ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [424] -- Trump Thumped!

[ Posted Friday, February 10th, 2017 – 18:28 PST ]

Donald Trump just got thumped by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There's no denying it. Even Kellyanne Conway can't spin her way out of this one. Three judges unanimously wrote a 29-page opinion explaining why Trump needed to be thumped. This means he can't even whine that it was a "partisan" decision, since these judges were appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents. Even more satisfying is the fact that even if the temporary restraining order which blocked implementation of Trump's Muslim ban is appealed to the Supreme Court, a 4-4 tie vote would just reconfirm the thumping the Ninth Circuit just gave Trump. We certainly hope this turns out to be just the first in a long line of setbacks the court system deals out to Trump, on a regular and continuing basis.

Trump's response to this was an all-caps tantrum on Twitter that included: "SEE YOU IN COURT" -- showing he's a little unclear about the fact that he's already in court, and that the court just ruled against him. This led to an outpouring of amusing comebacks on Twitter, naturally, all of which are fun to read.

Speaking of Twitter mocking Trump, his followers in Portland, Maine were apparently dismayed about all the public protests against Trump, so they decided to stage a pro-Trump rally. Eight people showed up, leading to a classic Huffington Post headline: "World's Saddest Trump Rally Draws Just 8 Supporters." Again, Twitter had a field day with snarky comments such as "1.5 million attend Trump rally" attached to the sad photo showing the reality.

President Donald Trump continues to lie like a rug (which we wrote about in more detail this week), including insisting that his Supreme Court nominee couldn't possibly have complained about his juvenile anti-judge tweets this week, even though White House staff were in the room when the comments were made. Maybe this is part of the ongoing chaos among the White House staff chronicled by Politico this week? Definitely part of the chaos was the continuation of massive leaking from the Trump White House, especially on the subject of how badly Trump is bungling all the calls to foreign leaders. When in the past have conversations like this leaked so badly from the Oval Office? The sheer number of stories written off of these leaks is growing weekly, which is reportedly angering Trump no end. But wait -- wasn't he supposed to hire only the best people? That's what he told everyone, at any rate. Not even three weeks in to his administration, Trump has already reportedly launched an internal investigation to stop his White House from leaking like a sieve.

Let's see, what else is going on? Alexandra Petri at the Washington Post took the whole "alternative facts" idea and ran with it, penning one of the funniest articles we've yet read on the Trump presidency. It begins by offering up a simple explanation:

We are being too uncharitable to the Trump administration.

We have probably made Sean Spicer cry, and that is not what anyone set out to do.

There is a much simpler explanation for the list of Secret Media Terrorism Coverups and the Bowling Green Massacre and the "alternative facts" than this idea that somehow, the Trump administration is making up facts or misleading the American people. Nonsense. They are doing the best they can with the facts they have. They simply have come here from an alternative universe.

It is not their fault that their facts appear to be quite different from what is happening in the universe where most people live. They did not ask to come here. Something went wrong with the timeline, is all. Somebody stepped on a butterfly, and here we are.

Nice Ray Bradbury "A Sound Of Thunder" reference there, we have to say! Everyone should really read the whole article, as it is downright hilarious.

Speaking of alternative universes, Sean Spicer came up with his own new rule for people who speak of military actions under President Trump. Last week, when the news broke of a raid in Yemen in which a U.S. soldier died, Spicer respectfully said:

With respect to Yemen, I think it's hard to ever say something was successful when you lose a life. And so you never want to call something a success, 100 percent, when someone is hurt or killed, and that was the case here.

This week, however, Spicer was singing a different tune:

It's absolutely a success, and I think anyone who would suggest it's not a success does disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens. He fought knowing what was at stake in that mission. And anybody who would suggest otherwise doesn't fully appreciate how successful that mission was. I think anybody who undermines the success of that raid owes an apology and [does a] disservice to the life of Chief Owens.

So, the new standard is that whenever a U.S. servicemember dies, the mission was automatically a success. Questions about the raid have arisen, but since someone died they should not even be asked, according to Spicer. John McCain, who prompted the second Spicer quote in the first place, shot back with some reality for Spicer:

Many years ago when I was imprisoned in North Vietnam, there was an attempt to rescue the POWs. Unfortunately, the prison had been evacuated. But the brave men who took on that mission and risked their lives in an effort to rescue us prisoners of war were genuine American heroes. Because the mission failed did not in any way diminish their courage and willingness to help their fellow Americans who were held captive. Mr. Spicer should know that story.

Of course, none of this has prompted McCain to oppose anything Trump is doing in the Senate, but it's at least a positive sign that he'll push back on occasion.

Congressional Democrats are trying to remain relevant, but they've only got limited ways to do so. Senate Democrats staged an all-night protest against Betsy DeVos, but she got confirmed to lead the Department of Education anyway, after Mike Pence made an appearance to break a tie vote. She didn't have such a great first day on the job, though, as she was not only blocked from entering a school by protesters, but also was roundly mocked on Twitter when she tweeted out that she couldn't find the pencils in her new office. Many pointed out that teachers these days have to buy their own supplies, which DeVos might have known if she had ever set foot in a public school before.

The big question in Washington is whether all the anti-Trump energy and protest will amount to anything or not. Will it fizzle and accomplish nothing, or will it turn into the left's version of the Tea Party? It's too early to tell, but signs are encouraging that it's not going away any time soon. Republicans in Congress who have dared to hold town hall meetings are already figuring this out. Jason Chaffetz, who chairs the committee which is supposed to oversee the government, got an earful this week from his constituents, who were angry that he has so far refused to question anything Trump or his minions have done or said. Probably because of this, Chaffetz is now on board with investigating Kellyanne Conway for openly shilling for Ivanka Trump's product line -- a clear violation of ethics rules for federal employees.

Trump, however, is exempt from such rules, which leaves him free to "joke" about destroying a Texas politician's career for attempting to end the blatantly unconstitutional practice of "asset forfeiture" (which should be more correctly called: "highway robbery by police"). Even staunch conservative commenter George Will agrees on this one, but it didn't stop Trump from threatening the career of a politician brave enough to be standing up for the Constitution (in Texas, no less).

In other extra-constitutional news, it seems Mike Flynn and Mike Pence can't quite agree about whether Flynn chatted with some Russian officials about dropping those pesky sanctions before Trump was sworn in. This could get very embarrassing for the Trump administration, so we'll be watching this story develop, that's for sure.

And finally, to end on a hopeful note, Republican House member Dana Rohrabacher introduced a very short (essentially, one-sentence) bill that would flip the legal battle over marijuana on its head and decree that state laws should be more important than federal law, on marijuana. If anyone is in compliance with their state's law, then the federal government should be powerless to do anything about it, in other words. We wrote about this yesterday, when he introduced the bill, and we strongly urge everyone who cares about the issue to check out the full list of cosponsors -- and if your representative isn't on that list, call them up and ask them why not!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This is a pretty easy call, this week. The Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Senator Elizabeth Warren, who got told to sit down and shut up on the Senate floor this week. By doing so, Mitch McConnell guaranteed that what she had to say got an audience tens of thousands of times larger than she would have gotten if he had just allowed her to speak her piece on the floor.

McConnell may have even given her a dandy slogan to use, should she decide to run for president in 2020: "Nevertheless, she persisted." By the end of the day, there were already T-shirts being sold with this slogan on it, to be worn in defiance of attempts at silencing this powerful progressive voice.

Sometimes people casually toss accusations of being sexist or racist at Republicans with very little proof, but it's hard in this case not to see a whole lot of both. Sexism, because within hours of Warren being voted into silence by Republicans, several male Democratic senators read exactly the same passage on the floor, and McConnell didn't utter a peep of protest. So what was different, other than Warren being a woman?

And, of course, racism was at the heart of the matter, since Warren was attempting to read a letter written by Coretta Scott King (Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow) opposing Jeff Sessions in the 1980s, when he was up for a federal judgeship. Coretta pointed out that Sessions, while in Alabama, abused his authority to target groups whose only "crime" was trying to register elderly black people to vote. That's what Warren was trying to read -- a letter which was already in the Senate record (from when it was originally sent).

McConnell charged Warren with speaking badly of a fellow senator, which is a violation of Senate rules. But this is ridiculous on its face, because the senator in question was being considered for a cabinet post, and Warren spoke in the debate over his confirmation. If no Democrat were allowed to say a negative thing about Sessions, then why even bother having a debate about him? That certainly wouldn't make any sense.

McConnell just looked petty and weak in the whole fracas, and if she does decide to use his "nevertheless, she persisted" line in a campaign, she will indeed have the last laugh. Republicans can deny ever waging a "war on women" in the past (and they often do), but what is becoming more and more evident is that there are millions of women in America who are, at this historic point in time, fully ready to do some fighting back on their own.

If McConnell had just let Warren speak, it is quite likely that few would have noticed anything she said. Don't believe this? Here's a quick quiz: quote any other Democratic senator from the debate on confirming Jeff Sessions. We'll bet no one can. Which is how Warren's speech would have been remembered if McConnell hadn't shot himself in the foot so badly. Because she got told to sit down and shut up, Warren not only gave her speech outside the Senate floor (where more than a million have downloaded it and watched it), but she also got to appear on just about any news show she desired, to fully explain why Coretta Scott King opposed Jeff Sessions, and why she's going to persist in holding his feet to the fire as attorney general. It was a publicity bonanza for Warren, in fact -- a lesson which Mitch McConnell might take to heart the next time he wants to silence a woman in the Senate.

Elizabeth Warren persisted her way right into her twelfth Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award -- for refusing to go quietly into that good night. Well done, Senator Warren!

[Congratulate Senator Elizabeth Warren on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one, sadly, is also pretty easy to pick this week.

Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia was the only Democrat to vote to confirm Jeff Sessions this week. There's really no excuse for this, not even: "C'mon, I'm up for re-election next year."

Manchin's vote earns him his fifth Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, but we suspect it won't be his last.

[Contact Senator Joe Manchin on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his vote.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 424 (2/10/17)

We start off our talking points segment this week with a call for everyone to try their hand at sloganeering.

We'll start with a premise, which may or may not be true. The mounting wave of discontent and protest at the Trump regime and all that they do and say will grow in strength and commitment until it becomes the "Tea Party of the left." After all, it was outrage that gave birth to the righty Tea Party, so history could be repeating itself across the aisle right now. Time will tell whether this is the case, but we think at this juncture that it's enough of a possibility that it deserves a name.

After all, "Tea Party of the left" is pretty derivative. Second-level derivative, in fact, since the original tea party happened in Boston a long time ago. Then some hothead on cable news called for a new American tea party at just the right time, and people began donning Revolutionary-style hats and waving tea bags around. They quickly came up with an acronym to fit the movement, but it had really already been named before "Taxed Enough Already" was coined.

So what to call the lefty movement? The best we can come up with is also derivative, we fully admit: "Occupy Congress." Unlike other progressive political movements, this one should have one key goal: electing Democrats who "get it" to Congress. That's the only way to usher in real change, so it should be the key focus. But, like we said, we realize this is ripping off the Occupy Wall Street slogan, which might not be a great idea (since Occupy had its moment in the sun, but ultimately fizzled).

So what is your suggestion for naming the growing anti-Trump political wave? The best slogans are short and snappy, please keep in mind. What catchy label should progressive journalists begin using for the spontaneous eruption of discontent and rage that seems to be happening on a weekly (if not daily) basis, in the time of Trump? Please share your suggestion in the comments, and maybe we'll feature some of them next week.

OK, with the sloganeering contest out of the way, let's get to this week's varied crop of talking points for Democrats to use.

 

1
   Nevertheless...

Thank you, Mitch McConnell.

"This week, Mitch McConnell did his best imitation of 'father knows best' in the Senate, instructing the lady senator from Massachusetts on the finer points of decorum. Strange how he invokes this rule only when a woman dares speak, isn't it? I mean, he didn't try to shut up Ted Cruz, even when Cruz was in the process of calling Mitch McConnell a liar right to his face, so his standards for what is offensive to other senators seems to be pretty specific. When a man says certain things, it will be allowed -- which McConnell proved the next day, when several male Democrats read exactly the same letter Warren was prevented from reading. Still, Warren should send a thank-you card to McConnell, not only for giving her an enormous platform in the media to get her message out, but for giving her a fantastic campaign slogan to use next time she runs for office. I can't be the only Democrat who is now ready to slap a "Nevertheless, She Persisted" bumpersticker on my car!"

 

2
   You know, one of those places down there...

Someone, please make it stop!

"It's getting to the point where you know when anyone in the Trump administration is lying because you can see their lips moving. To the Bowling Green massacre -- which happened only in Kellyanne Conway's fevered brain -- we now must add the recent Atlanta terrorist attack. This one happened only in Sean Spicer's tortured imagination. When asked about it, he said he meant the Orlando shooting. Hey, Atlanta, Orlando, they kind of sound the same, right? I mean, with Kellyanne, the networks can eventually just not invite her on their news shows (because she obviously lives in a fantasy world), but Spicer is the main conduit from the White House to the press. Maybe Melissa McCarthy will do another few hilarious Saturday Night Live sketches and force Trump to fire Spicer in sheer embarrassment. Of course, any press secretary is going to have a tough time in the next four years, because most of the worst lies come from Trump himself. Like the crime stats being at a 47-year high, when in fact they're close to a near-low for the past four or five decades. The Trump White House doesn't just use alternative facts, they live in an alternative reality, folks."

 

3
   Miss Spellings?

We turn over this talking point to Dana Milbank from the Washington Post, who noticed all the boneheaded misspellings in the list Team Trump hastily assembled in a desperate attempt to prove something Trump said was true (when it wasn't even in the same ZIP code as the truth). Every flub in the following (a spoof of a statement from President Trump) was either on this list, or tweeted by Trump at some point, it's worth mentioning:

My Fellow Americans: You may be shoked by my military attak on the Kingdom of Denmakr. You may think it is rediculous and one of the dummer things I have done, and I admit it is unpresidented to bomb a peaceful nation. But my insticts and my judgement say we cannot afford to loose, for it would bring dishoner. And so we do not go gently into that good knight. We send our troops from their baracks until Denmakr’s aggressions are payed for. Only then will Copenhagen rise like the Phoneix. We will not falter, we will not fail -- and we will not chock.

 

4
   Let's see her eat a Trump steak!

This one deserves all the ridicule you can heap on.

"I see that Kellyanne Conway's new job description includes 'shill for Trump-branded products.' Hey, from what I hear, Ivanka's brand is tanking fast, which is the real reason stores are refusing to carry her foreign-made clothes anymore. But if Ivanka's line goes under, there will still be plenty of things left for Kellyanne to tout in official interviews. They should remake the old Life cereal ad, in fact: 'I don't want to eat the Trump steak... hey, let's get Kellyanne to eat it! Yeah, she'll gobble up anything with Trump's name on it!'"

 

5
   A really bad yardstick to use

Taken to its logical conclusion....

