his own..

    Any claim to the contrary is just flat out ignorant hysterical bullshit...

    The Point is that he's given us little reassurance that he isn't trigger-happy, so why are you surprised that we're skittish about it?

    Yer skittish about EVERYTHING to do with Trump..

    You see, that's ya'all's downfall.. Ya'all are completely HYSTERICAL about EVERYTHING to do with Trump.. It's all nothing but hysterical noise..

    Again, whoa. While it would be perfect justice for the Birther in Chief to have his own Presidential legitimacy questioned, and perfectly understand Rep. Lewis' reasons for saying what he did, I'm not there yet.

    The fact that you "perfectly understand Rep. Lewis' reasons for saying what he did," PROVES that you ARE there....

    There is absolutely NO FACTUAL evidence to question Trump's legitimacy...

    It's ALL nothing but hysterical TDS....

    . Good luck stopping that juggernaut.

    I don't have to stop anything.. Like the Birtherism, it will show itself in the end..

    Nothing but a bunch of hysterical fear mongering that is SOLELY based on NOTHING but ideology...

    Ya'all are doing the Left Wingery a grave disservice by embracing the hysteria...

    NO ONE can take ya'all seriously, because ya'all are wallowing in hysteria without ANY relevant facts...

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    And WHILE Trump was a Democrat, the entirety of the Left Wingery LOVED Trump...

    No they didn't - they thought he was a jackass. And remember his disgusting behavior towards five men innocent of the murder Trump wanted to kill them for even after they were cleared?

    Trump was a useful and rich idiot. As he stated himself, you could phone him up and he'd give you money. Politicians love those people's money.

    Ya'all's opposition to Trump is nothing but Birtherism... Long on hysterical fear-mongering...

    If all 14 heads of the IC plus the FBI stated on the record that there were legitimate claims about Obama's birthplace, I'd have taken it seriously. You believed the birthers on the evidence of Trump and the Alex Jones types, but won't believe the credible sources against Trump.

    Who really has he problem with credible concerns here?

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nothing but a bunch of hysterical fear mongering that is SOLELY based on NOTHING but ideology...

    So you think that our intelligence agencies, the FBI, several members of Trump's own cabinet are fear mongering SOLELY based on NOTHING but ideology.

    Hilarious. The Trump meltdown is going to be even more fun to watch. Tell us again how Trump isn't a racist even though Paul Ryan called Trump's statement the "textbook definition of a racist comment."

    Is he acting SOLELY based on NOTHING but ideology?

    Har har.

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly... Take a step back and see yerselves..

    "OH MY GOD!!!! WE CAN'T ELECT DONALD TRUMP BECAUSE HE MIGHT LAUNCH A NUCLEAR STRIKE ON RUSSIA ALL BY HIMSELF!!!!"

    or

    "OH MY GOD!!!! TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN MOLE WORKING DIRECTLY FOR PUTIN!!!!"

    Would YOU take anyone seriously that constantly did that???

    Of course you wouldn't...

    So, how can you expect that anyone else would??

  89. [89] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Regardless of that, it's well documented that Trump simply CANNOT launch a nuclear strike on his own..

    Well, I feel better. Do you feel better?

  90. [90] 
    neilm wrote:

    NO ONE can take ya'all seriously, because ya'all are wallowing in hysteria without ANY relevant facts...

    I'd love to see the facts that the intelligence community have that make them certain that the Russians were behind the hacking, but so would the Russians so they can find the people and security holes that delivered this information. However when non-politicians whose job it is to review this evidence and draw conclusions convince politicians of both parties that there is something going on and Trump is involved, at the very least I don't announce that it is all partisan nonsense.

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, how can you expect that anyone else would??

    Because it is bloody hilarious watching the smug Trump fanboys melt down from the same type of nonsense they were bandying about for years.

    And not only that, the IC is the source, not Infowars.

  92. [92] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "OH MY GOD!!!! WE CAN'T ELECT DONALD TRUMP BECAUSE..

    There it is again. Trump folks think the election is still happening.

  93. [93] 
    michale wrote:

    No they didn't - they thought he was a jackass.

    Prove it.. Find me any Democrats in leadership positions that denigrated and attacked Trump when he was a Democrat..

    You can't because it never happened..

    Demcorats fawned over Trump and took his money and gave him verbal blow jobs in the media..

    This is documented fact..

    Trump was a useful and rich idiot. As he stated himself, you could phone him up and he'd give you money. Politicians love those people's money.

    So, what you are saying is that your Democrats were prostitutes that could be easily bought..

    OK... I'll agree with that..

    If all 14 heads of the IC plus the FBI stated on the record that there were legitimate claims about Obama's birthplace, I'd have taken it seriously. You believed the birthers on the evidence of Trump and the Alex Jones types, but won't believe the credible sources against Trump.

    And if all 14 heads of the IC plus the FBI stated for the record and actually had FACTS to support the claim that Russians changed votes for Hillary to votes for Trump, then I would take it seriously...

    But they haven't so I won't...

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    Because it is bloody hilarious watching the smug Trump fanboys melt down from the same type of nonsense they were bandying about for years.

    No... What is bloody hilarious is seeing ya'all and the entirety of the Left Wingery melt down and act EXACTLY like the hysterical birthers... :D

    Now THAT is bloody hilarious..

    You have NO FACTS...

    All you have is hysterical fear mongering..

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    Shooting fish in a barrel Michale:

    Ed Koch, Democratic Mayor of NYC:

    Mr. Koch described Mr. Trump as ''greedy, greedy, greedy,'' and said that if the developer was ''squealing like a stuck pig, I must have done something right.''

    NY Times, June 1987

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    Mr. Koch described Mr. Trump as ''greedy, greedy, greedy,'' and said that if the developer was ''squealing like a stuck pig, I must have done something right.''

    NY Times, June 1987

    The fact that you had to go back over 30 years shows how hysterical you are about Trump... :D

    Didn't you complain when Trump went back 20 years to attack Bill Clinton over his rapes and sexual harassment??

    You prove my point for me with regards to your Trump Derangement Syndrome..

    Ya'all got it real REAL bad... Worse than the Right had Obama Derangement Syndrome...

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    You have NO FACTS...

    All you have is hysterical fear mongering..

    We do have facts.

    Fact: Trump announced he will meet face to face with Putin.

    Fact: the IC concluded that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta

    Fact: The FBI agree with the IC

    Fact: Flynn called the Russian ambassador 5 times on the night the sanctions were imposed

    Fact: Trump has defended Putin at every opportunity

    Fact: Trump thinks he is an asset because Putin likes him (he is, just not the type of asset he thinks)

    Fact: Trump asked the Russian to hack Hillary's servers and release the 30,000 emails

    Fact: Marine General James Mattis who you worship thinks Russia is behind the hacking and regards them as a key adversary (Asked about the main threats to U.S. interests, Mattis said: "I would consider the principle threats to start with Russia.")

    Tact: Tillerson isn't on board with the Trump/Putin bromance either: "Russia today poses a danger, but it is not unpredictable in advancing its own interests. It has invaded Ukraine, including the taking of Crimea, and supported Syrian forces that brutally violate the laws of war. Our Nato allies are right to be alarmed at a resurgent Russia"

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    The fact that you had to go back over 30 years shows how hysterical you are about Trump... :D

    ALMOST 30 years..

    Math was never my strong suit.. :D

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    The fact that you had to go back over 30 years shows how hysterical you are about Trump... :D

    That was at your request - you wanted a quote from when Trump was a Democrat - try to keep up Michale - you get what you ask for then complain about it.

    The sheer amount of mental energy squaring the "Trump isn't a Russian lapdog, no he isn't!" circle must be unhinging you.

  100. [100] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ya'all got it real REAL bad... Worse than the Right had Obama Derangement Syndrome...

    We are in good company then, what with the IC, the FBI, a bunch of Republicans and most of Trump's own cabinet.

    Mind you, for once in his life, I bet Alex Jones this this is just smoke without fire, so you've probably got that paragon of intellectual cohesion on your side.

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/dumpster-diving-for-dossiers-1484265571

    Fake news.... At it's most despicable...

    Ya know, it's funny..

