ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [430] -- A Fool's Paradise

[ Posted Friday, March 31st, 2017 – 17:21 PDT ]

Will tomorrow be any different at the White House? Since we all seem to now be living in Bizarro World, wouldn't that tend to make you think that we'd get no foolishness from our president on April Fool's Day? I mean, in an April Fool's Year, shouldn't one day be set aside for nonfoolery? Maybe even that's too much to ask from this fool's paradise of a White House.

It's not just the White House, either. This week we saw the spectacle of the chair of the House committee investigating Russian meddling in the election trying a desperate stunt to reclaim the political narrative. Devin Nunes apparently met with White House personnel, then held a splashy news conference, went and briefed the president about what Trump's own staff told Nunes, and then just for good measure gave another press conference. This was all somehow supposed to vindicate Trump's conspiracy theory that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower (which it didn't, since it is not true). What it did instead was convince everyone in America that Nunes is patently unqualified to lead any sort of investigation of the White House. We're actually surprised Nunes didn't appear at his pressers with a big bucket in hand. "Chairman, can you tell us why you've got that bucket?" "This? Oh, this is just some water Trump asked me to carry for him." All Nunes accomplished, at week's end, was the complete destruction of his own credibility. He also spurred the Senate to move forward on its own investigation, which could be much more effective in the end.

The Russia story may have given birth to a new political metaphor. We'd certainly never heard it before, but we bet it'll be more widely used in the future, because "it's got legs," as they say. Instead of the old "waiting for the other shoe to drop," we heard Trump's Russian problems recently described as "a centipede -- because there are so many shoes dropping, one after the other." Legs, indeed.

This week, unlike last, didn't have any major legislative defeats for President Donald Trump, but this was the week when the polling reflected how the public saw the doomed Ryancare trainwreck from last Friday. To be blunt, it's not pretty. Donald Trump hit a lower point (a dismal 35 percent job approval rating) on the respected Gallup poll than Barack Obama ever hit during his eight years in office. And it hasn't even been three months yet! That's a record, but likely one Trump won't be bragging about any time soon. At least he's doing better than Speaker Paul Ryan, whose own approval rating is down to 21 percent after the fiasco. You don't hear either of them talking much about a "mandate" or doing what "the people" want anymore, which is probably no coincidence.

Other fallout from the destruction of Ryancare: Kansas actually voted to expand Medicaid. Kansas! The governor then vetoed the bill, but the fact that it got this far (and almost had a veto-proof majority behind it) is telling indeed. Charles Krauthammer darkly warns that we're all on the road to single-payer now (which, to him, is the equivalent of a highway to Hell). The myth of Paul Ryan as the wonkiest Republican around is finally being questioned by a few inside-the-Beltway folks. Oh, and Donald Trump and the Tea Party are now waging open warfare on Twitter.

That last one is the most interesting, of course. Trump is trying to threaten the Freedom Caucus in the House, even going so far as to say he'll fight them during primary season. Last week, he had nothing but kind words for both Ryan and the Tea Partiers, but that didn't last long. By week's end, he was naming individual Freedom Caucus members and trying to strongarm them into blind obedience of all things Trump. Not with any noticeable success, so far.

No wonder Trump needs to take so many vacations. He hasn't even gone 100 days yet, and so far he's spending one in every three days at his own properties. And playing a lot of golf -- thus breaking yet another of his campaign promises (he used to routinely badmouth Barack Obama for golfing while president).

Speaking of broken Trump promises, it now seems that Trump isn't going to "tear up" NAFTA after all. He'll be content to just tinker around the edges of it, according to the White House. How long is it going to take before his followers realize the con job he pulled on them?

So far, Trump hasn't lost his key base. A recent poll found that "as few as 3 percent of Trump voters would recast their ballot if given the chance." But there are notable exceptions within that three percent, including one woman whose husband is now being deported. She took Trump at his word that only the "bad hombres" would be deported, it seems. Another broken promise!

It got little attention this week, but Trump is also trying the "Bill Clinton defense" in a sexual harassment case against him by a former contestant on his television show. Trump's legal team is arguing that he's so gosh-darned busy presidenting that he shouldn't have to deal with legal cases against him until after he leaves office. Trump might want to check with Bill how that all worked out in the courts, previously.

Outside of presidential political news, North Carolina tried to pull their own con job on the N.C.A.A., by "repealing" the bathroom bill that has been causing so much lost revenue for the state. The college sports organization gave them until this week to repeal the law or else no championship games in any sports would be scheduled in North Carolina for the next five years. So the politicians put together a bill which on the face of it appears to repeal the discriminatory law, but in reality does nothing of the sort. Gay rights and transgender rights groups denounced the sham, but (as of this writing) the N.C.A.A. has not taken a position on it yet, so we'll see what they have to say about the "repeal."

In marijuana news, Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Earl Blumenauer introduced a comprehensive legislative package to end the federal War On Weed altogether, and it is impressive in its scope. Check out their press release for more information, if interested.

And kudos once again for the Washington Post for extended reporting on a subject other news organizations have been ignoring for decades -- the ongoing shameful abuse of "asset forfeiture," which is a legal term that really means "highway robbery by police officers and federal agents." Don't believe me? This is how it works: you are pulled over to the side of the road or stopped at an airport, and then a law enforcement officer steals your money. The officer doesn't charge you with any crime, mind you, and you never get a day in court where you are presumed innocent. Instead, the money they stole is presumed guilty (of being linked to drug crime or anything else the cops make up on the spot out of thin air), and then you have to sue them to get it back, by proving the money's innocent.

Don't think this is a big problem? Well, a new report shines some light on just how big a problem it truly is:

Since 2007, the report found, the D.E.A. has seized more than $4 billion in cash from people suspected of involvement with the drug trade. But 81 percent of those seizures, totaling $3.2 billion, were conducted administratively, meaning no civil or criminal charges were brought against the owners of the cash and no judicial review of the seizures ever occurred.

That's just the cash they stole, mind you. That doesn't even count all the property they also stole. Here are figures for just one year alone, with a little needed context:

The scope of asset forfeiture is staggering. Since 2007 the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture Fund, which collects proceeds from seized cash and other property, has ballooned to $28 billion. In 2014 alone authorities seized $5 billion in cash and property from people -- greater than the value of all documented losses to burglary that year.

Got that? In 2014, the cops stole more than the robbers did! That's stunning. In fact, it brings to mind (in a very literal way) a popular T-shirt and bumpersticker slogan: "Don't steal -- the government hates the competition."

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Before we get to the main award, there are a few other folks who need recognition. If we handed out awards to Republicans, we would certainly be giving both Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins some praise this week for voting against the bill to allow states to defund Planned Parenthood. Alas, they needed one other Republican to break ranks, which didn't happen. But their aisle-crossing was noteworthy and appreciated nonetheless.

We have an Honorable Mention award to hand out this week as well, to the organization Stay Woke, which created the Our States webpage. This is an effort to shift some of the progressive energy out there by concentrating it on state-level politics. As one of the founders explained recently:

What we've noticed is that not only in speaking to our working state advocacy organizations, but also just looking at the literature, the state representatives are much more receptive than the Congress. They have much smaller districts, about 12 times smaller than members of Congress. They are not used to getting a lot of calls or being engaged very often at the scale that members of Congress are. What we are hoping for is a push around actually getting a number of state legislators to meet with their constituents.

This is an excellent idea, and we wish them all kinds of success. In between fighting odious Republican legislation at the federal level, everyone should feel free to get involved at the state level as well, where your voices may be even more effective in changing some minds!

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week was none other than Chuck Schumer. Now, we're fully aware that this is an incredibly biased pick for us to make, because the reason we're handing Chuck the MIDOTW award is that he seemingly took our advice to heart in almost verbatim fashion.

Last week in this space, we went on an extended rant on the failure of Ryancare. This ended by examining whether Democrats should even consider working with Donald Trump at all, and it concluded:

Democrats now have the opportunity to call Trump's bluff. If they start off with only one dealbreaking demand and a set of core principles, perhaps truly bipartisan agreement could actually be reached, at least in the Senate. The dealbreaking demand would be: "Don't ever call it a repeal of Obamacare." The core principles would be: "We have to have at least as many people insured as under the current law, and we must work for a better outcome, not a worse one -- but we'll consider any suggestion that achieves that."

Now here was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, appearing on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos last Sunday:

Well, you know, look, the bottom line is very simple. And that is -- [the] president never called us once about this. They came on board with "repeal," which they knew every Democrat would oppose, and no one believes that. But I would say this, we Democrats -- provided our Republican colleagues drop "replace" and stop undermining the [Affordable Care Act] -- are willing to work with our Republican friends, as long as they say: "no more repeal." That's a loser. Seventeen percent of Americans liked Trumpcare. That's it. They didn't want it. And stop undermining A.C.A. And we'll work with them. We have ideas, they have ideas, to try to improve Obamacare. We never said it was perfect. We always said we'd work with them to improve it. We just said repeal was off the table.

That's pretty close, we have to admit. In fact, we cannot remember any previous instance of a politician getting so close to what we urged them to say in these Friday columns. So although awarded solely because of our own inherent bias, we feel we'd be hypocrites not to hand Chuck Schumer this week's MIDOTW award. Well done, Chuck -- we still feel this is exactly the message to be sending to Trump and any moderate Republicans right now. Let's fix any Obamacare problems, and let's stop all the chest-beating over "repeal and replace" for good. Because that's really the only way forward, at this point.

[Congratulate Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Normally we tend to hand out these awards to figures in national politics. Sometimes we dip down to state-level politics. But this week, we're giving the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to the mayor of Baltimore. Here's the whole reason why:

Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh dealt a shattering blow to the Fight for $15 campaign, vetoing a new minimum wage law passed overwhelmingly by the City Council just last week.

The effect was amplified as it quickly became clear that Pugh, a Democrat, had succeeded in lining up the votes necessary to prevent a threatened council override of her veto. Despite the fact that the minimum wage bill passed the council with the support of 12 of its 15 members -- enough to override a veto -- the solidarity of the pro-Fight for $15 members disintegrated under pressure. According to reports, several supporters of the higher minimum wage switched sides and are now pledging to sustain the mayor's veto.

Pugh's action represents a reversal from a promise she made during last year's mayoral campaign to sign a $15 minimum wage bill if passed by the council. That reversal is engendering bitterness from some minimum wage proponents.

"Catherine Pugh not only went back on this promise, but it tells us that everything she said (during the campaign) is in question," says Charly Carter, executive director of the pro-labor Maryland Working Families.

For breaking a big campaign promise, for siding with businesses instead of workers, and for a big failure of leadership, Catherine Pugh is easily our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. With disappointing Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

[Contact Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh on her official contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 430 (3/31/17)

Kind of a mixed bag of talking points this week. We've got some ridicule for the Trump administration (naturally), as well as two viewpoints of the state of politics right now -- one from the left and one from the right. Plus the usual tomfoolery. Having said all of that, let's get right to it....

 

1
   Immunity, then and now (part 1)

Michael Flynn's back in the news, begging for immunity in exchange for his testimony.

"Donald Trump today encouraged his former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, to ask for immunity for his testimony to Congress. Strange how his view of asking for such immunity has changed over time. Allow me to read a few quotes from when Trump was campaigning: 'The reason they get immunity is because they did something wrong. If they didn't do anything wrong, they don't think in terms of immunity.' That's back when the subject was an investigation of Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, of course. He even went further, while campaigning, saying: 'If you're not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for, right?' Now that it's one of his aides, however, Trump seems to have changed his mind rather dramatically. Odd, isn't it?"

 

2
   Immunity, then and now (part 2)

Ah, but it gets even better.

"I'm going to read a quote from an appearance on Meet The Press last year: 'When you get immunity, that means that you have probably committed a crime.' That's pretty unequivocal, right? The person who said that was none other than Michael Flynn, while campaigning for Donald Trump. This is the same Michael Flynn who just asked Congress for immunity for his testimony. So, by his own measure, should we all now assume that Michael Flynn -- who spent the shortest time in office of any National Security Advisor ever, before he resigned in disgrace -- has, in his own words 'probably committed a crime'? Maybe that's the first question Congress should ask him. I mean, he himself set this standard, right?"

 

3
   Sheer idiocy

One of the stupider things any member of Congress has ever uttered was said this week.

"Representative Ted Yahoo... oh, excuse me, that should be 'Yoho,' my apologies... this week tried to defend Devin Nunes bizarre stunt with a jaw-dropping misunderstanding of the requirements of his own job. Yoho said of Nunes: 'You've got to keep in mind that he works for the president. He answers to the president.' OK, let's take this real slow, Representative Yoho. There are three co-equal branches of government. They don't 'work for each other' in any way, shape, or form. They are, in fact, separate. That's what that whole 'separation of powers' thing is all about. A member of the House is a part of the legislative branch, which does not work for the executive branch at all! What's really stunning about this idiocy is that Nunes is the chair of a committee that is actually investigating the executive branch. That's about as far away from 'working for the president' as you can imagine! Someone needs to buy Representative Yoho a fifth-grade civics textbook."

 

4
   Not what they had intended

Republicans are responsible for one big public opinion victory, but it wasn't exactly what they were shooting for.

"In the past few months, Republicans have grappled with turning their wildly overstated campaign rhetoric on Obamacare into reality. They failed miserably at what they promised their own voters they would do, that's for sure. But they did make one rather notable achievement -- for President Obama. During the debate over the Ryancare bill, in public opinion polling Obamacare hit the highest approval it has ever seen. A clear majority of Americans now approve of Obamacare -- something that has not been true since the day it passed. That's something Obama himself never managed, which is why it's so remarkable. Maybe Joni Mitchell was right -- 'you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.' Because America took a hard look at what Republicans wanted to do to it, Obamacare is now more popular than ever. Barack Obama should really write a thank-you note to Paul Ryan for this achievement."

