ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [427] -- Lock Him Up!

[ Posted Friday, March 3rd, 2017 – 18:29 PST ]

This was supposed to be a good week for Donald Trump. He was going to give a big speech, and he was all set to roll out the 2.0 version of his Muslim ban. As usual in the Trump administration, though, things didn't quite work out as planned.

Trump gave his speech, and because he didn't froth at the mouth or scream at the media, it was deemed his first "presidential" moment. Of course, Trump had offered up a profile in cowardice the morning before his big speech, insisting that the buck not stop anywhere near the Oval Office desk on the botched Yemen raid. First he blamed the generals for "wanting to do" the raid, he tried to blame Barack Obama since the planning "was started before I got here," and then Trump laid all the blame for one soldier's death on "the generals, who are very respected," but who also "lost Ryan." Now just for one moment, imagine what Republicans would say if Hillary Clinton -- or any Democratic president, for that matter -- had said anything even remotely like that. Their indignation would be epic, but when Trump passed this buck, they uttered not a peep.

Later in the evening, Trump would exploit Ryan's widow during his speech, something that may wind up costing him later on, when the full details of the raid become public. Was the crying widow Trump's "Mission Accomplished" moment? We'll just have to wait and see.

As for Trump's speech, we reviewed it ourselves, but think the best headline for anyone's speech review has to go to Al Sharpton, who wrote "Donald Trump: Good Performance. Bad Policy." Or you can check out the baker's dozen of "fake facts" Trump cited during his speech.

After his big night, all Trump thought he was going to have to do was sit back and let the good press roll in. The White House even cleared the decks for this wave of media goodwill, by postponing their signing ceremony for the reworked Muslim ban -- even though a month ago, Trump told us all that any delay would mean putting America at serious risk of attack. We suppose "any delay except for a delay to bask in the good politics from earlier in the week" is what Trump really meant. But instead of good press, what we got was a bombshell story about Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and how he had conveniently forgot (under oath, mind you) that he had any conversations with the Russian ambassador. Sessions was finally pressured into recusing himself from any investigation of Russian interference in the election (and collusion with the Trump campaign), even though he really should have recused himself about five minutes after being sworn into office. So those were the big storylines of the week, and Trump's speech was all but forgotten.

By week's end, things had gotten even worse. Not only did protesters chant "Lock him up!" outside of the Sessions press conference, but now it has been revealed by an Indiana paper that Mike Pence not only used a private email for homeland security subjects so sensitive they had to be blacked out, but that his account was hacked. The snarky reaction to this is just beginning, folks:

Well, fancy that. When Mike Pence was debating Tim Kaine and said, "it's important in this moment to remember that Hillary Clinton had a private server in her home that had classified information on it," adding that "her private server was subject to being hacked" and "we could put cybersecurity first if we just make sure the next secretary of state doesn't have a private server," did he consider adding that he knew what he was talking about since he used an AOL account to talk about sensitive security matters and had himself been hacked?

The parallels don't stop there. According to the article, "Pence's office said his campaign hired outside counsel as he was departing as governor to review his AOL emails and transfer any involving public business to the state." Which was exactly what Hillary Clinton did -- and what Pence and Trump so vehemently criticized her for. When Trump invited the Russian government to hack Clinton's email to recover what had been deleted, it was those personal emails he was talking about.

And Pence is not the only one: Scott Pruitt, President Trump's Environmental Protection Agency administrator, not only used a private email account to conduct official business as attorney general of Oklahoma, he lied about it during his confirmation hearings.

Perhaps now that this has come out, Republicans will stop pretending that the email "issue" was anything more than a club to bludgeon Hillary Clinton with. The deep concern they expressed for cybersecurity was utterly insincere.

So we've got three candidates to "lock up" this week -- the head of the E.P.A., the attorney general, and the vice president. Because, you know, the Trump voters will demand the high standards they set for chanting "lock her up" be followed consistently, right? Well, we're not exactly holding our breath in anticipation, to put it mildly.

On another front, it's now Friday afternoon, and there still has been no Muslim ban signing ceremony. Perhaps this is because this time around they're really trying as hard as possible to create something that a federal judge won't laugh out of court, but this effort is reportedly running into some serious problems.

First, they had to significantly water down who was covered. The first leaked draft showed Trump was now going to let in people with green cards and valid visas, and that people who were actually in the air when the ban was signed would still be allowed in when they landed. Then another draft leaked, showing they had dropped Iraq from the list of seven banned countries. Oh, and that there would no longer be special provision given to Christians (over Muslims).

But the bigger news came from other leaks, from the Department of Homeland Security. D.H.S. was apparently tasked with creating a report that was intended to bolster Trump's case that the ban was necessary for national security reasons. The first draft of this document concluded the exact opposite, though: "country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity." Whoops! Back to the drawing board, we suppose. But then the final draft of this document was leaked to Rachel Maddow, and its conclusion was even worse for Trump: "We assess that most foreign-born, U.S-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry to the United States, limiting the ability of screening and vetting officials to prevent their entry because of national security concerns." Got that? The radicalization happens here, so no vetting process on the planet (no matter how "extreme") is going to predict such future behavior. The report was partially titled: "Most foreign-born U.S.-based violent extremists radicalized after entering Homeland," just to underscore the point. So not only is the entire rationale for the travel ban not true, but the entire rationale for "extreme vetting" is also nothing more than a Trump fantasy.

Trump has been promising quick action on his treasured Muslim ban, pretty much since those four federal judges ruled against him. For weeks now, the White House has been teasing the new ban, promising over and over again that it would be signed "in a few days." The Wednesday deadline they missed this week was just the latest in a line of such broken promises.

The levels of hypocrisy emanating from the Trump swamp have reached such a level that even one Republican (worried about his own re-election chances) is now calling for a special prosecutor to look into the Russian mess. He's not the only one a little worried, as several prominent Republicans joined the chorus demanding Jeff Sessions recuse himself, before he eventually did.

Being the Trump administration, though, means screwups both big and small. Trump tried to create a photo-op of him meeting with some actual black people (leaders of historically black colleges and universities, or "HCBUs"), but it also turned into a complete fiasco. One of the invitees wasn't impressed at being used as a political prop, and later wrote:

On Friday I learned that I was selected to give remarks today for the meeting at the White House with members of the Trump administration, most notably Secretary Betsy DeVos. We learned this weekend that there would be closing remarks by Vice President Pence, but the goal was for officials from a number of Federal agencies (about 5 were there including OMB) and Secretary DeVos to hear about HBCUs.

That all blew up when the decision was made to take the presidents to the Oval Office to see the President. I'm still processing that entire experience. But needless to say that threw the day off and there was very little listening to HBCU presidents today -- we were only given about 2 minutes each, and that was cut to one minute, so only about 7 of maybe 15 or so speakers were given an opportunity today.

This was after Betsy DeVos tried to dramatically rewrite history, claiming that the creation of HCBUs was all about "school choice" (one of her pet projects), and not about racism and being denied entry into any other colleges or universities, mind you. The whole meeting was damage control from the start, morphed into a photo-op so short nobody got to tell Trump any detailed information, and then was absolutely torpedoed by Kellyanne Conway kneeling on a sofa in the Oval Office (which is the photo op that will be remembered from the meeting). A fiasco from start to finish, folks.

Let's see, what else? The massive leaks springing from the White House have riled Trump, from all accounts, but what this has led to is a sort of infinite regression of even more leaks. First, there were just leaks. Then there were leaks about the anti-leak efforts team Trump is making to plug the leaks (such as Sean Spicer demanding to see everyone's phones to see who they've been talking to in a secret meeting that immediately leaked to the press). Now it's gotten to the point that there are even leaks about the process of trying to stop leaks -- whether Trump himself signed off on the phone examination or not. Watching all this is like seeing Homer Simpson attempt to do plumbing in his basement, at best, and at worst is like watching Mickey Mouse in his role as the Sorcerer's Apprentice. Not unlike the Titanic, one wonders whether there will be adequate lifeboats for when the leaks actually drown the bottom floor of the White House.

And finally, speaking of Spicer, how did the story of him wearing the Easter Bunny costume (twice!) for George W. Bush (for the traditional White House Easter egg roll) take so long to be discovered? The photos are priceless, and so is the headline of the original puff-piece story (which we're always going to say in our heads whenever we hear Spicer talk, from now on): "The Easter Bunny Speaks." Hippity-hoppity!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Barack and Michelle Obama deserve some sort of mention here, for reportedly inking a book deal worth a jaw-dropping $65 million. That's pretty impressive, and is multiples higher than any previous ex-president ever got as an advance.

But we're going to give the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award to a group with their collective noses to the grindstone. State Innovation Exchange Action (or "SiX Action") is trying to counteract the playbook of groups like ALEC on the right, by helping Democrats at the state level introduce legislation to show voters whose side they stand on. USA Today had the story:

Democratic lawmakers in at least 30 U.S. states are either unveiling or highlighting legislation this week aimed at President Trump's working-class voters, in a nationwide coordinated rebuttal to the agenda the president will outline in his first joint address to Congress on Feb. 28.

It's an attempt to form the legislative spine of a state-level resistance to Trump's policies, Nick Rathod, executive director of State Innovation Exchange Action, which is overseeing the initiative, told USA Today.

The timing creates a juxtaposition between Democratic economic security prescriptions for workers, such as raising the minimum wage and paid family leave, and Trump tax reform and federal budget policies that, Democrats say, are at odds with his populist campaign oath to prioritize "forgotten" Americans from the factory floors of the Rust Belt to the sawmills of the Mountain West.

"If you work hard and play by the rules in this country, you should be paid enough to live on, to care for your family, and to retire securely," Rathod said in an interview previewing the legislative "Week of Action" that will spotlight more than 130 bills in states from Oklahoma to Alaska.

Trump's campaign promises stand "in stark contrast to the corporate, billionaire-driven agenda" now emerging, he said. SiX Action, a nonprofit trying to help Democrats regain power at the state level, marshaled 40 different left-leaning organizations to help coordinate the effort. It includes bill introduction ceremonies to draw media attention even in states where the legislative packages face an uphill battle because Republicans control both chambers.

State lawmakers are offering provisions that, according to polls, enjoy broad public support to also include overtime pay, paid family leave requirements and equal pay for women.

This certainly sounds like a worthwhile effort. Republicans have been running circles around Democrats in this respect for years now, with an organized effort to change state laws to advance their conservative agenda. It's about time someone tried doing a similar thing on the Democratic side -- especially such a coordinated effort, which will hopefully avoid like-minded groups squabbling with each other.

It's a noble goal, and we sincerely hope it achieves some measure of success. For making the effort to show voters exactly why they should vote for Democrats in such a positive and forward-thinking way, SiX Action is collectively awarded this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate State Innovation Exchange Action on their web page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We've got two candidates for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, but upon reflection we have to disqualify one of them, for not being an actual Democratic officeholder or politician. However, both of these men deserve all the blowback they've been getting, for not realizing what decade we all now live in.

The first was Warren Buffet, who (as mentioned) is not actually a Democratic officeholder. He was trying to crack a joke, but apparently didn't realize that while the punchline may have been considered funny (and non-controversial) in, say, the 1950s, this is no longer the case. Far from it. Here's what he said:

Well, if a diplomat says yes, he means maybe. If he says maybe, he means no. And if he says no, he's no diplomat. And if a lady says no, she means maybe. And if she says maybe, she means yes. And if she says yes, she's no lady.

Um, no. No no no no no.

In fact, there was a whole movement launched roughly 30 years ago to address this misogynistic idiocy, called (appropriately) "No Means No." When a woman says no, SHE MEANS NO. Period. End of sentence. It's no longer a joking matter, Warren.

But, as we said, he escapes getting an award because while a public figure, he's not actually a political public figure.

Which means we have to give the award to Representative Cedric Richmond instead. Richmond hails from Louisiana, and was also trying to crack a joke, in the wake of the photos of Kellyanne Conway kneeling on the Oval Office sofa, at the Washington Press Club's annual dinner. Here's what he had to say:

You even mentioned Kellyanne and the picture on the sofa. But I really just want to know what was going on there, because, I won't tell anybody. And you can just explain to me that -- that circumstance, because she really looked kind of familiar there in that position there. But don't answer. And I don't want you to refer back to the '90s.

Kellyanne Conway is not our favorite person, by a long shot. Even so, she doesn't deserve that. Leave the sex jokes to the late-night comedians next time, OK? They may be able to get away with such quips, but Democratic officeholders just don't get the same leeway, even when they're at an event where jokes are being cracked.

Which is why Cedric Richmond is the winner of this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Once he returns from washing his mouth out with soap, we'll be presenting his award to him.

[Contact Representative Cedric Richmond on his House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 427 (3/3/17)

Today's talking points section is a bit of a departure from our normal format, since it is just a collection of quotes uttered in the past week by politicians. Normally, we try to provide the most serious talking points up front and then end with a whimsical bit, but this week all the clowning is going to happen first, to be followed by some serious facts at the very end.

The subject is the Republicans' mad dash to repeal and replace Obamacare. They're nowhere near any agreement on how to go about doing this, which isn't too surprising because they've never been able to agree on any of it in the seven years since Obamacare passed into law. But now the clock is ticking, and they've set the goal of putting the whole thing together in just a few weeks. To avoid intra-party squabbling, Paul Ryan and the other Republicans in charge of writing the bill's draft are keeping it secret from the rest of their fellow Republicans, because they are afraid that no matter what the bill says, one GOP faction or another is going to go apoplectic. They're probably right, but the hypocrisy they're exhibiting is so breathtaking that we just had to devote the entire talking points section to watching this circus. So our advice for now is to get some peanuts, sit back, and enjoy the show.

 

1
   It is to laugh, no?

Trump, once again, revealed his own vast ignorance on a subject he's been telling everyone he has the answer to for a long time now. Speaking of his efforts to replace Obamacare, Trump told Fox News: "You know, health care is a very complex subject. If you do this, it affects nine different things. If you do that, it affects 15 different things. Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." Nobody? Really? Bernie Sanders (after he stopped laughing so hard), begged to differ:

Well, some of us who were sitting on the health education committee, who went to meeting after meeting after meeting, who heard from dozens of people, who stayed up night after night trying to figure out this thing -- yeah, we got a clue. When you provide health care in a nation of 320 million people, yeah, it is very, very complicated.

Maybe now, maybe the president and some of the Republicans understand you can't go beyond the rhetoric: "We're going to repeal the Affordable Care Act, we're going to repeal Obamacare, and everything will be wonderful!" A little more complicated than that.

I mean, this is the president of the United States. We have been debating health care in this country for 30 years, and he says, "Gee, who knew how complicated it was?" He's maybe the only person in this country who doesn't know how complicated it is to provide health care for the American people.

 

2
   Plopping seems like the right verb, Paul

The Republican bill to repeal and replace Obamacare seems to be a big, honkin' secret on Capitol Hill. To properly appreciate this circus, we must first hear what the ringleader had to say about the process. Here's Paul Ryan, promising recently not to do what Republicans have always (wrongly) accused Nancy Pelosi of doing with the original Obamacare bill:

We're not hatching some bill in a backroom and plopping it on the American people's front door.

 

3
   Scoreless

However, the bill is being drawn up in such secrecy that nobody else is allowed in the room, no copies are allowed to be taken out of the room, and -- most importantly -- they'll be moving on the legislation before the Congressional Budget Office "scores" the bill, which would let the American public see how much it'll cost and how many millions of people will be losing their health insurance. This was openly admitted by Representative Chris Collins in an interview: "It looks like, unfortunately, based on the delays, we may be marking it up and voting on it before we have a score." This prompted a stern rebuke from Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican described as an ally of Rand Paul (more on him in a moment):

We asked for the score and all that. We were told we'll have that by the time it gets to the floor. We need to have that now! You can't have a discussion about this proposal independent from costs. It's ridiculous. That's kind of like, just: "vote for it to see what's in it."

 

4
   Rand Paul is not a happy camper (1)

Senator Rand Paul, upon hearing that the mystery bill was in a certain House office, arrived (with his own photocopier in tow!) to see if he could get a copy of the bill. After tweeting: "I have been told that the House Obamacare bill is under lock and key, in a secure location, and not available for me or the public to view," he shared his outrage with the assembled reporters:

We're here today because I'd like to read the Obamacare bill. If you'd recall, when Obamacare was passed in 2009 and 2010, Nancy Pelosi said you'll know what's in it after you pass it. The Republican Party shouldn't act in the same way. In my state, in Kentucky, it's illegal to do this. This is being presented as if it were a national secret, as if this were a plot to invade another country.

 

5
   Rand Paul is not a happy camper (2)

From a second report of the same event, Paul is letting everyone know exactly what he feels about the process.

It's the secret office of the secret bill. I think the reason they're keeping it in secret is it's Obamacare-light. And conservatives, I can tell you on both sides... of the House and Senate, are very unhappy that they're now making the Obamacare proposal classified. It's under lock and key, and we're not allowed to have a copy of it. I think that's crazy.