    Ya'all have been virulently anti-MSM...

    Now that the MSM has joined fully into the Fake News to attack President Trump, I predict ya'all will be virulently PRO-MSM... As long as the MSM continues it's anti-Trump hysteria..

    You watch.. That will be another FACTUAL prediction from me..

    :D

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ya'all have been virulently anti-MSM...

    What world do you live in.

    Have you been studying Father Dougie's picture enough? If not, try again:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AB7IDw3PNI

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    We were actually at the lowest alert level vis a vis Russia since WWII before Obama took over..

    That's nice but, that is not what I was talking about. As Joe Cirincione pointed out this morning on MTP, there are many nuclear armed missiles - in the US and Russia - which are on high alert and have been on high alert since the cold war.

    This needs to be changed. Cirincione would like to see President Obama take them off high alert as one of his last actions as president and urge Putin to do the same. But, President Trump may be in a better position to do that and, I hope he does.

  104. [104] 
    michale wrote:

    We are in good company then, what with the IC, the FBI, a bunch of Republicans and most of Trump's own cabinet.

    Except you haven't provided any FACTS to support your claim..

    You put forth a VOX article, but I have already decimated that claim...

    So, all you have is the hysteria...

    Mind you, for once in his life, I bet Alex Jones this this is just smoke without fire, so you've probably got that paragon of intellectual cohesion on your side.

    Nope.. I have the FACTS on my side... :D

    What it all boils down to is this..

    There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE at all that the Russians hacked the election to change Hillary votes to Trump votes..

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA...

    Anyone who says different is utterly and completely full of kaa kaa...

    THAT is the unarguable FACT of this issue..

  105. [105] 
    michale wrote:

    This needs to be changed. Cirincione would like to see President Obama take them off high alert as one of his last actions as president and urge Putin to do the same.

    So Cirincione proposes that the US lowers the alert status of our ready birds and then HOPES that Putin will follow suit??

    And the logic behind that is... what???

    According to the Left, Putin is a maniacal dictator bent on the US's destruction..

    So this guy advocates us unzipping our fly, flop out our weiner and hopes that Putin doesn't pound on it...

    I don't think Trump will do that, nor do I think he should...

    It shows weakness and, as such, is definitely NOT something to show Putin...

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    What world do you live in.

    The world where Weigantians have been virulently anti-MSM...

    If you want to deny it, I am ready with a plethora of links that prove it... That show various Weigantians, including our fearless leader himself, slamming and denigrating the MSM for it's coverage and calling into question it's veracity and it's lack of commitment to journalistic integrity.....

    Say the word... :D

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    That was at your request - you wanted a quote from when Trump was a Democrat - try to keep up Michale - you get what you ask for then complain about it.

    And you have ONE quote from almost 30 years ago from a maverick Democrat who was more often than not, not..

    I also said Democrat Leadership, not some city mayor..

    You still got nothing..

    Democrats took Trumps money and fawned over him, including your hero Hillary...

    So, that makes Democrats prostitutes that can be bought, right???

    You can't win... I have the facts on my side... :D

  108. [108] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    52

    Oh.
    The "I know better so I don't have to prove my point game".

    Wait.
    That's your game.

    I can see why my "game" that requires evidence would be tedious for someone playing your game.

    It's so sexy how you imply I am too ignorant to qualify for a discussion with you... though evidence to back that up too would be my preference.

    Maybe you'll come back around when the leaks from whistleblowers are happening on Trump's watch.

    Never liked Biden either.

    A

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Taking them off high alert simply reduces the chances of there being an accidental launch. It wouldn't leave the US in a compromised position.

    Obviously, Ciricione doesn't trust Trump with them on high alert and so that's why he is advocating that Obama reduce the alert level and negotiate with Putin to do the same.

    I don't see why Trump wouldn't want to negotiate the same reduced alert level with his Russian pal.

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Never liked Biden either.

    Well, Alice, that tells me all I need to know about you.

  111. [111] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    53

    I'm enjoying the games some are having with Trump and his supporters using the unsubstantiated claims from Buzzfeed.

    I thought maybe I had missed, y'know, something factual.

    Carry on.

    A

  112. [112] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    54

    Geez.

    There's no evidence in that article.
    Just the same claims that fall far short.

    If actual proof is exposed, please share.

    Toying with Trump or his supporters is fine, but actually believing unsubstantiated claims is a different matter.

    A

  113. [113] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    110

    Did Biden crack 3% in the presidential primary he ran in?

    A

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I don't see why Trump wouldn't want to negotiate the same reduced alert level with his Russian pal.

    That's not what you said...

    You said you wanted the US to reduce the ready ALERT level and THEN negotiate with Russia to do the same..

    That's ridiculous...

    I am all for reducing the alert level in a commiserate manner...

    But taking down our alert level in hopes that our enemies do the same???

    That's just BEGGING to be attacked...

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    You said you wanted the US to reduce the ready ALERT level and THEN negotiate with Russia to do the same..

    Actually, to be fair, YOU didn't say that.. That Circonni guy said it..

    But it's still ridiculous...

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You have his exact quote? :)

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:

    I find myself forced into the unenviable position of agreeing with Alice...

    There is absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that Russians "hacked" the election..

    Hell, there isn't any conclusive FACTS to support the claim that Russia released Podesta's emails to WikiLeaks..

    All we have is reports from WaPoop and Obama sycophants making claims without ANY relevant facts to back it up....

    So Alice is right about that..

    What the hell. A broken digital watch is right once a day too... :D

  118. [118] 
    neilm wrote:

    There is absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that Russians "hacked" the election..

    Except all of our intelligence agencies, the FBI and everybody who has enough clearance to see the facts say there is.

    This is the same level of proof you have that Trump won the EV - do you have any facts to back up that Trump is even really president, because more than 3M voters voted against him than for him. Frankly you have NO evidence that Trump is really President other than the word of the same people who tell us Russia hacked our election.

    Fact: Russia hacked the election to help Trump

    Fact: Trump and Flynn almost alone are trying to blow Putin when everybody else, even in his own Party and Cabinet are saying Russia is the enemy.

    Your orange hero is a failure already and may even be selling our country down the tubes and you are cheering him on.

    Real American patriots are mortified at Trump's behavior.

  119. [119] 
    neilm wrote:

    Obama sycophants making claims without ANY relevant facts to back it up

    First time I've heard you call Maddis and Tillerson Obama sycophants, but if that is where you have to go to defend the orange Russian, I guess it is your call.

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-democratic-legislators-plan-on-sitting-out-trumps-swearing-in-1484502998

    After all the whining and all the hysterical crying about Trump not accepting the results of the election, the Democrats show their true colors..

    Americans would attend the inauguration of the President Of The United States...

    Their not Americans...

    They are Democrats....

  121. [121] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al: [112] I expected an answer like that. The problem is that your politics don't allow you to accept the evidence that has played out right before our eyes during the election.

    In 2006, Julian Assange wrote:

    “Consider what would happen if [the Republicans or Democrats in the US] gave up their mobile phones, fax and email correspondence — let alone the computer systems,” he wrote. “They would immediately fall into an organizational stupor and lose to the other.”

    In 2010, a conservative blogger, John Sexton, wrote on Breitbart News:

    “You can take his example further by imagining what would happen to, say, the D.N.C., if it suffered a massive Wikileak of secret data,” Mr. Sexton wrote, referring to Mr. Assange’s essay. “It seems entirely possible that a leak of the contents of their email for one month would be exceedingly damaging to them.”

    Six years later, Breitbart, Wikileaks, and the Russians all found themselves at odds with a certain former Secretary of State. Guess what happened next. To assert that it's all just a big coincidence, or that it had no effect on the election just isn't even in the realm of credible.

  122. [122] 
    michale wrote:

    First time I've heard you call Maddis and Tillerson Obama sycophants,

    Maddis and Tillerson haven't claimed that Russians hacked the election and changed Hillary votes to Trump votes...

    On the OTHER hand, it was YOU who slammed and denigrated Maddis, SOLELY because he was Trump's pick...

    Except all of our intelligence agencies, the FBI and everybody who has enough clearance to see the facts say there is.