"Sean Spicer said recently that any suggestion that a military exercise where someone wearing the U.S. uniform dies would do, quote, a disservice, unquote, to that servicemember's life and sacrifice. This is a monumentally stupid yardstick to measure the success or failure of a military battle, as John McCain quickly pointed out. After all, using Spicer's reasoning, the most spectacular and glorious military victory in all of American history would be Pearl Harbor. That's the end result of this way of thinking, Sean. Just because someone dies doesn't mean military success or failure -- if that were true, then the Republicans spent many years dishonoring the four men who died in Benghazi. You can't have it both ways."

 

6
   Old enough to take for a spin?

OK, admittedly we've recently written why this isn't very likely to happen, but that doesn't make it any less fun to contemplate!

"I'd like to wish the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution a happy fiftieth birthday. I see in a related story that one Democrat in the House has just introduced a bill to make sure a psychiatrist is available in the White House -- you know, just in case any competency issues should pop up. Since the 25th allows for replacing the president if he is incapacitated in any way (including mentally, it's worth pointing out), maybe it would be prudent to prepare for the eventuality. After all, the 25th is now 50 years old, so maybe it's old enough to take it out for a spin, what do you say?"

 

7
   Rehabilitated!

And finally, just to remind Republicans of all their idiocy for the past eight years.

"According to Politico, George W. Bush had been president for over five months when he first took a day off to play some golf. Barack Obama was only in office for four months when he shot his first presidential game. But for some reason, Republicans went apoplectic at the sight of Obama on the links. We're not saying it had anything to do with his skin color or anything, but while Republicans had been fine with presidents playing golf all the way back to Eisenhower, for some reason Obama golfing drove them bananas. So we're eagerly waiting for them to vigorously denounce Donald Trump -- who only waited two weeks before getting out on the golf course. Surely that will make Republican heads explode, right? Unless it was all just a stupid and thin excuse to attack a sitting president they didn't like, of course. My guess is that the concept of presidential golf got rehabilitated in the Republican Party in the same two-week period, since I haven't heard a peep of complaint yet from them. Strange how that works, isn't it?"

-- 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

 

211 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [424] -- Trump Thumped!”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sloganeering contest:

    The Rebel Alliance

    The Resistance

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Sloganeering contest:
    We call it Voucher Vendetta and the slogan is:
    "GET YOUR BALLS BACK"

  3. [3] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Manchin is the father of that lovely lady who decided to take a $5 shot of epinephrine (including the cost of the delivery device) and charge people $300 for it. Sometimes I do blame the parents for how screwed up their children end up.

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "..this one should have one key goal- getting Democrats that "get it" to Congress."
    Close, but no cigar.
    I realize that you are a Democrat- but that is the problem. The Democratic establishment will not let you elect Democrats that get it.
    You and the rest of the Democratic faithful have to be willing to tell the Democratic Party to go fuck themselves or they will continue to take you for granted.
    By the way, I have been saying since long before I got here that it needs to be about changing Congress. It's a good start that others are beginning to come around now that we are in an off year election cycle.
    You've taken the first step by recognizing the what, now take the next step and show citizens how by advocating for participation in Voucher Vendetta.
    The Tea Party has proven that taking on establishment candidates in the primaries can work. Bernie has shown that small contributions can work (Michale- DO NOT try to claim again that Trump proved anything about Big Money candidates- He spent his own Big Money and took Big Money. He is a Big Money candidate despite receiving some small contributions).
    Many internet campaigns have moved the public discourse in ways and time frames previously thought impossible.
    Voucher Vendetta combines these three proven approaches.
    If the Democratic Party is worth saving they will need to be draqged kicking and screaming. They will not respond to your undying devotion, rationalizations that they are not as bad as the Republicans and turning a blind eye to their shortcomings.
    For example, ANY candidate from ANY party that takes Big Money DOESN'T "get it".
    Voucher Vendetta will force the Democratic and Republican Parties to change while at the same time creating viability for third parties and independents if the current major parties do not change. Only the threat of losing your votes will make the parties change.
    But citizens have to have the courage to "Just Say No" to the Big Money candidates of both CMPs.
    As the slogan says "GET YOUR BALLS BACK".

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sloganeering contest:

    Pink Hat Party

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sloganeering contest:

    The Persisters

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    Back when the Republican Party had thinkers and people who understood science:

    http://www.texasmonthly.com/energy/conservative-answer-climate-change/

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    So how can a document released by the White House misspell "ATTAKER" or "ATTAKERS" 27 times.

    Now I have a lot of sympathy with poor spelling, typing and grammar - I'm one of the most vocal around here calling for a quick edit facility to correct my numerous mistakes, and I count on a lot of patience from you all to figure out what I'm trying to convey despite my typing numerous errors.

    Yet this one stumps me. Surely the Word processor was highlighting the spelling errors - spell checkers are everywhere these days - even in the box I'm currently typing in. Most of my mistakes are typos such as "though" instead of "thought" - one of my recent whoppers.

    Also, it can't just be cut and paste (where one error is copied 26 times), because sometimes it is "ATTAKER" and sometimes "ATTAKERS". So the writer was changing the singular to plural depending on the number of criminals (not all were terrorists, it turns out, some were common murderers).

    So despite my double click to see if I could exonerate a fellow keyboard-challenged plodder, it seems this really may be worthy of the ridicule that has been heaped on him or her.

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    e.g. despite my typing numerous errors. ->despite my numerous typing errors.

  10. [10] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I think we should take Trump's "America First" and make it what people really wanted from a candidate: someone who wasn't a Republican, or a Democrat, but that identifies as an ""American, First".

    I figure there have got to be tons of those unsold ugly caps that could be easily altered and bought for cheap!

  11. [11] 
    neilm wrote:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/06/i-never-cared-much-about-politics-then-trump-nominated-betsy-devos-to-his-cabinet/?utm_term=.7c759a82ee2d

    This is what I'm seeing everywhere at the moment Even my cardiologist cracked a joke about 45 today. I've always been more political than most people, but I adhere to the old rule about religion and politics. Before the election everybody who talked about politics was basically laughing at 45 and confident that the American public were too smart to fall for such an obvious con man - I mean con men are meant to be smooth - this guy is a complete buffoon - whacky haircut, inability to construct a sentence, lying constantly, thin skinned and petty.

    But then too many people got complacent and the unthinkable happened. The buffoon threaded the needle aided by an uninspiring alternative, and suddenly the people who ignored politics realized there was a clown in the White House and bad things were going to happen. Like DeVos.

    There is a feeling with more and more people I know that being polite and expecting sensible results isn't working - these people are waking up and they are angry. They don't care if they are stepping on somebody's toes, because those toes are probably attached to a person who put us in this fiasco.

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump's response to this was an all-caps tantrum on Twitter that included: "SEE YOU IN COURT" -- showing he's a little unclear about the fact that he's already in court, and that the court just ruled against him.

    Not really.. He's in the 9th Circuit, so he is not in a real court. He's at the circus....

    Many pointed out that teachers these days have to buy their own supplies, which DeVos might have known if she had ever set foot in a public school before.

    So, I guess it's a good thing DeVos has confirmed so she can clean up the Public Schools mess, eh?? :D

    Congressional Democrats are trying to remain relevant, but they've only got limited ways to do so.

    Once again, everyone say it with me..

    THANK YOU, HARRY REID

    If only someone around here would have espoused what a moronic choice it was for Harry to nuke the filibuster...

    Oh... wait... :D

    . Jason Chaffetz, who chairs the committee which is supposed to oversee the government, got an earful this week from his constituents, who were angry that he has so far refused to question anything Trump or his minions have done or said.

    NOT his constituents.. Soros paid Democrat protesters

    In other extra-constitutional news, it seems Mike Flynn and Mike Pence can't quite agree about whether Flynn chatted with some Russian officials about dropping those pesky sanctions before Trump was sworn in.

    You mean, as opposed to Obama groveling to Russian President Menendev that Obama needs some slack from Putin until after Obama wins the election???

    You mean, like that???

    nyone is in compliance with their state's law, then the federal government should be powerless to do anything about it, in other words.

    Very VERY short-sighted of the states if they buy into this..

    This is a pretty easy call, this week. The Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Senator Elizabeth Warren, who got told to sit down and shut up on the Senate floor this week. By doing so, Mitch McConnell guaranteed that what she had to say got an audience tens of thousands of times larger than she would have gotten if he had just allowed her to speak her piece on the floor.

    She tried to use Dr Martin Luther King Jr to attack a fellow Senator....

    Even MLK's family was disgusted with Lie-awatha's actions and publicly stated so...

    After all, it was outrage that gave birth to the righty Tea Party, so history could be repeating itself across the aisle right now. Time will tell whether this is the case, but we think at this juncture that it's enough of a possibility that it deserves a name.

    Wasn't the OCCUPY movement supposed to be The Tea Party Of The Left???

    Let's fact reality here, people.. When it comes to protesting, the Left Wingery likes something shiny but then just gets bored and goes home...

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    . She didn't have such a great first day on the job, though, as she was not only blocked from entering a school by protesters,

    Yea and DeVos was assaulted by one the of the protesters who was promptly arrested...

    I guess LOVE TRUMPS HATE doesn't apply to Left Wingery protesters, eh?? :^/

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    She tried to use Dr Martin Luther King Jr to attack a fellow Senator....

    Even MLK's family was disgusted with Lie-awatha's actions and publicly stated so...

    My apologies... I know we said we would try and get away from the childish name-calling and cutsey digs... But I read that and it was just too funny not to share..

    I'll do better in the future.. :D

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Having said all of the afore with regards to Senator Warren, I do agree with your point, CW...

    McConnell really stepped on his wee-wee in shutting down Warren....

    It was a bonehead move...

  16. [16] 
    Kick wrote:

    Fact Party

    Party Slogans:
    *Facts are stubborn things
    *Facts, not fear
    *Facts, not fiction

    Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams, 1770

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Fact Party

    Except when FACTS are inconvenient... :D

    Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams, 1770

    If only politicians actually governed by such wisdom...

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What is your opinion regarding President Trump's executive order to limit immigration from countries that were on President Obama's travel restriction list??

    And, by travel restriction you mean 'extreme vetting', right?

    This is just one example of what is so disturbing about the way President Trump has been governing. It's just like the way he operates, in general. Which is to say that he tears people down to elevate himself.

    With everything he does, he implies that he's the first one to do it and/or the only one that can do it even if someone else has done it before him with far better outcomes.

    And, I think the intelligence community needs to revise the way they deliver his daily intelligence briefings in terms of how and what they tell him because I don't think he knows how to process it. Seriously!

  19. [19] 
    taramaster wrote:

    If there's voter fraud, then prove it
    Elections official asks Trump for evidence of voter fraud
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-election-fraud-idUSKBN15Q01O

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Isn't it sad that the MIDOTW award this week goes to a Democrat solely because a Republican made a characteristically boneheaded move?

    When will Democrats start acting in ways that are truly impressive?

    For example, I keep waiting for a Democrat to stand up and say that Obamacare is worth saving. That it is a very problematic piece of legislation, there is no doubt. But, there are sound measures to take that will make the ACA work better and here they are ...

    That's my kind of impressive, elusive as it may be.

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    Soros paid Democrat protesters

    Can you tell me where to collect my money?

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    And, by travel restriction you mean 'extreme vetting', right?

    I am not sure if that was President Obama's intent, but yes...

    This is just one example of what is so disturbing about the way President Trump has been governing. It's just like the way he operates, in general. Which is to say that he tears people down to elevate himself.

    I don't see how that's any different than how Democrats tore people down to elevate themselves when they were governing...

    President Trump seems to be doing his actions for the American people...

    Democrats when they governed, seemed to be doing their actions for the Democrat Party... ObamaCare is a perfect example of this..

    With everything he does, he implies that he's the first one to do it and/or the only one that can do it even if someone else has done it before him with far better outcomes.

    You can't really gauge "outcomes" with President Trump because things are still happening..

    And, I think the intelligence community needs to revise the way they deliver his daily intelligence briefings in terms of how and what they tell him because I don't think he knows how to process it. Seriously!

    Different Presidents handle the DIBs in different ways... The president's been on the job less than a month... He'll find his groove....

    Isn't it sad that the MIDOTW award this week goes to a Democrat solely because a Republican made a characteristically boneheaded move?

    I know, right?? :D

    When will Democrats start acting in ways that are truly impressive?

    Seriously??? I think it will take a shellacking in 2020 for Democrats to wake up...

    A 2018 shellacking is a foregone conclusion.. When that occurs Democrats will simply point to the number of Dems facing re-election and use that as an excuse..

    When President Trump has his Reagan-esque landslide re-election in 2020, Democrats will be out of excuses and will have to face the cold hard facts...

    Or they will cease to exist as a Party...

    For example, I keep waiting for a Democrat to stand up and say that Obamacare is worth saving.

    Not even Democrats believe that the ACA is worth saving...

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    When will Democrats start acting in ways that are truly impressive?

    When we get a new leader. I can't believe that a party that got 66 million votes, 3 million more than the Galactic Empire party, there isn't a smart, telegenic, visionary, rabble-rouser.

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    Soros paid Democrat protesters

    Can you tell me where to collect my money?

    Did you beat on a Trump supporter???

    Did you physically assault or attack anyone who disagreed with you??

    Did you destroy any property??

    Did you attack Police???

    Did you burn, loot and/or pillage??

    No??

    Sorry, you don't get paid....

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am not sure if [extreme vetting] was President Obama's intent, but yes...

    Well, that was the whole point of why he singled out those countries. Do you think extreme vetting happened as a by-product?

    And, what does Donald Trump mean, precisely, by extreme vetting. I haven't been able to get an answer on that. And, yet, it's why he wants this temporary travel ban, to put extreme vetting in place ... I don't think he knows what he's doing.

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Another article on the "Gathering Storm" - this time from a disaffected Republican.

    http://www.chicagonow.com/politics-now/2017/02/the-gathering-storm-in-america/

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    The Democrats don't need a leader. The congressional democrats just need to start acting in impressive ways.

    If they can't do that, then they - and the rest of us - will reap the consequences.

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    Bernice King posted on her Be A King’s Facebook page 10 steps to deal with Trump and take back our democratic government.

    1. Don’t use his name; EVER (45 will do) [Note from neilm: check]
    2. Remember this is a regime and he’s not acting alone;
    3. Do not argue with those who support him–it doesn’t work;
    4. Focus on his policies, not his orange-ness and mental state;
    5. Keep your message positive; they want the country to be angry and fearful because this is the soil from which their darkest policies will grow;
    6. No more helpless/hopeless talk;
    7. Support artists and the arts;
    8. Be careful not to spread fake news. Check it;
    9. Take care of yourselves; and
    10. Resist!

    And:

    Keep demonstrations peaceful. In the words of John Lennon, “When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight! Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.”