 

6
   Fun for all

Democrats were quick to get in on the fun surrounding the hunt for the bill. One representative quipped: "It'd be good if maybe we had a sniffer dog" to put on the missing bill's trail. Another amusingly added: "I checked the men's room -- it's not there." Minority Whip Steny Hoyer joined in, after searching high and low: "We cannot find the bill." Hoyer had the best ad-lib line of the day, when he "led reporters into the hallway, where he had a conversation with a large bust of Abraham Lincoln":

Mr. Lincoln, you said public sentiment is everything. But if the public can't see the bill, they can't give us their sentiment. That's not regular order. That's not democracy.

 

7
   Seriously, though....

All of this is pretty amusing, as it seems that Trump is not the only one who is fast discovering that health care reform is a lot harder than it looks. Republicans are trying to get their legislation on the floor of both houses in the next month. So it is important that the actual record of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is laid out in detail, to provide a stark contrast between the measured way Democrats tackled the issue and the current hair-on-fire antics of the Republicans. The following was written by Topher Spiro, who was part of the entire Obamacare drafting process. He lays out some facts which are definitely germane, now that Republicans are trying to move so recklessly fast.

Republicans accused Democrats eight years ago of drafting the health-care law in secret, despite dozens of public hearings and work sessions. But now it's their own process that is highly secretive, with U.S. Capitol Police guarding a basement room where the draft legislation is kept hidden from voters, the news media and even members of Congress.

The GOP tried to use one quote in particular to drive its message back then. In 2010, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." What Pelosi meant was that people would realize the benefits of the law once they became tangible -- which is exactly what polling shows has happened. But Republicans spun and truncated the quote to suggest that Democrats were hiding something.

In fact, the process to enact the Affordable Care Act was thorough and transparent. I was there for the whole thing, as a Democratic staffer for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

In the House, Democrats held a series of public hearings before introducing a public discussion draft in June 2009. The House then held more public hearings before introducing new legislative text in July. All three relevant committees held "markups" -- committee work sessions to amend the legislation -- and the full House vote on the amended legislation did not take place until November.

In the Senate, the HELP Committee held 14 bipartisan roundtables and 13 public hearings in 2008 and 2009. During the committee's markup in June 2009, Democrats accepted more than 160 Republican amendments to the bill.

Beginning in May 2008 -- 20 months before the Senate vote and six months before Barack Obama, who would later sign the bill into law, was even elected president -- the Senate Finance Committee held 17 public roundtables, summits and hearings. In 2009, Democrats met and negotiated with three Republicans for several months before the tea party protests caused the GOP to back away from negotiations. The Finance Committee held its markup in September, and the full Senate vote did not take place until December.

In both the House and the Senate, "scores" by the independent Congressional Budget Office were available before each vote at each stage of the process. These scores are estimates of the effects of legislation on the budget and on the number of people who would be covered by health insurance.

-- 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

 

233 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [427] -- Lock Him Up!”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    The day's highlight was Trump tweeting the picture of Schumer from 14 years ago, saying Schumer should be investigated, and Schumer's reply that he'd be happy to testify under oath about his donut with Putin in 2003 -- was Donald willing to testify under oath about HIS relations with Putin?

    Then Schumer tweeted that it was a Krispy Kreme donut.

    Snap!

  2. [2] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Nice FTP as usual CW...

    I must admit I have to stock up on Biscoff's so I have some snacks whilst I read the ensuing back and forth in the comments section.

    Speaking of the Swamp...you should take a read through his "new and improved" ethics EO. It quite sneakily repealed the Obama EO for ethics, yet has been touted as a big improvement over the Obama policy.

    The Obama ethics EO was fairly weak and the Trump one sounds fairly strong, but dig into the weeds in sections 3 and 4 and you will see it is all smoke and mirrors.

    The new and improved Trump order does away with public disclosure for any lobbyist that receives a waiver to work directly in areas they had lobbied and also does away with the criteria for granting such waivers and places it solely at the discretion of the president or his designee's.

    Oh, and those restrictions on returning to lobbying and the other what nots....that can be waived as well, along with receiving gifts, and well pretty much anything.

    Also it directs the various department heads to come up with new rules and regulations to enforce this bright new EO, which should work out just fabulous what with the whole for every new regulation you must get rid of two thing....

    It would make for some good writing when you write one of your the swamp is bigger and badder pieces somewhere during the first legislative session and we are all distracted by Russia and ACA repeal BS to really see just how fast they are transferring wealth...

    We are only on the onramp and pick up speed with the opening salvos of regulation repeal. We will hit freeway speeds when the ACA circus is in town...Afterall it is when both parties at one time or the other have passed some pretty self serving legislation.

    you can find the EO here...

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/03/2017-02450/ethics-commitments-by-executive-branch-appointees

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "Watching all this is like seeing Homer Simpson attempt to do plumbing in his basement, at best, and at worst is like watching Mickey Mouse in his role as the Sorcerer's Apprentice. Not unlike the Titanic, one wonders whether there will be adequate lifeboats for when the leaks actually drown the bottom floor of the White House."

    I just have to say that's a trifecta of excellent leak similes!

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Let's forget for a moment the racist implications of Trump saying that Muslims need Ban.
    With all the concern for terrorism, shouldn't he be making them use Sure ?

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    [4] Don: good one :-)

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    So the number of close associates to 45 involved with Russian agents is growing, and there is one thing in common - they either lied or were extremely evasive about their meetings. Time for a special prosecutor. We are up to seven now, and that isn't including Ivanka's vacation with Putin's girlfriend.

    I've said it several times before, 45 has the reverse Midas touch - when will Republicans learn that he is toxic - the Generals who he threw under the bus for the Yemen disaster already know. You can be sure they will have 45's signature in triplicate before they do anything in the future.

  7. [7] 
    dsws wrote:

    We're getting nothing more than we voted for.

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    "I simply didn’t think I needed to know. Why? Because I always had a sense that things would be okay, regardless of who was in charge; if Mitt Romney had won instead of Obama, things would have been fine.

    This was the first time I felt like things could not be okay. And I have found a political voice I didn’t know that I had — or that I even wanted to have."

    - Elizabeth Wade an "ordinary American", February 2017

    The Republicans real problem is that more and more of the non-voters are getting engaged, and it isn't because they are suddenly impressed with the occupant of the White House. Quite the opposite in fact.

  9. [9] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Speaking of Bernie, he gave a separate (and better) response to the official Democratic response by Steve Beshear of Kentucky to Trumps speech... in case anyone missed it-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwRVoBFf0bY

    -
    -

    I'm no fan of Pence, but Hillary using private email to avoid transparency and harm to her political career was not only wrong, and handled horribly, but also undeniably stupid considering the backlash.

    Your bit on that in this column doesn't say it, but I think we should be clear that the actions of Pence and Pruitt don't vindicate Hillary's actions one tiny bit... they just expose the hypocrisy and comparable stupidity of Republicans.

    -
    -

    I'm pleased you mentioned the Betsy DeVos "choice" scandal about HBCUs...

    (double typo alert by the way with the "B" and the "C" reversed twice in three uses)

    ... and I think scandal is the right word to use even though you just used the already damning "historical revisionism".
    But the scandal of her revisionism isn't just about a craven political ploy to advance her agenda while literally whitewashing history, it's about exposing and promulgating ignorance.
    It is just truly offensive that the Secretary of Education is someone who is ignorant and stupid enough to even try to get away with such a ploy.
    DeVos is simply unqualified for the job... academically and ethically.

    -
    -

    Thanks for bringing the SIX Action effort to my attention. I hadn't seen it mentioned anywhere, and would never even think to check out USA Today for... well... anything.

    It sounds like an impressive group indeed and worthy of your award... though the USA Today thing suggests they may need a better PR person.

    I haven't had a chance to actually check them out yet, but if they aren't corrupted by the Wall Street coddling Democrats, it could be a very positive development.

    -
    -

    In case anybody missed it, Trump's new Interior Secretary just overturned an order by Obama's guy to ban the use of lead ammunition by hunters in federal nature reserves.

    Once again, like some of Obama's executive orders, and the labor provisions enacted by new DNC chair Perez, the Obama Interior guy's last minute order is a FAILURE because they waited until the last minute and there wasn't time for new policies to be implemented.

    I'm a cynic of course, so it crosses my mind that these were ploys by Dems to look good (or make Trump look bad to voters) without actually crossing their corporate overlords, but like Obama's executive orders and the Perez labor provisions, the real world consequences of inaction are again severe, when Dems had the power to set precedents early enough to make it harder to overturn.

    In this case, one estimate I saw said 100,000 pounds of toxic lead is spread across NATURE reserves, and poisons millions of animals per year... including endangered animals like California condors.

    Now, lead in the water causing problems for the Roman Empire is something many Americans learn about at some point, and lead in the water remains a problem in Flint Michigan (and thousands of other communities in case anybody missed that part of the story) and is still in the news, but lead ammunition is a problem with an easy solution and cost-comparable alternatives that really should have bipartisan support, so the way this played out is just horrible.

    I think there are just as many Repubs who are nature lovers as there are Dems, and I hope they all speak up and end this senseless waste.

    A

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hey, looks like 45's ability not to wet himself in public on Tuesday gave him a dead cat bounce - from a low of 43.4% approval he is up to 43.8%.

    Sadly for him, the next round of polls will include the latest Russia fiasco, so his fanboys should probably enjoy it while they can.

    And then we have more disasters looming on the horizon:

    1. Trumpcare - The Fellowship of the Sick
    2. White House North is really New York's Kremlin - The Two Towers
    3. The Muslim Ban 2 - Return of the Bigot

    At the same time my Facebook feed is peppered with videos taken by crying kids of their parents getting arrested by ICE for heinous crimes like driving them to school.

  11. [11] 
    altohone wrote:

    goode trickle
    2

    Speaking of filling the swamp, here's another trumpling using his position for self enrichment-

    https://theintercept.com/2017/03/02/crony-capitalism-at-work-trump-adviser-carl-icahn-strong-arms-ethanol-lobby-to-save-his-company-millions/

    A

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Thinking about LOTRs, as I was earlier, is Steve Bannon actually Wormtongue?

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    What makes a solution to health care so difficult is that the Big Money legislators from both CMPs are trying to figure out how to save money on health care while still protecting/increasing the profits their corporate benefactors are enjoying.
    Convincing citizens that the result will somehow benefit citizens while disguising the real purpose of the legislation is a tough nut to crack and a tough sell under those conditions.
    Obamacare was just a way to subsidize the insurance industry that also got some people coverage they couldn't get before.
    There was some good done for some citizens, but overall it did nothing to solve the real problems.
    Don't let the Democrats fool you that they are fighting the good fight by defending Obamacare. Both sides are doing the same thing they do with everything they do- Playing good cop to their base and bad cop for other side's base.
    It is a magic show they are putting on that says look over here while the real trick is happening somewhere else.
    So one more time for those of you that have not caught on to the trick-
    The good cop and the bad cop are working together against you. The good cop that you think is on your side is deceiving you.
    When you think you are helping yourself or doing the right thing by helping the good cop, you are not. For the reasons just mentioned you are hurting yourself and doing the wrong thing.
    You solve the health care problems the same way you solve the majority of other problems- by treating the cause instead of the symptom.
    "TAKE BIG MONEY-LOSE OUR VOTES"
    The problem will not be solved by the "cops" that are working together against you (the victim).
    The problem will only be solved when the "cops" are working for the victims and are no longer working for the perpetrators.

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    10- "Hey, looks like 45's ability not to wet himself in public..."

    Let's not go overboard on that assumption. Adult diapers are a big industry.

    Seriously, his biggest delivery problem, apart from stream of consciousness twittering, is going off-prompter with little meditations. Like on the Gerald Ford, probably paraphrasing him a bit.

    It's like standing on a big piece of land...it's better than land....

    Trump sounds dumb when he hops off his train of thought for a wee breather and than has to run to catch up. This is not news to his writers and coaching staff.

  15. [15] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neilm [10] - Haven't had time to get into the whole Trilogy yet (though it's on my binge-reading list), but I did catch the first installment about his tweeting - The Habit.

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    Balthasar [15] - good one, did you see the TV on Tuesday evening, "The SillyManChildIsOn"?

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    If we want to keep playing with the LOTR analogy, the "Indivisibles" would be the Ents - long suffering heart of the country types woken by the disgust at 45 (Saruman) and his orcs - we really will wash them away. Putin, of course, is Sauron, sitting in the Kremlin watching over the demise of the time of men.

    We have Bannon as Wormtongue, and of course the Nazgul: Conway, Spicer, Sessions, Flynn, DeVos, Pruitt, Price, Mnuchin and Miller.

    Michale - you get to be Gollum - I expect you will turn out to be good in the end, you've just been influenced by long exposure to evil ;)

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar [15]

    Haven't had time to get into the whole Trilogy yet (though it's on my binge-reading list), but I did catch the first installment about his tweeting - The Habit.

    ROTFL :)

    SPOILER ALERT
    * Breakfast
    * Second Breakfast
    * Elevenses
    * Luncheon
    * Afternoon tweet
    * Dinner
    * Supper

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    And all the rest that have requested a change to the name Voucher Vendetta.
    (Sound of Trumpets)
    I believe I have come up with a new name that may be better. As soon as I have secured the domain name I will reveal this exciting new name.
    As I was typing an email to someone I wanted to emphasize a phrase he had used in his article so I capitalized the first letter of each word and realized that it was a perfect name to replace VV and fit well with the new slogan TAKE BIG MONEY-LOSE OUR VOTES.
    All I can say for now is that it is related to the conversation I had recently with Liz about the focus of VV.

    The timing is a wonderful coincidence to be able to prove I'm not a crank while I am hopefully still being blocked by tamper monkey from the Stig so he won't even know he has been proven wrong. :D

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    What about "Dollar Don's Candidates"?

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm [17]

    LOL

    Are we 100% sure that 45 is Saruman? I suspect Bannon might be the actual White Wizard.

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris [19]

    (Sound of Trumpets)
    I believe I have come up with a new name that may be better. As soon as I have secured the domain name I will reveal this exciting new name.

    Oh, come on Don. Give us its initials. We want a hint :)

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    News of the FISA warrant in October 2016 FINALLY coming out while 45 goes on a tweet storm... Here we go.

    There was a meeting in March 2016 at the unfinished post office turned into a Trump hotel headed by Jeff Sessions where Trump and the gang discussed the Ukraine... so says Gordon who is changing his story now. Jeff Sessions volunteers in his press conference that the Russian Ambassador discussed the Ukraine in his private meeting. Jefferson Beauregard Succession III has a tell; his lips curl into a little smile when he is fabricating, he sometimes even gets a tell-tale blush in his cheeks and looks toward his left.

    This is FINALLY about to blow wide open, and it would not surprise me in the least if this goes all the way back to Edward Snowden.

  24. [24] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    23

    Snowden?

    Can't wait to hear this tale.

    A

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm- (20)-
    I don't know if that's a guess or a suggestion, but I like it either way.
    But I would go with Don's Dollar Candidates since they get the money and I don't.

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (22)-
    Okay, I'll give you initials but even if you guess right I won't confirm it until the name is secure.
    O D
    And the only one that I will confirm it is not is Oucher Dendetta. Don't even ask if you're getting warm.
    In the meantime, if you try to guess please try not to come up with anything that is better than the name I came up with.

  27. [27] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Al [9]

    Once again, like some of Obama's executive orders, and the labor provisions enacted by new DNC chair Perez, the Obama Interior guy's last minute order is a FAILURE because they waited until the last minute and there wasn't time for new policies to be implemented.

    Wow! So you are blaming Trump's Interior Secretary's horrible decision to overturn this
    order on Obama? I am guessing that you aren't someone who would warmly receive a random act of kindness, are you?

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris [26]

    Okay, I'll give you initials but even if you guess right I won't confirm it until the name is secure.
    O D

    Oh, Don! Thank you. Let's work this out then. Hmmmmm...
    Is it possibly "Oh, Don!"?

    And the only one that I will confirm it is not is Oucher Dendetta. Don't even ask if you're getting warm.

    Okay then, Don... am I getting...... hot?

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris [26]

    But seriously, Don... I think that "O" is going to represent the word {drumroll...............}

    Occupy

    Am I getting warn?

  30. [30] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don

    There was some good done for some citizens, but overall it did nothing to solve the real problems...Don't let the Democrats fool you that they are fighting the good fight by defending Obamacare.

    For people who could not get insurance because of pre-existing conditions, your comment that the ACA didn't solve "the real problems" might be seen as a tad offensive! Trust me when I tell you, to these folks:

    There was NO PROBLEM MORE REAL than being without insurance!

    What proof do you offer that our politicians created the ACA on behalf of the insurance industry and that helping the people was just a side-benefit? Isn't odd that so many insurance providers were against the ACA, and even now are withdrawing from offering coverage if the ACA was created to benefit THEM?

    I know, I am just blind to Big Money's grip on our elected officials, but that seems to be all that you see no matter what you look at.

  31. [31] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    27

    Yup on the first part.
    We are talking about regulations that do not require any action by Congress and ALL of them could have been implemented 8 years ago or at least early enough to take effect.
    What part of having an established track record making them harder to overturn don't you understand?

    As far as random acts of kindness, empty promises that accomplish absolutely nothing don't apply.

    You seem a little hostile.
    Are you holding a grudge because the "reasoning" behind your defense of Big Money corruption was called out as nonsense?
    Or are you just having a bad day?