    You keep saying that..

    But all you have to show is Left Wing Rag VOX articles that I have already decimated the credibility of..

    Fact: Russia hacked the election to help Trump

    Not a fact.. There is absolutely NO factual evidence to support the claim that Russians hacked the election that turned Hillary votes into Trump votes..

    You have NO valid facts.. All you have is hysterical birther-esque accusations and innuendo..

    NOT a single fact to be found..

    Real American patriots are mortified at Trump's behavior.

    Prove it..

    You can't because it's nothing but a fevered hysterical delusion...

  123. [123] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But all you have to show is Left Wing Rag VOX articles that I have already decimated the credibility of..

    Wrong. We have the report of the Intelligence Agencies themselves. They're unequivocal in their conclusions. I linked to the Vox article because it provided a bit of context. Silly me.

    There is absolutely NO factual evidence to support the claim that Russians hacked the election that turned Hillary votes into Trump votes.

    Interesting. That little ending, that turned Hillary votes into Trump votes, is a helluva qualifier. So you don't think that any of the emails released by Wikileaks turned any Hillary voters into Trump voters? What were they for, then?

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    Wrong. We have the report of the Intelligence Agencies themselves. They're unequivocal in their conclusions.

    No.. You have the New York Times opinion of the Intelligence Agencies themselves. And yes, the New York Times is unequivocal in their conclusions..

    You have absolutely NO FACTS to support your claims that Russians hacked the election by changing Hillary votes to Trump votes..

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA....

    I linked to the Vox article because it provided a bit of context. Silly me.

    "Indeed.."
    -T'ealc, STARGATE SG-1

    :D

    Interesting. That little ending, that turned Hillary votes into Trump votes, is a helluva qualifier. So you don't think that any of the emails released by Wikileaks turned any Hillary voters into Trump voters?

    Do you have ANY factual proof that Russian hacking changed Hillary votes to Trump votes..

    No you do not....

    What were they for, then?

    Letting the American people know how corrupt, elitist, bigoted and greedy the Democrats were....

    That's what you don't seem to understand.. If the Russians DID do anything, all they did was expose the Democratic Party people for who they really are...

    And YOU call that "hacking"...... :D

    Indeed... Silly you....

  125. [125] 
    neilm wrote:

    Maddis and Tillerson haven't claimed that Russians hacked the election and changed Hillary votes to Trump votes...

    Neither has anybody else. Can you read?

    On the OTHER hand, it was YOU who slammed and denigrated Maddis, SOLELY because he was Trump's pick...

    No, I slammed him because you cherry picked some ridiculous quotes from him that made him out to be an complete idiot. When I did my own research into him I was fine with him. You were the one who trashed Maddis, not me.

    No, the IC claim Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta. It isn't even new, they told us in October:

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

  126. [126] 
    michale wrote:

    Fact: Russia hacked the election to help Trump

    And not even your vaunted Obama CIA has claimed that the Russians wanted to help Trump...

    You see what I mean??

    All you have is hysterical innuendo...

    Ya'all aren't doing yer credibility any favors with ya'all's Birther-esque hysteria....

    The mere fact that ya'all are prostrating yerselves on the altar of the CIA should be a hint and a half for yer asses how far off the reservation ya'all have gone...

  127. [127] 
    michale wrote:

    Neither has anybody else. Can you read?

    You claim the Russians "hacked" the election..

    Exposing emails from scumbag Democrats is NOT hacking..

    Changing Hillary votes to Trump votes..

    THAT is hacking..

    So, where's the proof of the hacking??

    Fact is, there is none..

    No, I slammed him because you cherry picked some ridiculous quotes from him that made him out to be an complete idiot.

    No, you slammed him because he was Trump's pick..

    No, the IC claim Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta. It isn't even new, they told us in October:

    OK.. So NOW you are claiming that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta, NOT the election...

    I am also constrained to point out that Podesta wasn't hacked, he was phished. And he was a moron for falling for it...

    So, we are in agreement. There was no hack of the US election...

    Glad we got that settled...

  128. [128] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not a fact.. There is absolutely NO factual evidence to support the claim that Russians hacked the election that turned Hillary votes into Trump votes..

    Again you are making things up that nobody is saying then telling us they aren't true. Why do you bother to do this? Is it because you can't address the reality of the situation so you need to create some false story yourself?

  129. [129] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's what you don't seem to understand.. If the Russians DID do anything, all they did was expose the Democratic Party people for who they really are...

    If you think that after 12 months ot throwing the kitchen sink and Mitt Romney at Trump the RNC doesn't have even worse stuff in their emails you need to go study Father Dougie's picture a LOT more.

  130. [130] 
    neilm wrote:

    Exposing emails from scumbag Democrats is NOT hacking..

    Not according to everybody else on the planet except you, Trump and Putin. I wonder why?

  131. [131] 
    michale wrote:

    Assange has stated unequivocally that he did not receive the DNC and Podesta emails from a state actor..

    Unless ya'all have ANY *FACTUAL* and relevant facts to counter his claim, his claim stands as valid..

    Let's face it.. Ya'all WANT it to be true because that gives ya'all an excuse for not having to face reality..

    And that reality is that the American people are sick and tired of Democrat malfeasance and incompetence...

    How do we know this?? Because Democrats have lost over 1000 seats in politics that have absolutely NOTHING to do with Russian hacking...

    Democrats suck... That's all there is to it...

  132. [132] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump is going to build the Wall using your money (about $1,000 per person in the country, maybe more), but he has promised Mexico is going to pay.

    Fortunately he is sending everybody in the U.S. a Mail-In Rebate for their $1,000 to send to Mexico.

    There is obviously a processing time that the Mexicans require to handle 300 million rebate claims, at the moment the delay is:

    UNTIL HELL FREEZES OVER

    I'll check back on the rebate website every so often and let you know if this changes. Calls to Trump are not being answered.

  133. [133] 
    neilm wrote:

    Democrats suck... That's all there is to it...

    And there goes any credibility when you tell us we only say or think something because of -R or -D after their name.

    All you are is a Republican Trump fanboy. Accept it, it won't exactly be a surprise to us, and we really don't care.

  134. [134] 
    neilm wrote:

    Assange has stated unequivocally that he did not receive the DNC and Podesta emails from a state actor..

    You and Trump both trust Assange more than our military and it is getting tiresome. And anti-American.

  135. [135] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Assange has stated unequivocally that he did not receive the DNC and Podesta emails from a state actor..

    wink wink. No, he got them from a mail courier, I assume.

    Democrats suck... That's all there is to it

    That's the spirit! Alienate every potential ally that isn't with you now. We, on the other hand will be cultivating every disillusioned Republican that we can find. In the Senate, John McCain & Lindsay Graham look ripe to pick off on selected votes; after that, we only need what, one or two votes more? Hmmm, maybe Rand Paul and Susan Collins...

    How do we know this?? Because Democrats have lost over 1000 seats in politics that have absolutely NOTHING to do with Russian hacking.

    Correct. That's why Obama's next project is attacking gerrymandering and anti-voting laws, along with Eric Holder. Even a small amount of success in this area by those two could reap huge rewards.

  136. [136] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Found while looking for something else: a quote from Ivanka Trump's book, “The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Work and Life” -

    “Yes, I’ve had the great good fortune to be born into a life of wealth and privilege, with a name to match,” she writes. “Yes, I’ve had every opportunity, every advantage. And yes, I’ve chosen to build my career on a foundation built by my father and grandfather.” But nevertheless, “[i]n business, as in life, nothing is ever handed to you.”

    Like father, like daughter, I guess...

  137. [137] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil

    Was just reading about the basic income trial in Finland on the BBC.

    They noted-
    "?Four Dutch cities - Groningen, Tilburg, Utrecht and Wageningen - are to take part in a trial
    ?The Canadian province of Ontario will hold its own experiment
    ?Scottish councils in Fife and Glasgow may also stage a trial"

    It's even a center-right government in Finland right now... a tidbit the author of the article seemed to stress as surprising.

    So, maybe there is a snowball's chance in limbo we could see a trial in the US before we are both dead.

    A

  138. [138] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, maybe there is a snowball's chance in limbo we could see a trial in the US before we are both dead.