 

5
   Nihilism on the right

These next two are direct opposites. The first is from Michel Gerson, who worked for George W. Bush. He wrote an extraordinarily gloomy article this week on the state of the Republican Party. By the end, he's slipped into sheer partisan nihilism. Think that's overstating it? Here's how he ends his article:

Some Republicans choose to comfort themselves by repeating the mantra: "Gorsuch, Gorsuch, Gorsuch." But that does nothing to change Trump's stunningly high disapproval ratings. Or the stunning rebuke by the F.B.I. director concerning his claim of being wiretapped by President Barack Obama. Or the stunning rejection of his central campaign promise by elements of his own party. Or his stunning ignorance of the basics of policy and leadership.

And all this has come in the course of the president's political honeymoon. What, for goodness' sake, will the marriage be like?

It is now dawning on Republicans what they have done to themselves. They thought they could somehow get away with Trump. That he could be contained. That the adults could provide guidance. That the economy might come to the rescue. That the damage could be limited.

Instead, they are seeing a downward spiral of incompetence and public contempt -- a collapse that is yet to reach a floor. A presidency is failing. A party unable to govern is becoming unfit to govern.

And what, in the short term, can be done about it? Nothing. Nothing at all.

 

6
   Revitalization on the left

Want to read something more cheerful, after that? Then take a look at an extraordinary article by a Democratic House staffer, who writes this week about being on the other end of the phone line during the overwhelming public response that has been almost continuous since Trump took office. Eric Harris, who works for Representative Gwen Moore, had nothing but praise for the energy and public participation that has been taking place, and reveals how heartening it is to be on the receiving end. Anyone who has ever considered phoning their congressional representative on any issue should really read the entire article.

For a Democratic staffer on Capitol Hill in the age of Trump, the struggle for justice can feel disheartening, if not demoralizing. But with every phone call from a concerned constituent, every tweet in support of our shared resistance, every protest sign held by someone who demands dignity for all, I feel a renewed confidence in the resilience of our democracy. Their activism gives me hope. Their resolve gives me strength. And hopefully, hearing a live voice on the other end of the phone rather than a voice-mail message does a little of the same for them.

 

7
   OK, Congressman, let's see your browsing history!

Fair play, right?

"Republicans in Congress once again stuck a thumb in the eye of all of their own voters, by passing a bill nobody in their right mind wanted, supported, or ever even asked for. The GOP successfully overturned an Obama regulation which would have kept your browsing history private. That's right, the Republicans voted to let giant corporations sell people's browsing history for cold cash to anyone willing to pay. This has led to an instant response online. If these members of Congress think this is such a great idea, then maybe we should get some money together and buy their own browsing histories. I'm sure they wouldn't have any problem seeing this information publicly displayed, since they just voted to remove privacy protections for all Americans. So let's see what computers on Capitol Hill have been busy doing, shall we? Seems only fair, right?"

-- 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

 

178 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [430] -- A Fool's Paradise”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Wow, Michael Gerson's piece is almost perfect. He just left out the part about how the GOP has been working up to this dismal point for years. 45 didn't make the GOP fail or become "morally small". 45 IS morally small (as well as "empty, easily distracted, vindictive, shallow, impatient, incompetent") but, as such, he perfectly represents his party.

    They're running around this week talking about starving the unemployed, shooting hibernating bears, not allowing people to meet Rex Tillerson's eyes, cutting Planned Parenthood -- "morally small" is too complimentary. They are "morally-challenged" or "morally-bereft". I don't think they could smell a moral if it was served up to them on a plate covered in blue cheese.

    But the elegiac tone of the piece was fitting.

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    A targer rich evironment this week. A columnist's dream. The judges would also have accepted Yoyo for FTP 3. Was Trump's broadside at the Freedom Wing a deliberate pivot - or just more sheer ideocy?

    The documentary Five came Back on Netflix is very good...and a documentary about documentaries is an interesting concept. Archival footage backs up what I've said before....Trump is stealing Mussolini's act. Without so much as a credit!

  3. [3] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Nice jedi mind trick on Schumer, but don't for a second trust that he will be honorable and serve the interests of the people if Repubs actually do decide to work with Dems on Ocare fixes.
    Trust isn't earned through lip service.

    As for TP #6, that's all fine and good, but "better than Trump/Republicans" still isn't a winning theme and the midterm races are approaching quickly. You mentioned that only 3% of Repubs would recast their ballots, and a whole lot of races Dems need to win are outside of that margin.
    The Wall Street coddling wing of the Democratic party WILL run a "better than Repubs" campaign if Democratic voters let them get away with it... so instead of praising the feel good story you really need to keep pressing and pushing.

    Democratic Baltimore Mayor Pugh trotted out false right wing corporatist talking points to justify her veto of the $15 minimum wage (which would have been phased in through 2022).
    She didn't just break campaign promises, she kowtowed to Big Money by repeating their LIES.

    Very glad you called attention to it though.

    I hope the pattern of Dems lying to voters in order to get elected and then turning around to serve Big Money is recognized. It's not like it's an isolated incident (cough Obama cough).
    Let's hope voters won't let her get away with it too.

    A

  4. [4] 
    michale wrote:

    The Russia story may have given birth to a new political metaphor. We'd certainly never heard it before, but we bet it'll be more widely used in the future, because "it's got legs," as they say. Instead of the old "waiting for the other shoe to drop," we heard Trump's Russian problems recently described as "a centipede -- because there are so many shoes dropping, one after the other." Legs, indeed.

    And not ONE of those "shoes" have ANY facts to support it..

    I'll post the point again because it is simply UNDENIABLE..

    Ya'all's problem is that there are absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that Russia *DID* influence the election and there are absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that Team Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election..

    What part of ***NO FACTS TO SUPPORT THE ACCUSATIONS*** do you not understand???

    To be blunt, it's not pretty. Donald Trump hit a lower point (a dismal 35 percent job approval rating) on the respected Gallup poll than Barack Obama ever hit during his eight years in office.

    "Respected"??? Shirley, you jest.. :D

    " 'Honorable'.. Sheeesh"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

    :D

    And kudos once again for the Washington Post for extended reporting on a subject other news organizations have been ignoring for decades -- the ongoing shameful abuse of "asset forfeiture," which is a legal term that really means "highway robbery by police officers and federal agents." Don't believe me? This is how it works: you are pulled over to the side of the road or stopped at an airport, and then a law enforcement officer steals your money. The officer doesn't charge you with any crime, mind you, and you never get a day in court where you are presumed innocent. Instead, the money they stole is presumed guilty (of being linked to drug crime or anything else the cops make up on the spot out of thin air), and then you have to sue them to get it back, by proving the money's innocent.

    Do you know WHY it's never been widely exposed??

    Because AF really REALLY took off during the Obama years...

    And ANYTHING the Obama Administration did was A-OK with the Left Wingery... :^/

    How's THAT for blatant Party slavery..

    For breaking a big campaign promise, for siding with businesses instead of workers, and for a big failure of leadership, Catherine Pugh is easily our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. With disappointing Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

    Anyone think to question WHY the mayor veto'ed the legislation??

    Maybe it was poorly written?? Maybe she realized once in office that the city businesses can't AFFORD to pay a min wage of $15 p/h??

    WHY is more important than what, eh??

  5. [5] 
    michale wrote:

    “Donald Trump you didn’t win the election.”
    -DNC Chair Tom Perez

    Like I said..

    There is "truth"...

    And then there are FACTS....

    And, for the Left Wingery, nay the two shall meet...

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8SFkmSXYAA8bIj.jpg

    Statement from Adam Schiff-D, ranking Democrat on House Intelligence Committee...

    Schiff claims he cannot discuss the content of the documents..

    Which means, of course, that the documents say exactly what Nunes said they say and Schiff can't admit that...

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    Analogy Of The Year...

    Hillary Clinton was beaten by Donald J Trump. That is like losing the Oscar for best picture to "Police Academy VI."

    :D

  8. [8] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    A good interview from The Real News Network with Max Blumenthal about the AIPAC protests.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18767

    Don't miss the end Dems.

    A

  9. [9] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    TRNN with a good story on the Baltimore minimum wage that CW mentioned.

    Note the pathetic straw man argument the mayor trots out to defend her decision.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:18792:UPDATED%3A-With-Veto-Override-in-Jeopardy%2C-Advocates-Say-Action-Needed-to-Save-%2415-Wage-Effort

    A

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale[7]

    Indeed. Don't look now but, she's starting to come out of the woodwork ... :(

    Here's a great piece by Stephen King I think you'll like!
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/01/stephen-king-on-donald-trump-fictional-voters-truth-about-us-election

  11. [11] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    10

    I saw that Hillary made the news for wearing leather.
    She's working hard for the good of the party.

    Then there's Chelsea, who floated and then backed off from running for Congress... and then inexplicably was given time at the ACLU fundraiser which was filled with people who actually deserved to be on that stage.

    The whole family needs to go away.

    A

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    After the 2016 election debacle, the Clintons do what they need to do so that they are able to look themselves in the mirror and not gag.

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton, it's too soon

    She came to Georgetown University on Friday to give a speech to some fans, and delivered a stinging attack on Donald Trump's budget. Clinton is great at attacking others, dreadful at selling herself. This is a presidential candidate who was beaten first by a man who they said couldn't win -- because he was black -- and then by a man who they said shouldn't win -- because he was Donald Trump.

    And even though the shock of Trump's election victory is receding as we become more involved in just how bad he is at governing, for Clinton it will never ebb as the most stunning rebuke possible. Hillary Clinton was beaten by Donald J Trump. That is like losing the Oscar for best picture to "Police Academy VI." After that kind of humiliation, most people would quit politics and go live in a cabin. Not Hillary. She still needs us to remember who she is.
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/opinions/hillary-clinton-stanley/

  14. [14] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    12

    Well, that makes three of them.

    A

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Re.: FTP#5

    From Michael Gerson's piece,

    A presidency is failing. A party unable to govern is becoming unfit to govern. And what, in the short term, can be done about it? Nothing. Nothing at all.

    So, is everybody here in agreement with that assessment? Is there really nothing that can be done about it?

  16. [16] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, going back over the week's comments.

    Monday:
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/27/no-honeymoon-for-trump/#comment-97602

    Tuesday starts here (with music links!):
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/28/will-democrats-work-with-trump-it-depends/#comment-97603

    I'll post other days when I finish, so nobody has to hunt for them...

    -CW

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, Thursday starts here:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/30/wyden-and-blumenauer-introduce-path-to-marijuana-reform-bills/#comment-97615

    That took more time than I thought, so I won't be able to get to today's comments until later this evening, at the earliest.

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Schiff claims he cannot discuss the content of the documents..

    Which means, of course, that the documents say exactly what Nunes said they say and Schiff can't admit that...

    OMG that is the funniest thing I think you have written in while...Considering that you are the, self proclaimed , only LEO and Military expert around these here parts.

    Let's get down to facts and reality....
    Schiff cannot talk about what is in the docs as they are classified... If they weren't why else would Nunes and as verified by Schiff have to view them in a SCIF... therefor using your teams rules of the road Nunes has divulged classified information and should go to jail...Now to be serious about it, at the least he should recuse himself being that he was a member of the Trump transition team and had no business being at the white house and should have demanded the documents be brought to one of the SCIFs that congress can utilize and BOTH should have reviewed them TOGETHER ... BUT... that would mean actually trying to conduct an investigation....

    The most simple reality is that YOU don't know what is in those docs, I don't know what is in those docs, YOU don't know if that is all of the Docs there are, just as I do not know if there are more Docs.... They are classified after-all....

    What has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the house is placing party above country and is incapable of conducting a proper investigation. There needs to be a Special Prosecutor appointed that BOTH sides can agree upon and they should be allowed to get to the bottom of the matter. Either there is something there or there is not... The one thing I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that large portions of the American public are not going to accept the outcome from a partisan committee ... and we do deserve better...

  20. [20] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Wow... Check out the Netherlands...

    They can control weather...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAwL0O5nXe0

  21. [21] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-rally-violence-court-incitemet

    he three protesters have sued Trump for incitement, vicarious liability, negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness.

    The opinion, from U.S. District Judge David J. Hale of the Western District of Kentucky, denied most of Trump's motion to dismiss the charges, saying that his angry demand for the removal of the protesters was "particularly reckless."

    Trumpers.

  22. [22] 
    Paula wrote:

    I continue to love Hillary.

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's nice, Paula.

    But, do you want her to run again?

  24. [24] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    delayed response to comment 43 from Will Dems work with Trump

    If CW hadn't posted a link to his comments, I never would have seen your reply.
    Please bring them forward to the new thread or at least post a brief "response is up" note in the new thread.

    Anyway, sorry to hear you were sick.
    That always blows. I hope you're feeling better.

    Under those circumstances, I can understand why you may not have noticed GT's comment explaining what happened prior to the beginning of the video of the police beating a man who got on his knees and surrendered (our resident trumpling missed it too and he doesn't have a good excuse like you)... and why you might conclude that triage was the subject of the sentence rather than ER... but good use of off topic condescension!

    Sorry for sharing that fun fact for the feverish about racism in our ER's after you shared your anecdote about 911 dispatch coworkers who risked their jobs by exposing their racist and criminal inner selves to you but who are too smart to answer an anonymous survey truthfully. But, for the record, I didn't look for the racism. It was reported widely, and it has a horrible effect, including on medical outcomes. And those who downplay such things tend to offend me.

    -
    -

    Anyway, perhaps we should work this incident backwards.