    A

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (28)-
    "...am I getting...hot ?"
    I can't say. But whoever is saying "Oh, Don!" certainly is. :D

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    You are correct that the some people you mentioned (coincidentally being the same some people that I mentioned) got what you said (the some good that I mentioned. What a coincidence- another coincidence).
    But they got insurance with insurance companies that are the problem.
    I would have no problem at all with Obamacare (alright, I'm sure I could find something) if there were a public option. Anything short of that is a bandaid stop gap measure to keep a failing system afloat.
    Obtaining proof would probably require subpoena power.
    The insurers are just putting the squeeze on to get even more than they all ready got or it was a plan for short term profit that has played it's course.
    "I know I am blind to Big Money's grip on our elected officials.."
    Recognizing you have a problem is the first step....
    "...but that seems to be all you see when no matter what you look at."
    For the same reason people climb mountains...
    because it's there.
    ...and Willie Sutton (hope that's the right name) robbed banks...
    because that's where the money is.

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Altohone-
    I don't know if Listen is having a bad day, if so I hope it gets better or at least hope tomorrow is better.
    But even though I was having a good day your comment made my day even better. Thanks.

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (28,32)-
    We make a great team. You stared with the great joke of "Oh Don" and the spectacular straight line of "Am I getting hot? and I added to that.
    If only we could apply that principle to politics. You know, one person starts something, then another person joins in , then some more people and...
    Nah.... That would never work. :D

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    O.D. = One Dollar ;)

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    45 is waving his hands in the air and the media are falling for it again.

    Stick to Russia you fools.

  38. [38] 
    Paula wrote:
  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Atlantic isn't fooled by 45's antics:

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war

    In early January, two weeks before the Inauguration, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released a declassified report concluding that Putin had ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton’s election prospects, fortify Donald Trump’s, and “undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process.”

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry - the New Yorker.

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    We are in a long growth phase, even though most people's chance to participate has been stolen by Republican policies that transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich. Why Americans vote for politicians that openly state they are going to deliver tax cuts, when all that means is that most people will see a few crumbs, and the wealthy will see $10,000's of cuts is beyond me.

    And when the party ends, the people who got nothing are told to tighten their belts because the rich are seeing their assets drop in price.

    It is likely the latest party for the top 5% will end in the next few years based on nothing more than history:

    http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-04-at-5.50.04-AM.png

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While I can't say right or wrong, warm or cold about the guesses so far I can say they have been entertaining.
    In that spirit and just to be a dick (pun intended)I will also say that Orlos Danger is not the name.
    (Is it cheating to change the first name like that ?)

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    Orlos Danger is not the name.

    Oh. Dear.

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    nice.
    But shouldn't that have been:
    "Oooh Deeear"
    Dr. Smith
    -Lost in Space
    ...or were you going more for the Liz version ?

    (36)-
    Shame on you. The VV list of contributors is CONFIDENTIAL information !

  45. [45] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Hey this one guy starts something thing is catching on.
    I'm just saying....

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Rickle Alert-
    If any of you are named Allen we could start a comedy team called Burnout and Allen. That doesn't mean you would have to play the stupid one. I can pretend if you can. :D

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Oooh Deeear"
    Dr. Smith
    -Lost in Space

    Before my time in the U.S.A. - my wife, who was brought up here, quotes "danger, danger Will Robinson" on occasion. This is 100% of my knowledge about "Lost In Space"

    Thus, I will take your word for it :)

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    Let me try that one again, oh for an edit function ...

    "Lost in Space" was before my time in the U.S.A. - my wife, who was brought up here, quotes "danger, danger Will Robinson" on occasion. This is 100% of my knowledge about "Lost In Space"

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    Heh.

  50. [50] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    There doesn't seem to be much interest in it here, but if anybody wants a good rundown of the Trump wiretapping assertions and how he may have been manipulated into making them, I recommend-

    https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/03/04/the-conspiratorial-game-of-telephone-in-bannons-rag-that-made-left-right-and-potus-go-crazy/

    It's not one of my regular sources... sort of establishment friendly in some ways... but I doubt that will upset too many folks here.

    But it's a solid breakdown of the who, what, where and which media outlets got the reporting wrong... and it turns out quite a few did including The Guardian and the BBC.

    Some are suggesting it's just an attempt to change the narrative away from Sessions recusal and the lies, but now Trump's counsel is entering dangerous territory.

    And, seemingly, Trump has the authority to declassify it if there is evidence to substantiate his claims, so if he doesn't, it may be because that would expose what is actually being investigated, and that doesn't make Trump look good.

    Kind of crazy if you ask me.

    Even crazier is Lindsey Graham saying roughly "if it's true, it's like Watergate. And if it's not true it's like Watergate".

    A

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    "my wife..quotes "danger, danger, Will Robinson".
    As long as it's not "Carlos Danger, Will Robinson".
    That might be cause for concern.

  52. [52] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Neilm-41

    There is no "We" when it comes to the American Economy. Frame of reference is extremely important. It's like Relativity, but more complicated.

    A huge segment of the US population has seen no growth during the current growth phase. 1/3 of the US population has no retirement savings. This pop. component is living paycheck to paycheck. The American middle class is shrinking. Thirteen percent of the US population is over 65. About a third of them rely entirely on Social Security and Medicare.

    I grew up in an era of high job security. Tenured employment was common, as were pension programs. That ended in the '80s. The fundamental nature of the US economy has changed radically in my life time: from an an emphasis of manufacturing and resource extraction to marketing and money management.

    Given the above, I tend to take graphs like

    http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-04-at-5.50.04-AM.png

    with more than a few of grains of salt. Apples to oranges to pears. (Don't even even get me started on that living fossil the Dow Jones Industrial Avg!!!)

    The above quick and dirty discussion goes some way towards answering your question:

    Why do Americans vote for politicians that openly state they are going to deliver tax cuts, when all that means is that most people will see a few crumbs, and the wealthy will see $10,000's of cuts?*

    Well, at the end of the day, the crumbs are perceived as better than nothing by the lower economic tier...and every bit helps when you are living on crumbs. It's better than nothing, and nothing is the alternative. The American political system effectively disenfranchises a huge proportion of the potential electorate. Most congressional seats are safe seats. It's hard to vote in a lot of districts....are you willing to get fired to cast a protest vote? Don't forget the electoral college, which shafted the majority vote.

    American political apathy is complicated, but not entirely irrational.

    * the genuinely wealthy are getting A LOT more than $10,000s - they get sculpt the playing field.

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm (51)-
    One of mt many faults is an inability to resist a joke.
    I hope 51 was not Over D-line.

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig (52)-
    You are right that when you've been beaten down enough and are desperately trying to hold on to what you do have it is difficult to muster the fortitude to fight back, especially when the political system that is supposed to help you seems to be working against you.
    That is certainly part of the problem.
    I would add for some other people:

    "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink if he's used to drinking the Koolaid."
    - Me

  55. [55] 
    altohone wrote:

    TS
    52

    Indeed.

    In the last election, just the (empty) promise of crumbs beat out the indifferent status quo.

    That said, given your example and the actions of millions of others, I am slightly optimistic that some of the apathetic may be stirring (not talking about you TS)... though I remain pessimistic about their actions leading to effective policy changes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R6O-AdvzTM

    I'm posting this link again in case anybody missed it.
    Jimmy Dore dissects an article from the Washington Post titled "Democrats won't win until they recognize Obama's economic policies were terrible"

    I'll admit the guy is a little annoying, but it's about the message, not the messenger.

    neil-
    Don't know if you checked it out, but I'd love your take too.

    A

  56. [56] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Altohone-50

    Interesting read. Either Empty Wheel is getting a lot of hits or they have the world's slowest server.

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    altohone (50)-
    What if Lindsey Graham is right ? (there's a first time for everything)
    That would mean that Donald Trump who is a win-win type of guy would be in a no win situation.
    What are the odds of that both of those things could happen ?

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    neilm (51)-
    One of mt many faults is an inability to resist a joke.
    I hope 51 was not Over D-line.

    When it comes to jokes like that, resist harder Don, for the sake of the children ;)

  59. [59] 
    altohone wrote:

    TS
    56

    I didn't have any problems... I hope it's about lots of people being interested.

    A

  60. [60] 
    altohone wrote:

    Don
    57

    I think you may be misunderstanding what Graham is saying.
    One option is that Trump is in trouble, the other that Obama is in trouble.

    The Empty Wheel post is really about a third option... that Trump's underlings are in trouble, not Trump or Obama... though she suggests Trump may be creating trouble for himself in the way he is reacting.

    A

  61. [61] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    If any of you are interested in why the left is frustrated with Bernie...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXz1ZD82R6o

    Again, he is a bit annoying... it's the message though. A message I fully agree with.

    A

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone [55]:

    Thanks for posting the video. Here is some feedback as I'm watching (I have to pause the video after every few minutes, because I want to punch the guy in his smug little face, but I'll work my way through the whole video):

    1. Obama (like many people) thinks the Democratic Party should appeal on hands and knees to the poor, uneducated people who vote for clowns like 45 because the well educated are seen as latte-sipping coastal elites who all want to go to Martha's Vinyard - well fuck you Jimmy for playing that little bigotry card - being educated is what is making this country wealthy, and being educated means you can spot the Republican Party for what it is.

    At the moment the educated provide most of the support for the Democratic Party now that Unions have basically bitten the dust because Union members voted for Reagan, Bush, Bush 2 and 45. They can all collectively fuck themselves if they think the blame should be placed with the educated for the fact that the result from trickle down is that the Gini curve has skewed - they don't even know what the fucking Gini curve is or why it is important - they just voted for people who made them feel good.

    It would be so much easier for the wealthy and educated to vote for the Country Club Republican Party than be told we are sub-standard Democrats by smug little shits like Jimmy here. But there isn't a party for the wealthy and educated, so we split between the wealth-focused who vote Republican for pocketbook reasons; the educated-focused who vote for the party slightly open to reason on e.g. climate change; or we just say "screw it, I'm alight Jack" - one thing I noticed about the U.S. vs. the U.K. is the number of well educated people who have given up on politics.

    When all of Jimmy's pure, real Americans in Podunk, FN stop whining that nobody comes to their fucking fish fry and they get active looking after their own rights and needs the party will pay attention to them. Blaming the engaged for looking after their own issues is not only extremely whiny, but is the real problem these people have. The point of politics is to look out what you perceive as good for you and your country, not what a whiny clown like Jimmy tells you you should be feeling for other people who think you are part of the problem and vote for the other party anyway.

    I have to go out for a hike and want to go thru this video in detail - this is only part 1 of my response. I'm going to be stomping angrily along the trails today because of this. But still, thanks Altohone for the link. Nothing I secretly like more than a little bit of righteous indignation - just like the next guy.

  63. [63] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Altohone (60)-
    Oh...Damn.

  64. [64] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I came across a CIA web page the other day:

    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm

    It offers up detail that goes a long way to explaining why Trump is going APE SHIT about leaks. My guess is that candidate Trump had virtually no awareness of how the system works.

    First thing to keep in mind:

    "All Members of Congress have access to intelligence by virtue of their elected positions. They do not receive security clearances per se....."

    There is a catch, but it's not a Catch 22.

    "Classified intelligence reports(1) are routinely provided only to the committees that have responsibilities in the national security area....

    The leadership in each chamber--the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate and the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives--are ex officio members of their respective intelligence committees and have access to intelligence held by the committees........

    Committees that do not have national security responsibilities and individual Members who do not serve on national security committees may request intelligence support but are typically given a lower priority. Intelligence agencies do, nevertheless, try to accommodate them in some fashion, usually by providing briefings......."

    From the standpoint of Congressional oversight, the key, and by key, I mean something that literally unlocks the process of obtaining classified info, is KNOWING WHAT TO ASK FOR. Leaks are the means by which concerned government professionals can pass a key along to members of Congress. The key must be vague enough as to be unclassified.* A high ranking minority leader is in a good position to get just about anything they know to ask for. If they don't want to ask, keys can be passed on to lower ranking members who might be expected to put pressure on their reluctant leaders. Keys passed to members of the press put pressure on everybody in Congress.

    Members of Congress depend upon their staff to get actual work done. The security hurdle for staff is a bit higher:

    "Congressional staffers who require access to intelligence in connection with their official duties receive security clearances based on background investigations conducted by the FBI. They are not required to take polygraphs. As a general rule, only committee staffers receive clearances....."

    After all the wheels stop turning, and they may turn slowly, you finally get a peek at what you seek:

    "The two intelligence committees are the repositories of most intelligence shared with Congress. Their offices and hearing rooms are physically located in "vaulted" areas that meet the DCI's standards for storage and discussion of information relating to intelligence sources and methods....."

    * In my admittedly limited experience, senior government officials are masters of this art.

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    altohnoe (61)-
    I watched some of the video. May get back to it later, but that guy is really annoying.
    If anyone should agree with his point about what is Bernie still doing in that party, it would be me- and I am not saying I don't agree.
    But consider this (and maybe I'm giving Bernie too much credit).
    What if Bernie knows he can't change the party but is trying to work within the party to create a divide between some of the rank and file Democrats with the Big Money Democrat establishment to make it possible for a third party to be able to peel these Democrats away from the party when they are frustrated enough with the party establishment beating them down.
    Sort of like a receiver in the NFL that runs a route to pull the defenders over to one area of the field. This receiver knows the quarterback will not throw him the ball, but he runs the route to open up another area of the field for another receiver.
    Even if Bernie is not doing it on purpose, it could still be a good thing.

  66. [66] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil

    Response to part 1.

    I think you may be jumping the gun there... or taking offense too easily.

    All he is saying is that the Democratic party needs to look out for the working class in order to win.

    If "politics is to look out what you perceive as good for you and your country" and you need to win elections in order to have the desired politics, then policies need to be good for the working class too.

    If there were enough edumacated people and enough high paying jobs for that cohort to win elections, you'd be right... except on the basis of the morality of helping your fellow citizens even if they're idiots maybe.

    I understand what you're saying... I really do.
    But the facts on the ground are that the educated people creating all the wealth aren't ensuring a shared prosperity. They, or at least not enough of them, are supporting or at least tolerating policies that ensure inequality, and, btw, fewer opportunities to become educated starting with the attacks on public schools and going up to opposition to plans for affordable higher education.

    In any case, railing about the ignorant won't win elections (see Hillary), and the complaints of the undereducated and underpaid masses are valid. You can't blame them for voting the wrong way when the other major party alternative was wrong for them (and what you yourself support) too.

    I am looking forward to part 2 though.
    "You're beautiful when you're angry."
    - can't place that quote at the moment

    A

  67. [67] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    To further my point.
    What has happened when people have given up on the two party system in the past ?
    If they didn't just give up entirely they tried to work with a third party, found no else would join, got ridiculed by the very people that were propping up the two party system, got frustrated with that and then gave up entirely. Then some more people that the person was waiting for to give up on the CMPs gave up and started the process for themselves, but it was too late because the other people had already given up.
    So maybe Bernie is trying to create that frustration with a significant enough portion of the Democratic Party so that they can all leave at the same time and be effective in building a third party.

  68. [68] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "If there were enough edumacated people..."
    I hope you're not talking about formal education.
    Just because someone didn't go to college doesn't mean they can't be smart.
    After all, I did not go to college, but I did grajudate high school.

    "Sarge...who says I'm dumb ?"
    Agarn (spelling ?)
    F Troop

  69. [69] 
    altohone wrote:

    Don
    65

    I don't think Bernie sees himself in that role.

    He is a reform from within guy who will in the meantime fight for every little minor victory through amendments to bills that he can get.

    His power to do that would be limited by speaking too much truth about the Democratic party.

    He has integrity, but he isn't who a lot of people want him to be.
    He seems to believe that him speaking those truths wouldn't be enough to effect change and that going third party wouldn't succeed right now...

    ... I disagree, but that's Bernie.

    Maybe we'll find out how he truly feels when he retires.

    As for the last part of your comment, there is no doubt in my mind that he is playing an overall positive role, whatever analogy you want to use.

    A

  70. [70] 
    altohone wrote:

    Don
    68

    Education doesn't create intelligence, but it can help reduce ignorance.

    Formal education isn't the only path though.
    There is even a certain veneration for the self-taught in this country.

    It doesn't take a genius to know when you're being screwed, so I would refer back to what TheStig wrote in comment 52.

    A

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "...he isn't who a whole lot of people want him to be."
    Excellent point. Don't we all project a little (or a lot) of ourselves onto the politicians that we are supporting whether they have those qualities or not.
    That's another reason to add to stig's reason in comment 52.

  72. [72] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil

    an edit for comment 66

    "They, or at least not enough of them, are supporting or at least tolerating policies that ensure inequality"

    Ooops.

    I guess that should be "too many" instead of "not enough".

    A

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    altohone-
    I have nothing against education. Even though I've probably used it before I just wanted to use the grajudated high school attempt at a joke.

    Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications ?
    applicant: Rape, murder, robbery, rustlin', disturbing the peace and rape.
    Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
    applicant: I like rape.
    -Blazing Saddles
    (just guessing on actual list of crimes)

  74. [74] 
    altohone wrote:

    Don
    71

    Yup.

    I didn't snap out of it with Obama until he announced his cabinet... and many still haven't.

    I went in eyes wide open with Bernie though.