    Not a government run trial, A, but there is one announced by a VC firm for Oakland, CA:

    https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/31/y-combinator-announces-basic-income-pilot-experiment-in-oakland/

    I can't find any more details, but it is an idea whose time may be coming.

  139. [139] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil, Balthy
    118, 121

    Cyber security experts say that the facts released thus far do not prove Russian let alone Russian government involvement in the DNC or Podesta email leaks.

    You are trusting claims from people who we know lied to Congress and the American people about surveillance... people whose job descriptions require lying.

    You can believe them if you want, but it is only a FACT that they made the claims, it's not a fact that the claims are true.

    Bush, Cheney, Powell, Hillary, Biden, Kerry, etc. rambled on and on about WMD's in Iraq using aluminum tubes and yellowcake and blah blah blah "facts" intentionally leaked to the press by the fabricators of those claims.

    The neolibcons who lied in order to take our country into an illegal war knew that empty assertion wasn't convincing.

    I find it amazing that two Hillary supporters are so convinced by unsubstantiated claims about "secret evidence" from untrustworthy sources.
    It's like Iraq never happened.

    Until they release the evidence, it's just empty assertion.

    And, yes, unlike everybody making the claims about Russia, Assange has never done anything that would cause me to distrust him.
    Wikileaks has a literally perfect record for only releasing authentic documents.
    That's a record of integrity that our intelligence agencies and politicians can only dream about... not to mention the media.

    A

  140. [140] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Alice,

    Bush, Cheney, Powell, Hillary, Biden, Kerry, etc. rambled on and on about WMD's in Iraq using aluminum tubes and yellowcake and blah blah blah "facts" intentionally leaked to the press by the fabricators of those claims.

    You are conflating the views of several officials here. I hope you realize that these officials differed widely in their assessments of WMDs in Iraq.

  141. [141] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wikileaks has a literally perfect record for only releasing authentic documents.

    Do you suppose that is the only pertinent factor in the document dumps WikiLeaks has engaged in?

  142. [142] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    According to at least one of the articles that was posted tonight, Ed Snowden felt uncomfortable enough with Wikileaks' habit of releasing 'uncurated' material (that included such things as social security numbers and other private information) that he went to Glen Greenwald instead.

  143. [143] 
    neilm wrote:

    Cyber security experts say that the facts released thus far do not prove Russian let alone Russian government involvement in the DNC or Podesta email leaks.

    Correct. However the IC seems pretty adamant that Russia was involved. We have to decide between:

    1. The intelligence community has more information that isn't public and would compromise sources or source gathering if it was released.

    2. They are over reaching

    3. They are fabricating

    I've listed these in the order of my take on the situation, many others will have a different take. I have been accused of taking #1 as most likely because I have antipathy towards Trump and/or Republicans and that is my sole criteria for deciding. Since I do have antipathy towards them the claim is understandable, however wrong. I think the "golden shower" claims are mostly in the #2 or #3 category (I'm just winding up the Trumpistas by playing back some of the unfounded nonsense they threw at Hillary to amuse myself).

    I also understand the claim that since there was a lot of #2 and #3 in the intelligence claims preceding the Iraq war, the IC isn't always as reliable as it should be. I wasn't on CW.com in 2003 however I posted to other sites my thoughts on how weak I thought the intelligence was, how I thought that Colin Powell's first reaction was correct (he sneered at the intelligence), and that I thought the IC was in cahoots with the Bush 2 administration to engineer the Iraq war whatever it took.

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Trump is going to build the Wall using your money (about $1,000 per person in the country, maybe more), but he has promised Mexico is going to pay.

    You see, this is exactly my point on ya'all's hysteria..

    You don't KNOW what's going to happen with the wall..

    You hysterically claim the worst about Trump SOLELY because of the '-R' after his name..

    It's EXACTLY like the Right Wingery Birthers...

    And there goes any credibility when you tell us we only say or think something because of -R or -D after their name.

    My NPA status is well-documented and well-acknowledged... :D

    All you are is a Republican Trump fanboy.

    I am pro Trump, not pro Republican..

    That's why you don't get it. You view EVERYTHING thru the lens of ideology...

    Trump is not ideological... This is well-established..

    You and Trump both trust Assange more than our military and it is getting tiresome. And anti-American.

    What does the military have to do with anything??

    I trust Assange more than Obama because Assange has NEVER lied about anything to do with WikiLeaks and Obama and his agencies has lied about EVERYTHING....

    Cyber security experts say that the facts released thus far do not prove Russian let alone Russian government involvement in the DNC or Podesta email leaks.

    Correct. However the IC seems pretty adamant that Russia was involved. We have to decide between:

    "Pretty adamant"?? That's your proof??

    "Oh well, they are pretty adamant so it MUST be factual"

    :D

    Where is the conclusive proof??

    There is none...

    So, the ONLY reason that these agencies are "pretty adamant" is because Obama *TOLD* them to be "pretty adamant"...

    Like I said (and I noticed you ignored) let's see how "pretty adamant" Obama's agencies are when they become Trump's agencies..

    If they are still "pretty adamant" then, then we can talk..

    I have been accused of taking #1 as most likely because I have antipathy towards Trump and/or Republicans and that is my sole criteria for deciding.

    Because you have a history of claiming things about Trump that turned out to be wrong at every juncture...

    I also understand the claim that since there was a lot of #2 and #3 in the intelligence claims preceding the Iraq war, the IC isn't always as reliable as it should be. I wasn't on CW.com in 2003 however I posted to other sites my thoughts on how weak I thought the intelligence was, how I thought that Colin Powell's first reaction was correct (he sneered at the intelligence), and that I thought the IC was in cahoots with the Bush 2 administration to engineer the Iraq war whatever it took.

    EXACTLY...

    You sneered at the IC because they were a Republican's IC...

    Now, you whole-heartedly jump into bed with the IC because NOW the IC is a Democrat's IC...

    Will you still support the IC when the IC becomes Trump's IC??

    No, you won't...

    It's ALL about the '-X' after the name..

  145. [145] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    wink wink. No, he got them from a mail courier, I assume.

    No. Assange probably got them from the DNC staffer who was brutally murdered after the DNC emails were released...

    That's the spirit! Alienate every potential ally that isn't with you now.

    You didn't seem have a problem alienating "every potential ally" back when you thought Trump was going to go down in a blaze of infamy...

    You reap what you sow, my friend.. :D

    We, on the other hand will be cultivating every disillusioned Republican that we can find.

    You mean, every racist deplorable?? :D

    Too bad ya'all didn't have that attitude BEFORE ya'all got yer clock's cleaned...

    Ya'all might be gloating about President Elect Hillary Clinton if ya'all had.. :D

    In the Senate, John McCain & Lindsay Graham look ripe to pick off on selected votes; after that, we only need what, one or two votes more? Hmmm, maybe Rand Paul and Susan Collins...

    People ya'all have demonized time and time again... Funny how ya'all NOW want to be besties with them.. :D

    Correct. That's why Obama's next project is attacking gerrymandering and anti-voting laws, along with Eric Holder. Even a small amount of success in this area by those two could reap huge rewards.

    Isn't it funny how ya'all's explanations of the HUGE losses by the Democratic Party are NEVER the fault of the ideology of the Democratic Party...

    It's *ALWAYS* someone else's fault or something else's fault...

    ANYTHING so ya'all don't have to look in the mirror and say, "Ya know, maybe it's us...."

    The TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY PARTY.. That's Democrats for ya....

  146. [146] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You are conflating the views of several officials here. I hope you realize that these officials differed widely in their assessments of WMDs in Iraq.

    Only after the fact...

    The officials with the '-D' after their names had the EXACT same assessment on WMDs in Iraq that the officials with the '-R' after their names at the time of the incident...

    It was only when things went politically south did the '-D' officials change their tune...

    Do you suppose that is the only pertinent factor in the document dumps WikiLeaks has engaged in?

    When it comes to establishing WikiLeaks credibility vs Obama's credibility... YES..

    That is the ONLY pertinent factor..

    You have to remember, Obama, Hillary and all the other Democrats screamed to high heavens that WikiLeaks was releasing forgeries...