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    And, what does Donald Trump mean, precisely, by extreme vetting.

    He probably hoped it would involve extreme petting.

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    I don't think he knows what he's doing.

    No shit, Sherlock.

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [12]

    Not really.. He's in the 9th Circuit, so he is not in a real court. He's at the circus....

    The orange-faced clown and not a "real" leader takes "the circus" with him wherever he goes. Tune in next week when PT signs an Executive Order changing the name of the Oval Office to Barnum & Bannon's 1-Ring Circus.

    Oh, by the way, contrary to the righty fake news, the 9th Circuit is not the most overturned court in the country

    The 9th Circuit’s reversal rate is higher than average, but it’s not the absolute highest among the circuit courts. That distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15.

    1.6th Circuit - 87%
    2.11th Circuit - 85%
    3.9th Circuit - 79%

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/

    So, I guess it's a good thing DeVos has confirmed so she can clean up the Public Schools mess, eh?? :D

    Amway in every janitorial closet at taxpayers' expense. Kellyanne Conway says buy, buy, buy!

    NOT his constituents.. Soros paid Democrat protesters

    You don't actually believe this fiction, do you?

    You mean, as opposed to Obama groveling to Russian President Menendev that Obama needs some slack from Putin until after Obama wins the election???

    You mean, like that???

    No, I don't think so since that was President Obama speaking with President Medvedev explaining he would have "more flexibility" after his re-election. Aren't you comparing a leader to a liar?

    She tried to use Dr Martin Luther King Jr to attack a fellow Senator....

    Even MLK's family was disgusted with Lie-awatha's actions and publicly stated so...

    Usually when righties invoke "MLK's family," they are referring to Alveda King, MLK's niece, who is a right-wing activist and an employee of Fox News.

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Take it easy, Neil.

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    Looks like 45 wants a Mulligan on the Muslim ban.

    Sloganeering contest:

    The American Mulligan Party (AMP)

    AMP it up folks!

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry, you don't get paid....

    So, where do I sign up in case push comes to shove? Is there a web site? A contract? How much are people being paid?

    Or is this just more BS from your bubble masters?

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:
  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, that was the whole point of why he singled out those countries. Do you think extreme vetting happened as a by-product?

    Who he?? President Trump or President Obama?

    And, what does Donald Trump mean, precisely, by extreme vetting. I haven't been able to get an answer on that. And, yet, it's why he wants this temporary travel ban, to put extreme vetting in place ... I don't think he knows what he's doing.

    I am sure you don't...

    But, as I said, he has only been on the job for 3 weeks.. President Obama made many missteps at first too...

    Overall, I am very impressed that President Trump is actually keeping his campaign promises...

    It's very refreshing...

  37. [37] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Edit-

    "Sean Spicer said recently that any suggestion that a military exercise where someone wearing the U.S. uniform dies would do, quote, a disservice, unquote, to that servicemember's life and sacrifice"

    add "is a failure" after "dies"... a little clunky... maybe, "of failure when a military exercise..." after "suggestion"?

    A

  38. [38] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen

    Oops.
    I meant to bring it forward, but replied to your comment in the previous column.

    A

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    The orange-faced clown and not a "real" leader takes "the circus" with him wherever he goes. Tune in next week when PT signs an Executive Order changing the name of the Oval Office to Barnum & Bannon's 1-Ring Circus.

    Well, I am sure glad we have moved beyond 3rd grade playground antics :D

    The 9th Circuit’s reversal rate is higher than average, but it’s not the absolute highest among the circuit courts. That distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15.

    Politifacts Left Wing bias is well-documented..

    You don't actually believe this fiction, do you?

    Soros's funding for violent Left Wing groups is well-documented..

    I know YOU won't believe it because it's a knock against Left Wingery....

    No, I don't think so since that was President Obama speaking with President Medvedev explaining he would have "more flexibility" after his re-election. Aren't you comparing a leader to a liar?

    President Obama is as much of a liar as you claim President Trump is..

    Irregardless of that, the point is that Obama's behind the scenes machinations with Mendenev is no different than what the Left is accusing Flynn of....

    Usually when righties invoke "MLK's family," they are referring to Alveda King, MLK's niece, who is a right-wing activist and an employee of Fox News.

    And because of that, in your mind, she is not credible to speak of MLK related matters..

    Like I said.. Inherent Left Wing bias colors your entire thought process..

    If Ms King DID toe your Party line, she would be A-OK and very credible..

    Because she DOESN'T toe your Party line, she's not...

    Yep.. No bias there... :D

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    45 wants to cut funds the "Countering Violent Extremism" program - turns out, that since most of the violent extremists are right wingers, his supporters want the heat taken off them.

    Odd Michale isn't condemning this. Just shows that it is which terrorists kill Americans that is important to the Right Wingery, not that Americans will be killed.

    Not a peep from Michale or the Right Wingery as usual. If they have a -R after their name they can kill as many of us as they want. They can poison children. Blow up kindergartens. Murder countless innocents in cold blood and still not one word of condemnation from the right.

    Or maybe it is totally unfair to blow up an issue, load it with fear and hate, then blame Michale for not condemning it because he hasn't even heard about it.

    If only he'd stop doing the same thing twice a day to the rest of us,.

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    Odd Michale isn't condemning this. Just shows that it is which terrorists kill Americans that is important to the Right Wingery, not that Americans will be killed.

    You'll forgive me if I don't accept your assessment of the action as gospel.. :D

    Wearing ideological blinders is not conducive to logical, objective and rational assessments..

    Got a link??

    Or maybe it is totally unfair to blow up an issue, load it with fear and hate, then blame Michale for not condemning it because he hasn't even heard about it.

    Not unfair at all... IF...

    If you have pointed it out in the past or if it's a well known and well publicized issue...

    If not.. Then... yea... Yer being unfair... :D

    But, hay... At least ya'all are actually ADDRESSING ya'all's bias instead of just ignoring it and hope I quit bringing it up...

    That's progress :D

  42. [42] 
    John M wrote:

    Neilm wrote:

    Sloganeering contest:

    "The Rebel Alliance"

    "The Resistance"

    I rather like "The Rebel Alliance" idea. I would certainly vote for that one. It has a nice ring about it, and is culturally relevant and current, and would get a lot of free publicity with the new Star Wars movies coming out and their tie in to fighting the evil Emperor and Empire. Rather appropriate I think. It might even have the best chance of catching on. Does anyone have Twitter and can start promoting it with a hashtag?

  43. [43] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    "since Occupy had its moment in the sun, but ultimately fizzled"

    I looked up "fizzled" but didn't see any mention of movements stamped out with a boot on their necks.

    And, it is hard not to notice the lingering efforts not only by activists but also the ideas central to Bernie's campaign.

    Instead of "fizzled", morphed or evolved into other approaches/tactics would seem more accurate.

    As for the contest, Occupy Congress has made previous appearances elsewhere (sorry), but since you are talking about the same thing, I doubt anybody will mind.
    So far, that's the best entrant too.

    On the other hand, current protests aren't sufficiently focused on the financial issues central to Occupy, and there are also far more issues worthy of protest related to Trump policies than Occupy wanted to address.

    I still like Occupy Congress though, because it has built in name recognition, adopting the policies Occupy embraced is important if Democrats want to win and become relevant again, and "electing Democrats who "get it" to Congress" is vital generally and to stop Trump's policies in particular.

    A

  44. [44] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "NOT his constituents.. Soros paid Democrat protesters"

    Assumes facts not in evidence. In fact, you have ZERO proof of that. And many of his genuinely concerned constituents would find it highly offensive as well. Just search the comments made by REAL people on Facebook and elsewhere who talked about their efforts to contact their member of Congress only to get condescendingly dismissed, just like you just did.

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Fourth Muslim group rejects federal grant to fight extremism
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article132146279.html

    Apparently, muslim groups are not all that fired up to go against islamic terrorism....

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    Assumes facts not in evidence. In fact, you have ZERO proof of that.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.. :D

    Soros's funding of violent protest groups is well documented..

    I would provide the facts if I thought it would change your mind...

    And many of his genuinely concerned constituents would find it highly offensive as well.

    Fine... Point them out... :D

    Just search the comments made by REAL people on Facebook

    Do you comprehend how ridiculous that sounds?? :D

    That's like saying "Real People Like The Kardashians" :D

    their member of Congress only to get condescendingly dismissed, just like you just did.

    Maybe if these "real people" wouldn't support the violent anti-America and anti-Trump riots, I would be more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt..

    But where is the condemnation from these "real people" over the Berkeley violence??

    {{chiiirrrppp}} {{{chirrrrrrpppppp}}}

    Yea.. That's what I thought...

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But where is the condemnation from these "real people" over the Berkeley violence?

    Let me be clear FOR THE RECORD. ahem. I condemn the violence that happened at Berkeley.

    Satisfied? Of course not.

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Naming contest: Realists

  49. [49] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    {{chiiirrrppp}} {{{chirrrrrrpppppp}}}

    Yea.. That's what I thought...

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Let me be clear FOR THE RECORD. ahem. I condemn the violence that happened at Berkeley.

    It took several weeks and multiple proddings for you to go on record..

    And you STILL didn't condemn the Left Wingers who committed the violence...

    Satisfied? Of course not.

    Of course not..

    Would YOU be satisfied if I condemned Right Winger violence in such a milquetoast, limp-deicked generic manner??

    Of course not...

  51. [51] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey again CW, neil and gang

    If any of you missed them, neil posted a series of comments... #'s 51-54 in the "One key way to rein in Sessions" column that are worth a read.

    Surprisingly, I have a few quibbles here and there, but I think some of his standards are strongly progressive and a good expectation to have for Democratic candidates.

    In 51-
    "lower but simpler and more effective corporate taxation"

    As a share of the tax burden, corporate taxes are already half of what they were 40 years ago, so "lower" still is not something I would support.
    If "simpler and more effective" means actually collecting what they should be paying now, by eliminating the loopholes that allow many corporations to avoid paying any or less than their fair share at the current rates, I'm on board.

    Since the context is that the overwhelming majority of shares are owned by the top 10%, and the 1% in particular, unless higher taxes on the wealthy are implemented first, including the elimination of the loopholes for their corporate profits, reducing corporate taxes would exacerbate inequality.

    In 52-

    I'm on board with the re-regulation and reduction of systemic risk, but the "simplification" would need to be specific so it doesn't become further deregulation in practice.

    Criminal prosecutions for fraud need to be pursued vigorously again too.

    In 53-

    Yes, yes, yes.

    In 54-

    Yes, with the addition of enforceable environmental and labor provisions.
    American workers shouldn't have to compete against those free to pollute and exploit workers.
    Some of the provisions in trade deals that amount to crony capitalism at the expense of American consumers and workers, and foreign consumers need to be eliminated or fixed.

    I would also say further free trade deals should be contingent on the implementation of the suggestions on tax policy and everything in comment 53... perhaps with some additional policies to help the many Americans who have already been harmed by free trade.

    And I would note that current supporters of free trade deals in both parties do not meet those standards and should be pressured to get on board or be replaced.

    So, I guess it's actually a "yes" in theory, but "no" in practice since those conditions are unlikely to be met.

    A

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is "no evidence" those countries have produced a terrorist.

    According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

    Yea...

    "No Evidence Of Necessity" whatsoever.. :^/

    Pretty smart of President Obama to compile the appropriate list..

    Pretty damn smart of President Trump to implement it..

  53. [53] 
    Paula wrote:

    I like "The Resistance" as is brings to mind WWII heroes who did the right things in the face of the power of the Third Reich.

    Have been extremely busy but read over comments in recent posts -- just wanted to say to Neilm: you've been on fire! (Also, great links.)

    Have had the pleasure of a Republican friend explaining why he can no longer support the party and who wanted to know how he could get involved in activism. Not just because of Trump -- he'd gone to a Republican fund-raiser and, in talking with a "republican apparachek" (his word -- how spell?) he realized the guy literally had no principles at all. He just insisted on repeating the talking points he'd been given and said that was his job, to do what he was told, no matter what. My friend said that was the moment he it all became clear for him.

    He also said his republican friends had "been fooled".

    Very satisfying.

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    he'd gone to a Republican fund-raiser and, in talking with a "republican apparachek" (his word -- how spell?)

    apparatchik

    :D

    he realized the guy literally had no principles at all.

    As opposed to Left Wingery "principles" as espoused by the likes of Madonna and the Berkeley rioters...

    Yea.... "principles"... :^/

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:
  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm [34]

    Very amusing:

    https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/how-to-talk-to-your-kids-about-the-bowling-green-massacre

    ROTFL. This is priceless.

    Thank you. Keep them coming. :)

  57. [57] 
    Paula wrote:

    On Facebook someone posted:

    Trumpublicans are trolls –
    Flagrant trolls!
    And what a world of bull and lies their zealotry unrolls.
    How they blather blather blather
    Morning, afternoon, and night,
    Where they’re worked up in a lather
    While the rational would rather
    Get the facts and get them right.
    Sending post, post, post,
    As if who could post the most
    Would somehow fill the gaps in stories shot right full of holes
    By the trolls, tolls, trolls, trolls,
    Trolls, trolls, trolls –
    As if volume were the value of the trolls.

    And those draft-avoiding trolls –
    Verbal trolls!
    What a world of cowardice a chicken-hawk extols.
    How they boast of their deferment
    And the jobs to which it led
    At a time when their demur meant
    That some kid without preferment
    Went to risk his life instead.
    Real Americans would gag
    But, while waving cross and flag,
    The Trumpies cheat minorities of going to the polls.
    Oh, the trolls, tolls, trolls, trolls,
    Trolls, trolls, trolls –
    Oh, the slimy nickel-dimey little trolls!

    How they slither from their holes
    Bigot trolls!
    And what a gush of gross self-aggrandizing little goals!
    How their racist views are coded
    As a struggle for states’ rights,
    They’re patrolling locked and loaded
    As the safety-net’s eroded
    All except for wealthy whites.
    How they screed across the screen
    Apoplectic in their spleen
    In an angry flush of selfish shit from puppet-socky souls:
    From the trolls, trolls, trolls, trolls,
    Trolls, trolls, trolls,
    Oh, the needy greedy grunting of the trolls.

    They’re the party of the trolls
    Party trolls!
    And what an ugly undertow of undeveloped souls –
    They will lie and lie and lie,
    A cacophony of cads,
    But they grin as they get by
    Since the press won’t ask them why --
    Asking why won’t sell their ads.
    They report it like it’s true,
    Helping lie to me and you,
    In a flood of false equivalence that undermines the polls.
    Helping trolls, trolls, trolls, trolls,
    Trolls, trolls, trolls,
    They’re complicit little shitty little trolls.