    A

  75. [75] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm (73)-
    Sorry. Forgot about the children again. :D

  76. [76] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey all

    Just noticed two headlines for stories right after each other on HuffPo

    "Bill Maher rips Jeffrey Lord for denying Russia influenced the election"

    followed by

    "Just a reminder that Trump has still provided zero evidence of voter fraud"

    -
    -

    So, just a reminder that our intelligence agencies have still provided zero evidence of Russia influencing the election.

    They may have it and just not want to release it, but until they do, we have one side believing known liars despite no evidence, while demanding evidence from the other side for believing a known liar.

    They've looked for evidence of voting fraud and found nothing, so that's not going to change, but we are all still entitled to see the supposed evidence involving Russia.

    There's nothing wrong with expecting consistency.

    A

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [50]

    And, seemingly, Trump has the authority to declassify it if there is evidence to substantiate his claims, so if he doesn't, it may be because that would expose what is actually being investigated, and that doesn't make Trump look good.

    Kind of crazy if you ask me.

    Very interesting article; thanks for posting it.

    It's pretty darn crazy for Trump to drop some more coins into the Russian conspiracy parking meter with his tweet storm, and just look at some of the crazy things he said there:

    TRUMP:
    * I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"

    * How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

    So the President of the United States claims that it's a "fact" that the former POTUS was tapping his phones and is now referring to what he has numerous times called our "rigged system" as a "very sacred election process." I wonder if the moron even realizes he has just accused Obama of a crime? I can't remember where I read this, but someone said Trump's paranoia is rapidly becoming like Nixon's was if you subtract 50 IQ points and add twitter.

    I wonder if the con artist still "feels" that Obama likes him?

    TRUMP: "I don't know if he'll admit this, but he likes me. I like him... because I can feel it; you know... that's what I do in life. It's called like, I understand."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pBDMwgf-JU

    It takes a special kind of ignorance to think the guy you accused of being born in Kenya along with all the "show your papers" birther nonsense is actually someone who likes you, but hey... Trump "can feel it." It's what he does in life. "It's called like" he understands. ROTFL

    What is it going to take for the fanboys to figure out they're being conned by an under educated and emotionally unstable con artist? :)

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [76]

    They may have it and just not want to release it, but until they do, we have one side believing known liars despite no evidence, while demanding evidence from the other side for believing a known liar.

    They arrested a hacker in Prague in October 2016 just three days before the Obama administration formally accused Russia of stealing emails from the Democratic National Committee and disclosing them through WikiLeaks. Follow the below link to DOJ for details that contain a link with the indictment... and stay tuned.

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/yevgeniy-nikulin-indicted-hacking-linkedin-dropbox-and-formspring

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't know for a fact that Trump has lost his freakin' mind but, I just know it's true.

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:
  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is going into AML (Anti-Money Laundering) territory. This is not looking good for 45. How he kept his business liquid after multiple bankruptcies was always an interesting question - he was basically toxic in NY and London, these people are not fools, whatever you think of their greed. If 45 riles up the American public enough to cost either the Senate or the House in 2018 he is in real trouble. Even before then, the Republicans have them in the palm of their hands - all they need to do is threaten a special prosecutor to look into Russian interference with the election and he will roll over and ask how high he needs to jump.

    The Russians, of course, already have the inside scoop on any dodgy deals he is involved in.

    My friend speculates that the boast from 45 Jr. will haunt the whole family:

    “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., said at a real estate conference in 2008"

    As we’ve previously reported, Deutsche Bank has mysteriously loaned more than a billion dollars to Donald Trump and his business partners over the past few years, at a time when most other banks viewed him as too big a risk. We’ve also reported that Deutsche Bank was busted for laundering Russian money for clients in places like New York, where Trump lives, raising the question of whether its willingness to float loans to Trump was really just a cover for Russia to funnel money to him.

    And the bad news continues ...

    But as it turns out, Deutsche Bank was laundering the money through Bank of Cyprus. The two most prominent owners of Bank of Cyprus? One is Donald Trump’s associate Dmitry Rybolovlev. The other is Donald Trump’s new Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross.

    https://www.palmerreport.com/news/russian-money-laundering-donald-trump-bank/1690/

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well, as I watch the rest of the Jimmy Dore show I see a lot that is light on facts and heavy on opinion and innuendo. He is convinced that Obama was in bed with the banks and put them before people. I call a lot of BS. The financial system was becoming non-operational - the impact of which would have been disastrous.

    He is also convinced that Obama's goal was to hurt the poor and middle class and help the rich. If you want to believe this, then go right ahead. But all these people who were supposedly pissed about the right wing economic policies that Dire accuses Obama of, voted against Democrats in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016. The only election that went for Democrat's was was Obama in 2012 - so how can they be only angry with Obama.

    Yes, Obama was more center than left - and the Democratic Party has a range of people from the extreme left to the center right - so, Jimmy, get over whining at the part of the party you don't like and get behind somebody who can lead the whole party - and that certainly isn't Bernie - he isn't even part of the party for Pete's sake.

    I've been crying out for a younger, more left wing version of Obama and so far the only people I've seen come close are Gavin Newsome and Pete Buttigieg - but they are 2028 timeframe.

    So the question comes back to "who?"

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone:

    If "politics is to look out what you perceive as good for you and your country" and you need to win elections in order to have the desired politics, then policies need to be good for the working class too.

    This does not follow. Sorry. If the working class want to vote for a populist who wants to ramp up the military and destroy working class defenses and institutions, and then vote for him a second time in a landslide in 1984, then is anybody surprised that the Democratic leadership who in my opinion really want to help the needy in America, and not only the rich, say to themselves:

    "OK, this is a democracy, and the country wants leaders who are center right. So let's get somebody as left wing as we can who is electable and get behind him".

    Thus we got Bill Clinton. A politician who over here was deemed almost in bed with Lenin. And he won. Twice. But then the country replaced him with somebody further to the right than Reagan. Twice!

    In my lifetime I've never looked at the Democratic Party in the United States and regarded them as anything but a center-right European party.

    I assumed there were an equivalent to the left wing of Europe, but you proved me wrong several months ago. And now I have to listen to "surprised Jimmy" tell me what I already know: the Democrats have coopted the center right because that is where the votes are?

    I've heard a lot about how the Democrats lost across the country since 2008. And they have, but did anybody consider that this was because the Republicans had a better message? When more and more of us see gaping gaps in state budgets, and are struggling to save for retirement, the Democratic Party is making sure that the police, government workers, firemen, teachers, etc. can't be fired and get cushy defined benefit plans. The socialism that the Democratic Party is talking about and delivering on isn't helping the regular middle class.

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So the question comes back to "who?"

    Do you want me to answer that? :)

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Or, it might be someone who you might presume to be 2032 timeframe and who we haven't even met yet.

    That's what I presumed about Obama, after all ...

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    I understand what you're saying... I really do.
    But the facts on the ground are that the educated people creating all the wealth aren't ensuring a shared prosperity. They, or at least not enough of them, are supporting or at least tolerating policies that ensure inequality, and, btw, fewer opportunities to become educated starting with the attacks on public schools and going up to opposition to plans for affordable higher education.

    From a financial perspective I'd be much better off voting straight Republican. So would a lot of people in the Democratic Party. At the local level, who are the people supporting the Democratic Party? Who are running for office? Who are funding, engaged and/or active in the Democratic Party apparatus?

    My experience from looking at the funding for my Democratic Congressman is that very few people give any money. Only 86 gave more than $1,000, and many of those were local businesses. I called and asked for a yard sign and threw the whole organization into confusion. It took days, and the local election staff member personally brought it to my house (I expected to go to a campaign office and pick it up). The lady was delighted and surprised that somebody was interested.

    I thought it might make her day, so I took a picture of it on my lawn and sent it to her.

    I contend that it is the educated, wealthy people who are supporting the local Democratic Party, and in fact, are the bulwark of today's Democratic Party. I hope that I'm just in an outlier situation.

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    So the question comes back to "who?"

    Do you want me to answer that? :)

    Sure Elizabeth (I suspect however you were teasing me, and intended it to refer to Joe ;)

  88. [88] 
    neilm wrote:

    William Bradley (thanks again Elizabeth) has a great column out today talking about Sessions.

    Pointing out Sessions' experience with the legal implications of his words (see below), Bradley asks the question: "Why?. What are they trying to hide?"

    But Sessions spent a whopping 18 years as a federal prosecutor and then two years as Alabama attorney general before his 20-year tenure in the U.S. Senate. His language in his confirmation hearing was crisp and precise. And demonstrably quite false.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-tweetering-on-the-edge-sessions-actually-had_us_58bb9a1be4b02eac8876cf9d

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're very welcome, Neil. :)

    But, I was only one-sixth joking about Joe ...

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    From a financial perspective I'd be much better off voting straight Republican.

    "You lost me, completely." (What movie is that from?)

    Seriously, I don't understand what that means.

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    How AWESOME is my guy, President Trump!!!

    Job approval has shot up 1.6 points!!!

    Now we find out that Obama had ordered a wiretap of Candidate Trump's office!!

    WOW!! Go away for a weekend and Democrats lose their frakin' minds!!!

    I have a new addition to my Bucket List..

    Seeing Obama being led away in handcuffs, doing the perp walk.. :D

    I said it was going to be a fun 8 years! Did I call it or what!!??? :D

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    but now it has been revealed by an Indiana paper that Mike Pence not only used a private email for homeland security subjects so sensitive they had to be blacked out, but that his account was hacked. The snarky reaction to this is just beginning, folks:

    Sorry, ya'all don't have any moral authority or foundation to condemn a lowly state governor for using a private email ACCOUNT (**ACCOUNT**, not server) when ya'all gave NOT-45 a pass for her endangering our NATIONAL security..

    NO... MORAL... FOUNDATION.... WHATSOEVER.....

    The first was Warren Buffet, who (as mentioned) is not actually a Democratic officeholder. He was trying to crack a joke, but apparently didn't realize that while the punchline may have been considered funny (and non-controversial) in, say, the 1950s, this is no longer the case. Far from it. Here's what he said:

    Well, if a diplomat says yes, he means maybe. If he says maybe, he means no. And if he says no, he's no diplomat. And if a lady says no, she means maybe. And if she says maybe, she means yes. And if she says yes, she's no lady.

    Um, no. No no no no no.

    Let's see how many Democrats or even Weigantians condemn Buffet....

    {{chiirrrrpppppp}} {{{chirrrrrrpppppp}}}

    Yea, that's what I thought...

    Buffett is a Democrat Donor god, so he is simply above all forms of common decency..

    Of course, these SAME Democrats *AND* Weigantians go apeshit crazy over decades old locker room talk amongst men...

    BLATANT.... HYPOCRISY.....

    It's what I have come to expect from ANYONE associated with the Left Wingery... (Our host excepted, of course)...

    It's a defining characteristic of the Left....

    Kellyanne Conway is not our favorite person, by a long shot. Even so, she doesn't deserve that. Leave the sex jokes to the late-night comedians next time, OK? They may be able to get away with such quips, but Democratic officeholders just don't get the same leeway, even when they're at an event where jokes are being cracked.

    Which is why Cedric Richmond is the winner of this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Once he returns from washing his mouth out with soap, we'll be presenting his award to him.

    And, once again, is there any outcry from Weigantians over this blatant sexist attack?????

    Of course not... Because the victim of the attack has an '-R' after her name and, like the woman who wears a revealing top or a short skirt, she "deserves it"... She was "asking for it"...

    So, we come to find out that all the righteous indignation over President Trump's decades old locker room talk amongst men was not based in morality or anything else..

    It was SOLELY and COMPLETELY based on partisan ideology..

    SOLELY.... COMPLETELY....

    How utterly and completely sad.....

    I wish I could say I was surprised, but that has been the way things have been around here for a while.. There are exceptions, of course, and ya'all know who ya'all are..

    But those exceptions are ALSO notable for NOT speaking out against this blatant partisanship....

    Silence gives assent....

  93. [93] 
    michale wrote:

    I've been crying out for a younger, more left wing version of Obama and so far the only people I've seen come close are Gavin Newsome and Pete Buttigieg - but they are 2028 timeframe.

    So the question comes back to "who?"

    Answer: NOBODY...

    Democrats don't HAVE a viable candidate for 2020 and it's unlikely they will be able to cook one up in 7 years....

    Like I said, ya'all better get used to 8 years of President Trump...

    Or, if the Left Wingery is successful in assassinating President Trump, then ya'all will get however many years of President Pence.

    Something ya'all have claimed is too horrible to contemplate...

    But who cares?? Ya'all's TDS is in full raging bloom and nothing else matters but yer hatred of the President...

    Sad....

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    MS-13 gang members accused of killing teen claimed Satan ‘wanted a soul,’ police say
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/03/05/ms-13-gang-members-accused-of-killing-teen-claimed-satan-wanted-a-soul-police-say/

    Ahhh yes... We should allow more illegal immigrants into this country..

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong?? :^/

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:

    Does anyone want to explain to this poor dead girl's parents all the wondrous benefits of illegal immigration???

    No????

    How come???

    Ya'all are usually championing illegal immigration left and right.. Ya'all are usually championing Open Borders ad nasuem... Ya'all (notable exceptions noted) have PROVEN beyond any doubt that PARTY UBER ALLES is the ONLY thing that matters around here...

    Why should one little dead American bother ya'all now??

    I mean, it's not as if illegal immigrants have been responsible for TENS OF THOUSANDS of Americans killed, raped, robbed or assaulted by illegal immigrants, right??

    Oh... wait...

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump Will Be Proven Correct on Obama Admin. Wiretapping

    The big news Saturday after Trump’s disclosure was the fact that neither Obama nor any Obama administration officials actually denied that Trump’s offices were ever wire tapped. Instead the press focused on the rather narrow denial that Obama himself never ordered such a wiretap. [Wouldn’t it strain belief that a major presidential candidate’s offices were wiretapped and the president was never informed?]

    Today on the "Meet the Press" James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, denied any agency that operated under him, including the FBI, ever wiretapped the Trump offices. “To my knowledge,” he added. [Wasn’t Clapper the same man who testified under oath that the NSA never collected phone data on millions of Americans — a fact proven untrue by the Snowden revelations?]

    But the most important Clapper revelation from “Meet the Press” was this: He empathically told Todd the Obama intelligence agencies found “no evidence” of collusion between Trump’s campaign and the Russians. Nothing. Nada. If that is true, and Trump is right he was indeed wiretapped, it will only fuel his argument that Obama administration officials improperly eavesdropped on his offices.
    http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/776977/16

    PERP WALK FOR OBAMA!!!! :D

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving scumbag.... :D

  97. [97] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    Welcome to the neolibcon Democratic party.

    https://theintercept.com/2017/03/06/democrats-now-demonize-the-same-russia-policies-that-obama-long-championed/

    Not being right wing enough is why they lost to Trump, right?

    A

  98. [98] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    #91 - 1.6 points is not "shooting upward," or in any other direction. it's well within standard measurement error.

    #92 - not everyone has time to address everything and everyone they disagree with. silence is rarely if ever assent, and there's no such thing as hypocrisy by omission, no matter how many times you try to claim that there is.

    #93 - we'll see if someone comes along to pick up the democratic mantle, but it's far too early now to be claiming victory in 2020.

    #94-95 - insanely alarmist. there are bad people of all types - however, illegal immigrants commit fewer violent crimes by percentage than natural-born citizens. this type of propaganda is right out of the nazi playbook, posting lists of jewish criminals to impugn all jews.

    #96 - there's no evidence at all for these conspiracy claims. not one single supporting fact. the article cited contains only unfounded accusations and blanket denials - absolutely nothing of substance. for someone who claims to care about "the facts," and who accuses others of hypocrisy for partisan interpretations, you don't seem too interested in your own hypocrisy when it's this president making non-factual claims, and the prior president with no facts whatsoever against him.

    JL

    i move to strike comments 91-96 from the record, on account of they make you look... stupid!

    You took the box? Let's see what's in the box! Nothing! Absolutely nothing! STUPID! You're so STUPID!
    ~UHF

    https://youtu.be/qileP4bAzek

  99. [99] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @alto,

    i agree that it's hypocritical to criticize the cross-section of policy where trump and obama overlap. however, conflict of interest with russian business isn't something obama had any issues with, so that aspect at least makes for valid criticism.

    JL

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    #91 - 1.6 points is not "shooting upward," or in any other direction. it's well within standard measurement error.

    It's upward trajectory in less than a cycle.. I understand why you wouldn't want to characterize it as shooting up, just as I am sure you understand why I would want to characterize it that way.. :D

    #92 - not everyone has time to address everything and everyone they disagree with. silence is rarely if ever assent, and there's no such thing as hypocrisy by omission, no matter how many times you try to claim that there is.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on that..

    If I spend hours and days condemning Obama for lying and then remain silent when President Trump lies, then ya'all can rightly call me a hypocrite..

    So, regardless of whether you view it as hypocrisy or not, the facts clearly show that it is hypocrisy nonetheless..

    "Furthertheless is not a word! Stop using it!!!"
    -Charlie Sheen, SPIN CITY

    :D

    #93 - we'll see if someone comes along to pick up the democratic mantle, but it's far too early now to be claiming victory in 2020.