    Since you are claiming there is insufficient evidence to pass judgment, what in your eyes may have occurred prior to the start of the video that justifies the beating of a man who is on his knees in surrender?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be making a (possibly) justified retribution argument, and yet, the last time I checked, the whole retribution angle of our justice system is actually in the job description of the judge and/or jury, not the police.

    Or, is there a part of arresting a guy who is on his knees in surrender that necessitates 20 or so blows to the head?
    If so, why?

    (and please stay focused and don't ramble on about Brown or Garner)

    A

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    So, is everybody here in agreement with that assessment? Is there really nothing that can be done about it?

    I disagree with the assessment..

    This is NOT a presidency failing..

    This is a presidency that is finding it's legs..

    The Obama administration had just as much trouble getting started. Just as many setbacks.

    It only SEEMS a problem this time because A) it's an administration with a '-R' after it's name and 2) President Trump is showing audacity that Obama never had..

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    Brought forward from a previous commentary..

    CW,

    OK, here's a question for you. If Dems followed your advice, and then Trump got to replace RBG, when Dems filibustered his pick in what universe do you think McConnell wouldn't drop the nuke then?

    I mean, seriously, do you really think McConnell would hesitate a nanosecond to do so? I don't. So it really makes no difference, in the end.

    I think it's entirely possible that the administration and the GOP in Congress are going to be so unpopular that McConnell would NOT drop the nuke..

    Granted, it's not a good possibility, but it IS a possibility...

    Put another way...

    If the Democrats oppose Gorsuch enough for a filibuster, it's a 100% possibility that McConnell will drop the nuke and a 90% chance that a Rush Limbaugh or a Kid Rock will fill the next SCOTUS seat..

    If Democrats keep their powder dry, it's a 50% possibility that McConnell will drop the nuke and a 30% possibility that a Rush Limbaugh or a Kid Rock will fill the next SCOTUS seat..

    Don't key on the numbers.. The point is what is at issue...

    Wait, so you're saying Flynn did probably commit a crime? So what do you think that crime was? Inquiring minds want to know...

    I am saying that any time someone asks for or receives immunity, there is a good chance they committed a crime of some sort..

    My position is consistent as I said the EXACT same thing when NOT-45 confidantes were receiving immunity left and right..

    The ONLY difference is, with them, everyone here disagreed with me..

    With Flynn, everyone here agrees with me.. :D

    If there was no crime committed, then immunity wouldn't be a needed or desired....

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T. Kirk

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Let's get down to facts and reality....

    It WOULD be a welcome change.. :D

    Schiff cannot talk about what is in the docs as they are classified...

    No.. Schiff SAYS he cannot talk about what is in the docs...

    If they weren't why else would Nunes and as verified by Schiff have to view them in a SCIF...

    Because the documents, in their entirety, cannot be released to the public...

    But just because the whole documents can't be released, doesn't mean they can't be discussed.

    My guess is that the documents contain names and methods that are classified. And, as long as THOSE aren't discussed, there is no reason that the gist of the documents can't be discussed..

    How do we know this??

    Because **NO ONE**, not even the hysterical Left Whinery has suggested that Nunes should be prosecuted for divulging classified information..

    Certainly not anyone in power or anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together..

    Leave this kind of discussion to the experts, GT :D

    The most simple reality is that YOU don't know what is in those docs, I don't know what is in those docs, YOU don't know if that is all of the Docs there are, just as I do not know if there are more Docs.... They are classified after-all....

    But, thanks to Nunes disclosures, we have an idea what is in those docs..

    Obama had his minions surveill Team Trump during the transition..

    How else do you think Flynn's call with the Russians became public??

    Magic???

    What has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the house is placing party above country and is incapable of conducting a proper investigation.

    Which didn't bother you during Odumbo The First's reign, so you have no moral foundation to be bothered by it now..

    The one thing I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that large portions of the American public are not going to accept the outcome from a partisan committee ... and we do deserve better...

    We did during the Odumbo years too...

    It's no fun when the shoe's on the other foot, eh? :D

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    I continue to love Hillary.

    In that, you have a LOT in common with the "Trumpers" you castigate...

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    what in your eyes may have occurred prior to the start of the video that justifies the beating of a man who is on his knees in surrender?

    Again, I know you weren't directing this at me.. And again, when has that ever stopped me? :D

    If the SUBJECT had gotten to his knees to "surrender" once or twice prior to the video, then as the officer got close, SUBJECT jumped up and slugged the officer and ran away...

    THAT would justify the response from the officer in that video..

    Actually had something like that happen to me when apprehending a Navy Squid.. :D

    The simple fact is, that video is a mere snapshot of the entire incident...

    As such, in and of itself, it is proof of nothing but a police officer doing a thankless and dangerous job...

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you are looking for way to get active:

    https://www.resistanceschool.com/who-we-are-1/

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Under those circumstances, I can understand why you may not have noticed GT's comment explaining what happened prior to the beginning of the video of the police beating a man who got on his knees and surrendered (our resident trumpling missed it too and he doesn't have a good excuse like you)...

    Of course I don't.. :D I am not a Party slave. :D

    But unless you can link to it or GT can follow up with it, yer just spewin' BS...

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    As I said before...

    I DID read GT's comments on this incident and, if I recall correctly, GT didn't state he witnessed the actual incident..

    GT stated that he knows the area and knows what likely happened based on this personal knowledge of the area and the police involved etc etc...

    Now, I am more than willing to admit I am wrong.. But I am not going to do it just on YOUR say so...

    So, unless you can link GT's actual statement and it shows I am in error... Or if GT can chime in and tell me that he DID, in fact, witness the actual incident and that I am in error......

    Until such time as either of those two things occur..

    My position stands and yer just spewing ideologically-based anti-cop BS...

  33. [33] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Thanks for the response in Will Dems work with Trump.
    I see what you're saying, but there is some inherent optimism there that I just can't quite get behind.

    We've seen the Trumpon rail against the tea partiers, but somehow even non-presidential cooperation with the Dems is hard to imagine.
    Even sagging poll numbers don't seem like enough to override his genetic gag reflex that prevents him from swallowing his pride.

    There's that quote something like American's always do what's right, after trying everything else... but I think he's an exception.

    -
    -

    As for the punk discussion, that wasn't actually related to Trump.

    I will always have mixed feelings about the Sex Pistols, falling somewhere between inspired brilliance and Menudo, but Sid doing My Way falls squarely in the latter category... a hired prop in a bad piece of performance art. Not punk.

    A

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    We've seen the Trumpon rail against the tea partiers, but somehow even non-presidential cooperation with the Dems is hard to imagine.
    Even sagging poll numbers don't seem like enough to override his genetic gag reflex that prevents him from swallowing his pride.

    Once again, you just can't help but talk about me and my positions..

    Clearly, since you are putting so much effort in trying to dispute my claims, they clearly must have merit.. :D

  35. [35] 
    altohone wrote:

    31, 32

    Are you a mime stuck behind Trump's imaginary wall?
    Why can't you go back and read what is freely available ON THIS WEBSITE?

    Your memory is failing you yet again, and you are repeating BS AGAIN and making false accusations as a result.

    Stuff your dishonorable pile up your lazy rear and quit imitating Hillary.

    29

    Unjustified brutality is not in the job description and is completely unworthy of our thanks.

    And the low bar you set wasn't met.

    A

  36. [36] 
    altohone wrote:

    34

    How is my response to CW's response to my comment about his column about you?

    Do you need medical assistance?

    A

  37. [37] 
    altohone wrote:

    34

    It is hilarious you think that was about you though.

    A

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Why can't you go back and read what is freely available ON THIS WEBSITE?

    Because I am confident that what I read was what GT said and I am not going to waste my time to make YOUR case..

    YOU made the claim, YOU back it up..

    It's that simple..

    Unjustified brutality is not in the job description and is completely unworthy of our thanks.

    And if we were talking about UNJUSTIFIED brutality, you would have a point, but we're not so you don't...

    "Unjustified" is your opinion and it's an opinion borne of ignorance...

    How is my response to CW's response to my comment about his column about you?

    We've seen the Trumpon rail against the tea partiers, but somehow even non-presidential cooperation with the Dems is hard to imagine.

    If you can show me another Trump supporter here.....

    So, obviously, you were talking about me...

    It is hilarious you think that was about you though.

    I am sure you think that.. :D

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    OK, if as you posit Trump becomes very unpopular then the filibuster won't even be necessary, because 3 GOP senators will vote against his pick.

    Problem solved!

    Two problems with your "solved" problem..

    1. "I am counting on the integrity and character of the GOP to save the SCOTUS for the Democrats??" Say that to yourself and tell me you don't laugh your ass off! :D

    and

    B. The GOP will have the ability to change the court from 5-4 Conservative to 6-3 Conservative... You honestly believe that the GOP will prevent THAT from happening, no matter WHO President Trump nominates??

    Really!?? :D

    Either way, you are banking on the character and integrity of the Republican Party... :D

    Lemme know how that works out for ya.. :D

  40. [40] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    response to comment 18 from Wyden and Blumenauer

    Interstate commerce isn't called importing usually.
    I suppose someone somewhere may have used it that way, but I'm not aware of any uses in legislation.

    If we are talking about far into the future, the legislation can be amended later. But undercutting a US industry before it is even established only seems to serve the interests currently responsible for mass economic hardship.

    A

    A

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    No matter HOW you slice it, it's a totally and completely bonehead move for the Democrats to waste the filibuster, SOLELY to appease the Hysterical Left...

    It will be meaningless in the here and now and will make it INFINITELY easier for President Trump and the GOP to stack the court with conservatives..

    You think a 6-3 CONSERVATIVE SCOTUS is bad???

    What about a 7-2 CONSERVATIVE SCOTUS??

    If RBG dies and Kennedy retires, Democrats would make a 7-2 SCOTUS a reality....

  42. [42] 
    altohone wrote:

    38

    You are lying about what GT wrote in order to make a falsified case.

    Your problem, not mine.

    -
    -

    You're claiming the beating of a man on his knees in surrender is justified without any evidence or rational argument.

    Your problem, not mine.

    -
    -

    I didn't mention trumplings like you in the quote you repeated twice now.

    Your problems are getting worse.

    A

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    You are lying about what GT wrote in order to make a falsified case.

    Your problem, not mine.

    No, I am not..

    I honestly remember it as I posted..

    If I am wrong, I am more than willing to admit it..

    The fact that you refuse to back up your claim and GT has refused to set me straight would indicate that my recollection is accurate and it's you who is wrong..

    You're claiming the beating of a man on his knees in surrender is justified without any evidence or rational argument.

    Once again, you are wrong..

    I am claiming you have NO FACTS to support your claim that the altercation is NOT justified..

    No facts means the decision goes to the LEO..

    I didn't mention trumplings like you in the quote you repeated twice now.

    Once again, you are wrong and I provided documentation that you did, in fact, mention me...

    I understand how you don't like facts that prove you wrong...

    But that's the great thing about facts. They don't care WHO doesn't like them.. :D

    In that, they are a lot like me :D

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    There's a difference between CA and places like Kansas and Louisiana where conservative theory wrecks the government, in other words.

    Thanks for pointing it out!

    And places like Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore?? :D

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    PETA Says Milk is a ‘Symbol of White Supremacy’
    https://heatst.com/culture-wars/peta-says-milk-is-a-symbol-of-white-supremacy/

    Democrats... :eyeroll:

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [14] {moved forward}

    Even your story about Santa the other day shows you've had it all along... though, you could have made those kids cry even more by telling them that Christmas was embraced to coopt the pagan celebration of the winter solstice... or maybe just confused them.

    Oh, sure, I am a badass now, but I didn't know about Saturnalia until I was much older. My parents taught me the truth, but not the whole truth at 5 years old. I wasn't trying to make them cry... really. :)

    Sorry about foisting a whole album on you.
    It is indeed rastacore.
    The first album Bad Brains put out was Rock For Light, and it had more reggae songs... but also harder, less polished hardcore that I thought may be too overwhelming.

    I liked it. I left you a message on that other page back there. I have lots of albums I inherited that date back to 33-1/3 and really old so no worries. Those guys were ahead of their time... unique.

    Anyway, here's another favorite (just one song)-

    Oh, yes. I like that one too. It reminds me of this, which just so happens to be my theme song:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvoV2Lfk7Qg

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW [49] {moved forward}

    Wait, so you're saying Flynn did probably commit a crime? So what do you think that crime was? Inquiring minds want to know...

    Flynn lied to the FBI, multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. :)

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    Flynn lied to the FBI, multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. :)

    NOT-45 did too...

    No one here cared...

    Ideology.. Pure and simple...

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    In a nationwide survey conducted in 2016 by the Pew Research Center, 72% of the law enforcement officers questioned said their colleagues were less likely to stop and question suspicious people “as a result of high-profile incidents involving blacks and the police.”
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-police-slowdown-20170401-story.html

    The Ferguson Effect...

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:
  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:
  52. [52] 
    altohone wrote:

    43

    GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video.

    We are back to your memory problems since you claim to have read his comments.
    You are wrong.
    Lying by omission.

    My question to Listen was how to justify the beating of a man who gets on his knees and surrenders.
    That is the context of the discussion you are intruding upon.

    You are ignoring that context. And I don't give a rats rear what you want the context to be.
    I value Listen's opinion.

    -
    -

    What part/words in my comment about the Trumpon you quoted refers to you or your comments?
    None. Nada. Zilch.

    "I'm on fire.
    Put me out.
    Me me me me me me me."

    Your "facts" are delusion.
    You are imagining something that isn't there.
    And you are lying as a result.

    A

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video.

    That's your claim...

    Yet, you provide NO substantiation and GT hasn't chimed in..

    Until such time as either happens, I call BS and it stands..