    That turned out to be 100% completely and unequivocally false..

    So, how can we believe Obama, Hillary and all the other Democrats when they scream to the high heavens that Russia gave the info to WikiLeaks to release??

    Obama, Hillary and all the other Democrats have absolutely ZERO credibility in this.... But ya'all take them at their word SOLELY because of ideology...

    I am willing to entertain other possibilities...

    But only possibilities that are supported by FACTS...

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    "There is no interest in undermining the president elect"
    -Obama's CIA Director Brennan

    Yet, that is EXACTLY what *EVERY* action the CIA has taken has done...

    That is the goal of Mr Obama.. To undermine the President Elect..

    On Friday, the long 8-year nightmare will be over and morning will come to America and with it will bring A New Hope...

    :D

  148. [148] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20170115_What_the_president_wants_you_to_forget.html

    Yup, yup, yup...

    Ya'all can cherry pick all the facts you want..

    But the ONE SOLID FACT of the Obama era is that, when it comes to practically EVERY LITMUS TEST you can come up with, the American people are WORSE off now than they were before Obama and the Democrats so frak'ed things up...

    This is undeniable with oodles and oodles of facts to support...

  149. [149] 
    michale wrote:

    I think the "golden shower" claims are mostly in the #2 or #3 category

    And yet, you remained silent when the report came out and did not denounce it as you would have crowed about it if it was more within the realm of believability..

    You don't do any favors to your credibility when you let such obvious bullshit pass uncommented..

    You see, that is EXACTLY how I maintain my NPA status.. When I see something that is totally BS or really funny (like my Reince Preibus as Pinocchio comment :D That was a gas.. :D) I post it, regardless of any '-D'/'-R' designations..

    The fact that you acknowledge that reports such as this are total BS, but you let the pass uncommented at the time of release shows that ideology and ideology alone is what drives your comments...

    If you can't point out the total BS that comes from the Left, how can I believe in you when you point out the total BS that comes from the Right??

    “That is a garbage document. It never should have been presented in–- as part of an intelligence briefing.”
    -Bob Woodward

    If any of ya'all had come up with something like that at the time of the release of the information, it would enhance ya'all's credibility...

    But no one here want's to be seen taking the side of President Trump...

    Which is why I state that ideology and ideology alone drives the comments here and I have the facts to back it up...

  150. [150] 
    michale wrote:

    “If we can’t carry out an election without disinformation being pumped into it by another country, we’ve got a huge destruction of our system going on. So we have to be full and robust in the look and I trust that we are.”
    -Senator Dianne Feinstein

    Of course, DiFi completely and utterly ignores how the US pumps disinformation into other country's elections..

    Ya just GOT to love the unabashed, blatant and unequivocal hypocrisy, eh :D

    Russians tried to influence the US election..

    In other breaking news, water is wet, ice is cold and women have secrets...

    There is absolutely NO FACTUAL RELEVANT EVIDENCE to indicate that Putin would want Trump as President..

    There is PLENTY of factual relevant evidence that Putin would have preferred Hillary as POTUS...

    So, if Russians DID try to influence the elections, then it's more likely that they would have influenced the election in favor of Hillary..

    Which is *EXACTLY* what they tried to do..

    But Putin didn't count on the animosity that the American people had towards Hillary and the Democratic Party...

    Russia tried a double-fake and brought about the VERY condition that Russia wanted to avoid..

    It's STAR TREK: ISHMEAL all over again!! :D

    So, Hillary, the DNC *AND* Russia ALL got scrooed....

    Life is, indeed, very good.. :D

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.ft.com/content/646cf682-d9bc-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e

    That is the answer to the Left Wingers who continue to say, "Let's try the same thing.. *THIS* time it will be successful!!!! After all, the polls and the math back it up!!!"

    The problem is that, when one only looks at polls and math (and science and everything else) that ONLY re-enforce one's own partisan ideology and ignores ANY information that is NOT ideologically pure, one is blind-sided by a BREXIT or shocked by a President Trump or sent reeling by the lack of a weather-based apocalypse....

    One is rocked back on their ass, wondering how on earth this could have happened and how in the HELL could they be so wrong...

  152. [152] 
    michale wrote:

    And, in other news...

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-says-not-renegotiate-nuclear-deal-154202508.html

    Iran says it won't negotiate a new nuclear deal...

    Fine...

    Does the name OSIRAK mean anything??? :D

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    http://theworleys.net/temp/goodnews.png

    Heh It's funny because it's true!! :D

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    IMF BOOSTS GROWTH FORECAST FOR US, CITES TRUMP IMPACT
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WORLD_ECONOMY_IMF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-16-09-09-48

    And the GOOD news for America just keeps on coming!!!

    TRUMP is Making America Great Again...

    And the Left just GOTS to hate that!! :D

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    Toby Keith Won’t Apologize For Performing At Donald Trump’s Inauguration Celebration
    The country star stands by his decision to play at the event.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/toby-keith-donald-trump-inauguration-concert_us_587bb96be4b0b3c7a7b1db20

    Lee Greenwood is performing as well!!!

    Lee Greenwood doing GOD BLESS THE USA at Trump's Inauguration!???

    That's going to bring down the house!!!!!

    Gods, it's a great time to be an American!!!!!!! :D

  156. [156] 
    neilm wrote:

    Iran says it won't negotiate a new nuclear deal...

    Fine...

    Does the name OSIRAK mean anything??? :D

    Does the term Trump is a bloody idiot mean anything?

    Of course Iran isn't going to renegotiate - they can only win from opening up the terms.

    Trump will pratfall. By the time it happens only you and the true fanboys will be supporting him. His wall will be a failure, manufacturing won't be coming back to the rust best, coal will still be in the ground and Trump will be fighting with civil rights heroes.

  157. [157] 
    neilm wrote:

    John Lewis really exposed Trump's stupidity. Like a red flag in front of a bull, Lewis got Trump attacking a civil rights hero on MLK weekend.

    This is the genius that the minority put their future in?

    And Lewis is right:

    For months Trump has promised to harass the press and limit First Amendment rights. He has threatened specific news outlets, journalists, and even the owner of the Washington Post. He has promised to unleash a wave of racial and religious persecution. He has threatened political opponents and sided with violent racist groups. He has goaded his followers into acts of violence against opponents, right from the main stage of his rallies.

    "He [Trump] has utterly disregarded every norm on which the legitimacy of our republic and the respect of its leadership rests. Challenged on any subject he issues confirmable, provable lies without consequence. His campaign has been cited for a practically unimaginable 1000+ violations of campaign funding laws, allegations for which they have offered no response and no defense. He has not only refused to divest himself of his businesses while in the White House, he has refused to even disclose his business interests. After a shady career marked by scams, bankruptcies, almost innumerable business failures, and a mountain of legal problems, he enters the most powerful office in the republic in defiance of every standard of ethics.

    http://politicalorphans.com/john-lewis-is-right-again/

  158. [158] 
    michale wrote:

    Does the term Trump is a bloody idiot mean anything?

    Nope, because such a claim is totally and completely contrary to the facts...

    Of course Iran isn't going to renegotiate - they can only win from opening up the terms.

    Of course Iran isn't going to renegotiate.. They got the sweetest deal possible from Odumbo and they are not about to let Trump take away all the goodies and bennys....

    Trump will pratfall.

    You have been saying that for over a year now...

    Has yet to happen..

    And Lewis is right:

    Lewis is a moron..

    It's funny how ya'all denigrated and attacked Trump because he wouldn't state that he would abide by the results of the election..

    Now it's YA'ALL who aren't abiding from the results of the election..

    And the sad thing is, ya'all don't even SEE how badly ya'all are wallowing in hypocrisy...

  159. [159] 
    michale wrote:

    http://politicalorphans.com/john-lewis-is-right-again/

    So, you agree with Lewis that Trump is not the legitimate President of the United States???

    Lewis is nothing but a hysterical birther who has failed the black community over and over and over again..

    Are you SURE you want to cast your lot with such a luser???

  160. [160] 
    neilm wrote:

    What is Trump's plan to renegotiate wit hIran, or is that another secret like his plan to eliminate ISIS in one month? (We are still waiting for that plan, BTW).