    And yet, the Left Wingery, including the majority of Weigantians, were "declaring victory" at the alleged demise of the Republican Party very VERY often in the last 8 years...

    :D

    What goes around, comes around...

    #94-95 - insanely alarmist. there are bad people of all types - however, illegal immigrants commit fewer violent crimes by percentage than natural-born citizens.

    And I am sure that the loved ones of all those killed, raped and assaulted by illegal immigrants would take comfort in that useless and wholly irrelevant stat...

    My point in bringing it up is that we hear CONSTANTLY here in Weigantia about the "poor" illegal immigrant criminals, but no one here wants to talk about the VICTIMS of illegal immigrant attacks..

    Why is that???

    #96 - there's no evidence at all for these conspiracy claims. not one single supporting fact. the article cited contains only unfounded accusations and blanket denials - absolutely nothing of substance. for someone who claims to care about "the facts," and who accuses others of hypocrisy for partisan interpretations, you don't seem too interested in your own hypocrisy when it's this president making non-factual claims, and the prior president with no facts whatsoever against him.

    And yet, the EXACT same thing can be said about ya'all's claims against President Trump..

    Nothing but WaPoop and Democrat reports and hysteria..

    Ya'all have set the standard for these kinds of accusations...

    Don't blame me because we're playing by ya'all's rules..

    i move to strike comments 91-96 from the record, on account of they make you look... stupid!

    That's an opinion based SOLELY and COMPLETELY on partisan ideology and has nothing to do with facts or reality...

    So say we all

    "We All" being patriotic Americans.. :D

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    Ahhhhhhh It's good to be back!!! :D

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    And yet, the EXACT same thing can be said about ya'all's claims against President Trump..

    And Sessions, AND Flynn, AND Bannon AND Conway etc etc etc...

    Ya'all have set the (sub)standard for what constitutes "reality" around here...

  103. [103] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    my opinion is not based on partisan ideology, it's based on facts. it's a fact that immigrants commit fewer violent crimes (both on average and in aggregate) than natural-born citizens.

    And I am sure that the loved ones of all those killed, raped and assaulted by illegal immigrants

    again, move to strike due to it being unjust bigotry. we don't blame ten million people for the actions of ten thousand, any more than we blame all white people for charles manson, or all jews for bernie madoff.

    https://youtu.be/gmx3zfe63ZQ?t=27s

    JL

  104. [104] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/03/could-the-greatest-neoliberal-sellout-in-known-human-history-be-good-at-his-job

    Mike Elk has a good summary of Tom Perez and his management style. The idea that the greatest Secretary of Labor since Frances Perkins was some sort of horrendous neoliberal was always laughable on the face of it, but the more we know about Perez, the better he looks as DNC chair, leaving aside the fact that Keith Ellison probably would be just as effective.

    Good article.

  105. [105] 
    Paula wrote:

    Re: Jimmy Dore -- he came onto The Majority Report a few times in the run-up to the election and he was an idiot. He screamed at Sam Sedar and hung up on him the first time because Sam kept pressing him for specifics. Dore's response: "I'm just a comedian, don't expect me to know details!"

    Dore kept saying it would be fine if Trump won because the Dems could just do what the Repubs did: obstruct. The repubs refused to look at Merrick Garland for 9 months? Well Dems could do that for 4 years! Sam would say "what if Repubs end the filibuster?" Dore would start screaming about how Sam was "ambushing" him.

    Dore was magical thinking all the way. He's a white guy in California, IOW, safe from the harassment and other horrors that characterize this criminal regime. He very irresponsibly applauded the idea that the nightmare of Trump would be better than Hillary because it would "shake things up!" You know, change. Change that wouldn't hurt HIM and, of course, ok to sacrifice other people so long as "the establishment" got a black eye.

    He's a big mouth with a peabrain and a protected position.

  106. [106] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    82, 83

    Dore was breaking down an article from the Washington Post, based on the factual policies of the Obama admin.
    Those policies DID help the rich and DID hurt the poor. In the article he was citing, millions of Americans lost their homes (and most of their wealth) in a fraud that was completed with fraudulent foreclosures which could have been avoided.
    Obama was in bed with the banks, and the finance sector was Obama's single largest source for campaign contributions.
    You can believe a fantasy alternative if you want, but I have to note that you didn't counter the factual claims while dismissing them as "opinion".
    I know you are aware that inequality got worse under Obama and that something like 95% of the gains in the "recovery" went to the rich.
    You've also admitted that the banksters who were involved in the massive fraud that caused the Great Recession should have been prosecuted but were not.
    Not in bed with the banks?
    They got everything they wanted.

    I am also sure that you are informed and imaginative enough to know that there were other ways of preventing the collapse of the financial system... for example the way the government responded to the S&L crisis.
    It isn't reasonable to pretend that allowing disaster by doing nothing was the only alternative.

    Your whole bit about Reagan and Bill Clinton and Bush is weird to me.
    You seem to be ignoring how voters were convinced to vote against their own interests, as if the economic policies that were implemented were what was promised and what got those presidents elected.
    That's not reality.

    You can dismiss the anger from the left and dismiss the working class, but that is why Democrats are out of power.

    Just a reminder that the median wage in this country is just north of $30,000 per year.
    Y'know... average voters.

    "tell me what I already know: the Democrats have coopted the center right because that is where the votes are?"

    If that is where the votes are, why are Dems in their worst position since the 1920's?

    Dore, and I and millions of others aren't pointing out these problems for the sake of "whining".
    We are sick of being told to unify behind a status quo that is failing our country AND electorally.
    And Bernie has caucused with the Dems his entire career.

    "Republicans had a better message"?

    OK Mrs. Pelosi... you can pretend policies are irrelevant.

    "the Democratic Party is making sure that the police, government workers, firemen, teachers, etc. can't be fired and get cushy defined benefit plans. The socialism that the Democratic Party is talking about and delivering on isn't helping the regular middle class."

    "cushy"? You're jealous of the wages and benefits of underpaid government workers?
    Earned benefits are "socialism"?
    All those workers aren't "middle class"?

    Sorry, but you're off the deep end with all of that.
    I understood what you were saying earlier, but I don't understand that.

    I am certain you understand that tax cuts for the wealthy passed with bipartisan support are the reason for the "gaping gaps in state budgets" and that the bipartisan support for harmful economic policies and wage suppression is responsible for all those people "struggling to save for retirement".

    And you know that I know you're informed, so just stop with that game of feigned ignorance while falling back on the regressive talking points that attempt to shift the blame elsewhere.

    We both know that's not who you are.

    A

    PS- Gavin Newsome is a Wall Street coddling corporatist. Don't be fooled by a Big Money guy with socially progressive stances again.

  107. [107] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://observer.com/2017/03/kremlingate-donald-trump-russia-white-house-bugged/

    What’s certain is that KremlinGate isn’t going away, and the president’s bizarre efforts to make his links to Moscow a non-story have only made it a bigger one. Now the media is more curious than ever about Trump’s Russian connections, and no amount of chanting “fake news” will alter that. Neither will Team Trump’s obsession with the alleged “deep state” save them from awkward questions. Today the White House will seek to redirect again by talking about immigration and other Trump policy initiatives, hoping the press plays along and forgets about last week. It won’t work.

  108. [108] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    99

    Thanks on the first part.
    But my valid criticism of Democrats in no way means I oppose valid criticism of Trump if that's what you are implying.

    A

  109. [109] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    78

    Actual evidence would be nice to see.

    We haven't gotten any yet, but Dems are pretending otherwise.

    It's not just morally wrong, but also bad politics to stoop into the gutter with the republicans.

    I hope you're right.

    A

  110. [110] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    my opinion is not based on partisan ideology, it's based on facts. it's a fact that immigrants commit fewer violent crimes (both on average and in aggregate) than natural-born citizens.

    And it's a fact that THAT fact is absolutely NO COMFORT to those Americans who have been killed and raped by illegal immigrants.

    My point is that everyone here IGNORES that FACT...

    again, move to strike due to it being unjust bigotry. we don't blame ten million people for the actions of ten thousand, any more than we blame all white people for charles manson, or all jews for bernie madoff.

    It's not a question of blame..

    It's a question of simple acknowledgement..

    It's a question of IGNORING the facts because they are politically inconvenient..

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    again, move to strike due to it being unjust bigotry. we don't blame ten million people for the actions of ten thousand,

    But, BY DEFINITION, ALL ten millions are criminals..

    Some are just LESSER criminals than others..

    But they are ALL criminals..

    THAT's the point ya'all refuse to acknowledge...

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    If 10 million people break into people's homes, but only 10 thousand of them murder the occupants, they ALL still get the blame for being criminals...

  113. [113] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    86

    "From a financial perspective I'd be much better off voting straight Republican. So would a lot of people in the Democratic Party."

    I don't think that's necessarily true in the long term. An economy with a strong middle class is better for the rich in the long term too.

    And, since there has been bipartisan support for the economic policies that benefit the rich, the current reality is, shall we say, a little cloudy.

    As far as elections go, millions of Americans have left the Democratic party since November.
    Millions.

    Why aren't the masses supporting the Democratic candidates favored by the wealthy and the party apparatus that chooses them?
    Can you win without them?

    A

  114. [114] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    105

    Good to see an establishment Democrat attacking a progressive.

    No doubt, the path to victory.

    Oh wait.
    The evidence suggests the opposite.

    Maybe the "magical thinking" and practicality of those who lost to the worst candidate EVER (not to mention Congress and state and local elections) requires some introspection and a new approach?

    A

  115. [115] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    104

    If you are supporting the hope that Perez bites that hand that feeds him AND those that got him the job as DNC chair (which "neoliberal sellout" implies), I'm on board.

    But pretending that's not how he got the job means you're off to a bad start.
    Delusion isn't the path to victory.

    A

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    Delusion isn't the path to victory.

    One would have thought THAT became PAINFULLY obvious in the debacle of a "campaign" that NOT-45 ran.....

    But, the nice thing about delusions is that they are so warm and fuzzy to cling to...

    Ya'all have a LOT of experience with that... Notable exceptions noted..

  117. [117] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    illegal immigrants aren't breaking into our home, they're being invited in to clean it for below minimum wage. if the immigrants are criminals, so is every citizen who hires one - yet i don't see anyone who ever hired an undocumented worker being rounded up and incarcerated, therefore it must be something other that just illegal activity that's being used as a criterion for bigotry.

  118. [118] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and furthermore, compared to those who have been invited in to clean the toilets, the hosts/employers are twice as likely to murder each other.

  119. [119] 
    michale wrote:

    illegal immigrants aren't breaking into our home, they're being invited in to clean it for below minimum wage.

    Bullshit..

    if the immigrants are criminals, so is every citizen who hires one

    Now THERE is a factual statement..

    yet i don't see anyone who ever hired an undocumented worker being rounded up and incarcerated,

    That's because namby-pamby Left Wingers are abhorrent about actually PUNISHING criminals..

    and furthermore, compared to those who have been invited in to clean the toilets, the hosts/employers are twice as likely to murder each other.

    Which, like every other point you made is completely IRRELEVANT to the point..

    And the point is that ya'all ignore the rapes and murders and assaults committed by illegal immigrants because they are politically inconvenient...

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    Maybe the "magical thinking" and practicality of those who lost to the worst candidate EVER (not to mention Congress and state and local elections) requires some introspection and a new approach?

    Haven't you heard??

    The Left Wingery think that NOT-45 was the PERFECT candidate and, by electing Perez to lead the DNC, they have signaled that it's FULL STEAM AHEAD on the STAY THE COURSE mentality..

    Which means that Democrats will continue to LOSE, LOSE and LOSE at the ballot box.... :D

    Which completely and utterly works for me... :D

  121. [121] 
    michale wrote:

    https://news.grabien.com/story-mika-tearfully-tells-viewers-trump-if-people-out-there-feel

    Waaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Please!! Someone call the WAAhhhhmmmmmbulance...

    Gods, I am glad these frakin' whiny babies are not in charge anymore....

  122. [122] 
    neilm wrote:

    I don't think that's necessarily true in the long term. An economy with a strong middle class is better for the rich in the long term too.

    It has been true for 30 years, and a lot of my wealth is parked overseas. This is the nature of the beast - if the U.S. economy tanks because of structural reasons the capital will flow elsewhere - in fact for the bottom 80% of the U.S. that is what has been happening for the last few decades.

    When I came to this country it reminded me more of Africa than Europe. In Africa there was a very visible rich community and a mass of poor people with a large difference in between. In Europe it is more difficult to identify the rich from the poor. I called it "economic apartheid" at the time and nothing since has shown me much different.

  123. [123] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (111)-
    OK. Technically they are all criminals. But they are not all dangerous criminals.
    Can you honestly tell me that you have never exceeded the speed limit, did not come to a full stop at a stop sign or driven through a park running over children, animals and no littering signs ? :D

  124. [124] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, after laughing their heads off at 45's pathetic tweets about wire tapps [sic], it has become apparent that this a multiple foot shooting:

    45 shot himself in the foot:

    First time: He has no evidence for the claim, that he made at 3am in the morning after receiving no intelligence

    Second time: It was immediately obvious that he had read a Breitbart article and believed it

    Third time: the FBI basically told him to put up or shut up

    Fourth time: even his own party started laughing at him

    Fifth time: does he really want to ask for a congressional investigation into the whole Russian affair?

    Sixth time: If he is actually correct, and Obama did get a warrant for a tap, the evidence to support it will now come out and it ain't going to be pretty for 45 and his minions

    Seventh time: If this were some sort of illegal wiretap by Obama and some rogue, Watergate-like operators, and they are caught, everything that they recorded will be released

    Somebody needs to sneak into 45 bedroom and take his phone off the bedside table every night.

  125. [125] 
    neilm wrote:

    As far as elections go, millions of Americans have left the Democratic party since November.
    Millions.

    Interesting - I haven't seen these figures - any links?

  126. [126] 
    Paula wrote:

    This is a really interesting piece: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-happens-when-we-dont-believe-presidents-oath

    There’s only one problem with Trump’s eligibility for the office he now holds: The idea of Trump’s swearing this or any other oath “solemnly” is, not to put too fine a point on it, laughable—as more fundamentally is any promise on his part to “faithfully” execute this or any other commitment that involves the centrality of anyone or anything other than himself.

    If you are finding Lawfare useful in these times, please consider making a contribution to support what we do.

    PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
    Indeed, a person who pauses to think about the matter has good reason to doubt the sincerity of Trump’s oath of office, or even his capacity to swear an oath sincerely at all. We submit that huge numbers of people—including important actors in our constitutional system—have not even paused to consider it; they are instinctively leery of Trump’s oath and are now behaving accordingly.

    This reality, and we argue here that it is a reality, is already conditioning the Trump presidency in overt ways visible every day. What’s more, we submit that these doubts about the President’s oath will inevitably shape public and institutional reaction to his service. And as a predictive matter, we believe that doubts about the President’s oath will have important and negative implications for the future of the American presidency.

  127. [127] 
    Paula wrote:

    Oops, caught the paypal part in the middle of the quote. sigh.

  128. [128] 
    Paula wrote:

    [125] yes, I'd like the source of the claim too. In point of fact, a whole lot of people have gotten quite active politically since the election and woebegone Democrats in cities and counties around the country are saying people are suddenly showing up at their monthly meetings in droves. They are asking to be appointed precinct captains, too.

    The refuse-to-move-on Berniebros may want to continue the primary wars indefinitely but I think their complaints are not making much headway against the tide of much stronger concern over Trump and his GOP confederates.

  129. [129] 
    neilm wrote:

    Those policies DID help the rich and DID hurt the poor. In the article he was citing, millions of Americans lost their homes (and most of their wealth) in a fraud that was completed with fraudulent foreclosures which could have been avoided.

    This was a time of pandemonium. Nobody knew what counterparty risk was safe and which could disappear overnight. The banks had to deal with an indeterminate number of loans on their books, many of which were based on zero doc lending habits, and they had so many they needed to check the basis for every single loan again.

    I had to go away on business to China for a few weeks in 2008 and came home to discover my line of credit had been canceled because I hadn't verified my income within a two week period and I had a bank demand to repay the whole loan - I was lucky and could, but everybody everywhere was double checking loans as fast as they could trying to get a handle on their risk vs. real reserves.

    The credit crunch could have brought the whole economy down for years - without an implicit guarantee that the government would underpin the system we could have seen the leverage machine grind to a halt and topple over - and that would have caused a lot more problems - everybody who had a loan would have had it called in regardless of viability (this is also called a run on the bank) and everybody would be trying to sell their house or cars to realize cash to avoid bankruptcy with the inevitable asset price plummet. This is what Obama was trying to deal with.

    The government tried to cordon off the safer loans and underpin those first - this meant that they had to let the dicier loans fail if the banks didn't want to keep the risk on their own books - and basically none did.

    Some keen eyed financiers realized that there was an opportunity to buy loans, foreclose on them and grab the underlying assets, counting on a recovery that quickly caused an asset rebound and great profits for themselves. In other words, banks with way too much risk were being approached by people who wanted to take that risk from them so the banks could focus on the next risk traunch until they got their risk profiles under control. Not surprisingly they sold all the risk they could.

    The only way I understand the financial system at all is not to think of it as something to do with money, but to think of it as a way of handling risk. Money is just the way to pay other people for risk.