    You are wrong.
    Lying by omission.

    Again, that is YOUR claim..

    And again... you provide NO substantiation and GT hasn't chimed in..

    See above...

    My question to Listen was how to justify the beating of a man who gets on his knees and surrenders.

    I have already explained how it could be justified..

    What part/words in my comment about the Trumpon you quoted refers to you or your comments?

    Simple.. You are calling me the Trumpon...

    If not, then who is "the Trumpon" you are referring to??

    Your "facts" are delusion.

    Yea.. That's what you keep saying..

    But you have NO substantiated facts to support the claim...

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    "I can do this all day."
    -Captain America

    :D

  55. [55] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    46, and 53 from Will Dems work with Trump

    Yeah, well, you either got it or you don't.
    And you do.

    Sorry to hear about your hospitalization.
    There's an epidemic of that around here.
    I hope it wasn't serious and you are on the mend.

    Joan Jett went to my high school for a year (before my time) and I've been a fan forever.
    I know the song, but I'd never seen the video, so thanks for the link.
    Good theme song.
    A friend of mine in the industry gave me a hoodie from her latest tour, and I will now think of you too whenever I wear it.
    She never sold out.

    I'm glad you liked Bad Brains (and the Marginal Man song).
    They were indeed ahead of their time.
    I'm not actually sure about the origin of their name, but your interpretation works for me whatever the case.
    I wish there was a way to convey how intense they were live.

    There are only a few punk bands from DC that aren't/weren't political. The scene is intertwined with protests and benefits to the extent that it is practically inescapable.

    The intertwining was even more direct. The guitarist for Marginal Man was Kenny Inouye... son of Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye.
    At their last show at the 9:30 Club, hallway through the set, Kenny pointed to the balcony and thanked his father for coming, and the senator's security freaked out and rushed him out the back... because punks are dangerous or something. It got the whole place laughing.

    A

  56. [56] 
    altohone wrote:

    53

    I'm setti9ng the record straight for the rest of the gang.
    Your demands are of no concern to me.
    Have you deluded yourself into believing otherwise?

    -
    -

    And, no, I've been referring to the so called president as the Trumpon since back around the time when CW had the contest to name his supporters.
    And even the context of that comment you quoted makes it clear I was referring to him.

    Please pay attention and stop channeling Hillary.
    It should be beneath even you.

    A

  57. [57] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-ahca-health-care-obamacare-2017-3

    An outstanding takedown of Republican lying for years about healthcare, and the nature of the lies. I love that he freely and repeatedly uses the word "lies" because that's what they were and FINALLY people are refusing more and more to sugar-coat GOP behavior.

    It ends:

    Through the years, healthcare experts on the right have allowed themselves to be used as window dressing for a party that was never actually interested in taking their policy advice.

    The experts would write white papers about conservative approaches to healthcare. Republican politicians would indignantly wave the white papers around and insist that they had not only one plan for healthcare but many plans, and they involved high-risk pools and selling insurance across state lines and something something patient-centered mumble mumble mumble and whatever was in the paper was going to be way better than Obamacare.

    Ryan even developed an undeserved reputation as a healthcare "wonk."

    But those white papers were always just paper. The plans described in them were never going to be implemented by an actual Republican government, which would not be interested in paying for the plans the papers described. The only thing Republicans ever intended to use them for was indignant waving.

    It was all a lie. And the lie is finally about to be punished.

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    I'm setti9ng the record straight for the rest of the gang.
    Your demands are of no concern to me.

    I understand. The facts are not on your side, so you are bailing..

    I get it. I really do..

    And, no, I've been referring to the so called president as the Trumpon since back around the time when CW had the contest to name his supporters.

    Ahhhh My mistake...

    Noted for future reference...

  59. [59] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://theliberalnetwork.com/2012/06/13/stafford-why-gave-up-being-republican/

    An excellent statement from 2012 that is even more relevant now.

    Ultimately, leaving the GOP was necessary in order to maintain my own integrity. Leaving is also a public act of personal protest. I am under no illusions about its broader significance- it will have no impact on the trajectory of the political narrative in this nation. But that does not make it futile. On the contrary, as the shadows lengthen, such minor individual acts of defiance and dissent are more critical now than ever before.

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    An excellent statement from 2012 that is even more relevant now.

    And yet, the GOP is in control more so than any other time in the last century and the Democrat Party has been DECIMATED more than any other time in the last century..

    So, who is one to believe?

    Your biased opinion??

    Or the facts and reality??

  61. [61] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    57

    Right wing health care policy ("conservative" is a misnomer) was produced by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by Romney at the state level and then Obama nationally.

    Big Money got what they wanted... roughly $1.2 trillion dollars in undeserved additional profits per year relative to Single Payer.

    Spin away for the establishment.
    I prefer reality.

    A

  62. [62] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale and altohone sittin' in a tree,
    K.I.S.S.I.N.G.
    first loves trumpy
    second loves Bernie
    I will alway, always, always love Hillary!

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:
  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    I will alway, always, always love Hillary!

    Like I said..

    You exhibit the same blind loyalty you accuse Trumpers of having...

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:
  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 wrote: We've seen the Trumpon rail against the tea partiers, but somehow even non-presidential cooperation with the Dems is hard to imagine. Even sagging poll numbers don't seem like enough to override his genetic gag reflex that prevents him from swallowing his pride.

    michale wrote: Once again, you just can't help but talk about me and my positions..

    Clearly, since you are putting so much effort in trying to dispute my claims, they clearly must have merit.. :D

    Hey, Punk. He actually thinks he's "the Trumpon." *LOL*

    He really does think almost everything is about him. If it's not about him, he cannot control his peevish neediness to twist everything into an argument about either him or his same lame commentary.

    A01 wrote: Are you a mime stuck behind Trump's imaginary wall?

    He's the illegal alien of "Weigantia" railing against the natives and expecting them to cater to his needs... his needs that we're supposed to be filling... we have to be shaped and pounded into his small set of molds. He's so much like the thing that he claims to abhor, and it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

  67. [67] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Ok...let me try to clear a backlog and make some obsevations...Long day in a jungle watching bad people do bad things...

    Kick- 47

    I am surprised you didn't mention his violation of 22 U.S.C. § 611, the FARA, which is something I mentioned when his name surfaced as being the keeper of our nations secrets. Ideology aside he was unfit from the beginning due to his paid positions which are well documented, Our local NPAINO may be fine with that, but, I am most assuredly not.

    Paula- 62

    I found your response to be lacking for one of your intelligence.

    While Alto is more leftist from me and others (not a bad thing per se) he is for the most part on our side. For the record I supported Bernie, I did not like Hillary, not because she was a woman, but because of her corporate interest block....

    M- 65

    WTF???? Just don't get it... Why are dems to blame?

  68. [68] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Alto and M-

    God M... Why are you so utterly incapable of typing into the search bar? as you your self have demanded DYFOR... Try some informed debate for a change.

    Now, to clear things up, I provided information from reported eyewitness accounts of the events that happened in front of the video footage being shown.

    My position is that in THIS case I am supporting our NEW police command structure and changes being made to how allegations of excessive force are being adjudicated.

  69. [69] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    62

    It's her impeccable ethics, enchanting charisma, and almost Buddhist like devotion to world peace right?

    I get it.

    She's a keeper.

    A

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [41]

    If RBG dies and Kennedy retires, Democrats would make a 7-2 SCOTUS a reality....

    Sucks at simple math. *LOL*

  71. [71] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey goode trickle
    67

    "for the most part"?

    But seriously, I oppose the notion that there are only two sides, and would never join a club that would have me as a member.

    68

    You're enabling his physical and mental laziness.

    He's never going to learn if you coddle him.
    And I thought we agreed to follow the lesson plan in chapter 1 of "How to Raise a Well Adjusted Senior Citizen"?

    A

  72. [72] 
    Paula wrote:

    goode trickle: sorry to disappoint you :-)

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [48]

    NOT-45 did too...

    Deflect.

    No one here cared...

    Lie.

    Ideology.. Pure and simple...

    Illegal alien says what? <---- Same shit, different day. *LOL*

    This wasn't about HRC or one of your lame theories; it was a simple comment about the laws Flynn has broken, among others. Your peevish neediness to mangle everything and pound it into one of your "pure and simple" boxes is duly noted. You do so resemble that which you claim to abhor.

  74. [74] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    M-27,

    It WOULD be a welcome change.. :D

    I can already see this is one of your intellectually lazy rants...BUT, yes you are right it would be a welcome change.

    No.. Schiff SAYS he cannot talk about what is in the docs...

    Unless something happened that I am not aware of Schiff had to view the documents in a WH SCIF meaning they are CLASSIFIED...

    Because the documents, in their entirety, cannot be released to the public...

    But just because the whole documents can't be released, doesn't mean they can't be discussed.

    Let me point you to what Schiff has said, "But the most important thing people need to know about these documents is not classified and it's a couple of thing. First, the deputy assistant to the white house informed me when I went to see them that these are exactly the same materials that were shown to the chairman." Sure, your point that they can be discussed is valid, however, the documents are classified and therefore cannot be discussed. Now if you were a true NPA that dislikes corporate interests controlling our government you might have asked the question of, why did two individuals that answer directly to the chief consul to Trump invite Nunes over and show them to only him? If there was no smoke why is the WH feeding the fire?

    My guess is that the documents contain names and methods that are classified. And, as long as THOSE aren't discussed, there is no reason that the gist of the documents can't be discussed..

    Again, you, nor I know what was in the docs, Surely it can be agreed that both Nunes and Schiff have agreed that it was incidental collection... Meaning that the intel was gathered legally from sources that are under active investigation. While you have made clear that Trump can jump up and down on a burning sack of crap on the front porch of Trump tower and he will be our hero, it still does not answer the question of why the information was collected, but... I admit it would be the height of responsibility to reveal the information in a CLASSIFED document to blow an ongoing CI investigation....

    If you were a true NPA and had no fears of crap catching your dude you would call for the DOCS to be UCLAS and let all of us read them.... Instead you are just repeating the pre-pressed talking points. SAD.

    How do we know this??

    Because **NO ONE**, not even the hysterical Left Whinery has suggested that Nunes should be prosecuted for divulging classified information..

    Certainly not anyone in power or anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together..

    Nor did I.... Ahh, crap, I just reviewed the SecretTOS for posting here (it can be found under the hidden menu behind the cat) and discovered only you are allowed to be sarcastic. Sorry, I will try not to let it happen again.

    Leave this kind of discussion to the experts, GT :D

    Gladly, once you share the link that all Trump supporters have that allows them to know there is nothing there... After all I did not have sexual relations with the facts...

    But, thanks to Nunes disclosures, we have an idea what is in those docs..

    Obama had his minions surveill Team Trump during the transition..

    How else do you think Flynn's call with the Russians became public??

    For the moment we will leave Magic out of this....Cite your evidence that Obama ORDERED the INTENTIONAL surveillance of the opposing parties campaign...Not saying it didn't happen, Just saying that you are full of shit until it is proven otherwise.

    Which didn't bother you during Odumbo The First's reign, so you have no moral foundation to be bothered by it now..

    So... Cite? I know you have nothing in the ol' logic tank when you have to breakout the ol' Odumbo attack.

    Quit trying to insert your world view on mine. I am an equal opportunity bigot... I hate all politicians that slavishly worship the donor class...

    We did during the Odumbo years too...

    yup, yup, yup... Glad the GOP really delivered.

    It's no fun when the shoe's on the other foot, eh? :D

    Au contraire mon frère... It has provided ample amounts of entertainment on these here pages watching you perform an imitation of a Florida Gator performing an ethical/moral death roll trying to steer the discussion to, leaks and away from Russia...

    I will stand by my original assertion... Indepentant investigator is required, if there is something there then let the heads roll. If there is not then there is not... In either case the American Public (you know, the people... VS. fanboies...) deserves to know.

    No matter the outcome I still am not going to support a draft dodging corporatist , who as I have pointed out before (along with HRC) who is not able to hold a security clearance as being fit to lead our country.

    I will point out that should Trump be found in the clear...That is great, at least we will know he played the winning hand to achieve a minority presidency all on his own....

  75. [75] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Alto- 71

    But seriously, I oppose the notion that there are only two sides, and would never join a club that would have me as a member.

    Agreed... I am firmly a member of the " who is going to look out for the middle class" party... Unfortunately the the folks running this shit show have only one thing in common, they both leave big piles of shit that those of us who work have to clean up.

    I think we vary mostly on how we get there from here...

  76. [76] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Paula 72-

    Don't get me wrong. I love your support of HRC, the Clintons have advocated for many things I believe in. I was just simply pointing out that you are an intelligent person capable of much better.

    If our generation is going to wrest control from the likes of the "just drill baby drill" generation and those who like to promulgate that "humans do not have anything to do with climate change" or "clean water is a job killer", we cannot afford to stoop to the simple BS they use...

    Unfortunately, when the rubber meets the road, the Clintons have always shifted to the wishes of the donor class (as an aside, if you want to define "deep state" one simply needs to substitute "Donor Class").

    I supported Bernie solely and because he is one of US, you know, the folks of modest means....Perhaps not the best reason, but, surely better than rooting for an individual who has preached America, America, America, but has yet to move his factories and jobs onshore and is no longer calling CEO's when they move them offshore... Oh and let's not forget allowing KXL to move forward without the BUY AMERICAN, HIRE AMERICAN rule...

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [55]

    Sorry to hear about your hospitalization.
    There's an epidemic of that around here.
    I hope it wasn't serious and you are on the mend.