    What will rid of us of the trolls
    Lying trolls?
    Don’t give them the attention that will feed their tiny souls.
    Just ignore them and be civil
    As they call you evil names.
    Their misogyny will snivel
    Out their homophobic drivel
    As they play their racist games.
    They will flail and rave and rant:
    Leave them to their hate and cant --
    They will turn on one another in their alt-right toilet bowls.
    Oh, the trolls, tolls, trolls, trolls,
    Trolls, trolls, trolls –
    The selfish self-destructive little trolls.

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [51]

    Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is "no evidence" those countries have produced a terrorist.

    According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

    Yea...

    "No Evidence Of Necessity" whatsoever.. :^/

    Pretty smart of President Obama to compile the appropriate list..

    Pretty damn smart of President Trump to implement it..

    Without an emergency, no president has the power to unilaterally halt the movement of those who have been following legal channels to enter the United States. As no evidence of necessity for the Executive Order was presented upon request of Judge Robart, the Trump administration dropped the ball and therefore lost the hearing. If President Trump was as "damn smart" as you think he is, he would have hired counsel with enough sense to have had this type of evidence readily available upon request. If the United States is attacked, the Trump administration should be rightly held accountable for its failure to build the record behind the Executive Order. Epic fail.

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    Without an emergency, no president has the power to unilaterally halt the movement of those who have been following legal channels to enter the United States.

    USC Title 18, Section 1182, subsection (f) says otherwise..

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Re: 56...

    That's what the Democrat Party has been reduced to..

    A bunch of children hurling name-calling and playground taunts...

    I am sure glad to know that THEY won't be in power for the rest of my lifetime...

  61. [61] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula (52)-
    "resistance is futile"
    -the Borg
    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    I hope you didn't advise your Republican friend to become active with the corporate Democrats. He will not be happy when he finds out he has been fooled again.
    I also hope that you can learn from your friend and realize how you have been fooled by the Democratic Party. The resistance truly is futile if it is invested in supporting the corporate Democrats that should instead be the target of the resistance along with the Republican Party.
    As I said in comment 4- ANY candidate that takes ANY Big Money DOESN'T "get it". Neither do the people that support them.
    It is time for the rank and file Democrats to step into the light and make their party worth supporting. As you are obviously someone that cares about making things better and takes action to try to make it happen, I hope you will work to purge the party of the Big Money corporate influence such as the Clintons so that there will actually be a real resistance to the corporate influence that currently infects both parties.

  62. [62] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (59)-
    " A bunch of children hurling name calling and playground taunts..."
    This was just an awkward attempt by Paula to reach out to Trump supporters on their own level.

    I hope you're right about the Democrats not being in power during your lifetime, provided you live for a long time. That's half the battle won.

    Now if we could just get rid of the Republicans...

  63. [63] 
    Paula wrote:

    Just clarify, I didn't write that poem, a Cleveland poet wrote it and shared it on Facebook. I just like it.

    Re: 60-- Don, it is my belief that at this point in time the most practical thing to do is take over the Dem party from the ground, as opposed to trying to do anything with a 3rd party.

    There is intensive and widespread activism shaping up to that end all over the country. There is tremendous energy being harnessed and shaped. It's actually fun and energizing.

    We'll see what happens.

  64. [64] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    [Michale #58]

    USC Title 18, Section 1182, subsection (f) says otherwise..

    According to its text taken by itself, your assertion appears reasonable on its face and I can certainly appreciate why you'd go there.


    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

    I'm not an attorney and certainly not an attorney immersed in immigration law or policy, but it's reasonable to expect that no law stands only by itself, but is taken in the context of other laws and case history. I doubt the Ninth Circuit would have prevented the reinstatement of the ban if that paragraph was the only factor to consider.

    I'm pretty sure you're also not an attorney familiar with immigration law and policy so perhaps arguing law isn't particularly useful here.

    Indeed, without 3 years of school and years of experience, one shouldn't assume a single paragraph decides everything, something I would hope a national leader would appreciate too.

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    rdnewman,

    It's always nice to have your voice of reason here.

    I still keep wanting to call you randy but, do we know your first name and I've just forgotten?

  66. [66] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    My wife has called me randy, but my name is Richard. Good of you to say hi, Liz!

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Richard! Yes, that's it! I won't forget again. :)

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    So 45's fortitude met with humbling humility this week, in what will probably be the start of a series of blunders until some grown ups can get a hold of the White House.

    Obviously the Muslim ban court case and subsequent appeal losses (Judges 4-0 in favor of the constitution) were degrading enough, vanquishing any pretense of competence, however the more subtle, yet more demeaning incident was the real lesson that I'm sure 45 won't learn.

    Having our strutting, puffed up, self-important buffoon of a President being forced to phone up President Xi and tell him that he would respect the One China policy after all would have punctured even a thick skinned demagog, so I can barely imagine the amount of ego stroking that was required after this call.

    Nick Spencer summed it up beautifully at the time of the Taiwan call:

    https://twitter.com/nickspencer/status/804867054754902018?lang=en

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    USC Title 18, Section 1182, subsection (f) says otherwise..

    Yes it does. I read it a couple of times and then read some analysis of the rulings from both the original Judge and the Court of Appeals. This led me back to the original text of the ban, and it became clear what a complete bunch of @#$%-wits 45 and his minions are.

    Instead of writing an EO that focused on concerns with the vetting process they went into a Stephen King-like horror tale conflating the September 11, 2001 attacks with bad people who don't respect our constitution, and adding a soupçon of indignation over religious intolerance and, for some reason, some pearl clutching about honor killings. Basically they said "Muslim" using as many euphemisms as they could come up with because Rudi had warned them that plain speaking wouldn't fly.

    The indignation of the fanboys was the unintentionally funniest part of this. In a tactic that is being repeated again and again, the defense was thrown out that Obama had done the same thing - in this case targeting Iraqi immigration for six months - and there wasn't a problem. Did it ever occur to Fox News and the fanboys that this meant either:

    1. 45 is so incompetent that he and his minions can't even copy an EO from Obama without screwing it up, or
    2. This was another BS comparison trotted out as a smokescreen?

    (Answer: No)

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    Anticipated humiliations for 45 next week:

    1. Let's hope somebody asks Spicer and "Baghdad Bob" Conway about 45's secret Obamacare replacement plan he told us he would release as soon as Price was confirmed. For six years we've been promised that Obamacare is so bad that repealing it will make things better, but not as good as the Republican's plan. Well the stalling excuses are running out. The tide is going out and we are going to see if 45 and the Republicans have been swimming naked. If that image spoils your sleep, think of the 44,000 people this pathetic rhetoric is going to kill every year.

    2. Episode V: The IC Strikes Back - looks like the CIA weren't as enamored with 45 as he thought. There is likely to be a brewing battle over Flynn's clown posse who were rejected clearance on Friday. This is an intelligence test for 45 - will be be smart enough to let this go and tell Flynn to find somebody else, or will he go into a SNL triggered tweet-storm at 3am? There are very few organizations I'd pointlessly annoy more than the IRS, but the CIA are way up on another scale.

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    Best Steven Colbert line of the week.

    Steve Bannon is the “handsomest guy at the liquor store”.

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone [51]:

    In 51-
    "lower but simpler and more effective corporate taxation"

    As a share of the tax burden, corporate taxes are already half of what they were 40 years ago, so "lower" still is not something I would support.

    There has been a rush to the bottom for corporate taxation over the last 30-40 years resulting in the U.S. having a nominally high rate wrt other nations prompting the inversions we have seen where a small company 'buys' a large company to move it's tax base to a more favorable (e.g. Johnson Controls 'merging' with Tyco and moving its headquarters from Milwaukee to Cork, Ireland).

    Sadly this means that taxing corporations is getting far more complex (which is why I like the Republican's VAT plan with border adjustments - even though they don't call it that because the 'T' stands for Tax).

    So you are right, the corporate burden has gone down, but there is little that can be done without punishing American based companies vs. their international competitors.

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone [51]:

    Criminal prosecutions for fraud need to be pursued vigorously again too.

    Totally. Nothing sharpens the mind of a CEO like a potential jail sentence.

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    This was just an awkward attempt by Paula to reach out to Trump supporters on their own level.

    Ahhhh The ole "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal...

    A classic... For the 3rd grade playground.. :D

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    RD,

    Nice ta see ya still around... :D

    I'm not an attorney and certainly not an attorney immersed in immigration law or policy, but it's reasonable to expect that no law stands only by itself, but is taken in the context of other laws and case history. I doubt the Ninth Circuit would have prevented the reinstatement of the ban if that paragraph was the only factor to consider.

    This is going to come out unduly snooty.. It's 3AM, I just woke up, I'm still tired and I can't figure out a nicer way to put it.. So, apologies for the asshole tone.. :D

    So, basically, your rebuttal consists of "They are judges so they probably know what they are doing".. :D

    See?? Snooty... But I did soften it with a :D ....

    But seriously, the thing is, the law is clear... There is no ambiguity..

    If we argue the law, the judges got this one wrong..

    This case was decided so far on rampant emotionalism and blatant partisanship..

    I'm pretty sure you're also not an attorney familiar with immigration law and policy so perhaps arguing law isn't particularly useful here.

    While I am not an attorney, I am LEO (former, but there really is no such thing ) so I am intimately familiar with the law...

    Indeed, without 3 years of school and years of experience, one shouldn't assume a single paragraph decides everything,

    It does, if we are talking the law..

    If we are talking emotionalism and partisan politics, then yer right..

    It doesn't decide everything...

    Nice ta see ya.. Wish ya could stick around.. :D With a few exceptions, yer the only one around here that responds to logic and is willing to say, "Yer right, Michale.. I was wrong.." :D

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    My wife has called me randy, but my name is Richard. Good of you to say hi, Liz!

    "The only two people who call me 'Randy' are my wife and my basketball coach...'Hay Randy!! Go backdoor!'."
    "....I'm gonna guess that was your basketball coach.."

    -Spin City

    :D

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    Brought forth from a previous commentary..

    So if the police are allowed to be members of white supremacist groups, are they also allowed to be in Black Lives Matter?

    Yes. Yes they can.

    In other words, Black Lives Matter is a black supremacy group along the exact same lines as white supremacy groups..

    I am glad to see that we are all on the same page on this.. :D

    This 'getting along' thing is really working out!! :D

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    I hope you're right about the Democrats not being in power during your lifetime, provided you live for a long time. That's half the battle won.

    Now if we could just get rid of the Republicans...

    You won't get any argument from me..

    The absolute worst thing that has happened to this country is the advent of political Partys...

    The problem around Weigantia is that, for the vast majority of Weigantians (NEN), everything is ALL the Republicans fault...

    Democrats are pure as the driven snow...

    "Ooops.. Looks like the driven snow has a few tire tracks thru it.."
    -Janet Wood, THREES COMPANY

    :D

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    USC Title 18, Section 1182, subsection (f) says otherwise..

    Yes it does.

    Once again, we are all on the same page... :D

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Anyone else here giving extreme thanks that President Trump was with the Japanese leader this evening when the North Korean missile was launched?

    Did you know that, when a North Korean missile goes up, no one knows for sure where it's going to come down!? Geez. I mean, geez ...

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all simply HAVE to admire the genius that is President Trump...

    He throws out an Executive Order... The Left goes hysterical batshit crazy, fights the order tooth and nail, giving away all their legal talking points and strategy...

    The President Trump issues a NEW EO that takes into account ALL the legal crap the Left has spewed up, an EO that eliminates ANY legal challenge and then ADDS dozens more countries to the new EO!! :D

    In military parlance, the commander sent out probing fire, the enemy panicked and fired wildly and blindly, giving away all their positions and allowed the commander to totally decimate the enemy positions.. :D

    Genius... Pure genius...

    Once again, President Trump has played the Left and the Left walked RIGHT into it... :D

    The Left is totally and completely predictable....

    It's going to be a REALLY fun 87 years... :D

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    Did you know that, when a North Korean missile goes up, no one knows for sure where it's going to come down!? Geez. I mean, geez ...

    Seems to me that's a perfect case for the US to destroy all the NK launch sites with cruise missiles, no??

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's going to be a REALLY fun 87 years... :D

    That was a joke, right?

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    It's going to be a REALLY fun 87 years... :D

    Er... make that 8 years....

    Fat fingers strikes again.... :^/ heh

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    It's going to be a REALLY fun 87 years... :D

    That was a joke, right?

    Nope, just fat fingers.. :D

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think the US and its allies are going to have to get creative, at long last, in dealing with North Korea.

    Something, more subtle than cruise missiles and without the disastrous consequences, especially for China and South Korea.

  87. [87] 
    michale wrote:

    Something, more subtle than cruise missiles and without the disastrous consequences, especially for China and South Korea.

    "Subtle" has been tried for what?? 50 years??

    The ONLY effective way to deal with a bully is to bloody their nose with a cruise missile.. :D

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, no Michale ... creative subtle ... that hasn't been really tried yet.

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    No, no Michale ... creative subtle ... that hasn't been really tried yet.

    I am sure it has...

    Irregardless, North Korea is a bully... There is only one sure and effective way to deal with a bully...

    Diplomacy, sanctions and oodles and oodles of carrots have all been tried.. None has proven effective..

    Kim is like a little puppy who has had all the treats in futile attempts to potty train him...

    Now it's time for a big slap on the nose...

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    Did you know that, when a North Korean missile goes up, no one knows for sure where it's going to come down!? Geez. I mean, geez ...

    You yourself made the case for a cruise missile strike...

    What if, while all the creative solutions are being attempted, NK launches a missile that accidentally hits Japanese soil...???

    If a chimpanzee has a loaded M-16 in a crowd, do you:

    A> try subtle diplomacy to get him to drop it??

    or

    2> shoot him..

    Think Harambe...

    I can invoke all sorts of analogies that show that the only logical and rational approach is to destroy the launch sites..

    If you want, we can be humanitarian about it and do overflights and drop leaflets to warn any occupants of the impending strike....

    But if Un wants to act like a spoiled baby brat, the only logical response is to take his toys away and spank him until he learns to behave...

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    45 wants to cut funds the "Countering Violent Extremism" program - turns out, that since most of the violent extremists are right wingers, his supporters want the heat taken off them.

    I DID comment on this..

    It's not that President Trump wants to cut funds to the CVE program..

    Fourth Muslim group rejects federal grant to fight extremism
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article132146279.html

    It's that American muslim groups don't WANT to combat islamic extremism...

    So, yer claim that I didn't address this is totally bogus..

    In fact, I do believe I addressed it even BEFORE you accused me of not addressing it.. :D

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    The President Trump issues a NEW EO that takes into account ALL the legal crap the Left has spewed up, an EO that eliminates ANY legal challenge and then ADDS dozens more countries to the new EO!! :D

    In military parlance, the commander sent out probing fire, the enemy panicked and fired wildly and blindly, giving away all their positions and allowed the commander to totally decimate the enemy positions.. :D

    Genius... Pure genius...

    You watch...

    I'll wager 1000 quatloos that President Trump issues a new EO that addresses the legal hysteria of the Left Wingery and is WORSE for the Left Wingery agenda....