  161. [161] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, you agree with Lewis that Trump is not the legitimate President of the United States???

    Yes. He conned and cheated his way in with the help of Putin. He should be impeached on Friday.

  162. [162] 
    neilm wrote:

    Putin's top two goals for the last decade:

    Split the EU

    Dissolve NATO

    Trump's announcement over the weekend: EU is going to split and NATO is obsolete.

  163. [163] 
    michale wrote:

    What is Trump's plan to renegotiate wit hIran, or is that another secret like his plan to eliminate ISIS in one month? (We are still waiting for that plan, BTW).

    You haven't earned the right to know the plan..

    Those who support Trump have seen what Trump can do with jobs and such, so we're willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.. :D

    The man who wrote ART OF THE DEAL can surely take those pissant terrorists in IRAN to the cleaners.. :D

    Yes. He conned and cheated his way in with the help of Putin. He should be impeached on Friday.

    I think I can find your quote from before the election where you claimed you would support the results of the election, regardless.. :D

    Or are you just having fun with me?? :D

    Trump's announcement over the weekend: EU is going to split and NATO is obsolete.

    Cite???

  164. [164] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZSfhd1X_8&feature=youtu.be

    The Democratic Party at work.....

    People like Lewis et al are cheering these guys on...

    No wonder Democrats don't want to attend Trump's inauguration... They don't want to be victims of their own terrorism...

  165. [165] 
    neilm wrote:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/opinion/johns-gospel-of-trumps-illegitimacy.html

    Yup. He isn't the legitimate President of the U.S.A. and the blind partisanship of the Republicans overlooking Russia's involvement in undermining the Clinton campaign will be a stain that will only become more rank.

  166. [166] 
    neilm wrote:

    You haven't earned the right to know the plan..

    Just like you haven't earned the right to see the evidence against Russia.

    But at least other people have seen the intelligence reports. Nobody has seen Trump's plan for ISIS, replacing Obamacare or Iran (because they don't exist - Trump just makes up lies and the fanboys believe them.)

  167. [167] 
    neilm wrote:

    The man who wrote ART OF THE DEAL can surely take those pissant terrorists in IRAN to the cleaners.. :D

    The man who wrote the Art of the Deal is ashamed his work helped get Trump elected. You don't actually think Trump wrote that book, do you?

  168. [168] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think I can find your quote from before the election where you claimed you would support the results of the election, regardless.. :D

    Look away.

  169. [169] 
    neilm wrote:
  170. [170] 
    michale wrote:

    I guess haters gotta hate, eh?? :^/

  171. [171] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    140

    All of those people cited fabricated intelligence to sell the war in Iraq which they supported or voted for.

    Obviously, their views didn't differ that wildly.

    All were complicit. Some claim their gullibility or trust in our intelligence and leaders justifies their complicity, but there was ample public evidence debunking the fabricated claims before those Democrats and a whole bunch more voted for the war.

    Since you're an expert on defending the indefensible actions of the neoliberals and therefore don't need to substantiate your claims, there's no point in discussing it further though.

    Your "nah un" has been noted.

    A

  172. [172] 
    neilm wrote:

    those pissant terrorists in IRAN to the cleaners

    My uncle was a top executive at BP and spent a lot of time in the Middle East. He thought that most of the Arabs were neophytes when it came to business and negotiations, however he had a great respect for the Persians. He even learned Farsi to help dealing with them.

    Trump hasn't successfully negotiated anything beyond putting him name on some buildings. He has six bankruptcies and a string of lawsuits for defaulting on contractors, fraud and other desperate business practices.

    I'm really hoping Trump goes nowhere near the Iranians, it won't work out well for the U.S.

  173. [173] 
    neilm wrote:

    I guess haters gotta hate, eh?? :^/

    I guess there is no way to tell a mark that he is a mark.

  174. [174] 
    neilm wrote:

    All of those people cited fabricated intelligence to sell the war in Iraq which they supported or voted for.

    Altohone:

    This was 14 years ago and is one of the biggest embarrassments that some in the IC have had in their career. Many have left the agencies and also there is a new culture that is far more conservative in their approach (I have a co-worker who used to work at the NSA and saw the changes himself).

    Your premise seems to be that the IC is either venal or incapable of learning from mistakes. I would not agree with either.

    When the IC plus the FBI present their assessments and even top Republicans acknowledge that Russia interfered to harm Clinton's election chances, I think the charges deserve serious consideration.

  175. [175] 
    michale wrote:

    The man who wrote the Art of the Deal is ashamed his work helped get Trump elected. You don't actually think Trump wrote that book, do you?

    As much as Obama wrote his books and Hillary wrote her books and Bubba wrote his books..

    But, of course, there are different standards for those with a '-D' after their name..

    Fox News good enough for you?

    It's never been good enough for you...

    Look away.

    So, you are saying you never said you would accept the election results?? :D

  176. [176] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Alice,

    Because you really do seem to be unaware of a few things, I'm going to post this link to a MTP show with then Senator Biden speaking about WMD and Iraq.

    If you choose to listen, you will be better informed.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18381961/ns/meet_the_press/t/mtp-transcript-april/#.WHxL2Msixjo

  177. [177] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    142

    Snowden didn't want all the documents released.
    He made that clear in his first public statement.
    He wanted the programs that violated the constitutional rights of Americans and the privacy rights of people globally exposed, but considers much of what the NSA does to be important and necessary.

    Snowden and Glenn Greenwald have been getting flak for the information released and the information kept hidden ever since.

    Maybe it's news to you, but the pros and cons of the differing approaches have been widely discussed for years.

    Personally, I lean towards the full transparency side, but that's mainly because much of journalism has become so sullied by their catering to the establishment and the abdication of their role as the fourth estate.
    But I do trust that GG has ensured that the material that deserved to be exposed was exposed.
    I wish more journalists were like him.

    A

  178. [178] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    143

    If you look at the evidence released when the Chinese were accused of hacking, the specific details were included.

    Impartial security experts could analyze it.

    That isn't being done in this case.
    Methods and sources are suddenly vital again.

    I acknowledge your argument and your faith in known liars, but disagree that the justifications for keeping the information secret are valid, and I think it stinks to high heaven.

    As for comment 174, the "conservative new culture" includes arming "rebels" affiliated with al Qaida in Syria, continuing programs that violate the Constitution, and two "leaders" who lied to Congress on the record.
    The PR about reform isn't convincing.
    And let's not forget that according to the believers, the head of the FBI was evil and untrustworthy too a mere few weeks ago.

    You seem to be sweeping an awful lot under the rug when expressing faith in these people.

    A

  179. [179] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    176

    Biden voted for the war in Iraq.

    He was complicit.

    A

  180. [180] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden's views on WMD is what we were discussing and, in that regard, his assessments were not the same as the Bush administration officials.

    You really are missing out on a lot by ignoring Biden.

  181. [181] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Biden's views on WMD is what we were discussing and, in that regard, his assessments were not the same as the Bush administration officials.

    No... Biden's views on WMDs in early 2003 was what we were discussing..

    Not his views on WMDs in 2007 after the Iraq War went sideways, politically...

    There was absolutely NO DAYLIGHT between Biden and Hillary and Bush vis a vis Iraq WMDs in early 2003....

    This is well-documented..

  182. [182] 
    michale wrote:

    And, for the record, don't think I enjoy having Alice agree with me..

    I don't... :D

  183. [183] 
    michale wrote:

    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/report-nbc-says-trump-supporter-who-wore-clinton-rape-shirt-should-have-expected-to-get-beaten/

    The "peace" and "tolerance" of the Left Wingery..

    "If you wear an anti-Clinton shirt, you should expect to get beaten.."

    In other news, Democrats are quoted as saying that a woman who wears a short skirt or low cut top "deserves" to get raped...

    "They're obviously asking for it!!"
    -Democratic Party

    Welcome to the new Democratic Party.... :^/

  184. [184] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-leadership-race-exposes-party-division-1484583764

    Like I said..

    The Demcoratic Party is leader-less and rudder-less....

    I hope and pray that Ellison gets the nod...