  130. [130] 
    michale wrote:

    Don,

    OK. Technically they are all criminals. But they are not all dangerous criminals.

    No, not ALL of them.. But that's irrelevant to the criminality of their actions..

    Can you honestly tell me that you have never exceeded the speed limit, did not come to a full stop at a stop sign or driven through a park running over children, animals and no littering signs ? :D

    What you are talking about are infractions, not crimes..

    It would be like comparing armed robbery to jay walking...

  131. [131] 
    michale wrote:

    This was a time of pandemonium.

    Oh... It was a time of pandemonium...

    So THAT makes it A-OK, then right?? :D

  132. [132] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The moment I (and hopefully at least one of you) have been waiting for has arrived.
    The new name for VV has been secured.
    Before revealing the name I would like to thank all that played in the guessing game.
    Special mention goes to Kick for his guess of OCCUPY for one of the words. While this was not the right word I'm guessing Kick may have thought the whole name was Occupy Democracy. This may even be a better name than I came up with. I thought I asked you not to do that :D
    Occupy has been overused, though I did use it as a slogan on a flyer in 2016 titled:
    "Occupy the Primaries/ A Union for Politics
    Hit 'em where it hurts- In the voting booth".
    I am also going to assume that Kick may have purposely not put his whole guess up to allow me to secure the name. If this is the case thanks to Kick and any one else that may have been holding back a real guess for that reason.
    In that spirit I will not reveal the name at this time in case anyone that has been holding back wants to guess.
    But I will provide two further hints.
    One hint is that one of you, Neilm, did get one of the words but not the other one in one of his "Guesses" (in quotations because some were certainly just for fun, not really guesses), but I will not tell you which one of Neilm's guesses was
    the one with the one word in it and not the other one.
    One hint down, one to go and then I'm done (actually in order for me to be done all you need to do is add an 'e'.)

    neilm- while I have used that "joke" before I will not repeat the Blazing Saddles quote for the sake of the children.

    The second hint is (or could be) on your TV. There is a feature of my cable service that is the new name missing only one letter. If your TV provider does use the same term as mine then this hint probably won't help.
    (OK. That could actually be three hints, but I think of it as one of the hints having two clues to arrive at the one hint.)
    Thank you all again for playing. I will check back soon to verify any correct answers or provide the answer if no one has guessed correctly or no one has guessed. Of course, if no one has guessed then it really wouldn't matter if I post the answer because there obviously would be no interest from anyone as to what it is.

  133. [133] 
    michale wrote:

    Sixth time: If he is actually correct, and Obama did get a warrant for a tap, the evidence to support it will now come out and it ain't going to be pretty for 45 and his minions

    Actually, what had occurred is this..

    Obama went to the FISA court for permission to put a tap on Candidate Trump and a few associates..

    The FISA court, who routinely rubber stamps government requests for taps, said, " ARE YOU FRAKIN' NUTS!!!!!" and then denied the request..

    A few weeks later, Obama re-applied, this time omitting Candidate Trump's name. This one was approved and Obama went ahead and wire-trapped Candidate Trump in violation of the FISA order...

    Seventh time: If this were some sort of illegal wiretap by Obama and some rogue, Watergate-like operators, and they are caught, everything that they recorded will be released

    Now that Congress and the DOJ and the FBI are investigating Obama's role in all of this, you are right..

    It's ALL going to come out and Odumbo is gonna do the perp walk!!! :D

    Can't wait!!! :D

  134. [134] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Please recheck comment 130.
    No matter what others here may think of you, I can't believe that you would consider driving through a park running over children and animals an infraction and not a crime. I 'll give you the no littering sign though. :D

  135. [135] 
    neilm wrote:

    "cushy"? You're jealous of the wages and benefits of underpaid government workers?

    I'm not jealous of these workers, but since average household income is just over $50,000 and most people don't have any retirement savings there is a lot of anger out there at defined benefit programs.

    Why do you think Scott Walker got elected and survived a recall? That was a salutary lesson for Democrats - he won his recall election in 2012 by a larger margin than his original 2010 election for his policy of limiting collective bargaining privileges for state employees.

    And Scott Walker is an arse of the first degree - it isn't like he is likable - his smarmy co-efficient is up there with Jimmy Dore.

  136. [136] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    oops. that should be " if your TV provider DOESN"T use same term..."

  137. [137] 
    neilm wrote:

    Your whole bit about Reagan and Bill Clinton and Bush is weird to me.
    You seem to be ignoring how voters were convinced to vote against their own interests, as if the economic policies that were implemented were what was promised and what got those presidents elected.
    That's not reality.

    The whole thing is weird to me as well. Why would workers vote for Reagan? Especially after he put down the air traffic controllers? I mean the first time I can see it - Reagan was the sunny, smiling, optimistic believe in America at a time when America was feeling very sorry for itself - but the landslide in 1984? What were Reagan Democrats thinking?

    The tried policies and talking points that we hear from Bernie and the left today failed disastrously in 1984, and then again in 1988, and these back-to-back failures shaped a generation of Democratic politicians and thinkers.

    My take is that the leadership of the left realized that the people weren't paying attention to the important stuff and that the right wing of the country had learned how to make shiny objects more important than sound policy. Bribing people with tax cuts worked. Vilifying government and 'the elites' worked so well the left wing are now in bed with the right, as we just saw from Jimmy Dore. Things aren't going just the way he wants them, so it must be Obama's fault? F that.

  138. [138] 
    michale wrote:

    No matter what others here may think of you, I can't believe that you would consider driving through a park running over children and animals an infraction and not a crime.

    Depends on the circumstances...

    But, all things being equal, I would agree with you..

    My overall point here is simple..

    Illegal immigration has a REAL and EXPENSIVE cost associated with it..

    Everyone here wants to ignore that cost SOLELY and COMPLETELY based on partisan ideology..

    And THAT stinks...

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    Things aren't going just the way he wants them, so it must be Obama's fault? F that.

    Because your partisan blinders simply will not let you blame Obama for ANYTHING...

    I have criticized President Trump for quite a few things..

    With a handful of exceptions, NO ONE here has criticized Obama for ANYTHING....

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:
  141. [141] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [109]

    Actual evidence would be nice to see.

    We haven't gotten any yet, but Dems are pretending otherwise.

    I guess that depends on your definition of "haven't gotten any."

    https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-national-committee/

    There's more but not quite enough made public. Stay tuned.

    It's not just morally wrong, but also bad politics to stoop into the gutter with the republicans.

    I guess that depends on your definition of "stoop into the gutter."

    There are a lot of people who took their jobs seriously when they raised their right hands and were sworn to protect America from enemies both foreign and domestic, and some of them aren't Democrats. :)

  142. [142] 
    neilm wrote:

    This was a time of pandemonium.

    Oh... It was a time of pandemonium...

    So THAT makes it A-OK, then right?? :D

    How would you have handled the failure of all the counterparty risk models Michale? How would you have ensured that banks didn't completely stop lending and call in all their loans in a race to the bottom? How would you have convinced Bank A not to call in the loans to Bank B, causing Bank B to call the loans in on the customers of Bank C, forcing Bank C to fail and then renege on it's loans to Bank D that underpins Bank A - and this is an incredibly simple example - most of the banks were everybody else's counterparty risk holders and there was no system in place that recorded most of the largest bets (there was no derivatives clearing house, and basically still isn't). Banks with massive risk in instruments that had been regarded as too safe to sell because nobody wanted to buy cash equivalents one day suddenly had to calculate the real value and didn't know who was on the other side of the risk.

    Please lay out how you would have addressed the problems at the time (this is open to everybody). You can do it with 20-20 hindsight, but you have to explain how to address the risk.

  143. [143] 
    michale wrote:

    How would you have handled the failure of all the counterparty risk models Michale? How would you have ensured that banks didn't completely stop lending and call in all their loans in a race to the bottom? How would you have convinced Bank A not to call in the loans to Bank B, causing Bank B to call the loans in on the customers of Bank C, forcing Bank C to fail and then renege on it's loans to Bank D that underpins Bank A - and this is an incredibly simple example - most of the banks were everybody else's counterparty risk holders and there was no system in place that recorded most of the largest bets (there was no derivatives clearing house, and basically still isn't). Banks with massive risk in instruments that had been regarded as too safe to sell because nobody wanted to buy cash equivalents one day suddenly had to calculate the real value and didn't know who was on the other side of the risk.

    Please lay out how you would have addressed the problems at the time (this is open to everybody). You can do it with 20-20 hindsight, but you have to explain how to address the risk.

    I am just commenting how funny it is that ya'all can justify ANYTHING, as long as you have an excuse..

    If it had been Republicans in charge and did the EXACT same thing, you would be damning them all to hell..

    But, since it was Democrats, "Well, it's necessary.."

    It's ALL about partisan ideology...

    NOTHING else here is in play...

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    While You Weren’t Looking, the Democrat–Media Election-Hacking Narrative Just Collapsed

    That supposed FBI investigation of collusion with the Russians? Never mind . . . They’re in retreat now.

    You may have missed it amid President Trump’s startling Saturday tweet storm, the recriminations over president-on-candidate spying, and the Jeff Sessions recusal — a whirlwind weekend.

    But while you weren’t looking, an elaborate narrative died. For months, the media-Democrat complex has peddled a storyline that the Putin regime in Russia hacked the U.S. presidential election. There is, of course, no evidence that the election was hacked in the sense that the actual voting process was compromised.

    Rather, there is evidence that e-mail accounts of prominent Democrats were hacked months before the election, and thousands of those e-mails were published by WikiLeaks in the months leading up to the election.

    Into this misleading “Russia hacked the election” narrative, the press and the Dems injected a second explosive allegation — or at least an explosive suspicion that they’ve wanted us to perceive as a credible allegation meriting a serious investigation.

    The suspicion/allegation is: Not only did Russia hack the election, but there are also enough ties between people in the Trump orbit and operatives of the Putin regime that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was complicit in Russia’s hacking of the election. Transparently, the aim is to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election victory.
    http://tinyurl.com/h94etmg

    And the Democrat House Of Cards come tumbling down!! :D

    Who could have POSSIBLY called it!??

    Oh... wait... :D

  145. [145] 
    michale wrote:

    Yes, There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance

    submit to reddit

    President Trump recently tweeted claiming that former President Obama wiretapped him during his campaign. One can only imagine how nuts the media would have gone if the roles had been reversed: President Trump wiretapping either Obama or the Clintons, though his DOJ could have authority to do just that given the expansive leaks of intelligence information by Obama and Clinton supporters the last few months. Heck, he could wiretap the media at this point, legally and legitimately, as the sources of these unlawful leaks, for which Obama himself set precedent. Do liberals understand what Pandora’s Box Obama opened up by Obama using the powers of the NSA, CIA and FBI to spy on his political opponents? Even Nixon never did that.

    If the stories are correct, Obama or his officials might even face prosecution.
    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-obama-could-be-prosecuted-if-involved-with-illegal-surveillance/

    Once again... It's *ALL* about the '-X' after the person's name....

  146. [146] 
    michale wrote:

    The stories currently are three-fold: first, that Obama’s team tried to get a warrant from a regular, Article III federal court on Trump, and was told no by someone along the way (maybe the FBI), as the evidence was that weak or non-existent; second, Obama’s team then tried to circumvent the federal judiciary’s independent role by trying to mislabel the issue one of “foreign agents,” and tried to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “courts”, and were again turned down, when the court saw Trump named (an extremely rare act of FISA court refusal of the government, suggesting the evidence was truly non-existent against Trump); and so, third, Obama circumvented both the regular command of the FBI and the regularly appointed federal courts, by placing the entire case as a FISA case (and apparently under Sally Yates at DOJ) as a “foreign” case, and then omitted Trump’s name from a surveillance warrant submitted to the FISA court, which the FISA court unwittingly granted, which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump.

    Are these allegations true? We don’t know yet, but if any part of them are then Obama and/or his officials could face serious trouble.

    Obama's gonna do da perp walk!!!! :D

  147. [147] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don:

    One Demand.

    Kick is a "her." :)

  148. [148] 
    michale wrote:

    #ObamaGate Is a Lot More than a Hashtag

    If I were a Democrat, I'd be afraid. I'd be very afraid.

    Forget the usual smokescreen of hyper-partisan blather from Chuck Schumer on "Meet the Press" or the myriad calls for Trump's head from the usual press suspects and consider the situation: Congressional committees, the FBI, not to mention numerous avid media organizations and who knows who else (NSA? CIA? ASPCA?) have been investigating putative Trump-Russia collusion for some time now and come up with... exactly nothing.

    Are they likely to come up with something of significance at this point? Almost certainly not.

    So now we have Trump's bold, brash, "unhinged" Twitter accusations that Obama wiretapped him. This came after Mark Levin, Breitbart, Andrew C. McCarthy, Louise Mensch and others I've forgotten about or am unaware of reported about two appeals to FISA courts (one denied last summer and one approved in October) for permission to tap phones in Trump Tower. Did they happen?

    It seems that tapping of some sort actually occurred because it was virtually acknowledged in tweets from Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, who sprang to action only hours after Trump tweeted, writing: "I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the WH ordered it." Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president, had almost simultaneously declared: "Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U. S. citizen." Ordered? That's what we used to call plausible deniability and now is known as a wiggle word.

    Trump wants this possible surveillance to be investigated along with the rest of the supposed Russia mess — the little that's left of it to be cleared up. Meanwhile, that Democratic Party house organ The New York Times is reporting that James Comey himself wants the Justice Department to issue a denial that such a wiretap ever existed — or so the paper's ubiquitous "sources" say. Of course the Times itself saw it differently only a couple of months ago. Meanwhile, former DNI James Clapper — who famously told all his fellow citizens a boldface lie about the NSA — has assured the media regarding this particular tap, "I can deny it." (Yes, you can.)

    All this while Barack and Michelle Obama, rather than graciously depart the D.C. scene in the manner of previous presidents — recent ones anyway — have moved into a local estate with their constant companion Valerie Jarrett in some kind of Ménage à Medici as if Barack never had an intention to leave and expects to serve a third term.

    My guess is this will all come down to whether our former president knew about this wiretapping — whoever authorized it and wherever it came from — and, if so, when. And also how he reacted to it and what he did from there. It's all, in the grand Clintonian tradition, about what the definition of "ordered" is.
    https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/03/05/obamagate-is-a-lot-more-than-a-hashtag/

    I think it's so totally awesome that Dumbocrats pushed and pushed on the BS accusation against AG Sessions..

    Now ALL of Obama's malfeasance is going to come out!!!

    And not even the liberals in California can save him!! :D

    WOOT!!!!!

    I haven't been this happy and pumped since President Trump devastated NOT-45 in her "50-state sweep" hehehehehehehe :D

  149. [149] 
    michale wrote:

    As to the idea that Odumbo would never order ANY wire-tapping???

    Do I REALLY need to list all the wire-taps that Odumbo oversaw???

    Warning, it's a really REALLY *REALLY* long list...

  150. [150] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    This is an incredibly interesting article about the history of third parties and a potential path forward... or, for Establishment defending Dems, keeping tabs on what the millions who have left the Democratic party may be up to.

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democratic-labor-party-ackerman/

    Here's an excerpt-

    "In a genuinely democratic party, the organization’s membership, program, and leadership are bound together tightly by a powerful, mutually reinforcing connection. The party’s members are its sovereign power; they come together through a sense of shared interest or principle. Through deliberation, the members establish a program to advance those interests. The party educates the public around the program, and it serves, in effect, as the lodestar by which the party is guided. Finally, the members choose a party leadership — including electoral candidates — who are accountable to the membership and bound by the program.

    It might seem obvious that those are the characteristics of a truly democratic party. Yet the Democratic Party has none of them."

    -
    -

    I suspect that most of you will be completely unfamiliar (as I was) with how the regulatory and legal restrictions that have maintained the two party system came about.

    There's a really interesting section on how the US system would violate just about every EU election law, and that they view our system as more akin to those in authoritarian countries.

    We are exceptional again!!!

    A

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    Friday Talking Points [427] -- Lock Him Up!

    Of course, the LOCK HIM UP part refers to Obama, right?? :D

  152. [152] 
    Paula wrote:

    God I love how this stupid accusation against President Obama is backfiring on 45. Of course, the Breitbart/GOP traitors are desperately spinning but they are up against the real world now and utter bullshit doesn't cut it with the grownups.

    President Bannon wants to ditch Priebus too -- good times. Institutional Repubs will have their come-to-Jesus moments when they realize the insane orange man is heading for disaster and ditching Priebus will allow President Bannon to call the shots.

    Today John King on CNN refused to run photos of Trump's Muslim Ban signing since the WH had done the signing behind closed doors (since 45 is sulking over Sessions being outed and having to recuse himself) -- and CNN said its not PRAVDA (essentially).

    From the minute the criminal took office with his GOP coconspirators, patriotic Americans have rebelled. Trump is a cancer and the country's immune system has been fighting back ever since. (Metaphor courtesy of Paul Waldman.) It is wonderful to know the Trump infestation is peopled by the same old bunch of rightwing idiots its always been, and that slivers of even them are having doubts.

    Bannon may be smarter than Trump, but he's not smarter than the combined intellects of people all over the government who recognize the cesspool-like rot of this administration. We are learning America is stronger than the Trump-Bannon-GOP-Deplorable Gang and that's good to know.