    I just needed IV electrolytes. All better now, Punk, thanks to my Uncle Sam/taxpayers who look after me. I like this single-payer health care and think everyone should have it. :)

    Joan Jett went to my high school for a year (before my time) and I've been a fan forever.
    I know the song, but I'd never seen the video, so thanks for the link.
    Good theme song.
    A friend of mine in the industry gave me a hoodie from her latest tour, and I will now think of you too whenever I wear it.
    She never sold out.

    Oh, lots of punks coming out of the DC area! That is awesome. I've seen her at least a dozen times now... I lost count.

    I wish there was a way to convey how intense they were live.

    Joan Jett. :)

    The intertwining was even more direct. The guitarist for Marginal Man was Kenny Inouye... son of Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye.

    Seriously!? Too funny. :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyG8vNnoLK0
    ^^^ CLICK, CLICK--Published a week ago... from 1985

  78. [78] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Alto 71 -

    And I thought we agreed to follow the lesson plan in chapter 1 of "How to Raise a Well Adjusted Senior Citizen"?

    Ahhh, crap, I must of had the books scrambled. I thought the book of the month was the " Adulting Guide Of Political Discussion For Senior Citizens Who Need To Keep It All for Themselves" ....

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    GT [67]

    Ok...let me try to clear a backlog and make some obsevations...Long day in a jungle watching bad people do bad things...

    So how are those boots holding up? :)

    I am surprised you didn't mention his violation of 22 U.S.C. § 611, the FARA, which is something I mentioned when his name surfaced as being the keeper of our nations secrets. Ideology aside he was unfit from the beginning due to his paid positions which are well documented, Our local NPAINO may be fine with that, but, I am most assuredly not.

    Did I forget to say, "among other things"? :)

    Despite their protestations to the contrary, the facts show that both Trump and Pence knew or should have known the truth about Flynn with a simple Internet search. What kind of self-respecting great businessman/leader or transition team leader would do no vetting of the man who would be named National Security Adviser? A simple Internet search even a child can perform.

    https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2016-11-18.EEC%20to%20Pence.pdf

    Flynn's time will come.

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    He really does think almost everything is about him. If it's not about him, he cannot control his peevish neediness to twist everything into an argument about either him or his same lame commentary.

    2 HEs, 3 HIMs and a HIS...

    In one short paragraph..

    Yea.. yer right. It's NOT about me.. :D

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    God M... Why are you so utterly incapable of typing into the search bar? as you your self have demanded DYFOR... Try some informed debate for a change.

    CW.COM cite is not really conducive to a search and GOOGLE isn't much help unless you can recall exact terminology..

    Further, I didn't see the need as I am fairly sure I recalled correctly what you posted..

    Now, to clear things up, I provided information from reported eyewitness accounts of the events that happened in front of the video footage being shown.

    As it turns out, I was right and Altohone was wrong.. So, the hour or so trying to find the original comment would have been wasted time..

    Thank you for being honest and setting the record straight..

    I mean that sincerely..

    Unless something happened that I am not aware of Schiff had to view the documents in a WH SCIF meaning they are CLASSIFIED...

    Yes, the documents are classified. But that was only part of Schiff's claim..

    Schiff's claim was that he couldn't discuss any aspect of the documents..

    That is obviously a lie..

    Sure, your point that they can be discussed is valid,

    Once again, thank you..

    Please remind me of this the next time I accuse you of never giving me any credit.. :D

    Surely it can be agreed that both Nunes and Schiff have agreed that it was incidental collection...

    I don't agree, but that's not the point. If it WERE an incidental collection, then the Americans who were part of that collection should have been scrubbed. That's the law...

    Not only were the Americans not scrubbed but their names were un-masked.

    That's also a violation of the law..

    For the moment we will leave Magic out of this....Cite your evidence that Obama ORDERED the INTENTIONAL surveillance of the opposing parties campaign...Not saying it didn't happen, Just saying that you are full of shit until it is proven otherwise.

    Once again, this is where expertise of the issue comes into play..

    Obama was likely insulated from actually giving the order..

    But it is simply IMPOSSIBLE that surveillance was down on an opposing Party's candidate and/or his team without high-level approval.. It simply could not happen..

    Further, Obama's silence on the issue speaks volumes...

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/31/why-the-curious-silence-from-barack-obama-over-tap/

    So, while you are correct (see.. I do it too! :D ) that there is no smoking gun, there is a plethora of evidence that supports the claim that Obama used his investigative agencies to spy on Team Trump..

    I mean, Obama has a history of using his agencies to go after political opponents.

    And Obama is smart enough to insure his fingerprints are no where near the incidents..

    I will stand by my original assertion... Indepentant investigator is required, if there is something there then let the heads roll. If there is not then there is not... In either case the American Public (you know, the people... VS. fanboies...) deserves to know.

    And my original assertion also stands.

    You only demand an independent investigator because it's a GOP'er on the hot seat.

    NOT-45's antics CRIED OUT FOR an independent investigation...

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    Altohone,

    He's never going to learn if you coddle him.
    And I thought we agreed to follow the lesson plan in chapter 1 of "How to Raise a Well Adjusted Senior Citizen"?

    TRANSLATION: Shit, dood!! Couldn't you just lie and back up my totally bullshit claim that you actually witnessed the incident...

    :D

    Anything you want to concede, Altohone??

    I man'ed up and admitted my mistake about your "TRUMPON" thingy...

    You want to reciprocate?? :D

    I can see why you didn't want to provide the "proof" of your "facts"... :D

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    This wasn't about HRC or one of your lame theories; it was a simple comment about the laws Flynn has broken, among others. Your peevish neediness to mangle everything and pound it into one of your "pure and simple" boxes is duly noted. You do so resemble that which you claim to abhor.

    3 YOURs and 2 YOUs..

    Sure glad it's not about me.. :D

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    If RBG dies and Kennedy retires, Democrats would make a 7-2 SCOTUS a reality....

    Sucks at simple math. *LOL*

    Yea???

    When Gorsuch is joined, SCOTUS will be at 5-4 Conservative..

    When RBG dies and a Rush Limbaugh is added to the court, SCOTUS will be at 6-3 Conservative...

    When Kennedy retires and a Kid Rock is added to the court, SCOTUS will be at 7-2 Conservative..

    So, tell me Victoria..

    Where is the sucky math you CLAIM is there??

    Are you lieing?? Or are you just wrong??

    No one here cared...

    Lie.

    Prove it... Show me where ANYONE (Sans the Grand Poobah hisself) here condemned NOT-45 for her lies...

    If you can provide FACTS to back up your BS accusation, then I will concede that I was wrong...

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    WTF???? Just don't get it... Why are dems to blame?

    In the same manner that Paula blames ALL GOP'ers or ALL Trumpers for the acts of individuals..

    Funny how you never asked her:

    WTF???? Just don't get it... Why are Trumpers to blame?

    eh? :D

    Just another example of ideological big.... bias that permeates Weigantia.. :D

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Flynn's time will come.

    Yea.. And NOT-45 is going to win the election in a 50-state landslide.. :D

  87. [87] 
    michale wrote:

    Just another example of ideological big.... bias that permeates Weigantia.. :D

    Just to be clear... I am not surprised that ideological bias permeates Weigantia. As Victoria so audaciously points out, this IS a Left Wing blog... She's sooooo smart.. :D

    "You're sooo smart.."
    -Adam Sandler, BILLY MADISON

    :D

    No, what surprises me is the DENIAL that there is Left Wing bigotry/bias...

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [80]

    2 HEs, 3 HIMs and a HIS...

    In one short paragraph..

    Yea.. yer right. It's NOT about me.. :D

    It must be a bitch for you to read the Bible... all those HEs and HIMs and tabulating. *LOL*

    The comment to which you're replying wasn't to you; it was to A01 who was discussing "the Trumpon," which you incorrectly insisted was you, which you'd never have done if you had even the slightest ability to comprehend words in context or to retain knowledge contained in this website, which you've proven herein that you can't and you don't.

    You hijacking my comment to A01 wherein I discuss your stupidity and neediness to make everything about you still doesn't make his talk of "the Trumpon" about you, and while my comment to A01 about you is obviously about you, your peevish neediness to prolong a conversation highlighting your neediness and stupidity doesn't prove your point, but it does indeed prove mine and his. :)

  89. [89] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No, what surprises me is the DENIAL that there is Left Wing bigotry/bias...

    And maybe you've just sucked up all of the air on the Right. Like Trump, but without the strange little arm waving motions.

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michael [83]

    3 YOURs and 2 YOUs..

    Sure glad it's not about me.. :D

    My comment to CW was about Mike Flynn. Me commenting about you hijacking my comment to CW and making it about HRC and pounding it into one of your "pure and simple" boxes was about you and your peevish neediness to make nearly every issue about your same lame tired monotonous utter nonsensical bullshit.

    I can substitute "intellectually lazy" or "needy" for all the pronouns if you'd like.

    Again, you're proving my point. :)

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [84]

    When Gorsuch is joined, SCOTUS will be at 5-4 Conservative..

    When RBG dies and a Rush Limbaugh is added to the court, SCOTUS will be at 6-3 Conservative...

    When Kennedy retires and a Kid Rock is added to the court, SCOTUS will be at 7-2 Conservative..

    So, tell me Victoria..

    Where is the sucky math you CLAIM is there??

    Oh, okay. My mistake. You're not mathematically challenged on this issue, you're just mentally challenged. I could point out easily how stupid you are here, but I find that people learn so much more when they figure things out on their own.

    I will point you in the right direction: You killed off RBG and retired Kennedy, leaving 3 liberals on the court while insisting it's 2.

    Now run along skippy and educate yourself. :)

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, okay. My mistake. You're not mathematically challenged on this issue, you're just mentally challenged. I could point out easily how stupid you are here, but I find that people learn so much more when they figure things out on their own.

    Sure you could... :D

    Let's face reality.. My logic is sound and you have no rebuttal..

    But I appreciate your concession about your mistake.. It's nice to see.. I mean that sincerely..

    I will point you in the right direction: You killed off RBG and retired Kennedy, leaving 3 liberals on the court while insisting it's 2.

    Good point. But Kennedy sides with liberals more than with conservatives, so I consider him a liberal...

    But you do make a valid point..

  93. [93] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    And maybe you've just sucked up all of the air on the Right. Like Trump, but without the strange little arm waving motions.

    That is a possibility..

    But employing Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that ya'all are so enslaved by ideology, you can't even recognize it.

    Like a religious fanatic who insists they are NOT a fanatic..

    When ya'all castigate and denigrate Democrats even HALF as much as I do Republicans (NEN) then ya'all will have a rational argument..

    Not until then..

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    It must be a bitch for you to read the Bible... all those HEs and HIMs and tabulating. *LOL*

    hehehehehe Shirley, you jest..

    Why would I want to read an old-fashioned fantasy novel???

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:

    I will point you in the right direction: You killed off RBG and retired Kennedy, leaving 3 liberals on the court while insisting it's 2.

    Ahhhh OK.. So your not arguing that it would not be possible for a Rush Limbaugh or a Kid Rock to be appointed to the court..

    Your arguing that Kennedy is a conservative....

    As I said, good point..

    So, let me adjust..

    Justice Kennedy doesn't retire, but Justice Beyer is killed by a mysterious ailment..

    Irregardless of all that, the central point ya'all continue to ignore while concentrating on periphery semantics, is valid.

    It's ridiculous for the Democrats to give up the filibuster for Soon-To-Be Justice Gorsuch..

    It won't make an iota of difference in the here and now.. But it MIGHT be tactically useful when President Trump nominates his 2nd or 3rd SCOTUS nominee..

    Would you care to address that??

    Or do you just want to continue to fiddle fart around what the definition of "IS" is?? :D

  96. [96] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It won't make an iota of difference in the here and now.. But it MIGHT be tactically useful when President Trump nominates his 2nd or 3rd SCOTUS nominee.

    It doesn't matter - McConnell would just use the 'nuclear option' then, as surely as he'd use it now. The Dems might as well register their disapproval of everything McConnell's done since Scalia died, because there's no point like a fresh point. Almost fresh - it's been, like, a year, seems like a lifetime ago.

  97. [97] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [92]

    Let's face reality.. My logic is sound and you have no rebuttal..

    But I appreciate your concession about your mistake.. It's nice to see.. I mean that sincerely..

    No problem. I thought you couldn't add because your numbers were off, but your numbers were off because you're ignorant. My rebuttal was that you're mentally challenged regarding the issue, and it's a fact.

    Good point. But Kennedy sides with liberals more than with conservatives, so I consider him a liberal...

    Kennedy does NOT side with liberals more than with conservatives. Besides, if you really counted Kennedy as a liberal like you're now claiming, then your numbers at the outset do not add up:

    When Gorsuch is joined, SCOTUS will be at 5-4 Conservative..

    If you were actually counting Kennedy as a liberal, then your opening statement above should have been 4-5 with RBG, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan being the liberals. You can't have it both ways: You're either mathematically challenged here or you're stupid... one or the other.

    And when you said:

    When RBG dies and a Rush Limbaugh is added to the court, SCOTUS will be at 6-3 Conservative...

    If you were counting Kennedy as a liberal, you'd be at 5-4 here with Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan your liberals.

    When Kennedy retires and a Kid Rock is added to the court, SCOTUS will be at 7-2 Conservative..

    And you'd still have Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer so still doesn't add up, and your mentally challenged status survives intact.

    But you do make a valid point..

    Facts are facts no matter how much you believe otherwise. If you insist you counted Kennedy as a liberal, then I was correct in my original assessment that you're mathematically challenged.

    Class dismissed. :)

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    It doesn't matter - McConnell would just use the 'nuclear option' then, as surely as he'd use it now.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    If President Trump's numbers continue to plummet, there is a good chance that McConnell would whither in the face of a unified Democrat filibuster..