    Nothing will ensure a Trump landslide in 2020 more than Ellison as the head of the DNC.... :D

  185. [185] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You are wrong about Biden being on the same page as Bush et al.

    All you have to do is read the debate in the senate in October 2002. He didn't change his mind by early 2003.

    And, that's all I'm going to say about that - I have hashed and rehashed all of this from 2002 - 2005 and I am so done with it.

    Maybe one day, you will take the time to read what Biden was saying about WMD in 2002, 2003 and, in fact all throughout the Iraq fiasco.

    I guess that's one reason why Biden never caught on in the 2008 race - people just don't know the first thing about him or his views on WMD in Iraq.

    Sad!

  186. [186] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, don't ask me to give you a link!

  187. [187] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There was absolutely NO DAYLIGHT between Biden and Hillary and Bush vis a vis Iraq WMDs in early 2003....

    You seem pretty adamant about that, Michale.

    I am very familiar with Biden's views - I practically lived, ate and breathed them between 2002 and 2008.

    What were the views of Bush and Hillary on WMD in Iraq during this period?

  188. [188] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm not playing games ... I want to know what their views were and then I'll tell you how Biden differed from them.

  189. [189] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone

    Here is an interesting link about basic income

    http://politicalorphans.com/milton-friedman-makes-the-case-for-a-basic-income/

  190. [190] 
    michale wrote:

    Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
    -Hillary Clinton, Feb 2003

    I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein — because he had a weapons program.
    -President George Bush, May 2003

    If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
    -Joseph Biden, September 2002

  191. [191] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    In the here and now, you and I are on the same page when it comes to the integrity of Joe Biden..

    But to deny the record and the facts is to deny reality..

    Biden was wrong.. Wasn't the first time, won't be the last time...

  192. [192] 
    michale wrote:
  193. [193] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What was Biden wrong about?

  194. [194] 
    neilm wrote:

    That is one big beastie there Michale.

    I was in Yellowstone last summer and we just missed seeing a Grizzly and her cub on a remote trail. People were turning back but by the time we got there she was gone. I was bummed and happy at the same time.

  195. [195] 
    michale wrote:

    What was Biden wrong about?

    According to Democrats, there was no danger from nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein... So Biden was wrong when he said "If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late."

    In 2002, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he stated that Saddam Hussein was "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and that United States has "no choice but to eliminate the threat".[66] He also said, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power."[67] Biden also supported a failed resolution authorizing military action in Iraq only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts,[68] Biden argued that Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons;[69] he subsequently voted in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Iraq

    The fact that Biden was wrong about nukes and Saddam Hussein doesn't take away from the man of integrity he is today...

  196. [196] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Wikipedia is wrong if it says Biden thought Saddam had a nuclear weapons program. Biden said that Saddam wanted to acquire nuclear weapons and would do so if the opportunity presented.

    Biden's views on Saddams supposed nuclear weapons program was the opposite of what Bush, Cheney, Rice and even Powell was saying. Biden contradicted these officials, repeatedly.

    I've got more but, I'm going to do this in bit size pieces ... because there is so much to say to correct the record on what Biden was saying and what he was not.

  197. [197] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Senators Biden and Lugar drafted an AUMF that was far more restrictive on the president's authority to go to war in Iraq than the AUMF that he ultimately voted in favour of and which passed and which President Bush recklessly and incompetently misused to proceed to a war that his administration recklessly and incompetently prosecuted without the necessary amount of force to keep the peace after the initial wins on the battlefield.

    In other words, Biden wanted to make it more difficult for the president to rush to war and, instead, exhaust all other options, non-military and diplomatic, to avoid war and keep Saddam boxed in and contained.

    Unfortunately, Biden and Luger were undercut by the actions of Rep. Dick Gephardt who was negotiating with the president to achieve the AUMF that was finally put on the table.

  198. [198] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Senator Biden said, in 2002-2003 that the threat that Saddam posed was the weaponization of chemical agents that the UN Weapons inspectors had confirmed and catalogued were there.

    So, Biden wasn't saying that Saddam had chemical weapons, much less nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program.

    You might ask why, then, did Biden want to give Bush the authority to go to war. Because, as Biden explained succinctly during the AUMF debate on the floor of the Senate in October 2002, he wanted the president to have the full support of Congress behind the threat of military force to keep sanctions on Iraq and weapons inspectors in Iraq - both of which were in jeopardy at the time. This was the context of the AUMF debate, as Biden clearly stated on the floor of the senate, in October 2002. You can check the transcript if you wish.

  199. [199] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden hoped the threat posed by Saddam could be eliminated through the dual action of sanctions and weapons inspectors, without the need for the use of military force but with a real threat of military force, which is what the AUMF provided.

  200. [200] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When Biden's views are misinterpreted, as they so often are - on any number of issues - there is a need to set the record straight ... a need which I have not overcome the urge to satisfy.

    I can do this all day.

  201. [201] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war after all other options were exhausted.

    The biggest difference between Biden and the Bush administration is that the former wanted to avoid war and the latter wanted to rush into it.

    The next biggest difference was, once the effort in Iraq had become a complete disaster by 2005, Biden was the only one who worked with those in and out of Iraq to find a solution to correct US policy there. His sense of the senate resolution making it US policy to promote and facilitate federalism in Iraq passed the senate by an unprecedented bipartisan majority of 75 to 23 - a gift that the Bush team sabotaged and rejected outright.

  202. [202] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This is all your fault, Alice.

  203. [203] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz

    No Liz, it's clearly Biden's fault.

    The factually inaccurate spin doesn't change Biden's vote FOR the illegal and unnecessary war.

    A "no" vote was what the evidence required.
    Biden helped enable a war crime with disastrous and continuing consequences.

    Do you want to talk about his vote for the bankruptcy bill or the numerous other reasons Biden blows chunks?

    Is your effort at substantiation indicative that you will also attempt to document the supposed but actually nonexistent harm to national security from whistleblowers too, or are you just making an exception to stoop into the gutter for Biden?

    A

  204. [204] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you want to talk about his vote for the bankruptcy bill or the numerous other reasons Biden blows chunks?

    Congratulations, Alice!

    I was counting the hours it would take for you to bring up the bankruptcy bill. Which is something else that most people don't understand about Biden.

  205. [205] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, there is new thread up.

  206. [206] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is your effort at substantiation indicative that you will also attempt to document the supposed but actually nonexistent harm to national security from whistleblowers too, or are you just making an exception to stoop into the gutter for Biden?

    I don't know what that means.

  207. [207] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    189

    Got sucked into the link and almost burned my dinner.

    The idea has a more interesting history than I was aware of.
    If it's only economically feasible in conjunction with universal healthcare, my prior optimism may have been misplaced.

    A

  208. [208] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    204

    Nothing is ever Biden's fault... it's just people not understanding his horrible decisions that violate basic Democratic principles, ethics and morality.

    Is others not understanding (aka wishful thinking) your defense for his horrible fashion sense too?

    206

    That was another reference to your "games" comment nonsense.

    You seem to have given up... not sure if continuing in the new thread makes sense, but I'll look for you there.

    A

  209. [209] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Your knowledge of Biden is, indeed, formidable.. :D

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one..

    On another note..

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2017/01/16/reporters-plead-mlk-iii-attack-trump-did-lewis-tweets-shake-you

    What's your thoughts on the Lame Stream Media practically begging Martin Luther King III to attack Donald Trump..

    Do you think that the Leftis MSM will EVER give Donald Trump a fair shake??

  210. [210] 
    michale wrote:

    General Motors Plans at Least $1 Billion in Fresh U.S. Investment
    Auto maker’s move is expected to create more than 1,000 new jobs

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/general-motors-plans-at-least-1-billion-in-fresh-u-s-investment-1484611776

    President Donald Trump

    Making America Great Again.... Even before he takes office!! :D

    Ya'all just HAVE to know that we wouldn't be seeing *ANY* of these headlines if Hillary had been elected..

    No American Euphoria...

    No companies all over the world, fighting to get back INTO the US...

    No corporations climbing all over themselves to curry favor with the newly elected President and bringing back tens of thousands of new jobs to the US...