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    God I love how this stupid accusation against President Obama is backfiring on 45

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary... :D

    But, you still believe that NOT-45 won the election..

    So....... :D

    Today John King on CNN refused to run photos of Trump's Muslim Ban signing since the WH had done the signing behind closed doors (since 45 is sulking over Sessions being outed and having to recuse himself) -- and CNN said its not PRAVDA (essentially).

    It's funny.. You condemned CNN to hell when the reported critically of NOT-45..

    NOW CNN is yer cat's meow...

    Yea, NO credibility gap there.. :D

  154. [154] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    122

    "long term" was meant as in not there yet.

    If policies favoring the wealthy continue to destroy the middle class in the US, our economy will look exactly like many/most in Africa... and I don't think you were saying that is positive...

    ... the rich profiting off only the consumption of necessities by the poor.

    That limits the economy as a whole and reduces profit opportunities for the rich.

    It took decades to establish a solid middle class, and it will probably take a few more decades of the status quo to destroy it.

    The slowly worsening reality is bad enough.

    I would prefer we not test the hypothesis in America.

    A

  155. [155] 
    neilm wrote:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39186438

    Hey Michale - I thought there was a new Sheriff in Town and the Iranian's weren't going to dare to do this any longer?

  156. [156] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick 9147)-
    DING! DING! DING!
    congratulations. we have a winner!
    "Kick is a her."
    Well isn't that a kick in the...
    oops- the children.
    Sorry. I was going to try to peek underneath the comments to try and get an idea but I didn't want to end up as registered sex offender. :D

  157. [157] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    One added benefit of the new name and slogan is that person I was writing to and CW may each now have some personal connection to the name for the other guy and the slogan for CW, as it was CW's slogan contest that inspired me to think of the new slogan.
    The trick will be figuring out a subtle way to play on their egos without them realizing it.

  158. [158] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone:

    It took decades to establish a solid middle class, and it will probably take a few more decades of the status quo to destroy it.

    We are creating a huge new middle class - one that is 3-4x the size of the one in the affluent countries and one that will create far more wealth for everybody.

    Take a look at the "Elephant" diagram in this blog from the invaluable Branko Milanovic:

    https://milescorak.com/2016/05/18/the-winners-and-losers-of-globalization-branko-milanovics-new-book-on-inequality-answers-two-important-questions/

    Note that the middle class in the developed world has seen little or no income growth (and in some parts, income decline). However look at what is happening to the rest of the world. All those people who couldn't afford to buy anything, even if they had access to them, are on a spending spree the likes of which has never been seen before.

  159. [159] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    129

    Of the 12 million foreclosures, a tiny fraction occurred during the "pandemonium", so that argument doesn't substantiate the need for tolerating the massive fraud, or opposition to policies that could have prevented foreclosures.
    It was a choice, and Obama and Geithner were on the side of the banks.

    Prosecutions for the fraud that created the pandemonium could have taken place once the finance sector was stabilized and BEFORE the statutes of limitations for the crimes expired.
    It was a choice not to prosecute, and Obama and Geithner were on the side of the banks.

    And the complexity of the counterparty risk and systemic risk the big banks created is above all the reason they should have been broken up.
    Instead, with the help of policies supported by Big Money Democrats, they have all gotten bigger.
    It was a choice, and Obama and Geithner were on the side of the banks.

    Pandemonium isn't a valid excuse.

    A

  160. [160] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    158

    Yup.
    A new and global middle class is great, but it doesn't mean you support destroying the one in America right?

    A

  161. [161] 
    neilm wrote:

    ... the rich profiting off only the consumption of necessities by the poor.

    There is an argument that an American living in the second lowest quintile by household income (that is roughly $20K to $40K) are unimaginably better off than all but the very richest people 100 years ago. In terms of life expectancy, opportunities for travel, TV, smart phones, music, etc., etc.

    Regardless, the vast, vast majority of our country cannot be classes as living only off the "necessities" - the minimum amount of food and just enough warmth to keep us alive. So what is your definition of "necessity", and how do you think it would sound to a Chinese villager who has spent 30 years in a rice paddy hoping to have enough to scrape by for one more year?

    I'm of the school of thought that we need to make the pie larger and we need to make the pie shared more equally at the same time. Some people want to make the pie larger, but keep all the extra pie to themselves. They are in control at the moment and, in a democracy, we only have ourselves to blame for that.

    People who think that the pie is getting bigger but most people are getting less are not looking at the data. The percentage share may be getting smaller for some, but the Elephant diagram in the last post shows that almost everybody is getting more pie.

  162. [162] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    135

    Geez man.
    A wealthy guy channeling the poor to attack the middle class is bizarre.

    Who do you think eliminated the defined benefit plans in the corporate world?
    Who destroyed the unions?
    Who made saving for retirement impossible for all those Americans?
    Who opposes higher minimum wages?

    And what happened to the neil who supports higher taxes on the rich, universal healthcare, a progressive firebrand, etc.?

    I don't get you sometimes.

    A

  163. [163] 
    neilm wrote:

    A new and global middle class is great, but it doesn't mean you support destroying the one in America right?

    No, but the only American politician in two decades I've seen claim he is going to reverse globalization is Trump (there, I used his name for this special occasion).

    Bernie flirted with attacking globalization, but shot at the wrong target (the TPP) and refrained from trying to reverse globalization via tariffs. He fundamentally misunderstands global trade and America's role in it.*

    Where Bernie got it right was to tax the wealth created and spend it in this country on the people.

    * America only makes up a small percentage of the total World trade. If America kept high tariffs in place while the rest of the World lowered them then American goods would only be competitive in American markets. Within a generation American companies, protected from external competition, would start slipping behind the rest of the World and we would lose the most valuable strength America has - innovation. if you don't think this is true, look at the history of the American automobile industry and imagine if we had tariffs in place to make sure Ford, Chrysler and G.M. had protected markets since the 1970's - Ford Pinto anybody?

  164. [164] 
    neilm wrote:

    And what happened to the neil who supports higher taxes on the rich, universal healthcare, a progressive firebrand, etc.?

    That Neil is still here.

    I'm just making sure we don't get all soft on who allowed the following to happen:

    Who do you think eliminated the defined benefit plans in the corporate world?

    Where was the law that stated everybody had to get a defined benefit plan? In the 1950's when these developed labor was in short supply so unions could extract them from management.

    And thus:

    Who destroyed the unions?

    Basically Reagan, with the help of the people who voted for him.

    Who made saving for retirement impossible for all those Americans?

    Most people I know do this to themselves. We buy "things" today and don't save for tomorrow. The credit card gave people an ability to spend future earnings with ease and just about everybody decided to go to the party.

    Who opposes higher minimum wages?

    Not any Democratic politician I've heard from in the last two decades.

  165. [165] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    161

    I thought my words about wanting to prevent an even uglier theoretical future were clear.

    I guess not.

    The part of your comment about trying to make the poor and lower middle class feel better takes us back to the argument we had months ago...
    "Better than the Dark Ages"!!!
    Remember that?

    I support a larger pie more equally shared too, which is why I oppose the corporatist Democrats who cater to the rich, and why I think you and everyone else should too.

    A

  166. [166] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    163

    I know you know that globalization isn't the sole factor in the decline of the middle class.

    164

    No.
    The answer to all those questions is the same.
    The rich who have controlled both parties for decades.

    The elimination of defined benefit plans increased their profits.
    They pushed the politicians to enact the policies to kill the unions, increase labor competition, keep the minimum wage low, and people unable to save... and yes, exploitive credit too.
    They prevent the politicians from enacting the policies to mitigate the harm.

    A

  167. [167] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    164 again

    2009
    Democratic control of the House.
    Democratic control of the Senate.
    A Democratic president.

    NO increase in the minimum wage.

    They are what they do, not what they say.

    A

  168. [168] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil

    I think I just read that Australia went 20 years without a recession and their minimum wage is around $17.70 per hour.

    Did you get a chance to read the article about 3rd parties?

    A

  169. [169] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry - I've not read the article - I will - I was on my high horse, and you know how I get when I get up there ;)

    However, the voters get who they vote for. Money in politics is used to buy votes via convincing people to pull the "correct" handle. For the most part, this is a functional democracy, even if it isn't perfect.

    The last person who I saw fighting for campaign finance reform at any important level was John McCain. Then he almost got primaried from the right in Arizona and gave up trying to do the right thing.

    Who do you blame for the politicians we have today?

  170. [170] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [167]

    2009
    Democratic control of the House.
    Democratic control of the Senate.
    A Democratic president.

    NO increase in the minimum wage.

    The federal minimum wage was last raised on July 24, 2009, when it rose from $6.55 to $7.25 per hour.

    They are what they do, not what they say.

    I promise you that some Democrats voted for that minimum wage hike. :)

  171. [171] 
    neilm wrote:

    So I read the third party article. My take away was that the current system isn't conducive to a third party and that the best path is to co-opt the Democratic Party.

    I think the Tea Party showed the way - an amorphous movement with a simple agenda and a strong backing can make a big impact in American politics - especially with a charismatic leader like Bernie.

  172. [172] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    170

    That increase was passed in 2007.

    A

  173. [173] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    171

    I wasn't trying to sell you on the idea, just referring to the enforced duopoly.

    A

  174. [174] 
    michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is this.

    The Democrat Party is not the Peaches & Cream Everything Is Awesome that people here like to pretend it is..

    It has some REAL problems vis a vis patriotic Americans who put country before Party... This became painfully obvious this last election..

    Denying that those problems exist will simply guarantee that the Democrat Party will continue to be Minority Party in perpetuity...

    In short, the usual stuff is not working..

    Why not give Altohone's idea a try???

  175. [175] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Which, like every other point you made is completely IRRELEVANT to the point..

    that is an opinion, which as far as i can tell is based on the generalization that people categorized as criminals are more likely than the other people to steal, rape or murder.

    the trouble with that generalization is that in the case of illegal immigrants, it's completely false. in spite of being identified as criminals due to their unlawful presence in this country, illegal immigrants are LESS likely than the average person to steal, rape or murder. that's a fact.

    therefore, if our goal were to have lower rates of theft, rape and murder, statistically speaking, mass deportation of illegals would actually take us in the wrong direction. the goal could only be reached using that methodology if we started leaving illegal immigrants alone and deporting everyone else.

    as ridiculous as it may sound, that's a logical inference based on the facts. want to lower the rates of theft, rape and murder? see below:

    http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?2,file=32585,filename=American_Indian.JPG

  176. [176] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ooh, not exactly on the current topic, but this one is great:

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a7/6c/39/a76c39c61f4cc406eb944069b644e4cb.jpg

  177. [177] 
    michale wrote:

    the trouble with that generalization is that in the case of illegal immigrants, it's completely false. in spite of being identified as criminals due to their unlawful presence in this country, illegal immigrants are LESS likely than the average person to steal, rape or murder. that's a fact.

    But the mere fact that they are in the country ILLEGALLY is considered "special circumstances"..

    If the Obama Administration had enforced the laws like President Trump is enforcing the laws, then the scumbag who brutally murdered Kathleen Steinle would not have been in the country and Steinle would still be alive today...

    The blood of Steinle and ALL the other Americans who have been brutally killed and murdered by illegal immigrants is on the hands of Obama and the entirety of the Democrats...

    But even THAT fact is beside my point..

  178. [178] 
    michale wrote:

    therefore, if our goal were to have lower rates of theft, rape and murder, statistically speaking, mass deportation of illegals would actually take us in the wrong direction.

    If that were the goal, then you MIGHT be right..

    But the goal is to lower the rates of theft, rape and murder by ILLEGAL immigrants...

    And the ONLY way to accomplish that goal is to deport ILLEGAL immigrants...

    "Simple logic"
    -Spock

  179. [179] 
    michale wrote:

    Why are ya'all so adamant to support the "rights" of criminals???

  180. [180] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    steinle's case, while tragic, is being used as propaganda for policies that would make the country less safe. a hundred deportations would probably prevent one violent crime. but for the same cost as a hundred deportations (most of whom would eventually come back anyway) you could pay an extra twenty cops to patrol your street.

    are you telling me that adding twenty extra beat cops won't prevent more than one single violent crime? do the math.

    JL

  181. [181] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    forget about who has what rights for a second. just apply some basic statistics to policing, and you get a ten percent reduction in violent crime. that means strategically adding cops is literally ten times more effective at reducing violent crime than mass deportation of illegal immigrants. that's ten times more people who sleep safely at night, ten times fewer people who suffer death, rape, kidnapping.

    think, mcfly!

    JL

  182. [182] 
    michale wrote:

    forget about who has what rights for a second. just apply some basic statistics to policing, and you get a ten percent reduction in violent crime. that means strategically adding cops is literally ten times more effective at reducing violent crime than mass deportation of illegal immigrants.

    Unless, of course, the Left Wingery ties the hands of those newly hired cops and those newly hired cops are endlessly demonized for simply doing their jobs..

    Yes.. It's POSSIBLE that hiring more cops *MIGHT* bring down the violent crime rate..

    But it's DEFINITE that deporting Illegal Immigrants will bring down the violent crime rate of illegal immigrants committing violent crimes..

    And it will also free up resources and jobs for AMERICANS...

    THAT is the math that works best for me..

  183. [183] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    THAT is the math that works best for me..

    the trouble with THAT math is that it doesn't add up. it wastes 99% of the time and money that could have been spent actually targeting and reducing violent crimes everywhere, and ultimately doesn't even accomplish its objective.

    JL

  184. [184] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Why are ya'all so adamant to support the "rights" of criminals???"

    Because those very same rights that are enshrined in the Constitution (remember that little document?) apply to all of us and are the same things that prevent us from having a not free police state government!

  185. [185] 
    michale wrote:

    the trouble with THAT math is that it doesn't add up. it wastes 99% of the time and money that could have been spent actually targeting and reducing violent crimes everywhere, and ultimately doesn't even accomplish its objective.

    I understand why you would think that..

    But it is not reality..

  186. [186] 
    michale wrote:

    Because those very same rights that are enshrined in the Constitution (remember that little document?) apply to all of us and are the same things that prevent us from having a not free police state government!

    The rights I am referring to don't apply to ILLEGAL immigrants..

  187. [187] 
    michale wrote:

    JM,

    Do you think non-Americans have a RIGHT to come to America illegally??

    It's a simple question...

  188. [188] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Do you think non-Americans have a RIGHT to come to America illegally??

    It's a simple question...

    a right could be a legal right, a constitutional right, a human right, a civil right, or any combination. it could be expressed, partially expressed or implied.

    to "come" could mean for a short visit, a long visit, to immigrate, to flee oppression, to join one's family, to seek work, or any combination of those.

    "illegally" could mean against local ordinances, state or federal statutes, case law, common law, folkways, or any combination of those.

    "America" could mean the political borders of the USA and its territories, north america, all the americas, the caribbean, or any combination of those.

    no, it's most definitely NOT a simple question. but since you ask, do you have any proof that your own family came here legally? and if it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they did, are you willing to self-deport back to their country of origin?

    unless you're part seminole or choctaw, guess what, you're a non-american.

    JL

  189. [189] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  190. [190] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken

  191. [191] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [172]

    That increase was passed in 2007.

    Yes, I know that. It was passed in early January 2007 when the Democrats took control of the House. They wasted no time in passing it while the majority of Republicans in the House voted against it. After it passed the Senate (they insisted on tax cuts), it called for the minimum wage to be raised from $5.15 to $7.25 in 3 increments beginning 60 days after its enactment and yearly on that date thereafter.

    MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES
    $5.85 07/24/2007
    $6.55 07/24/2008
    $7.25 07/24/2009

    Now, let's address the belief that the Democrats controlled the House and Senate in 2009. In actual fact, the Democrats controlled the House but not the Senate for the majority of 2009. Here's why:

    * On 01/20/2009 upon Obama's inauguration, Democrats held 57 Senate seats with 2 Independents -- Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman -- who caucused with Democrats. That is 1 shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Those 59 in January 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during Obama's inaugural luncheon and was never able to return to vote in the Senate (brain tumor), and Al Franken was not officially seated until 07/07/2009 due to a contested recount demanded by his opponent Norm Coleman. So the actual Democratic Senate seat number in January 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

    Democrats managed to barely pass the stimulus bill around this time with ZERO support from Republicans in the House, and in the Senate three Republicans -- Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter -- voted to break a filibuster, thus guaranteeing it's passage.

    * In late April 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat -- I call him Defector Specter. Kennedy was still at home dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. So the number in late April 2009 was 58 votes.

    * In May 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until late July 2009. Even though Al Franken was finally seated 07/07/2009 and Byrd returned on 07/21/2009, Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned. The minimum wage increased in late July 2009, while Democrats continued to focus on the ACA. Senator Kennedy died on 08/25/2009. Kennedy's empty seat was then temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until 09/24/2009.