    And while the GOP would be salivating at changing the dynamic of the court, they might not want to get rid of the filibuster to support a president who's numbers are in the teens..

    The Dems might as well register their disapproval of everything McConnell's done since Scalia died

    Yea.. Might as well. To hell with the future and any changing circumstances..

    Like I said... Short term thinking.. Appease the masses for the moment.. To hell with the future...

    How do you think those masses are going to react when President Trump puts a Ted Nugent on the SCOTUS and the Democrats, due to their short term thinking, are COMPLETELY impotent to stop it..

    Do you think the masses will accept responsibility?? :D

    If you do, I have some lovely swampland down here I want to sell you..

  99. [99] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Besides, YOU were one of Weigantians that AGREED with me, that it was stoopid for Democrats to oppose Gorsuch..

    Changed yer mind, eh??

    Yea.. YOU'RE not ruled by ideology, eh?? :D

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/04/03/the-russiagate-scam-will-blow-up-in-the-democrats-smug-faces-n2307707

    Yep...

    Once again..

    *NO FACTS* to support the idea of Team Trump/Russian collusion.. Even Adam Schiff admits this..

    *NO FACTS* to support the idea that Russians hacked the election..

    NO FACTS... NO FACTS... NO FACTS...

    As I said from Day One...

    This is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to explain why NOT-45 lost to Donald Trump..

    A miserable and pathetic way to avoid facing the cold hard facts..

    NOT-45 was a miserable, incompetent and hopelessly corrupt candidate..

  101. [101] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [95]

    Ahhhh OK.. So your not arguing that it would not be possible for a Rush Limbaugh or a Kid Rock to be appointed to the court..

    They're your hypotheticals so who gives a shit what their names are?

    Your arguing that Kennedy is a conservative....

    As I said, good point..

    So we've established you're an idiot and Kennedy is a conservative. No need to discuss this further.

    So, let me adjust..

    Justice Kennedy doesn't retire, but Justice Beyer is killed by a mysterious ailment..

    Irregardless of all that, the central point ya'all continue to ignore while concentrating on periphery semantics, is valid.

    You're changing the subject very much like Trump tweets out bullshit in order to take the focus off him.

    Congratulations, you're both a fool and a tool. :)

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    So we've established you're an idiot and Kennedy is a conservative. No need to discuss this further.

    No...

    We've established that you had a good point.

    You decided to go for the childish and immature name-calling all on your own..

    You're changing the subject very much like Trump tweets out bullshit in order to take the focus off him.

    No, actually the subject is still the same..

    Are Democrats being boneheads for wasting the filibuster when it will assuredly do absolutely NO GOOD instead of holding onto it and using it where it MAY do some good.

    That's the subject..

    But, as usual, you just want to concentrate on irrelevant miniteau and what the definition of "IS" is because you have nothing to counter the facts..

  103. [103] 
    michale wrote:

    We've established that you had a good point.

    You decided to go for the childish and immature name-calling all on your own..

    "Well, at least we agree that Loki is a criminal."
    "No. We agree that Loki stole a shuttlecraft."

    -STAR TREK, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    goode trickle [75]

    Agreed... I am firmly a member of the " who is going to look out for the middle class" party...

    What is your definition of the middle class? This is an ongoing area of confusion for people who didn't grow up in America - just about everybody thinks of themselves as "middle class". I have friends who I know earn over $300K/year and the wife insists she is middle class (they have a $1.7M house, five cars, are telling us about their upcoming European vacations, and paid for all their kids to go to college).

  105. [105] 
    neilm wrote:

    My weekly check of 45's disapproval ratings makes sad reading for the country. Everybody except the "can't admit I was conned" crowd are dumping this loser.

    Now we have an internal crisis in Russia so Putin is going to start a crack down - if that is unpopular he will need a foreign adventure to distract the dimwitted Russian masses and we've got a clown in the Oval Office who also wants some "rally behind the President" adventure.

    This is the sort of thing that has a lot of my friends moving out of very profitable equities at the moment.

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    My weekly check of 45's disapproval ratings makes sad reading for the country.

    Those same polls said that NOT-45 was going to win in a 50-state landslide..

    It's sweet that you STILL put your faith in them.. :D

    Everybody except the "can't admit I was conned" crowd are dumping this loser.

    TRUMP IS TOAST prediction #2798 :D

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    No sign of the "can't admit I was conned" crowd here, eh folks ;)

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    No sign of the "can't admit I was conned" crowd here, eh folks ;)

    I have no problem admitting that I was conned....

    I did so with Odumbo..

    But I won't admit it until it's actually factual..

    I am funny that way.. :D

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    No sign of the "can't admit I was conned" crowd here, eh folks ;)

    With one or two exceptions(Ya'all know who ya'all are..) NONE of ya'all have admitted you were conned by Obama..

    So, if there is ANYONE who are part of the can't admit they were conned crowd, it's ya'all (NEN)...... :D

  110. [110] 
    Paula wrote:

    Part 2 of LA Times story: WHY TRUMP LIES: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-why-trump-lies/

    But he is not merely amusing. He is dangerous. His choice of falsehoods and his method of spewing them — often in tweets, as if he spent his days and nights glued to his bedside radio and was periodically set off by some drivel uttered by a talk show host who repeated something he’d read on some fringe blog — are a clue to Trump’s thought processes and perhaps his lack of agency. He gives every indication that he is as much the gullible tool of liars as he is the liar in chief.

    He has made himself the stooge, the mark, for every crazy blogger, political quack, racial theorist, foreign leader or nutcase peddling a story that he might repackage to his benefit as a tweet, an appointment, an executive order or a policy. He is a stranger to the concept of verification, the insistence on evidence and the standards of proof that apply in a courtroom or a medical lab — and that ought to prevail in the White House.

  111. [111] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nunes get's a 'friendly' reception in Fresno - normally a safely red part of California for right wing nut jobs.

    The grannies' song tells it all:

    http://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/political-notebook/article142063514.html

  112. [112] 
    neilm wrote:

    He is a stranger to the concept of verification, the insistence on evidence and the standards of proof that apply in a courtroom or a medical lab

    But enough about Michale, tell us more about 45!

    ;)

  113. [113] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "When Gorsuch is joined, SCOTUS will be at 5-4 Conservative.."

    NO, it WON'T. Once again you are WRONG Michale. Assuming Gorsuch IS confirmed, it will be 4 conservative, 4 liberal, and ONE swing vote in Kennedy, just the way it was before for at least the past 3 years, since Gorsuch is only replacing Scalia's PREVIOUSLY conservative seat. Trump would have to get at least one more conservative appointment to replace either a liberal or Kennedy for the court to switch to solid conservative. The only liberal who is old enough for that to happen is Ginsburg.

  114. [114] 
    John M wrote:

    "It won't make an iota of difference in the here and now.. But it MIGHT be tactically useful when President Trump nominates his 2nd or 3rd SCOTUS nominee.."

    That assumes all Republican Senators will go along with doing away with the filibuster, which is not a foregone conclusion, that Trump will even last out one four year term, let alone be elected to another, and that Republicans will not lose Senate control to the Democrats in the next mid term election, all assumptions that cannot be made at this point in time with any confidence.

  115. [115] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "If President Trump's numbers continue to plummet, there is a good chance that McConnell would whither in the face of a unified Democrat filibuster..

    And while the GOP would be salivating at changing the dynamic of the court, they might not want to get rid of the filibuster to support a president who's numbers are in the teens.."

    Wow, some actual good logical thinking finally on your part that I can actually agree with you on. I congratulate you on that Michale.

  116. [116] 
    altohone wrote:

    82, 81

    I'm probably asking too much, but a simple review of THIS THREAD will confirm you are once again lying like the dung beetle feast that you are.

    GT confirmed what I said he said... a comment you claimed did not exist.
    I did not say GT was an eyewitness.

    I was not wrong.
    You are wrong.

    Are you reading what you want to read instead of what is written, are you incapable of comprehending, do you need new glasses, or is your memory hole just too shallow?

    Not counting the non-apology admission of being wrong about my comment about the Trumpon to CW, you owe me several apologies for blatant lies.

    Shall I put them on your tab, or do you want to settle the bill now?

    A

  117. [117] 
    Paula wrote:

    Today's new shiny object for righties: Susan Rice. Countdown begins for when Comrade Michale starts anti-Susan Rice screeds.

  118. [118] 
    michale wrote:

    NO, it WON'T. Once again you are WRONG Michale. Assuming Gorsuch IS confirmed, it will be 4 conservative, 4 liberal, and ONE swing vote in Kennedy

    Well, at least we both agree that Kennedy isn't a Conservative..

    So, yes... Me and Victoria were wrong..

    Yer right JM.. :D

    hat assumes all Republican Senators will go along with doing away with the filibuster, which is not a foregone conclusion,

    Yes, it is a forgone conclusion in the here and now...

    It's NOT a forgone conclusion if the Democrats keep their powder dry...

    Wow, some actual good logical thinking finally on your part that I can actually agree with you on. I congratulate you on that Michale.

    Thank you.. I ALWAYS think like that.. :D

  119. [119] 
    michale wrote:

    GT confirmed what I said he said... a comment you claimed did not exist.
    I did not say GT was an eyewitness.

    Under those circumstances, I can understand why you may not have noticed GT's comment explaining what happened prior to the beginning of the video of the police beating a man who got on his knees and

    GT did NOT "explain what happened prior to the incident"...

    GT reported on what other witnesses said happened..

    You were wrong.. But, as per your usual, you can't admit you were wrong, so you go off on some WHAT THE DEFINITION OF IS IS tangent..

    You were wrong.. GT did not witness the incident. He merely reported what other witnesses had said..

    In other words, with the exception of his personal knowledge of the area and the police, GT simply reported what was already common knowledge.

    He had absolutely NO FACTS as to the beginning unfilmed part of the incident.

    You were wrong..

    I was right...

    Don't worry.. You'll live.. :D

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    I did not say GT was an eyewitness.

    Really Altohone???

    GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video.
    -Altohone http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/31/ftp430/#comment-97657

    You SURE you want to stick with your claim that you never said GT was an eyewitness??

    Because it's clear that it is EXACTLY what you said...

    Feel free to concede you were wrong.. AGAIN...

    That's twice in one commentary you were wrong..

    Do you want to claim you never said you never said GT was an eyewitness to the incident??

    Go for the Trifecta lie!!! :D

  121. [121] 
    michale wrote:

    Altohone..???

    You have been so loquacious so far on this..

    All of the sudden, you got real quiet... ;D

  122. [122] 
    michale wrote:

    I have to give you credit, though.. Your evasiveness and equivocations has done NOT-45 proud...

    Seems you have been channeling NOT-45 this entire time...

    Lie like a rug and then stick with the lie regardless of ALL the facts that prove the lie is a lie...

    We should start calling you NOT-45 Jr :D

  123. [123] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    i'm not privy to the specific argument, but the quote you provided does not disprove alto's statement. it is perfectly possible to provide an eyewitness account from somebody other than oneself, and that's what it sounds like GT has done.

    regarding justice kennedy, his judicial philosophy is libertarian, which is generally closer to conservative on economic issues and closer to liberal on social ones. kennedy wrote the majority opinion in citizens united and voted to overturn the obamacare mandate, but also wrote the opinion legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states. his vote may swing the court, but it's predictably libertarian.

    JL

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    Today's new shiny object for righties: Susan Rice.

    Ooooo Good call, Paula...

    Obama's bimbo has been caught breaking the law..

    PERP WALK!!!!! :D

  125. [125] 
    michale wrote:

    i'm not privy to the specific argument, but the quote you provided does not disprove alto's statement. it is perfectly possible to provide an eyewitness account from somebody other than oneself, and that's what it sounds like GT has done.

    Oh pullleeese...

    That's equivocation to the point of absurdity..

    Alto didn't say that GT provided an eyewitness account from someone else, which is nothing but heresay...

    Alto said "GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video."

    If Alto meant what you wanted him to mean, he would have said "GT provided an eyewitness's account summary of the events prior to the video."

    ...which would have given the possession of the eyewitness account to someone else..

    Alto clearly said that it was GT's eyewitness account..

    regarding justice kennedy, his judicial philosophy is libertarian, which is generally closer to conservative on economic issues and closer to liberal on social ones. kennedy wrote the majority opinion in citizens united and voted to overturn the obamacare mandate, but also wrote the opinion legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states. his vote may swing the court, but it's predictably libertarian.

    Then it's NOT Conservative..

    Which is what I said at the beginning..

  126. [126] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    77

    Ah, good.
    Not that it couldn't have been serious, but of all the problems that require hospitalization, that's not so bad.
    Stay well.

    And, yes, I agree we should all get Single Payer coverage.

    I've only seen Joan Jett once, and while it was a great show, it doesn't compare to Bad Brains in my eyes.
    I was really just lamenting the shoddy quality of what is available in the historical record.

    The link you provided for Marginal Man has above average sound for the instruments, but you can barely hear the vocals, for example. Too funny having five guys and instruments crammed on a 6x12 stage.

    The main thing is just the difference between a show with 2000-5000 people and shows with just 200-500... tiny venues, clothes soaked in sweat, the walls dripping from the humidity, and the band members who played the previous set or about to play the next set in the crowd next to you.

    A

  127. [127] 
    altohone wrote:

    119, 120

    You are an idiot who needs to take remedial English.

    A

  128. [128] 
    michale wrote:

    Alto said "GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video."

    If Alto meant what you wanted him to mean, he would have said "GT provided an eyewitness's account summary of the events prior to the video."

    ...which would have given the possession of the eyewitness account to someone else..

    Alto clearly said that it was GT's eyewitness account..

    Think of Alto's intent..

    He wanted to convey that what occurred in the incident prior to the video was already established..