  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    USC Title 18, Section 1182, subsection (f) says otherwise..

    Yes it does.

    Once again, we are all on the same page... :D

    It was a pretty high stupidity bar that 45 and the minions cleared to write an EO that failed when they had this little beauty in their back pocket, but yet they managed. Particularly as they had Obama's EO to use as a basis.

    Problem is, Obama didn't have a BS reason for his EO. He had he Bowling Green criminals (yes, those same criminals that didn't commit "Baghdad Bob" Conway's Bowling Green "Massacre").

    So all 45 has to do is remove all the crap about 9/11, honor killings, etc., etc., or explain why there is an urgent need to violate the constitution. In particular:

    1. Equal protection (14th Amendment) - singling out by religion and nationality

    2. Religious freedom (1st Amendment) - no more calls for judges to prioritize refugees who are Christian

    3. Due process (5th and 14th Amendments) - you can't just ban green card holders arbitrarily

    4. Habeas Corpus (yes, this clown violated Habeas @#$%ing Corpus) - words fail me, but even non-citizens can't be deported just by a wave of a hand from "the King".

    Of course, 45 could just have got some competent lawyers to write the EO in the first place and had none of these problems. Now he is in a hole and any new EO will immediately by compared to the last piece of used toilet paper.

    Pathetic.

    However Michale is probably right, once he figures out how to write one of these things without all the "I hate Muslims" drivel he will try to expand its coverage. But I'll bet Saudi Arabia and Egypt, home to most of the 9/11 hijackers, will still be off the list.

  94. [94] 
    neilm wrote:

    In military parlance, the commander sent out probing fire, the enemy panicked and fired wildly and blindly, giving away all their positions and allowed the commander to totally decimate the enemy positions.. :D

    Or, a more likely analogy, a King with incompetent generals just got a whole pile of stormtroopers killed in a 4-0 massacre, and now has to try again to do things right, but the task is a lot harder because the plucky resistance knows the evil empire is on the move and where it is attacking.

  95. [95] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula (63)-
    "...at this point in time the most practical thing to do is take over the DEM party from the ground"
    Absolutely. That is the right thing for you to do.
    This is why you should participate in Voucher Vendetta and get your Democratic, Republican, third party and independent friends to also participate.
    Uniting with all these citizens to demand small contribution candidates from all parties and candidates will sever the symbiotic relationship with the Big Money contributors and the establishment and anti-establishment power structures. This will help you to work on improving the Dems while at the same time create viability for third parties and independents to be competitive with the CMPs.
    You don't have be a third party supporter, but only the credible threat that you MIGHT BECOME a third party supporter will get the Dem establishment power structure to change their ways.

  96. [96] 
    neilm wrote:

    Just as an ironic aside for the right wing, it was Obergefell v. Hodges (the case establishing Gay marriage that right wingers particularly hate) that was the cherry on the cake for 45's big fail in court.

    Obergefell v. Hodges strengthened the ties between Due Process and Equal Protection that helped obliterate the EO in court.

    Great article that was very valuable reading for the above posts here:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/here_are_all_the_parts_of_the_constitution_trump_s_muslim_ban_violates.html

  97. [97] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (78)-
    "The absolute worst thing that has happened to this country is the advent of political parties"
    "Yer right Michale and I was..." -
    I guess I was right, too.
    Well, that's half the battle.

  98. [98] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    72

    "a nominally high rate"

    Um, since the effective corporate tax rate (after the campaign donation purchased tax evasion loopholes and promises of highly lucrative future employment for our Congresscritters) is actually lower than the nominal rate in Ireland, I'm not sure that argument makes sense.
    It seems like there is a secondary benefit to inversions that isn't being discussed in the media.

    As for "there is little that can be done", it would seem that international cooperation that eliminates the ability of the large corporations to play one country off of another is needed... similar to your suggestion for banking regulations.
    All countries being squeezed by this race to the bottom have an incentive to cooperate.
    Since America is considered an international low tax haven, a little leading by example could go a long way.

    Through no fault of your own, I'm not sold on the Republican (danger!!) plan you believe would help. If you come across a solid explanation that is a little easier to understand, please share.
    And maybe explain why, if it is an effective remedy, the corporation coddling Republicans support it.

    And, btw, I also forgot to add the elimination of tax breaks for offshoring as a condition to the free trade debate.
    I believe you already agree with me on that one, but I meant to add it for other readers.

    A

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    Um, since the effective corporate tax rate (after the campaign donation purchased tax evasion loopholes and promises of highly lucrative future employment for our Congresscritters) is actually lower than the nominal rate in Ireland, I'm not sure that argument makes sense.
    It seems like there is a secondary benefit to inversions that isn't being discussed in the media.

    The nominal rate in the U.S. is 35%, the nominal rate in Ireland is 12.5% - and you are right, there are ways to offset the tax burdens in both jurisdictions, however the starting point is a lot lower in Ireland. I'm not an international corporate tax law expert, but just looking at the activity in this area indicates that making Ireland your tax home seems to be beneficial and thus companies are trying to do this.

    Regarding the removal of tax encouragement for offshoring, this is an area where we agree, and it seems his orange highness also claims he wants to address, however since he got elected Supreme Emperor of Dysfunctia he seems to have lost a lot of interest in sticking it to the rich and powerful (who could have seen that one coming? Maybe those of us calling him a con man from day one?).

    The Republican's tax plan mechanisms are business friendly for two reasons, one I support and the other I expect from them, but am pissed about.

    The one I support is that the new mechanism is simpler and will result in higher compliance, plus it puts American businesses on a competitive par - the mechanism proposed, even though Republicans vehemently deny it if Grover Nitwit is in the room as based on a Value Added Tax (VAT) with rebates for exporters and border adjustments (taxes) for importers. It will benefit large exporters such as our high end manufacturing companies at the expense of large importers such as Walmart.

    The part I don't like is where they are going to set the rate - they are talking about 15% or 20% - it needs to be 25% to be revenue neutral. However it is a lot easier to increase existing tax rates than it is to impose new taxes, and so for the longer term this is just another tax cut to the wealthy that the Republicans are going to impose now they have the White House, the House and the Senate - so I see this as the best evil.

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    However Michale is probably right,

    I heard 'Michale is probably right' and then what?? :D

    once he figures out how to write one of these things without all the "I hate Muslims" drivel he will try to expand its coverage. But I'll bet Saudi Arabia and Egypt, home to most of the 9/11 hijackers, will still be off the list.

    You didn't mind when the Obama Administration kissed SA's ass...

    So you don't get to complain when the Trump administration does..

    It's a rule.. :D

    "Well, it's actually more of a guideline than a rule.."
    -Bill Murray, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    However it is a lot easier to increase existing tax rates than it is to impose new taxes, and so for the longer term this is just another tax cut to the wealthy that the Republicans are going to impose now they have the White House, the House and the Senate - so I see this as the best evil.

    Rewrite - sorry, meant to say:

    However it is a lot easier to increase existing tax rates than it is to impose new taxes, and so for the short term this is just another tax cut to the wealthy that the Republicans are going to impose now they have the White House, the House and the Senate anyway - but in the longer term the tax can be increased so I see the short term option as the best evil.

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale: (moved forward)

    Any evidence that you attacked Trump like this when he was a Democrat??

    Wow... loads of it. It started back in the 1970s when Trump was being sued by the United States of America for housing discrimination and hasn't relented one day since. Roy Cohn, lawyer to the mob and aide to crazy drunk red-baiter Joseph McCarthy was Trump's mentor and mob go between... wait...

    I just realized I don't give a hang if you don't believe me. Next.

    President Trump was working from President Obama's list..

    If you have an issue with those that are not on the list, but should be, you'll have to take it up with President Obama..

    Heh.. I would LOVE to see that.. :D

    Oh, please. You can't really be this obtuse. And please, Donald Trump knows zero about "Obama's list," and who was it that mandated that Miller/Bannon's Executive Order that was supposedly enacted in order to protect Americans from "the others" had to use "Obama's list"? That was the Trump administration's choice. If the object of the exercise was actually to protect Americans, they would have drafted an Executive Order than actually did include those who actually did attack us, have it properly vetted and proven up and been prepared to defend it in court. But the Trump administration's lawyers went into court and presented zero evidence of emergency or necessity. That is on Trump... has nothing to do with Obama... and is demonstrative of incompetence.

    Stephen Miller and Roy Cohn... creepy resemblance.

  103. [103] 
    michale wrote:

    Wow... loads of it. It started back in the 1970s when Trump was being sued by the United States of America for housing discrimination and hasn't relented one day since. Roy Cohn, lawyer to the mob and aide to crazy drunk red-baiter Joseph McCarthy was Trump's mentor and mob go between... wait...

    Please link me to the comments you made against President Trump at the time..

    If your only evidence is your word, I am happy to accept that as valid..

    Just remember that I did...

    Oh, please. You can't really be this obtuse. And please, Donald Trump knows zero about "Obama's list,"

    Prove it.....

  104. [104] 
    michale wrote:

    But the Trump administration's lawyers went into court and presented zero evidence of emergency or necessity.

    And the State lawyers produced ZERO evidence that President Trump's EO was not valid or legal..

    What's yer point??

  105. [105] 
    michale wrote:

    But the Trump administration's lawyers went into court and presented zero evidence of emergency or necessity.

    Nice, Berlin, Brussels, Ansbach, Wurzburg, Paris x2, Orlando, San Bernardino, Ohio State University, etc etc...

    Necessity is well established...

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

    HA!!!!!

    Let the Left Wingery spin begin!!!!! :D

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    THAT is ya'all's so-called "science"....

    Nothing but a political partisan agenda at work...

    I have 2 items left on my Bucket List..

    One of them is that the huge global warming con will be exposed for the bullshit that it is..

    I am coming very close to crossing that off my list.. :D

  108. [108] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [39]

    And because of that, in your mind, she is not credible to speak of MLK related matters..

    Liar. I have nothing against Alveda King.

    Like I said.. Inherent Left Wing bias colors your entire thought process..

    That wasn't my "thought process"; it was your thought process and yet another lie you've made up about me in order to label me a Party bigot. It's your MO; it's what you do... your obsession. You either twist a comment around or make up a lie about a commenter in order to call them a Party bigot. And this utter nonsense plays out over and over and over.

    If Ms King DID toe your Party line, she would be A-OK and very credible..

    Because she DOESN'T toe your Party line, she's not...

    I don't have a Party line, and if I did it wouldn't make somebody/anybody more or less credible just because they agreed with me. Lots of people don't agree with my every view, but they're extremely credible people who just happen to hold different views than me.

    Yep.. No bias there... :D

    Not content to do it once in a single comment, you had to label me twice.

    So you stated that "MLK's family was disgusted" with Elizabeth Warren's "actions and publicly stated so." I then pointed out that by "MLK's family" you probably meant Alveda King, MLK's niece, who is a right-wing activist and employee of Fox News. My point was that it's kind of disingenuous to invoke "MLK's family" as being against Elizabeth Warren's actions when you're most likely referring to merely one of them. That's all... nothing more.

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    Liar. I have nothing against Alveda King.

    Really??

    So being a "a right-wing activist and an employee of Fox News" is absolutely not a problem with you?? :D

    I don't have a Party line,

    Yea... That's what all Party Line toe'ers say :D

    My point was that it's kind of disingenuous to invoke "MLK's family" as being against Elizabeth Warren's actions when you're most likely referring to merely one of them.

    Who is MLK's family...

    But I'll remind you of this indignation when you spout off about a single person and ascribe them to an entire group.. :D

  110. [110] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is "no evidence" those countries have produced a terrorist.

    According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

    Are Trump's attorneys just so horrible that they failed to cite these cases when they argued in front of the 9th Court of Appeals (Because they would have had access to all of this info ) OR did they fail to mention this because this was from a fake news site?

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [104]

    And the State lawyers produced ZERO evidence that President Trump's EO was not valid or legal..

    Maybe you just don't know what the evidence is. Educate yourself.

    https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    My point was that it's kind of disingenuous to invoke "MLK's family" as being against Elizabeth Warren's actions when you're most likely referring to merely one of them.

    Yet, you have NO PROBLEM when Elizabeth Warren invokes "merely one of them" as MLK's family when it's against President Trump...

    You see how logically untenable your position is???

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    Maybe you just don't know what the evidence is. Educate yourself.

    Ahhhh

    So, the states, which support your Left Wingery agenda did good and the Government, headed by a guy with an '-R' after his name, whom you hate, did crappy..

    Yea... NO AGENDA there.. :D

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    OR did they fail to mention this because this was from a fake news site?

    Of course, "fake news site" being defined as any site that doesn't toe the Left Wingery agenda line... :D

    So, any chance you could actually refute the FACTS presented???

    With FACTS of your own, is probably too much to ask for.. :^/

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't have a Party line,

    And yet EVERYTHING you say and EVERYTHING you believe is 1000% inline with EVERYTHING that is the Democrat Party agenda...

    Yea.. YOU don't have a Party line.. :D

    Tell me one thing that differentiates you from the Democrat Party or the Left Wingery line....

    You can't....

    Ergo, a Party line is ALL you have...

  116. [116] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting article about food imports and exports.

    https://mishtalk.com/2017/02/12/killing-the-trade-golden-goose-farmers-rattled-by-trumps-nafta-rescinding-plans/#more-44091

    The key point made here is the size of export markets:

    Moreover, with a slowing population growth rate at home, more than 97 percent of the anticipated population growth over the next 35 years is anticipated to take place outside of US borders.

    So if 45 is stupid enough to start trade wars or screw around with trade deals, the long term loser is America - not just Ag, but all export industries will lose their main source of future growth. Thus the larger companies will tilt future investment overseas, and upcoming U.S. born companies will look to offshore sooner.

    Our share of World trade has been fairly level over the last 20-30 years, despite goosing from our soaring trade deficits, so if we are to remain the most desirable single nation to have as a trading partner we either need to suddenly and dramatically grow our GDP so we can afford more imports, or further expand our already outsize trade imbalance. Neither of these is likely to happen, so over the next 20-30 years we are going to drop down the table of largest importers, losing our top place for the first time since probably the 19th Century. This will not improve our chances of defining trade on preferential terms, even if we suddenly decide we want to help our workers who are victims of capitalism.

    I can only hope that the business community start laying down the law to the 45 regime and tell them that they can call the TPP whatever they want - The Trump Perfect Plan if his ego is that fragile - but a trade deal with the fastest growing economies of the Asia-Pacific region that also doesn't include China and is basically on our terms is a bloody good idea and one we should take while we can.

  117. [117] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, any chance you could actually refute the FACTS presented???

    With FACTS of your own, is probably too much to ask for.. :^/

    If there were any FACTS presented, that might have been a possibility for me.

    The article makes some odd claims:

    Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes, and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment.

    We send terrorists convicted of "very serious terror-related crimes" to prison for a whopping 3 whole years??? Are we sadists?