    No skyrocketing hope....

    Under President Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama's "hopelessness" would have been the way of this country..

    But with President Donald Trump, there is dancing in the streets....

    I know, I know.. Ya'all would rather dig out yer eyeballs with a rusty spoon before ya'all would give Trump credit for ANYTHING...

    The Republicans felt the EXACT same way about Obama...

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

  211. [211] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Your knowledge of Biden is, indeed, formidable.. :D

    The good news is that's the only thing I'm formidable on. :)

    Do you think that the Leftis MSM will EVER give Donald Trump a fair shake??

    Probably not. Though, they never gave Biden a fair shake, either. So there's that.

    And, they wouldn't know how to give anything or anyone a fair shake, anyways. So, there's that on top of that.

    With notable exceptions, of course. :)

  212. [212] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ya'all just HAVE to know that we wouldn't be seeing *ANY* of these headlines if Hillary had been elected..

    Don't forget Michale, you wouldn't have been seeing any of those headlines if Obama HADN'T been elected.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

  213. [213] 
    michale wrote:

    Don't forget Michale, you wouldn't have been seeing any of those headlines if Obama HADN'T been elected.

    I would have to agree...

    If we hadn't had Obama, then it's likely we wouldn't have Trump.... :D

  214. [214] 
    michale wrote:

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

    Can I make it into a tootsie pop and suck it??

    No, wait... :D

  215. [215] 
    michale wrote:

    The good news is that's the only thing I'm formidable on. :)

    Yea, right.. I know you.. :D

  216. [216] 
    michale wrote:

    ‘Never Trump’ national-security Republicans fear they have been blacklisted
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/never-trump-national-security-republicans-fear-they-have-been-blacklisted/2017/01/16/a2fadf54-d9a3-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.97cbbc29bd43

    You reap what you sow...

    If Trump was everything that these morons SAID he was, then why would they want to work with him now??

    "TRUMP IS SCUM OF THE EARTH!!! TRUMP IS HITLER!!! TRUMP IS A FRAUD!!!... whaaa??? He frakin' won!!??? TRUMP IS DA BEST!!! TRUMP IS A HERO!!! CAN I CARRY YOUR WATER, PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!"

    Politicians are scumbags...

  217. [217] 
    michale wrote:

    Remember how ya'all complained with the Republicans NC Senate/House were making it harder and harder on the incoming DEM Governor??

    Team Obama keeps laying new landmines for Trump
    http://nypost.com/2017/01/16/team-obama-keeps-laying-new-landmines-for-trump/

    Funny how we don't hear much from ya'all about that anymore, eh???

    Gee... I wonder why!!?? :D

  218. [218] 
    michale wrote:

    Further irony..

    The Left Wingery went bat shit hysterical that Trump would close the doors on refugees....

    Obama slams the door on Cubans fleeing Castro | Opinion
    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-fcoped-obama-wet-foot-dry-foot-20170113-story.html

    That's our Obama... Pushing his own petty and vindictive agenda, regardless of how petty and vindictive it makes him look..

    Trump beat you, Mr Obama... Deal with it...

  219. [219] 
    michale wrote:

    Ads in two dozen cities offer protesters up to $2,500 to agitate at Trump inaugural
    Demand Protest ads running seek operatives to “send a strong message” at presidential inauguration

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/17/ads-two-dozen-cities-offer-protesters-2500-agitate/

    Yea, sending a strong message..

    The Left Wingery is a bunch of prostitutes that can be bought... :^/

    The very definition of astro-turf movements..

  220. [220] 
    michale wrote:

    “If we discover that Donald Trump or his advocates played a role to help provide strategy — if {the Russians are} the ones who came up with ‘Crooked Hillary,’ if they’re the ones who came up with, ‘she’s ill, something’s wrong with her energy,’ and the way that he basically described her during the campaign — I think that is something that would put the question squarely on the table whether or not he should be impeached.”
    Democrat CongressCritter Maxine Waters

    Get that???

    Waters thinks that Russia gave Trump all the nicknames and such and, because of that, Trump should be impeached...

    My gods... Trump Derangement Syndrome makes Obama Derangement Syndrome look like a hang nail!!

  221. [221] 
    michale wrote:

    I saids it befores and I'll says it again..

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/17/reagan_and_trump_american_nationalists__132809.html

    Trump is going to bring back American prestige and honor, unseen since Saint Ronald....

    Having come of age under Commander In Chief Ronald Reagan, I for one, am looking forward to serving under Commander In Chief Donald Trump in whatever capacity I can... :D

  222. [222] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Funny how we don't hear much from ya'all about that anymore, eh???

    Gee... I wonder why!!?? :D

    So aside from the fact that you are using an editorial as "fact"...

    Obama is doing the exact same thing as past administrations ...whereas the N.C. GOP cronies are stripping power from the Governor to appoint his administration, which for better or for worse is the way it should be, to the victor goes the spoils...so to speak.

    If Obama was preventing Trump from appointing his own people...like NC has done to the Governor you would have a point...but he hasn't so you don't.

  223. [223] 
    michale wrote:

    So aside from the fact that you are using an editorial as "fact"...

    Fact, opinion... it's dead on ballz accurate..

    Can that be refuted???

    If it can, by all means, do so.. :D

    Obama is doing the exact same thing as past administrations ...whereas the N.C. GOP cronies are stripping power from the Governor to appoint his administration, which for better or for worse is the way it should be, to the victor goes the spoils...so to speak.

    Obama is doing the exact same thing that the NC GOP cronies are doing...

    Making it harder for the incoming administration to govern..

    Anything else is just spin..

    If Obama was preventing Trump from appointing his own people...like NC has done to the Governor you would have a point...but he hasn't so you don't.

    You mean, like Obama filling government positions with White House staffers so Trump can't fire them and appoint his own people??

    You mean like that?? :D

  224. [224] 
    michale wrote:

    But Democrats are having so much fun despising the Donald they’re forgetting duty to party and responsibility to exploit opportunity. The party on the outs nearly always picks up a few seats in the midterms. But sore losers forget the ancient bipartisan admonition that “now is the time for every man to come to the aid of the party.” And that includes the women.
    Even if the diehard losers can get their act together soon, the job of making a dent in the Donald’s Republican prospects will be daunting. Thirty-three seats in the Senate will be up for election in 2018, and 25 of those are now held by Democrats. Additionally, two independents who caucus and usually vote with Democratic senators will be completing their six-year terms.
    Republicans, who had to defend a host of incumbents last year, survived with a slightly reduced majority intact, and will have to defend only eight seats two years hence. Other seats may become open, due to appointment to higher office (particularly among Republicans), resignations or deaths. It just doesn’t look like 2018 will be a year for Democrats to write books about. The arithmetic just isn’t there. The chances of taking over the Senate are roughly nil, zero and none. The party is likely to win a few Republican seats in the House, but not nearly enough to flip control.
    The action will be in the Senate. Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, the campaign chairman for the Senate Republicans, is already at work and the Democrats still have no party chairman. The favorite to be the face of the party is Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, a Muslim. Mr. Ellison is no doubt the paragon of virtue, tolerance and forbearance that Democrats, pundits and Muslim enthusiasts say he is, but any marketing man in America will tell you that Islam is not a hot brand in America just now, and isn’t likely to be one soon. Worse, Mr. Ellison is a onetime protege of Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, the particularly harsh strain of the Mohammedan faith who won’t win any popularity contests, either.
    But it’s the continuing inability of the Democrats to get beyond the first stage of grief and mourning that threatens to push the party to the edge, where it would fall into a very deep ditch. The party’s in the position of the widow who can’t stop crying, even though her man was a scoundrel, knave and wastrel, and was not very nice besides.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/16/democrats-wasting-time-hating-donald-trump/

    Democrats can't get their shit together...

    2018 is going to be a Democrat bloodbath...

  225. [225] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What are you doing on this old thread!!

  226. [226] 
    michale wrote:

    What are you doing on this old thread!!

    "That's the spirit, kid. Keep 'em flying!!"
    "Keep what flying?"
    "The flags of discontent"

    -PLANET OF THE APES

    :D heh

  227. [227] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

Comments for this article are closed.