    To do that, Alto needed an "eyewitness"...

    So he either misread GT's comment (made a mistake) or figured he could fudge it and no one would question him (he lied)...

    If one takes into account ALL the facts, it's clear that Alto was either wrong or lied..

    Either way, I was right when I said that the sequence of events PRIOR to the video had NOT been established in any way, shape or form...

  129. [129] 
    michale wrote:

    You are an idiot who needs to take remedial English.

    And you are an insecure person who, when caught in a lie or being wrong, lash out with immature name-calling and childish personal attacks.

    Either way, you were wrong Altohone..

    I was right when I said that the sequence of events PRIOR to the video had NOT been established in any way, shape or form...

    Now, do you want to revisit that incident??

    Or just concede you are ignorant of police procedures and are WAY out of your league when discussing them...

  130. [130] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Oh pullleeese...
    That's equivocation to the point of absurdity..

    no, it's reading comprehension. alto never claimed that GT himself was the eyewitness, and you're in no position to lecture anyone on the correct use of an apostrophe.

    when it comes to the police procedure part of your argument, i defer to your expertise. when it comes to grammar and syntax, you're mistaken and would do best to take a step back.

    JL

  131. [131] 
    michale wrote:

    no, it's reading comprehension. alto never claimed that GT himself was the eyewitness, .

    Yes he did..

    Or else, his entire argument that the incident prior to the video was established is absurd..

    Because, as I said (which you apparently ignored) if the incident prior to the video was NOT established, Altohone had no argument..

    and you're in no position to lecture anyone on the correct use of an apostrophe

    Apparently, I am..

    But, since you agree that Alto failed to use proper english grammar to make his point, Alto failed english comprehension..

    OK.. I can live with that..

    when it comes to grammar and syntax, you're mistaken and would do best to take a step back.

    But you agree that, for altohone to make his argument properly, he would HAVE to include the apostrophe..

    Correct??

    Ergo, Alto fails english comprehension..

  132. [132] 
    michale wrote:

    Altohone..

    Would you like to revisit the incident, since it's clear you have NOT established what occurred prior to the video??

    No???

    Didn't think so... :D

  133. [133] 
    michale wrote:

    Probably a good idea for you to drop this anti-cop tirade...

    You have absolutely NO way to establish what went on prior to the video, so you have absolutely NO leg to stand on by claiming the incident was unjustified..

    Push goes to the LEO...

    It's that simple...

  134. [134] 
    michale wrote:

    when it comes to grammar and syntax, you're mistaken and would do best to take a step back.

    How can I be mistaken when we both agree that Alto forgot the apostrophe???

    I am simply agreeing with you...

  135. [135] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But you agree that, for altohone to make his argument properly, he would HAVE to include the apostrophe..

    Correct??

    no.

  136. [136] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    123, 130

    I appreciate the effort, and you are correct, but the perceived ambiguity in my comment is actually irrelevant as I was referencing the comment by GT which our resident trumpling couldn't remember and was too lazy to look up... and GT's comment wasn't the slightest bit ambiguous.

    If the trumpling didn't have memory and laziness issues, while insisting he was remembering it correctly (when he wasn't), and thus didn't need to "waste an hour"??? looking up the comment, the accuracy of the point I was making would have been revealed, and the debate could have remained focused on
    A COP BEATING A MAN WHO WAS ON HIS KNEES IN SURRENDER
    when that action was excessive and unnecessary in order to fulfill the duties of his job.

    In case nobody noticed, the trumpling dismissing the eyewitness accounts as "hearsay" is the funniest part because those accounts are what supposedly justify the beating and will (unfortunately) likely keep the cop from losing his job.

    Like I said, I disagree with those justifications, but our trumpling is shooting himself in the foot dismissing the only evidence presented here for his "side" and falling back on a "we don't know what happened, so the benefit of the doubt goes to the cop" defense.

    His idiocy is thus exposed yet again.

    A

  137. [137] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @alto,

    it does not serve anyone's purposes here to name-call. michale just has grammar issues.

    as to the substance of the argument, i confess i'm completely confused. what exactly is being argued?

    JL

  138. [138] 
    michale wrote:

    as to the substance of the argument, i confess i'm completely confused. what exactly is being argued?

    I am glad you asked, even though I have explained it twice..

    Altohone is arguing about a video of a police officer who was aggressive in making an arrest..

    Both myself and Russ explained to Alto that the video doesn't tell the whole story because we don't know what happened PRIOR to the video...

    As such, there are NO FACTS to support the claim that the aggressiveness on the part of the officer was not justified..

    Alto claimed, in this commentary thread that we DO know what happened prior to the video because :

    "GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video."

    We come to learn that GT was only repeating witness statements and has no inside knowledge on the incident itself and certainly not any knowledge prior to the video, as it has been established that GT himself did not witness the event..

    Even if one assumes that I got everything wrong about Alto's claims, the simple fact is that his claim that the incident prior to the video is well established is 1000% bullshit...

    Now, if Alto wants to pick up THAT discussion on the incident itself, now that we KNOW there was no eyewitness that is present here and now, I am MORE than willing to pick up THAT discussion..

    My guess is that Alto is wanting to drop the whole thing and go lick his wounds.. :D

    But that's the gist of the debate in a nutshell...

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    it does not serve anyone's purposes here to name-call. michale just has grammar issues.

    No.. Michale just has bullshit issues when people try to claim their bullshit is fact..

    If you read the entire discussion (spanning 3 commentaries) you would have all the facts and your position would be different..

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    A COP BEATING A MAN WHO WAS ON HIS KNEES IN SURRENDER
    when that action was excessive and unnecessary in order to fulfill the duties of his job.

    And you have NO CLUE that the action was unnecessary because you are completely ignorant of A> Police procedures and 2> What occurred PRIOR to the video..

    So, how can you make the claim that it was unnecessary when you are completely and 1000% ignorant of just about EVERYTHING about the incident and police practices in general??

    Answer: You can't...

    In other words, your claims are 1000% bullshit...

  141. [141] 
    michale wrote:

    You've been pwned, Altohone..

    Yer dismissed.. :D

  142. [142] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Both myself and Russ explained to Alto that the video doesn't tell the whole story because we don't know what happened PRIOR to the video...

    As such, there are NO FACTS to support the claim that the aggressiveness on the part of the officer was not justified..

    i wouldn't say no facts, but certainly not all the facts. as russ has pointed out about the ferguson incident, perspectives can differ greatly depending on what part of the incident the observer saw first.

    Kaffee: doctor, was there any sign of violence?
    Sam: you mean other than the dead body?
    Kaffee: f*ck, i walk into that one every time!

  143. [143] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    137

    No.
    Making false accusations based on reading comprehension issues and being too lazy to look up what GT wrote is not just "grammar issues".

    I would say it is evidence that my depiction of him is simply factual.

    And you should note in his "summary" of the debate, he STILL can't be bothered to go back and read the original comment at the heart of this debate.

    Like I said to GT, I won't be an enabler for the trumpling's bad behavior, so I will continue to refuse to quote GT's comment.
    You know, give a man a fish...

    It is readily available for all to see if you really want to know though. Sorry if that makes things confusing.

    A

  144. [144] 
    altohone wrote:

    138-141

    The facts from the video are sufficient for my argument.

    I couldn't care less that you disagree.

    A

  145. [145] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    The midterm elections are underway.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/katie-porter-congress-2018_us_58e278e4e4b0ba359596df54?8xp&amp;

    Note that in addition to the "better than Trump's minion" argument, taking on the big banks is central to Katie Porter's campaign...

    ... in other words, already superior to Hillary's pathetic excuse for a campaign (from a progressive's perspective).

    Time to start holding your party's feet to the fire if you want them to win enough seats to be an effective opposition.

    A

  146. [146] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    i wouldn't say no facts, but certainly not all the facts.

    Fine, you want to quibble..

    Altohone did not have ALL the facts to justify his conclusion..

    Happy??

    as russ

    And me... Is it so hard to give me credit??

    has pointed out about the ferguson incident, perspectives can differ greatly depending on what part of the incident the observer saw first.

    Ergo, Altohone doesn't have ALL the facts to justify his conclusion...

    Kaffee: doctor, was there any sign of violence?
    Sam: you mean other than the dead body?
    Kaffee: f*ck, i walk into that one every time!

    Bravo... THAT was as apropos of a movie quote as can be!!!

    Good one.. :D

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    The facts from the video are sufficient for my argument.

    Exactly..

    You only accept the facts that support your argument and ignore the facts (such as you don't have ALL the facts) that doesn't support your conclusion..

    EXACTLY...

    I am glad we agree on that...

  148. [148] 
    michale wrote:

    Making false accusations based on reading comprehension issues and being too lazy to look up what GT wrote is not just "grammar issues".

    I didn't have to look up what GT wrote because I remembered it EXACTLY as it was..

    GT **DIDN'T** witness the specific incident as you intimated he did..

    GT's comment was EXACTLY as I said it was..

    So, why should I have to look it up??

    Like I said to GT, I won't be an enabler for the trumpling's bad behavior, so I will continue to refuse to quote GT's comment.

    TRANSLATION:

    Brave Sir Robin ran away
    (No!)
    Bravely ran away away
    (I didn't!)
    When danger reared its ugly head
    He bravely turned his tail and fled
    (No!)
    Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
    (I didn't!)
    And gallantly he chickened out

    Like I said...

    PWNED

    :D

  149. [149] 
    michale wrote:

    The long and short of it is this..

    Altohone came to a conclusion SOLELY and COMPLETELY based on a video which was nothing more than a snapshot of an entire police incident...

    Experts in the field of police procedures and activities tried to explain to Altohone that the video WAS nothing more than a snapshot of the entire incident and, as such was useless in regards to establishing any sort of fact-based conclusion...

    In an effort to bolster his foundering and flondering case, Altohone intimated that we had an eyewitness here amongst us and that what occurred PRIOR to the video was well established and supported his fact-less conclusion...

    We come to learn that there was no eyewitness among us and Altohone was basing his entire erroneous and fact-less conclusion solely and completely on the video alone..

    Which, if you remember, numerous experts have told him repeatedly that he is full of shit, that the video doesn't tell the WHOLE story, doesn't have ALL the facts..

    That is a factual and undeniable record of his entire conversation...

    Altohone has been PWNED...

    That is all...

  150. [150] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    and [Michale is] in no position to lecture anyone on the correct use of an apostrophe.

    That is a fact and the truth of the matter. Heh.

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    and [Michale is] in no position to lecture anyone on the correct use of an apostrophe.

    Which basically states that there WAS an incorrect usage (or in this case LACK of usage) of the apostrophe..

    JL simply feels that I am not the one to point it out.. :D

    But, if *I* don't, no one will, soo......

    It's up to me.. :D

  152. [152] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Which basically states that there WAS an incorrect usage (or in this case LACK of usage) of the apostrophe..

    for the third time, no. that is incorrect. 'eyewitness account' is idiomatic, could apply to anyone, and does not require an apostrophe to do so. michale, you definitely have grammar issues.

    JL

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    for the third time, no. that is incorrect. 'eyewitness account' is idiomatic, could apply to anyone, and does not require an apostrophe to do so. michale, you definitely have grammar issues.

    That's your opinion and I respect that..

    But, when one takes into account Altohone's entire tirade, it's clear he was intimating that there WAS an eyewitness account to the incident prior to the video..

    If you read the entire thread, you will come to the same conclusion..

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    Even if that is what Altohone meant, it's clear that he has NOTHING to substantiate what occurred prior to the video..

    Ergo, he is full of shit when he claims what occurred prior to the video is conclusive...

    Again, if you read the entire thread, you will agree...

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    'eyewitness account' is idiomatic, could apply to anyone,

    Yes, it CAN...

    Depending on how it is used in the sentence..

    GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video.

    In THAT sentence, the subject (eyewitness account) clearly applies to GT..

    I know, I know.. You want to read it differently..

    But you HAVE to admit that MY read on it is just as factually accurate as yours is..

    So, one has to take into account the ENTIRE discussion to accurately assess what that sentence means..

    I get why you are saying what you are saying.. But my read is ALSO accurate...

  156. [156] 
    michale wrote:

    So, one has to take into account the ENTIRE discussion to accurately assess what that sentence means..

    And the entire discussion is stated in #149

  157. [157] 
    michale wrote:

    Top Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel
    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

    Out and out illegal...

    Susan Rice is going to jail...

    I want to thank Paula for bringing this to my attention... :D

  158. [158] 
    altohone wrote:

    147

    No, we don't agree.

    My argument is simple.
    There is a high probability that a successful arrest of a man on his knees in surrender could have been accomplished without the excessive brutality.

    You wanting my argument to be different doesn't impact what my argument actually is.

    In other words, you are attempting to reframe my argument in order to serve your different argument.

    Your argument that we must assume that events prior to the video necessitate or justify the brutality evident in the video is a different argument... an argument being made using the "benefit of the doubt" rationalization... in other words, unsubstantiated by any facts whatsoever.

    -
    -

    148

    I didn't "intimate" that GT witnessed the event.
    You continuing to claim I did despite the attempts by myself and nypoet to set you straight is pathetic lying.

    You still haven't mentioned ONE WORD (in any of your crapflooding comments) of the background info of the events from eyewitnesses prior to the video which GT provided, so you are also lying about having remembered it correctly.
    You'd be using the info in your argument if you remembered it, and you are not.

    Spin away.

    A

  159. [159] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [157] -

    So intel picks up Trump folks whispering sweet nothings into the ears of Russian intelligence, and you don't think that the National Security Advisor is authorized to find out who that is? Whose job would that be, then, otherwise?