    From the website publishing the report cited in the article regarding where it got the information:

    The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary published by Fox News is available here.

    The spreadsheet doesn't seem to have any notation that indicates it is a government report. It also claims that at least one person was convicted for using a weapon of mass destruction against our country and sentenced to 15 yrs in prison.

  118. [118] 
    neilm wrote:

    It is looking more and more like the Chinese threatened to cancel a large Boeing deal to bring 45 to heel.

    Not only that, the timing of the apology call was seen as additionally humiliating. 45 needed to make sure President Xi was placated before the Japanese premier's visit.

    Having spent time working with officials in both the Chinese and Japanese treasury departments, the antipathy towards Japan from China is more intense than most Americans would expect, and the Japanese are either very diplomatic or oblivious to the intensity.

    The good news is that this means somebody in the White House has 45 on short leash and understands the reality of foreign relations.

  119. [119] 
    neilm wrote:

    What’s going on was explained lucidly by a senior Pentagon intelligence official, who stated that “since January 20, we’ve assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the SITROOM,” meaning the White House Situation Room, the 5,500 square-foot conference room in the West Wing where the president and his top staffers get intelligence briefings. “There’s not much the Russians don’t know at this point,” the official added in wry frustration.

    Holy Crap! If only 5% of this article is true, 45 should be facing impeachment. Sadly, probably most of it is true. The nature of these things is that the general public cannot know for sure until a senior official goes on the record.

    Just as a note, the Observer is owned by 45's son-in-law and Ivanka's husband Jared Kushner. This article must be prompting some interesting family dinner chats.

    http://observer.com/2017/02/donald-trump-administration-mike-flynn-russian-embassy/

  120. [120] 
    neilm wrote:

    Am I the last person to know that the Yemen raid killed an 8-year-old American girl? Did I miss this or was it conveniently not brought up?

  121. [121] 
    michale wrote:

    If there were any FACTS presented, that might have been a possibility for me.

    Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes, and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment.

    Looks like a fact to me....

    Do you have any facts to refute it???

    We send terrorists convicted of "very serious terror-related crimes" to prison for a whopping 3 whole years???

    You find it unusual that a terrorist who committed a very serious crime was just given a small slap on the wrist, likely from a liberal judge??

    Where have YOU been for the last 8 years??

    Are we sadists?

    Nope.. Just coming off a VERY lame administration who thought terrorism was a police matter and who had very liberal judges giving stern admonishments... :^/

    It also claims that at least one person was convicted for using a weapon of mass destruction against our country and sentenced to 15 yrs in prison.

    Yea??? So???

    Regardless, the simple fact is the Left Wingery claimed that the countries on President Obama's list that President Trump used had nothing to do with terrorism...

    The facts say otherwise..

    The Left Wingery is wrong.. AGAIN...

  122. [122] 
    michale wrote:

    Holy Crap! If only 5% of this article is true, 45 should be facing impeachment. Sadly, probably most of it is true. The nature of these things is that the general public cannot know for sure until a senior official goes on the record.

    This is what passes for "facts" around here....

    "Oh, it's probably true so we should just kill 'im!!"

    Sad....

    So, if I understand you correctly, it's the fervent goal of the ENTIRETY of the Left Wingery, including each and every Weigantian to make President Trump a one-term POTUS and that goal will be pursued with a passion and zeal unheard of since the last administration..

    Hmmmmmm

    Didn't ya'all severely castigate and demonize the Right for that EXACT attitude???

    Who would have EVER thunked it that, when a GOP POTUS entered the White House, the entirety of the Left Wingery would act EXACTLY as they accused the Right of acting...

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted THAT would happen!??

    Oh... wait.... :D

  123. [123] 
    michale wrote:

    Heh.... :D

    3-0
    -Hillary Clinton Twit about the liberal judges' ruling on President Trump's Executive Order...

    PA, WI, MI
    -KellyAnne Conway's version of 3-0 in response..

    hehehehehehehe

    Now THAT's funny!! :D

    I was also looking at Hillary's Twit account...

    Wife, mom, grandma, women+kids advocate, FLOTUS, Senator, SecState, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, 2016 presidential candidate.

    Hmmmmm Nothing there about PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES..

    :D

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    But the Trump administration's lawyers went into court and presented zero evidence of emergency or necessity.

    The fact that the Left Wingery would require evidence of necessity to combat islamic terrorism proves how moronic and far off the reservation the Left Wingery has become..

  125. [125] 
    michale wrote:

    This one, sadly, is also pretty easy to pick this week.

    Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia was the only Democrat to vote to confirm Jeff Sessions this week. There's really no excuse for this, not even: "C'mon, I'm up for re-election next year."

    Manchin's vote earns him his fifth Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, but we suspect it won't be his last.

    Yea, Democrats should PRIMARY his ass!!!

    Hand a Blue State over to the GOP.... What could possibly go wrong!! :D

    Considering the utterly dismal electoral picture the Democrats are facing in 2018, one would think that they wouldn't antagonize anyone that might go over to the GOP.. :D

    From a tactical point of view.......

    I'm just saying..

  126. [126] 
    michale wrote:

    This one, sadly, is also pretty easy to pick this week.

    Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia was the only Democrat to vote to confirm Jeff Sessions this week. There's really no excuse for this, not even: "C'mon, I'm up for re-election next year."

    Manchin's vote earns him his fifth Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, but we suspect it won't be his last.

    Yea, Democrats should PRIMARY his ass!!!

    Hand a Blue State over to the GOP.... What could possibly go wrong!! :D

    Considering the utterly dismal electoral picture the Democrats are facing in 2018, one would think that they wouldn't antagonize anyone that might go over to the GOP.. :D

    From a tactical point of view.......

    I'm just saying..

  127. [127] 
    michale wrote:

    The good news is that this means somebody in the White House has 45 on short leash and understands the reality of foreign relations.

    OK, great.. Does that mean you will stop bitching and moaning about President Trump?? :D

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [109]

    So being a "a right-wing activist and an employee of Fox News" is absolutely not a problem with you?? :D

    Isn't it great to live in a country where we are free to have an opinion and be different? *AND* She actually gets paid to give her opinion so... as the saying goes... more power to her.

    But I'll remind you of this indignation when you spout off about a single person and ascribe them to an entire group.. :D

    "Indignation"? ROTFL :D

  129. [129] 
    michale wrote:

    Are Democrats Falling Into Trump’s Trap?
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/opinion/are-democrats-falling-into-trumps-trap.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

    I saids it befores and I'll says it agains..

    Democrats are getting played by President Trump...

  130. [130] 
    michale wrote:

    Isn't it great to live in a country where we are free to have an opinion and be different? *AND* She actually gets paid to give her opinion so... as the saying goes... more power to her.

    So, you don't have a problem with her advocacy and activism and her employment with Fox News??

    "Indignation"? ROTFL :D

    I calls 'em as I sees 'em...

    And I have been correct a LOT more often than I have been wrong of late, so..... :D

  131. [131] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, if I understand you correctly, it's the fervent goal of the ENTIRETY of the Left Wingery, including each and every Weigantian to make President Trump a one-term POTUS and that goal will be pursued with a passion and zeal unheard of since the last administration..

    I don't know about the ENTIRETY and every Weigantian, but for me, yup - the sooner this clown is gone the better.

  132. [132] 
    neilm wrote:

    Democrats are getting played by President Trump...

    Yeah, can you believe they foisted Mike "Own Goal" Flynn on 45 and insisted on the asinine wording of the Muslim Ban EO?

    Bad Democrats!

  133. [133] 
    TheStig wrote:

    To date, and it is still early in the 1st 100 days, Trump's most impressive accomplishment has been to make Saturday Night Live great again.

    Trump's is the Keister Administration. It is amazing/disturbing to see what this guy routinely pulls out of his ass. Yet another new normal.

  134. [134] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [112]

    Yet, you have NO PROBLEM when Elizabeth Warren invokes "merely one of them" as MLK's family when it's against President Trump...

    You see how logically untenable your position is???

    My "position"? So you just make up whatever load of BS you want and then call it someone's "position"? LOL

    It wasn't about PT. Senator Warren was reading a letter written by Coretta Scott King about Jeff Sessions.

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

    Perhaps if she had been reading a disparaging letter about PT it wouldn't have broken that Senate rule. LOL :)

  135. [135] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well it looks like most of Mexico turned out yesterday to show to politicians down there what will happen to them if they even hint at paying for the moronic wall.

    So we, the taxpayers, are going to have to pay for a completely pointless ego trip, and now we are hearing the price has doubled.

    I'll pay for the wall happily once 5,000 employers of illegal immigrants are in long term prison terms and we still have an illegal immigration problem.

  136. [136] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'll pay for the wall happily once 5,000 employers of illegal immigrants are in long term prison terms and we still have an illegal immigration problem.

    And after their assets have been seized as a downpayment, or maybe even full payment of the moronic wall.

    Not a peep about that criminal asset forfeiture from 45 or his minions.

  137. [137] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump's most impressive accomplishment has been to make Saturday Night Live great again.

    Good one. I'd add two words just to twist the knife:

    Trump's most impressive accomplishment has been to make the failing Saturday Night Live great again.

  138. [138] 
    michale wrote:

    My "position"? So you just make up whatever load of BS you want and then call it someone's "position"? LOL

    I am going by what you say..

    Don't blame me.. It's YOUR position..

    It wasn't about PT. Senator Warren was reading a letter written by Coretta Scott King about Jeff Sessions.

    So??? It's just a letter from ONE of the King family... According to you, it has no relevance to anything..

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    I'll pay for the wall happily once 5,000 employers of illegal immigrants are in long term prison terms and we still have an illegal immigration problem.

    You mean, those poor farmers you were commiserating with a hundred comments ago??

    So, basically, you will side with ANYONE if it's against President Trump.. even if you were attacking them before..

    I really hope you don't hurt your neck from all the 180s ya'all are doing. :D

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    To date, and it is still early in the 1st 100 days, Trump's most impressive accomplishment has been to make Saturday Night Live great again.

    Trump's is the Keister Administration. It is amazing/disturbing to see what this guy routinely pulls out of his ass. Yet another new normal.

    And yet, President Trump's approval rating continues to rise...

    So, apparently, ya are wrong.. AGAIN..

    I guess yer getting used to that, eh TS?? :D

  141. [141] 
    neilm wrote:

    But I'll remind you of this indignation when you spout off about a single person and ascribe them to an entire group.. :D

    "Indignation"? ROTFL :D

    Michale just won the "calling the kettle black" award for at least a decade.

  142. [142] 
    neilm wrote:

    You mean, those poor farmers you were commiserating with a hundred comments ago??

    No, the ones I was laughing at a few hundred comments ago.

  143. [143] 
    neilm wrote:

    I really hope you don't hurt your neck from all the 180s ya'all are doing. :D

    Don't worry about me, I'll be fine. Worry about the wheels coming of the White House bus. Flynn, Spicer, Conway - which will be first to go?

    My money is on Flynn - he is just too much of a liability.

    Conway will be judged just to be a victim of SNL and CNN for a few more weeks and is probably smart enough to stop with the blatant lies.

    Spicer won't be replaced until they find somebody willing to take his place - so there will be a long dig down to the bottom of the barrel - they might even get right down there to Stephen Miller, which would be exquisite (at least for comic purposes).

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    No, the ones I was laughing at a few hundred comments ago.

    How elitist of you..

    You make a fine liberal... :D

    Michale just won the "calling the kettle black" award for at least a decade.

    du auch... :D

  145. [145] 
    michale wrote:

    Don't worry about me, I'll be fine. Worry about the wheels coming of the White House bus. Flynn, Spicer, Conway - which will be first to go?

    Once again, I am amazed you keep blithely making prediction after prediction after prediction.

    AND NONE OF THEM have ever come to pass..

    Yer giving the Global Warming fanatics a run for their money in the MOST PREDICTIONS THAT NEVER HAPPENED contest.. :D

  146. [146] 
    neilm wrote:

    Other replacements for Spicer:

    Hannity - we know that idiot will believe anything.

    Alex Jones - the fun watching him get tripped up daily as his addled brain spins one conspiracy after the other would be timeless.

    Dana Perino - if they could talk her into the job again

  147. [147] 
    neilm wrote:

    Once again, I am amazed you keep blithely making prediction after prediction after prediction.

    It is fun. And you know what, I might get a 50-1 chance come in. Like you did.

  148. [148] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nice try to pivot to Global Warming, but let's just stick to the slow motion disaster that is 45's White House.

    So, your prediction is that Flynn, Spicer and Conway will all be in the same place in six month's time?

  149. [149] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [113]

    "Ahhhh

    So, the states, which support your Left Wingery agenda did good and the Government, headed by a guy with an '-R' after his name, whom you hate, did crappy..

    Yea... NO AGENDA there.. :D"

    Oh, surprise! More made up BS from you that supposedly represents what I think. Wrong! Sad!

    You said the states didn't present any evidence to prove their case, and I said "educate yourself" and gave you a link to evidence presented. The states actually represent the constitutional rights of their constituents.

    Try not reading more into it than that. LOL :}

  150. [150] 
    michale wrote:

    It is fun. And you know what, I might get a 50-1 chance come in. Like you did.

    Except MY predictions with regards to President Trump were based on FACTS..

    Ya'all's predictions with regards to President Trump are ALL solely based on ideology and wishful thinking.

    That's why I was always right and ya'all were always wrong.. :D

    So, your prediction is that Flynn, Spicer and Conway will all be in the same place in six month's time?

    Yep.... Care to wager??? :D

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, surprise! More made up BS from you that supposedly represents what I think. Wrong! Sad!

    And you can PROVE that, right?? :D

    No?? Didna think so... :D

    You said the states didn't present any evidence to prove their case, and I said "educate yourself" and gave you a link to evidence presented. The states actually represent the constitutional rights of their constituents.

    Their constituents had no dog in the hunt...

    Ergo, their claims were based on nothing but ideology...

  152. [152] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [115]

    And yet EVERYTHING you say and EVERYTHING you believe is 1000% inline with EVERYTHING that is the Democrat Party agenda...

    Yea.. YOU don't have a Party line.. :D

    Perhaps you are confusing your own made up BS as my position?

    Tell me one thing that differentiates you from the Democrat Party or the Left Wingery line....

    You can't....

    Of course I can, but then it's infinitely more fun watching you make yourself look foolish prattling on and on about what I supposedly believe. LOL :)

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all's predictions with regards to President Trump are ALL solely based on ideology and wishful thinking.

    And THAT is why ya'all are always wrong when it comes to President Trump..

    Because you see things as you WISH them to be, not as they really are..

    You see a Democrat Party that is viable and vibrant, but the reality is that the Democrat Party is so far out of the mainstream that they simply CANNOT find their way back...

    You see a Democrat Party that is relevant but the reality is the Democrat Party is in the worst shape than it's been in a century...