    * The swearing in of Paul Kirk in late September 2009 FINALLY gave Democrats 60 potential votes in the Senate. So "total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months from 09/24/2009 through 02/04/2010, when Scott Brown-R was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

    The FACT then is: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years, and Democrats had "total control" of the Senate from 09/24/2009 through 02/04/2010... A GRAND TOTAL OF 4 MONTHS, and they were working on passing the stimulus and health care with little help from Republicans who wanted nothing to do with health care. It was during that very small 4-month window that the ACA/Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

    So there's your history. While it's true that Democrats could have endeavored to piggy back another minimum wage hike on top of the July 2009 hike already scheduled, maybe a look at history might provide some clues as to why that wasn't exactly the course they took under the circumstances. :)

  192. [192] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [179]

    Why are ya'all so adamant to support the "rights" of criminals???

    I know, right? Why stop at illegal immigrants? Why don't we round up all those people who've broken the law and ship them out first? I don't care where they're born. Send them out... starting with Florida.

    /sarcasm off

  193. [193] 
    michale wrote:

    know, right? Why stop at illegal immigrants? Why don't we round up all those people who've broken the law and ship them out first? I don't care where they're born. Send them out... starting with Florida.

    Because they are American citizens and have the RIGHT to be here..

    The same cannot be said for your ILLEGAL immigrants..

    You sure are having a lot of DUUUUHHHHH moments, aren't you?? :D

  194. [194] 
    michale wrote:

    no, it's most definitely NOT a simple question. but since you ask, do you have any proof that your own family came here legally? and if it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they did, are you willing to self-deport back to their country of origin?

    Yes, it IS a simple question..

    At least for those who don't find the answer politically inconvenient..

    And the answer is NO..

    There is NO right...NO legal right, NO constitutional right, NO human right, NO civil right for any foreigner to come to the United States....

    PERIOD..

    This is fact...

    Anyone who DOES come to the United States without following the laws of said coming, are CRIMINALS and should be dealt with accordingly...

    Simplicity itself..

    It's only because of partisan ideology that there are those who want to equivocate and obfuscate that simplicity..

  195. [195] 
    michale wrote:

    FRANKLIN COUNTY TEEN WHO DECAPITATED MOTHER IN COUNTRY ILLEGALLY
    http://abc11.com/news/teen-who-decapitated-mother-in-country-illegally/1789038/

    Ahhh yes....

    Illegal immigrants do NO harm and should be allowed to stay in this country illegally... :^/

  196. [196] 
    michale wrote:

    Man who had been deported to Mexico five times charged in deadly L.A. car crash

    The driver — who faces murder, vehicular manslaughter and driving while intoxicated charges in connection with the Feb. 19 crash — is an immigrant in the country illegally who has been deported from the United States at least five times, according to police and court records.
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-alvarado-crash-immigration-20170307-story.html

    Yep... NO HARM whatsoever... :^/

    If Obama had enforced the laws, these people would still be alive...

  197. [197] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [193]

    The same cannot be said for your ILLEGAL immigrants..

    "Your illegal immigrants"? I don't have any "illegal immigrants."

    You asked: Why are ya'all so adamant to support the "rights" of criminals???

    My point that went right over your pea brain was that I don't have a preference for one nationality of criminal over another; I have no tolerance for any of them. My disdain for criminals is not limited to undocumented persons and therefore is immune to the ginning up of hate by the fascist Cheeto.

    I'm an equal opportunity crime fighter. Ship them all out starting with Florida. Get packing.

    You sure are having a lot of DUUUUHHHHH moments, aren't you?? :D

    Yet none that violated federal statutes. LOL :)

  198. [198] 
    michale wrote:

    My point that went right over your pea brain

    No, your point was, as usual, irrelevant to the discussion of ILLEGAL immigrants and, as such, was ignored..

    I'm an equal opportunity crime fighter.

    Are you?? Then start with the criminals whose crimes are compounded by the FACT that they are in this country illegally..

    Oh, that's right.. Yer a Left Whinery crime fighter and only go after those on the Right..

    Yet none that violated federal statutes. LOL :)

    Yea, that's what you claim.. But the facts say different.. :D

  199. [199] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [198]

    Are you?? Then start with the criminals whose crimes are compounded by the FACT that they are in this country illegally..

    "Start with"? There's no need to pick and choose which criminals to "start with."

    Oh, that's right.. Yer a Left Whinery crime fighter and only go after those on the Right..

    What part of "ship them all out" is too difficult for you and needs further clarification? I'm going to have to start calling you slowflake, snowflake.

    Yea, that's what you claim.. But the facts say different.. :D

    No, they don't, slowflake. :)

    Busy... later.

  200. [200] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's only because of partisan ideology that there are those who want to equivocate and obfuscate that simplicity..

    so you ARE willing to self-deport back to your family's country of origin. happy trails!

    JL

  201. [201] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    incidentally, many holocaust survivors came here illegally. by your definition michale, they had no right to be here, and should have been sent back to the death camps.

    clear, simple and WRONG.

    JL

  202. [202] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    lest i let the opportunity pass:

    "I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions."
    ~Jean-Luc Picard

  203. [203] 
    michale wrote:

    "Start with"? There's no need to pick and choose which criminals to "start with."

    Yea, then start with the criminals who are criminals simply by BEING here..

    No, they don't, slowflake. :)

    Yes, they do...

    Busy... later.

    Of COURSE yer busy.. How convenient.. :D

  204. [204] 
    michale wrote:

    incidentally, many holocaust survivors came here illegally.

    Cite....

    And if holocaust survivors were killing, robbing and raping Americans by the tens of thousands, I would say they should be deported...

    Whatever they have had to endure doesn't justify them victimizing American citizens..

    Wouldn't you agree???

  205. [205] 
    michale wrote:

    "I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions."

    But my point, which you STILL haven't addressed is why you ignore the victims of illegal immigrant crime...

    Nothing ANY of ya'all have said addresses that ONE point...

  206. [206] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Whatever they have had to endure doesn't justify them victimizing American citizens..

    congratulations, you've just used the same rationale as the palestinians - with equally sketchy facts.

    But my point, which you STILL haven't addressed is why you ignore the victims of illegal immigrant crime...

    i'm not ignoring it, i'm calling it what it is, a red herring. the rates of violent crime among illegal immigrants are lower than the rates of violent crime among US citizens. I'm not ignoring it, it just isn't a big enough trend within the overall population to be worth paying attention to.

    you might as well be skewering me for my failure to pay attention to rapes and murders committed by clowns or electricians or hungarians. rape, murder and kidnapping are all serious crimes, but do not correlate in any way with illegal immigration. i'm sure you can find an example somewhere of an electrician or hungarian or clown who committed a violent crime, but there's simply no relationship whatsoever between one and the other.

    JL

  207. [207] 
    michale wrote:

    congratulations, you've just used the same rationale as the palestinians - with equally sketchy facts.

    Actually, I used the same rationale to condemn the illegal immigrants as I used to condemn the Palestinians..

    NOTHING justifies terrorism with regards to the Palestinians..

    i'm not ignoring it, i'm calling it what it is, a red herring.

    The fact that you consider that tens of thousands of American citizens are being raped and murdered and robbed and beaten a "red herring" is indicative of the problem you face...

    Clowns and electricians and hungarians in this country legally are LEGAlly IN THIS COUNTRY..

    THAT's the distinction you ignore...

    It's a special circumstance..

    You are familiar with that concept, right??

  208. [208] 
    michale wrote:

    i'm not ignoring it, i'm calling it what it is, a red herring. the rates of violent crime among illegal immigrants are lower than the rates of violent crime among US citizens.

    And if the subject were US citizens, you would have a point..

    But the subject is ILLEGAL immigrants..

  209. [209] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Clowns and electricians and hungarians in this country legally are LEGAlly IN THIS COUNTRY..

    THAT's the distinction you ignore...

    not ignoring, discounting - because it makes no difference. the two issues DO NOT CORRELATE. rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants would prevent fewer rapes and murders than randomly arresting names out of a phone book.

    therefore, any reference to specific rapes or murders committed by illegal immigrants, while certainly relevant to the enforcement of felonies, is not relevant to the immigration debate. each of the issues merits attention separately, but one has nothing to do with the other.

    JL

  210. [210] 
    michale wrote:

    not ignoring, discounting

    Toe MAY toe, Toe MAA toe... Semantics..

    - because it makes no difference.

    It makes ALL the difference when discussing ILLEGAL immigrants and the crimes they commit.. It makes ALL the difference to the parents of Kathleen Steinle, a fact you continue to ignore/discount..

    rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants would prevent fewer rapes and murders than randomly arresting names out of a phone book.

    Yea, that's yer claim... But it is unsupported by facts..

  211. [211] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "There is NO right...NO legal right, NO constitutional right, NO human right, NO civil right for any foreigner to come to the United States....

    PERIOD.."

    You are correct, as far as that goes....

    BUT...

    and this is the BIG, CRUCIAL BUT...

    ONCE they are HERE, they are entitled to the same RIGHT of Due Process as anyone else who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because of the 14th amendment, which does not restrict such rights to ONLY citizens.

    The Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office.

    All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials,
    including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's
    protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."
    The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited.
    Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."For more than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within
    the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ... nationality."The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
    temporary, or permanent."When noncitizens, no matter what their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction
    based on their nationality.

    According to one of our Founding Fathers, James Madison, and which has become accepted law since then, the Constitution presumptively extends not just to citizens, but to all who are subject to American legal obligations, and certainly to all persons within
    the United States.

    The ABOVE was quoted from the Thomas Jefferson Law Review by the Georgetown University Law Center.

  212. [212] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yea, that's yer claim... But it is unsupported by facts..

    incorrect.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

  213. [213] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    depending on how one looks at the numbers, either the factors don't correlate at all or correlate negatively. not even the most conservative of researchers would assert any positive correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime. it just ain't there.

  214. [214] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    carol neulander, mother of three, was beaten to death inside her own home, by men in the employ of her husband, rabbi fred neulander. he and other rabbis have been living in our communities for years. it's high time we start paying attention to the crimes committed by rabbis.

  215. [215] 
    michale wrote:

    You are correct, as far as that goes....

    I am correct. Period..

  216. [216] 
    michale wrote:

    incorrect.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

    It's behind a PayWall, so I can't see if it's fact or opinion..

    carol neulander, mother of three, was beaten to death inside her own home, by men in the employ of her husband, rabbi fred neulander. he and other rabbis have been living in our communities for years. it's high time we start paying attention to the crimes committed by rabbis.

    Are the rabbis in this country illegally??

    If not, then they are irrelevant to the subject at hand. Which is ILLEGAL immigrants committing crimes against American citizens...

  217. [217] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If not, then they are irrelevant to the subject at hand. Which is ILLEGAL immigrants committing crimes against American citizens...

    no matter whose hand it is, that is NOT a subject, it is TWO subjects. they are NOT related.

    JL

  218. [218] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  219. [219] 
    michale wrote:

    no matter whose hand it is, that is NOT a subject, it is TWO subjects. they are NOT related.

    Kathleen Steinle's parents would disagree...

    It's also important to note that estimates of those not residing in the country legally, particularly for smaller regions, are difficult to pin down. Pew computed its estimates for unauthorized immigrants by subtracting known lawful immigrant totals from foreign-born survey estimates.

    In other words, Pew skewed the results to produce the desired conclusion..

    Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo says his experience serving in different departments aligns with research suggesting immigrants don’t commit crimes any more frequently than natives. It’s important, he says, for law enforcement to reach out to immigrant communities, as some new arrivals fear police from prior negative experiences in their home countries. “We spend a lot of time immersing ourselves in these communities to build trust and hopefully reduce skepticism,” says Acevedo, who frequently appears on local Spanish media. “We need to not do anything to hinder the trust that we’ve taken decades to build.”

    Houston is a sanctuary and, as such, anything city officials say is biased and unreliable..

    You can find all the high and mighty, hooty tooty "research" from Left Whinery places you want.

    But it won't change logic and it won't change facts..

    If illegal immigrants are deported and STAY deported, those that DO kill, rape and attack Americans WON'T be able to do it in America...

    This is an undeniable FACT that simply CANNOT be refuted by ANY Left Whinery study you want to find...

    It's a FACT that if Obama hadn't ignored Immigration laws, Kathleen Steinle would still be alive..

    It's THAT simple...

  220. [220] 
    michale wrote:

    Houston is a sanctuary and, as such, anything city officials say is biased and unreliable..

    Houston is a sanctuary city and, as such, anything city officials say is biased and unreliable..

    Once again... My bust...

  221. [221] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Kathleen Steinle's parents would disagree...

    that is an appeal to emotion fallacy. if someone is really really mad at immigrants then it must be all of their fault? FACTUALLY, the issues of violent crime and illegal immigration are NOT correlated.

    Pew skewed the results to produce the desired conclusion..

    no, the passage you cited means pew separated legal and non-legal immigrants in their study, so the correlation would be specific to illegals. i'm not sure how you managed to read bias into that, but it's not there.

    factually, most correlation studies have found that immigrants - even the illegal ones - have below-average levels of crimes against both people and property. the only type of crime they have going against them is of the "public order" variety, and that's just because their mere presence on our soil is considered to be one.

    michale, i think you know i'm perfectly willing to acknowledge when you're right about something (the presidential election being foremost). but in this case, you're so far from right you'd need to run a marathon toward right just to get to wrong.

    JL

  222. [222] 
    michale wrote:

    that is an appeal to emotion fallacy.

    It's an appeal to emotional FACT...

    FACTUALLY, the issues of violent crime and illegal immigration are NOT correlated.

    EXCEPT to those who are VICTIMS of the violence of illegal immigrants..

    That's the point that you refuse to concede...

    And that correlation takes on MORE prominence because it's AMERICAN citizens who are the victims...

    michale, i think you know i'm perfectly willing to acknowledge when you're right about something (the presidential election being foremost). but in this case, you're so far from right you'd need to run a marathon toward right just to get to wrong.

    Yes you are always willing..

    And you would also in this case if we were discussing the same issue..

    You are correct in YOUR issue and I acknowledge that..

    But I am correct in MY issue as well...

    You are talking about the migratory habits of the european swallow and I am talking about the migratory habits of the african swallow...

  223. [223] 
    michale wrote:

    michale, i think you know i'm perfectly willing to acknowledge when you're right about something

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/02/beyond-sessions-trumps-russian-scandal-is-here-to-stay/#comment-95985

    :D heh

  224. [224] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Done. You're still being ridiculous. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

  225. [225] 
    michale wrote:

    Done.

    Danke.. :D

    You're still being ridiculous. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

    "Let's agree to disagree"
    -Boris The Animal, MIB III

    :D

  226. [226] 
    michale wrote:

    Although I disagree that AG Sessions answered a different question than the one Franken asked...

    Since we both agree that AG Sessions didn't lie, the methodology as to how we both came to the same conclusion is too minor a point to quibble...

  227. [227] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Michale, you're discussing the migratory patterns of albino unicorns with leprechaun ancestry.

  228. [228] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale, you're discussing the migratory patterns of albino unicorns with leprechaun ancestry.

    It's completely natural that you would think that.. :D

  229. [229] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    in case you missed the link:

    ANECDOTAL:

    It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

    Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.

  230. [230] 
    michale wrote:

    It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

    Exactly..

    I am just knuckle-dragging ground pounder...

    Highty tighty hooty tooty statistics and such don't interest me..

    Seeing Americans brutally murdered and killed and raped and attacked by illegal immigrants and seeing those Americans ignored in pursuit of a ideological political agenda that condones such brutality against Americans??

    That just pisses me of...

    It's one of the few VERY few times that emotion overrides logic..

    You can provide all the studies and stats you want that "proves" that illegal immigrant violent crime is inconsequential..

    And I will STILL maintain that it is NOT inconsequential to the Americans whose lives are ended and ruined and made a living hell...

    And NO AMOUNT of stats will convince me otherwise.

    The costs of illegal immigration in terms of innocent American lives and blood is simply too high...

    And, if a loved one of yours had been brutally murdered, raped or attack by an illegal immigrant, I am certain you would feel the same way...

  231. [231] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And, if a loved one of yours had been brutally murdered, raped or attack by an illegal immigrant, I am certain you would feel the same way...

    i would certainly be angry at the individual, and perhaps also at the universe for being so unjust. however, i would NOT transfer my ire to the other 99% of immigrants who committed no crimes against people or property.

    because that's... just... https://youtu.be/gmx3zfe63ZQ?t=36s

  232. [232] 
    michale wrote:

    i would certainly be angry at the individual, and perhaps also at the universe for being so unjust. however, i would NOT transfer my ire to the other 99% of immigrants who committed no crimes against people or property.

    Yea, bet you would do EXACTLY that...

    If you had loved ones killed by illegal immigrants, you would fight tooth and nail to have ALL illegal immigrants deported...

    The costs of illegal immigration in terms of innocent American lives and blood is simply too high...

    This is fact...

  233. [233] 
    michale wrote:

    the other 99% of immigrants who committed no crimes against people or property.

    Simply by being here illegally, they are committing crimes against people AND property....

    They are CRIMINALS in every definition of the word..

    This is fact..

    If they want a better life, let them do it LEGALLY...

    Illegal immigrants are no different than the guy who robs a bank.. He just wants a better life too!!

    Illegal immigrants are no different than the woman who wants out of a loveless marriage and kills her husband. SHE just wants a better life too...

    If illegal immigrants want a better life, have them obtain it LEGALLY in accordance with the laws of the land.

    They don't want to do that?? They want to take short cuts and cause Americans grief and hardship??

    Frak them.... They are a disgrace...

Comments for this article are closed.