    With ya'all's ideological blinders you simply cannot SEE reality, let alone acknowledge it..

    It's like Liz said about arrogance..

    It's so ingrained and part of ya'all's psyche, you can't acknowledge the facts and reality...

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    Perhaps you are confusing your own made up BS as my position?

    Perhaps you can offer FACTS to support your claim...

    Of course I can, but then it's infinitely more fun watching you make yourself look foolish prattling on and on about what I supposedly believe.

    TRANSLATION:
    I GOT NUTTIN

    My point is proven.. :D

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    With ya'all's ideological blinders you simply cannot SEE reality, let alone acknowledge it..

    It's like Liz said about arrogance..

    It's so ingrained and part of ya'all's psyche, you can't acknowledge the facts and reality...

    Ya'all are like alcoholics who insist that they have no problem with drinking as they are busted for the 10th time for deuce...

  156. [156] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [125]

    Manchin's vote earns him his fifth Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, but we suspect it won't be his last.

    Yea, Democrats should PRIMARY his ass!!!

    Hand a Blue State over to the GOP.... What could possibly go wrong!! :D

    In what alternate reality is West Virginia "a Blue State"? *LOL*

  157. [157] 
    michale wrote:

    In what alternate reality is West Virginia "a Blue State"? *LOL*

    It is, insofar as it's Democrat Senator is concerned...

    Which is what we were talking about...

    And Manchin is VERY popular in WV, regardless of him being a Democrat..

    Do you honestly believe that any other Democrat could win WV??

    Ergo, if the Democrat Party primaries Manchin and Manchin LOSES, the Dem who beat him in the Primary will get nuked in the General...

    If the Democrat Party primaries Manchin and Manchin prevails, it might just piss him off enough that he joins the GOP...

    Either way, it's typical of the Democrat Party in the here and now..

    It doesn't know what the frak it's doing...

  158. [158] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Soros's funding of violent protest groups is well documented.."

    You do know that has been debunked numerous times and has only been promoted by right wing conspiracy sites that never offer any real proof, other than possibly the fact that he has made some contributions to progressive organizations.

    And in any case, it still doesn't do anything to prove that constituents outside a congressman's own district are being paid to protest that particular congressman at all.

    But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, right? :-D

  159. [159] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "JM,

    But if you REALLY want to talk about Facebook People..."

    Really? That's all you got that you could come up with? A self-promotional ad by the Trump Administration itself?

  160. [160] 
    michale wrote:

    In what alternate reality is West Virginia "a Blue State"? *LOL*

    But, credit where credit is due..

    You DO have a valid point..

    In the reality of the here and now, there aren't many Blue States anymore.. :D heh

    Remember the fabled BIG BLUE WALL?? Crumbled like one of President Trump's buildings.. :D

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that!??

    Oh.... wait... :D

  161. [161] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [130]

    I calls 'em as I sees 'em...

    And I have been correct a LOT more often than I have been wrong of late, so..... :D

    Not about me, you haven't. Your droning and prattling on and on with your BS about me is utter nonsense. Try NOT putting words in people's mouths you know little about. How would you like it if someone posted things about you... with the exception that those things were actually true? LOL :D

  162. [162] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not that it matters, but I realized I must officially withdraw Voucher Vendetta and "GET YOUR BALLS BACK" from the sloganeering contest. My apologies to all that were excited about having such a great name and slogan for the Tea Party for the left.
    VV doesn't qualify because it is not only for the left, it is for all citizens to work together against the Big Money corporate interests that control BOTH CMPs.
    While it is doubtful that left will choose this name, the best name for the Tea Party for the left seems to be the People for Pointless Progressive Protest. The slogan should be "Bending Over in the Streets".
    This would capture the true nature of the Tea Party for the left. Go to rallies to protest what Trump and the Republicans are doing and support the corporate Democrats because they will not be as bad as the Republicans.
    I am not withdrawing VV and the slogan as the movement and slogan we need. But we really don't need a Tea Party for the left that will be funded by the corporations like the Tea Party of the right.
    Those on the left that continue to support and vote for the Big Money corporate Democrats are just wasting their time protesting Trump and the Republicans while blowing an opportunity to change the Democratic Party.
    Now is the time apply pressure on the Democratic Party by demanding that the candidates finance their campaigns with small contributions which will purge the Big Money interests from the party.
    If you want the Big Money out of politics, then VV is the way to make it happen in 2018. There is no legislation or constitutional amendment that will be passed and implemented by then. This does not mean that legislative efforts should be abandoned for VV. VV will actually make those efforts more effective because it will enable citizens to elect small contribution candidates to support any legislation that is needed as opposed to expecting the Big Money candidates to pass effective legislation on getting Big Money out of politics.
    And this will create unity on a common issue (80% of citizens want the Big Money out) rather than re-enforcing the divisions that the Big Money interests foment and exploit. Then citizens might find there are other things they agree on and be able to work together on those issues which are obscured now by the divisions created by the Big Money interests.
    Anyone that considers themselves from the left that does not participate in VV may be able to credibly claim to be a Democrat, but they can not credibly be considered a progressive because they are supporting the Big Money interests that control their party by not opposing them.

  163. [163] 
    michale wrote:

    How would you like it if someone posted things about you... with the exception that those things were actually true? LOL :D

    You ARE new here.. :D

    That's every day of my Weigantian life.. :D

  164. [164] 
    michale wrote:

    SUPERNATURAL is at it's worst when it tries to make a political statement..

    Cutesy dig with the President Trump voodoo doll...

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

    I hate cutesy.... :^/

  165. [165] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Glad to see that the NPAINO has no ideological blinders when it comes to Flynn.

    For me, as I said when he was nominated, He should not be allowed anywhere near or nations secrets.

    What can go wrong placing an unregistered foreign agent in charge of our nations secrets?

    The FACTS speak for themselves. A) he was a paid analyst for RT the state funded version of VOA. B) he has received payment and has been documented hanging out publicly with Putin. C) His private security company has changed positions upon being hired by foreign powers most notably Turkey.

    The above actions alone prevent him from holding a security clearance, just as Trump is inelgible...(and I did point out Clintons issues as well).

    Since I am not the self declared military expert, but rather am just some working class shlub who has to maintain a clearance, I and many in the military have issues with having a person in charge of national security who cannot hold a clearance and seems to shift his point of view to support whomever is giving him money and is for all intents and purposes a foreign agent.

    To me these issues are just to big to ignore and it is unfortunate that the entirety of the story is being under reported and that the right which supposedly is supposed to be the law and order party and better at securing America (I hate the term "homeland" it is rather WW2 Teutonic sounding, we have America, which is more than just a piece of land...) completely ignored these ethical issues...but hey, they would never do whhat they just spent 8 years accusing the dems of doing....right?

    The sooner Flynn is out, the safer we will be...

  166. [166] 
    michale wrote:

    I would respect that opinion if I knew for a fact that it was borne of more than just ideological hatred and bigotry..

    But it's not, so I don't...

    The FACTS speak for themselves.

    FDR hung out with Stalin...

    Big whoop....

  167. [167] 
    michale wrote:

    Do you know how I know for a fact that your opinion is borne of ideological hatred and bigotry??

    Because you didn't bat an eye when your messiah, Obama, sucked up to Mendenev and begged his BFF Putin for "flexibility" until after Obama's re-election..

    You didn't say jack about that...

    Because it was no big deal because your messiah has a '-D' after his name...

    The bias is embarrassingly obvious...

  168. [168] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all have been WRONG about EVERYTHING to do with President Trump to date..

    Why should anyone believe anything?? Your "predictions" and opinions are NOTHING but partisan and ideological bigotry at work..

    There is ZERO credibility here...

  169. [169] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Now onto some travel related stuff....

    Alto-

    You had asked about the "new process" .... I don't think you will have any issues going to Germany, but I cannot say for sure.

    The "new process" seems to be that if you are traveling TO a Latin American country you will be questioned after your boarding pass has been scanned you will be questioned prior to boarding and are subject to a secondary inspection....It does not sit well with certain parts of my constitutional brain...

    Since mid-January I have been to three countries in Central and South America and have had three interrogations.

    On another front....

    If you have Global Entry, it still pays off with the TSA pre...coming back, however, since the imposition of
    "extreme vetting" it is kind of worthless. Processing time has gone from 20 to 30 minutes from gate to hotel shuttle, to about an hour. please note that this also impacts known crew members and official travelers.

    So while Trump literally just said, everyone is going to be happy, observational data indicates otherwise. those of use that travel and paid to have our backgrounds checked and be vetted at a higher level than average travelers kind of find that it is really sucky that we now have no advantage to getting out of the hell spawn entry points that are MIA and DFW...

  170. [170] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Do you know how I know for a fact that your opinion is borne of ideological hatred and bigotry??

    Because you didn't bat an eye when your messiah, Obama, sucked up to Mendenev and begged his BFF Putin for "flexibility" until after Obama's re-election..

    You didn't say jack about that...

    It would be impossible for me to have had an opinion on it, that you would be aware of, since I was not commenting here back then....or at least that I remember...

    Further to the point if I was talking about the phone calls you would have a point...but I am not so you don't.

    Because it was no big deal because your messiah has a '-D' after his name...

    I find it rather telling your use of the word "messiah"...Please note I am not attacking your -R based messiah over phone calls... but rather am pointing out his poor selection of a person who should not be allowed to be in charge of national security...

    If you want to make this simply about phone calls there are other stark differences from the current situation...which again was not mentioned in my post.

    Your argument of ideology simply indicates you have nothing in the tank... I have voiced grudging approval for Mattis and Kelly both of which I have had the pleasure to meet and in the case of Kelly have had the "pleasure" of having my ass chewed personally over some choices made when I first took the contract I now hold.

    I am more than happy to state I have differing veiws on how we should approach somethings from what Mattis and Kelly hold and when those items come up I will participate if able...

    The bias is embarrassingly obvious...

    Yes, Yes, your bias is embarrassingly obvious....please do read and use basic English definitions. I was simply pointing out my issues with Flynn which are sound and date to prior to the current scandal du jour.

  171. [171] 
    michale wrote:

    Further to the point if I was talking about the phone calls you would have a point...but I am not so you don't.

    Ahhhh so it's ONLY traitorous if it's in a PHONE call....

    If it's in PERSON, it's perfectly acceptable.. :^/

    Why don't you just say what you mean...

    It's perfectly acceptable if a guy with a '-D' after his name does it, but it's traitorous if a guy with a '-R' after his name does it.. :^/

    I find it rather telling your use of the word "messiah"...Please note I am not attacking your -R based messiah over phone calls... but rather am pointing out his poor selection of a person who should not be allowed to be in charge of national security...

    That's YOUR opinion...

    But YOU supported Obama so your opinion is suspect...

    Yes, Yes, your bias is embarrassingly obvious...

    Ahhhh, the old "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal..

    Did the Left Wingery's IQ just drop suddenly when President Trump was elected???

  172. [172] 
    michale wrote:

    I am more than happy to state I have differing veiws on how we should approach somethings from what Mattis and Kelly hold and when those items come up I will participate if able...

    I'll believe THAT when I see it....

  173. [173] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    FDR hung out with Stalin...

    Big whoop....

    So...are you saying that FDR was a paid analyst for a state owned propaganda service and received money to support the views of a foreign power and lobby congress on their behalf?

    Again something I was pointing out long before the current situation.

  174. [174] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Ahhhh, the old "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal..

    Did the Left Wingery's IQ just drop suddenly when President Trump was elected???

    Nope, Just holding a mirror up for you to look into.... if you dangle low hanging fruit ...

    Why don't you just say what you mean...

    It's perfectly acceptable if a guy with a '-D' after his name does it, but it's traitorous if a guy with a '-R' after his name does it.. :^/

    Ummm..I kind of have....You are the one that keeps trying to impose phone calls upon my long held viewpoint

    If you had not already achieved terminal logic velocity on the subject you might have something different to say...but you have... so you can only attempt to use the D vs R circular argument while completely ignoring very valid concerns that would disqualify any of us from holding a clearance.

  175. [175] 
    michale wrote:

    Nope, Just holding a mirror up for you to look into.... if you dangle low hanging fruit ...

    You refuse to look into the mirror. Why would you expect me to??

    I mean, seriously.. You seem like a logical and rational guy, GT...

    You don't find it interesting that EVERYTHING you believe is 1000% in keeping with Democrat Party agenda..

    There is NOTHING the Party does that you are willing to publicly question..

    That right there should be a HUGE clue for ya...

    If you were the type that looks into the mirror critically...

  176. [176] 
    michale wrote:

    If you had not already achieved terminal logic velocity on the subject you might have something different to say...but you have... so you can only attempt to use the D vs R circular argument while completely ignoring very valid concerns that would disqualify any of us from holding a clearance.

    And yet, you supported Hillary Clinton for POTUS even though her actions CLEARLY disqualified her from holding a clearence..

    You see how you are COMPLETELY enslaved by Party ideology??

    All your arguments are based in Party ideology...

  177. [177] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    You don't find it interesting that EVERYTHING you believe is 1000% in keeping with Democrat Party agenda..

    Firstly, you do understand that 1000% is a scientific and mathematical impossibility correct? 100 percent is sufficient for most of us...

    Secondly, you have yet again typed faster than your brain can think...you completely ignore the many times I have gone on record against the corporate interest block that calls themselves the Democratic party.

    There is NOTHING the Party does that you are willing to publicly question..

    Despite the evidence to the contrary around here...

    Just because I have other things going on in life that prevent me from posting 18 post missives on some sort of trivial ideological slight by both of the corporate interest blocks that run our country does not mean that I agree with them or not.... It means you don't know nor have the courtesy to ask...

    This is a political comment section, not everything requires us to pack our manginas with sand and make pearls as you are want to demand....rather they are to be treated as a minor hemorrhoid and ignored as not being worth the waste of my time or oxygen.

    If you were the type that looks into the mirror critically...

    Oh I do frequently, every once in a while it is good to shake the sand out of the ole' mangina and stop making pearls.

    I have some serious ethical concerns over a vast majority of Trumps cabinet and the manner in which they were pushed through and identical issues which torpedoed previous cabinet picks, yet I have kept my powder dry...

    I have kept my powder dry because to the victor goes the spoils... Trump is entitled to his cabinet within reason, an argument similar to one I am on record as pointing out when the NC GOP was up to it's shenanigans... instead of agreeing you went looking for the ideological pearls where none were to be found. My belief is that simple, the corporate interest block leader gets to have the people he needs to execute his agenda....within reason, my agreement with or against is not material to the matter, it is just how our form of government works.

    Out of all of the cabinet picks that well quite frankly I do not like, Flynn is the only one I have spoken out against even being allowed to hold the post, as he is the only one who has ethical issues that quite frankly disqualify him without question and directly endanger America.

    To put it another way if Obama had nominated a similar person you would have made enough pearls by now for a few necklaces....

    While a vast majority of Trumps other cabinet picks have the ability to really screw over the normal folks, and will make decisions I will probably not like. They do not have conflicts that pose a direct danger to America.

    Just stop to think about it for one second....out of all of Trumps noms Flynn is the only one that I have come out against from the get go as he should not even be considered. your making pearls where there are none to be had...

    If I had hopped on the train after the phone calls came to light you would would have a point....but I haven't so you don't.

  178. [178] 
    michale wrote:

    Secondly, you have yet again typed faster than your brain can think...you completely ignore the many times I have gone on record against the corporate interest block that calls themselves the Democratic party.

    I will be happy to be proved wrong..

    But I won't concede based on your say so.. :D

    Only Kick gets that privilege heh

    To put it another way if Obama had nominated a similar person you would have made enough pearls by now for a few necklaces....

    You mean like Valerie Jarret, Black Panther?? :D

  179. [179] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    And yet, you supported Hillary Clinton for POTUS even though her actions CLEARLY disqualified her from holding a clearence..

    Was there a part of #sackofdicks2016 that you missed?

    I wasn't aware that " reach into the sack and grab one, it is going to be big and floppy and is not going to feel good when it is F%^&*&g you in the ass" translated to I am voting for HRC.

    I also wasn't aware that pointing out that for the first time in countries history the corporate interest blocks that control our government have put forward two individuals who are ineligible to hold a security clearance and that I could not vote for either one of them also translated into I am supporting HRC.

  180. [180] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    You mean like Valerie Jarret, Black Panther

    Totally different...her position was not one that diectly could endanger America...so much like Mnuchin, Puzder, DeVos etc, etc. He was entitled to nominate her, nothing in her past compromised her ability to do the job for which she was selected. Despite what your conservative news sources may tell you...

    Now if you had brought up the foolish nomination of Chaz Freeman as DNI... Another person who had the exact same issues as Flynn just different state players. You might be onto something....but then again I was against him from the get go and how long he kept his hat in the ring.

    I know this will be hard for you to digest BUT...it really is as simple as if you have been a foreign agent declared or otherwise you should not be allowed anywhere near our national secrets...they are disqualified from holding a clearance and are to be considered suspect the moment they took money from a foreign power or state owned company...No matter which side of the isle you are from. PERIOD, FULL FUCKING STOP, DO NOT PASS GO....

  181. [181] 
    michale wrote:

    Totally different..

    Of course it is..

    You just prove my point..

    When it's a person with a '-D' after their name, it's "totally different"

    .her position was not one that diectly could endanger America..

    Yea.. Neither could Rasputin's... :^/

    You see how ideologically biased you are??

  182. [182] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    AHHH...glad see the ole mangina is packed full of sand iand is in full pearl making mode...

    When it's a person with a '-D' after their name, it's "totally different"

    Ummm...How so? If she was nominated to head our national security apparatus you might have a point but she wasn't so you don't....

    DO try to read the entire comment and use the English language that is in the dictionary before attempting to place some ideological motivation to my comments..

    Since you are so non-ideological... we can expect the condemnation of the naming Bannon to having a place on the founders council and the dis invitation of Mattis and the DNI from those meeting except for when it suits Bannon's political aims?

    How about some condemnation for the posting of Jared Kushner ... that whole nepotism thing and intertwined business dealings present no issues...

    You know what they have in common? both are named to positions similar to Jarrett.... I don't like either one and while Kushner really is only there to feed insider information Bannon is directly like Rasputin....

    So really my position is no different than I have stated and is pretty non-ideological...While I do not like either namings and I have issues with Bannon that are on par with your issues on Jarret I have kept my powder dry. The president is entitled to his counsel. My like or dislike in in material to the matter. Their political beliefs for their positions cause me concern BUT...they are not in a direct position to do harm to America without us knowing it until it is too late....

    You see how ideologically biased you are??

    I sure do.... The real question is do you see how biased you are?

  183. [183] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    Sloganeering contest:

    RECALL AND REPLACE!!

  184. [184] 
    Paula wrote:

    And to all the breathless Emailgaters, huffing and puffing about the SECURITY BREACH, Rude Pundit says it best:

    "And even more fucked up is the center of this photo. President Trump, sitting calmly, not involved in any of the uproar, smiling and leaning on his hand, not a care in the entire goddamned world, even as an American ally was facing what it considered to be an existential threat. Imagine that. Imagine so not giving a fuck that you couldn't even be bothered to pretend like this was a serious enough situation to not pose like a serene but stupid frog, let alone just take the fuckin' meeting to a private room. Imagine if President Oba...you know what? Fuck it. At this point, it's obvious that Republicans are mud-encrusted piglets, gleefully suckling at Trump's multiple teats while he gorges himself on the slops and shits all over the pen."

    http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2017/02/photos-of-trump-that-assure-us-that.html

  185. [185] 
    neilm wrote:

    Returning to USC Title 18, Section 1182, subsection (f)

    It turns out that this 1952 law was superseded by The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

    Looks like the Right Wingery's legal eagles are with legal budgerigars or were trying to pull a fast one.

    Michale: What Right Wing website/TV show pointed you to USC Title 18, Section 1182, subsection (f)?

  186. [186] 
    neilm wrote:

    TYPO: Looks like the Right Wingery's legal eagles are either legal budgerigars or were trying to pull a fast one.

  187. [187] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, that was a civil comment. I think we have a prize around here for that use of language ...

  188. [188] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, [187] refers to much of [184].

  189. [189] 
    neilm wrote:

    Great in depth article on the legality of the EO:

    https://mishtalk.com/2017/02/13/more-on-the-law-and-how-trump-ignored-it/#more-44117

    Favorite quote:

    The deeper one digs into this mess, the more foolish Trump appears.

  190. [190] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well, that was a civil comment. I think we have a prize around here for that use of language ...

    I thought you were congratulating my "legal budgerigars" comment Elizabeth ;)

  191. [191] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  192. [192] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    goode trickle,

    You are my new hero! Your responses to Michale's constant attempts to shift the conversation to deflect from having to admit that his statements are flawed were incredible!!! My hat is off to you!

    - Russ

  193. [193] 
    MHorton wrote:

    Once again, Michale lies, insults people for no reason, makes up facts.

  194. [194] 
    michale wrote:

    Ummm...How so? If she was nominated to head our national security apparatus you might have a point but she wasn't so you don't....

    Newflash for you sunshine. The National Security position, like the Valerie Jarret position, is not a "nominated" position, it's an appointed position..

    So, it's you who does not have a point...

    Since you are so non-ideological... we can expect the condemnation of the naming Bannon to having a place on the founders council and the dis invitation of Mattis and the DNI from those meeting except for when it suits Bannon's political aims?

    When you have PROOF of Bannon's intent, as in being able to read his mind then you might have a point..

    But you don't, you can't, so you don't.. :D

    How about some condemnation for the posting of Jared Kushner ... that whole nepotism thing and intertwined business dealings present no issues...

    What posting would that be??

    You know what they have in common? both are named to positions similar to Jarrett....

    You just said above that they were nominated positions..

    Do make up your mind.. :^D

    So really my position is no different than I have stated and is pretty non-ideological...While I do not like either namings and I have issues with Bannon that are on par with your issues on Jarret I have kept my powder dry. The president is entitled to his counsel. My like or dislike in in material to the matter. Their political beliefs for their positions cause me concern BUT...they are not in a direct position to do harm to America without us knowing it until it is too late....

    And yet you go on and on about them even though you claim to "keep your powder dry"...

    The simple fact is, there is no difference between Bannon, Jarret or Flynn.. ALL are appointed positions, ALL are "counsel to the President" positions and ALL can influence the president in ways that are detrimental to the country OR that are vital to the survival of this country..

    But you give Jarret a pass because the POTUS who appointed her has a '-D' after his name and the POTUS who appointed Flynn has a '-R' after his name..

    That's it...

    I sure do.... The real question is do you see how biased you are?

    Of course I do.. Unlike you and everyone else here (sans Neil and a couple others) I admit my biases..

    The difference between you and me is that MY biases are not ideologically based.. In other words, I am not a Party slave or drone..

    :D

  195. [195] 
    michale wrote:

    And to all the breathless Emailgaters, huffing and puffing about the SECURITY BREACH, Rude Pundit says it best:

    "And even more fucked up is the center of this photo. President Trump, sitting calmly, not involved in any of the uproar, smiling and leaning on his hand, not a care in the entire goddamned world, even as an American ally was facing what it considered to be an existential threat. Imagine that. Imagine so not giving a fuck that you couldn't even be bothered to pretend like this was a serious enough situation to not pose like a serene but stupid frog, let alone just take the fuckin' meeting to a private room. Imagine if President Oba...you know what? Fuck it. At this point, it's obvious that Republicans are mud-encrusted piglets, gleefully suckling at Trump's multiple teats while he gorges himself on the slops and shits all over the pen."

    http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2017/02/photos-of-trump-that-assure-us-that.html

    So, this guy is STILL dining on whine and sour grapes.. :D

  196. [196] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    It turns out that this 1952 law was superseded by The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

    In what way???

  197. [197] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Well, that was a civil comment. I think we have a prize around here for that use of language ...

    Some people just need to watch FROZEN over and over again...

    :D

  198. [198] 
    michale wrote:

    You are my new hero! Your responses to Michale's constant attempts to shift the conversation to deflect from having to admit that his statements are flawed were incredible!!! My hat is off to you!

    Well, yer obviously easy.. :D

    Exactly how did I attempt to "shift the conversation" and which of my statements were "flawed"...

    I know you won't respond to this, but I just wanted to get the questions on record. :D

  199. [199] 
    michale wrote:

    MHorton,

    Once again, Michale lies, insults people for no reason, makes up facts.

    Which insults would those be??

    Which facts did I make up??

    Like Listen, I know you won't answer because you can't..

    Furthering the 3rd grade playground tradition, yer like the sniveling little follower who, after a kid has been beat up by two or three bullies, you run in and kick the kid and then run away... :D

    If you find that analogy insulting then perhaps you should look in a mirror and take a look at how you comment here...

    I'm just sayin'...

  200. [200] 
    michale wrote:

    Listen,

    It also claims that at least one person was convicted for using a weapon of mass destruction against our country and sentenced to 15 yrs in prison.

    I am still curious as to why you think this is an issue?? You seem to be implying that there has NEVER been WMDs used against this country. You would be wrong on that because there has been 5 instances where WMDs were used to attack this country.. 3 against our military and 2 CONUS...

    Hell, it would be nice if you could address ANY of the points I made..

    Barring that, you could just concede you were wrong...

    Yea, I know.. I know.. When pigs fly... heh :D

  201. [201] 
    MHorton wrote:

    I wasn't talking to you Michale. You lie, you insult people, you make up facts.

    I'm talking to Chris, and hoping that your money eventually stops convincing him to let you troll this comment section so that I can use it.

  202. [202] 
    michale wrote:

    I wasn't talking to you Michale. You lie, you insult people, you make up facts.

    You mean, EXACTLY like you are doing right now??

    No.. I don't do that...

    Well, I push the line on the INSULT part on occasion.. :D

    But only in response to insults that are directed at me..

    Like yours, you little keyboard warrior, you.. :D

    Just in case yer confused, THAT was an insult :D

  203. [203] 
    MHorton wrote:

    I haven't lied, and I haven't made up facts.

    If the truth about your behavior is insulting, that's your fault.

    You "push the line?" No. You attack people for disagreeing with your opinions.

    All you're doing is making it harder and harder for anyone to claim you're not outwardly a troll when you're obviously enjoying insulting me.

  204. [204] 
    MHorton wrote:

    I haven't lied, and I haven't made up facts.

    If the truth about your behavior is insulting, that's your fault.

    You "push the line?" No. You attack people for disagreeing with your opinions.

    All you're doing is making it harder and harder for anyone to claim you're not outwardly a troll when you're obviously enjoying insulting me.

  205. [205] 
    michale wrote:

    If the truth about your behavior is insulting, that's your fault.

    YOUR truth is not factual...

    You "push the line?" No. You attack people for disagreeing with your opinions.

    You mean like you have done???

    All you're doing is making it harder and harder for anyone to claim you're not outwardly a troll when you're obviously enjoying insulting me.

    And you are not??

    You are in "combat mode" because of comments on a political blog.

    How sad and pathetic does someone have to be to say something so pathetic like that??

    And you spend your VALENTINE'S DAY on a political blog stalking and trolling...

    Seriously, dood.. Everything you claim about me applies to you.. You need to get out of your parent's basement and get a life...

    Or you could stick around here and get spanked some more..

    Makes no difference to me... :D

  206. [206] 
    michale wrote:

    If the truth about your behavior is insulting, that's your fault.

    YOUR truth is not factual...

    You "push the line?" No. You attack people for disagreeing with your opinions.

    You mean like you have done???

    All you're doing is making it harder and harder for anyone to claim you're not outwardly a troll when you're obviously enjoying insulting me.

    And you are not??

    You are in "combat mode" because of comments on a political blog.

    How sad and pathetic does someone have to be to say something so pathetic like that??

    And you spend your VALENTINE'S DAY on a political blog stalking and trolling...

    Seriously, dood.. Everything you claim about me applies to you.. You need to get out of your parent's basement and get a life...

    Or you could stick around here and get spanked some more..

    Makes no difference to me... :D

  207. [207] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the 20/20 campaign

  208. [208] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    because if you call yourself 20/20, perhaps when it actually is 2020 somebody will remember.

  209. [209] 
    michale wrote:

    because if you call yourself 20/20, perhaps when it actually is 2020 somebody will remember.

    But tell me honestly, JL..

    Does ANYTHING the Democrats have done to date LOOK like they are ready to face the 2020 election with 20/20 hindsight???

  210. [210] 
    michale wrote:

    In other words, 20/20 hindsight is only useful if one actually acknowledges that what they are seeing is valid..

    From all appearances and reports...

    Democrats refuse to believe that their hindsight is telling them...

  211. [211] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    20/20 means clear vision - not only of the past but of the present and hopefully the future. of course i must concede that to some extent this is wishful thinking on my part. the mood of the country this fall was anti-establishment, and in that climate donald trump successfully sold himself as the anti-establishment candidate in the mid-west and florida.

    the outcome of that election is a reality you were absolutely right about; more people voted against hillary clinton than for her, and in the right electoral college states for donald to win. to be honest i have no idea whether or not most Democrats have a clear vision of what was elected or why. but i do think that a clear vision would be a lot more successful going forward than reactive protests against the latest outrage.

    yes, legal immigrants and visitors have been denied entry based on their religion. and yes, russian influence is greater than it should be. yes, another non-educator has been placed at the head of the nation's schools, and yes, the president's security adviser is resigning. but standing in the streets and shouting only helps if there's someone there to listen, and something unified to say.

    i guess that's why i suggested 20/20, less as a statement of what already is, more as a statement of what is desperately needed.

    JL

Comments for this article are closed.