  160. [160] 
    Paula wrote:

    [76] GoodeTrickle:
    Here's a terrific article that addresses a whole lot of my feelings re: HRC, Sanders, the election, etc.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2017/apr/03/the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-sexism-sanders-and-the-millennial-feminists

    I offer it as explanatory, not for persuasive purposes. The article places her in the context of women's struggles for equality and respect in this country. I grew up on HRC saw many of her struggles as my and other women's struggles writ large. The author's perspective resonates with me completely. Been there.

    That said, I have no intention of getting into a "I'll defend Hillary against everyone here who hates her," match. No one here has to like her.

    I have never said she was perfect. People can have legitimate objections to aspects of her political career and professional decisions. But she has NEVER deserved the sort of scorn and hate that has been leveled at her and I have zero interest in the views of those who indulge in it.

  161. [161] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/terry-mcauliffe-democratic-party-future_us_58e2bc38e4b0f4a923b11edd?

    "A Clintonian approach to win"

    Summary-

    Trump hasn't done this, Trump hasn't done that.

    In other words, ZERO about what Dems WILL do on economic policy to help the Americans who are struggling... one of the core reasons the Dems have been decimated at all levels.

    This clown is being talked about as a presidential candidate. A Clinton insider who is repeating the same mistakes is not the path to victory.

    A

  162. [162] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [160] - You are not alone; I, too believe that Clinton would have been an exceptional president. I also know that the near-universal dislike of HRC here is not common out in the 'real world', where nearly every Democrat I know has at least a positive view of her. Folks I know 'like' Bernie, but blame him for contributing to Clinton's loss. So, in some midwestern democratic circles at least, politics is for some reason the inverse of our little group here.

    Take [161] above for instance: what did McAuliffe say in that article that Al disagrees with, exactly? That the midterms are important? That Trump's policies are endangering the economies of states like the one that McAuliffe is currently running? That Trump should be talking to governors about "jobs and infrastructure and health care"?

    When did the left become a clearinghouse for all things anti-Clinton? A lot of progressive organizations wouldn't exist without the Clinton's help, past and present. I sincerely doubt that Al's extreme disdain for Everything Clinton (including their old friends) has much traction outside the fevered forums of the internet.

    McAuliffe's right: we should be focusing on what we can do to elect democrats to state jobs ranging from Animal Control up to Governorships in preparation for 2018 and 2020. If that's not progressive enough for guys like Al, he's too far outside the conversation to matter.

  163. [163] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's really too bad that we'll never know what kind of president Hillary would have been because she was a mediocre candidate within a less than mediocre campaign.

    That much should go without saying because, ah, she gave us Trump.

    Personally, I'll never forgive her for that.

  164. [164] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I believe Biden would have been an exceptional president.

    I know for certain he would have run a far superior campaign.

  165. [165] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [102]

    No...

    We've established that you had a good point.

    "A good point"? Kennedy is a conservative; that is not a "good point," that is a damn fact. If you don't know that, then you qualify for a fool. You said you considered Kennedy a liberal and that was the reason your numbers were off... but they still didn't add up. The Supreme Court justices are the basics; if you don't know them and can't count them properly and you insist you're correct on a political chat board when you're called out your incorrect numbers (which is exactly what you did), then you indeed qualify as a fool (and probably worse).

    You decided to go for the childish and immature name-calling all on your own..

    See above.

    No, actually the subject is still the same..

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/31/ftp430/#comment-97697
    ^^^ CLICK, CLICK -- Here's the subject; let it sink in. ^^^

    No, the subject was you asking me where the "sucky math" was and your inability to count Supreme Court justices, and now you want to change the subject to something we've already discussed ad nauseam on this board and I already answered. I can't help it if you're mentally challenged and can't retain conversations.

    Are Democrats being boneheads for wasting the filibuster when it will assuredly do absolutely NO GOOD instead of holding onto it and using it where it MAY do some good.

    Staying on topic, you're a "bonehead" who can't count and has memory issues. I already answered this. Go look it up. Find something else to moan about; your repetition on this subject is ridiculous. Much like your inability at math and your memory failure, this horse is dead already; stop beating the shit out of it and move on. :)

  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's not so much being "anti-Clinton" as it is being honest about recognizing why she lost and why she should never run again.

    This is an adult blog and, as such, knee-jerk hatred of Hillary has no place here and neither do knee-jerk dismissals of those who would describe hers as the disastrous candidacy and campaign that they were.

  167. [167] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    There's actually nothing very specific that anyone can say that Clinton should have done differently, under the circumstances. Most politicians in her position would have charted very much the same course. Biden would have been funnier, for sure. But he opted out.

    As Paula wrote, "People can have legitimate objections to aspects of her political career and professional decisions." We should leave it at that.

    And Move On! Even Biden would agree with that.

    We should be memorizing the names of all of the people who have political power over us, from local councilman to Senator, right now. We have to be ready and informed, the next time.

  168. [168] 
    michale wrote:

    There is a high probability that a successful arrest of a man on his knees in surrender could have been accomplished without the excessive brutality.

    But the valid point is, you are basing that assessment SOLELY on a mere snapshot of an entire incident AND your ignorance of police activities and procedures..

    Therefore your assessment must be viewed in that context..

    You wanting my argument to be different doesn't impact what my argument actually is.

    Your argument is based SOLELY on a snapshot of the event..

    As such, it is not a valid argument.

    Your argument

    First of all, it's not just MY argument. It's Russ' argument as well.. And, of the three of us (you, me and Russ) only 2 have actual practical experience in the LEO field.

    OUR argument is based on experience, expertise, facts and reality. Your argument is based on anti-cop bigotry..

    As such, our argument carries the day..

    that we must assume that events prior to the video necessitate or justify the brutality evident in the video is a different argument...

    It's part and parcel to the exact same argument..

    Was the cop's actions on the video justified..

    You say NO, but have absolutely NOTHING but your anti-cop bigotry to back it up..

    Russ and I say that the actions COULD be justified and that more information is required to reach a proper conclusion..

    I didn't "intimate" that GT witnessed the event.
    You continuing to claim I did despite the attempts by myself and nypoet to set you straight is pathetic lying.

    No.. It's an opinion based on the ENTIRE conversation. JL hasn't read the entire conversation so his opinion is, like your opinion of the cop's actions, based on ignorance..

    Your opinion is obviously biased and can also be disregarded..

  169. [169] 
    michale wrote:

    Sessions orders Justice Department to review all police reform agreements

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered Justice Department officials to review reform agreements with troubled police forces nationwide, saying it was necessary to ensure that these pacts do not work against the Trump administration’s goals of promoting officer safety and morale while fighting violent crime.

    In a two-page memo released Monday, Sessions said agreements reached previously between the department’s civil rights division and local police departments — a key legacy of the Obama administration — will be subject to review by his two top deputies, throwing into question whether all of the agreements will stay in place.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-orders-justice-department-to-review-all-police-reform-agreements/2017/04/03/ba934058-18bd-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html

    Nice... Good first step...

  170. [170] 
    michale wrote:

    You still haven't mentioned ONE WORD (in any of your crapflooding comments) of the background info of the events from eyewitnesses prior to the video which GT provided, so you are also lying about having remembered it correctly.

    Of course I remembered it correctly.. GT doesn't HAVE any eyewitness accounts of the incident. He merely was repeating what he read about the eyewitness accounts.. In other words, with regards to the incident, GT has access to the EXACT same information that I have access to...

    GT's value comes in his personal knowledge of the area and the department, which is useful knowledge that allowed GT to concede that the incident depicted in the video WAS possibly justified..

    I guess that means there are THREE people (myself, Russ and GT) who have personal knowledge, experience and expertise.. THREE PEOPLE with personal knowledge, experience and expertise who say that the incident COULD have been justified and ONE person with NO knowledge, experience or expertise who says it definitely WASN'T justified..

    Step back and try to see things rationally...

    You're in the wrong on this one, Altohone... It won't kill you to admit it..

  171. [171] 
    michale wrote:

    GT's value comes in his personal knowledge of the area and the department, which is useful knowledge that allowed GT to concede that the incident depicted in the video WAS possibly justified..

    For the record, I am sure GT has value in other areas as well. :D

    But for the purposes of THIS discussion, GT's value comes from his personal knowledge of the area and the department in question..

    What it ALL boils down to is this...

    The video is but a mere snapshot of an entire incident. In and of itself, it is not enough information to form an accurate conclusion of the entire incident..

    That's all I am saying.. That's all Russ is saying. That's all GT is saying...

    YOU, the person with absolutely NO experience, training or expertise, YOU are the ONLY one who claims that the actions of the police were not justified and your claim is SOLELY based on that one snapshot...

    You may be right. The actions MAY NOT be justified.

    But you also could be wrong. The actions might have been PERFECTLY justified.

    And you can't admit that...

    That's where your problem lies..

    You can't admit that you could be wrong..

    And, because of that, you ARE wrong..

  172. [172] 
    michale wrote:

    I didn't "intimate" that GT witnessed the event.

    Under those circumstances, I can understand why you may not have noticed GT's comment explaining what happened prior to the beginning of the video of the police beating a man who got on his knees
    -Altohone

    Yes, you did intimate that GT had witnessed the event..

    "GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video."
    -Altohone

    Actually, came right out and STATED that GT had witnessed the incident...

    But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because, either way, my assessment that GT *DID NOT* witness the event was dead on ballz accurate...

  173. [173] 
    michale wrote:

    Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

    “What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

    “The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan-rice-ordered-spy-agencies-to-produce-detailed-spreadsheets-involving-trump/#ixzz4dHheZwZe

    PERP WALK FOR RICE!!!!! :D

  174. [174] 
    michale wrote:

    Col. (Ret.) James Waurishuk, an NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, told TheDCNF that many hands had to be involved throughout the Obama administration to launch such a political spying program.

    “The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency,” Waurishuk said. “They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies says, ‘we’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask.’”

    “The lawyers and counsel at the NSA surely would be talking to the lawyers and members of counsel at CIA, or at the National Security Council or at the Director of National Intelligence or at the FBI,” he said. “It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.”

    Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall.”

    Doran charged that potential serious crimes were undertaken because “this is a leaking of signal intelligence.”

    “That’s a felony,” he told TheDCNF. “And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”

    Waurishuk said he was most dismayed that “this is now using national intelligence assets and capabilities to spy on the elected, yet-to-be-seated president.”
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan-rice-ordered-spy-agencies-to-produce-detailed-spreadsheets-involving-trump/#ixzz4dHlYpdi3

    Lying here in the darkness
    I hear the sirens wail
    Somebody going to emergency
    Somebody's going to jail

    -NEW YORK MINUTE, The Eagles

    :D

  175. [175] 
    Paula wrote:

    Balthasar: Yep!

  176. [176] 
    michale wrote:

    The New Party of 'No'

    Ah, the joys of doing nothing. Republicans must remember them fondly, as they struggle with the difficulties of actually designing real-world bills that have to get past the Senate, and y’know, not hideously offend large numbers of voters.

    Democrats, meanwhile, are discovering the sweet, toddler-like joys of just saying “no” to everything. Help Republicans repeal Obamacare? Heck no. Quietly stand by while Republicans approve an eminently qualified nominee to the Supreme Court? No, no, no!

    After years of failing at the grown-up business of passing legislation, small wonder the Democrats would like to let the Republicans have a try at being the adults in the room. In politics, saying "no" is a great deal of fun.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-04/the-new-party-of-no

    Yep...

    Democrats are now EVERYTHING ya'all hated in Republicans..

    But NOW, ya'all (NEN) are perfectly OK with obstructionism because it's the DEMOCRATS who are obstructing..

    Blatant hypocrisy and Party slavery, all rolled into one..

    The facts are as clear as they are unequivocal...

  177. [177] 
    michale wrote:

    But NOW, ya'all (NEN) are perfectly OK with obstructionism because it's the DEMOCRATS who are obstructing..

    I have to admit I toyed with the idea to leave off the NEN as I can't recall ANYONE here blasting the Democrats for their GOP-Level obstructionism..

    However, it's been aptly proven that my memory isn't what it used to be :D and there ARE a few people (ya'all know who ya'all are) who deserve the benefit of the doubt...

    Hence, the NEN...

  178. [178] 
    michale wrote:

    The base wants a filibuster of Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court, even though there is literally no possible tangible end that can be achieved thereby -- and even though it may indeed make it harder to block Trump nominees in the future. For instance some future truly awful Supreme Court nominee, one for whom Republicans wouldn’t be willing to rewrite Senate rules in order to overcome a filibuster threat.

    Sounds familiar... :D

    At the moment, of course, the empty gesture of blocking Gorsuch is delighting many on the left, who finally feel like their party has grown a spine. If this follows the pattern that evolved on the right, however, that feeling will turn out to be increasingly costly. With the Tea Party, Republican moderates initially imagined that they had found something like the crazy partner in a cop buddy film -- the one who could be used to threaten suspects into acting against their own self-interest by saying: “Look, he’s crazy. He could do anything, and I just don’t know how long I can hold him back!”

    But then the mainstream lawmakers discovered that their partner's craziness wasn’t an act. The Tea Party helped them secure some victories, yes. But then Crazy Mac cost them control of the Senate, engaged in grandstanding ploys with no obvious payoff, and took the focus off of Obamacare at its moment of greatest vulnerability. They had no control over their crazy “partner,” and that partner cost them more potential victories than it delivered.

    Democrats may end up experiencing the same thing. Democrats desperately need to become competitive again outside of a handful of urban agglomerations, not just because their rural failures cost them the presidency, but also because of all the other offices they’ve lost at every level of government below the White House. But making themselves more competitive is probably going to require backing away from an immigration position that was skirting dangerously close to “open borders,” and placing less focus on identity politics. If they try to do this, their base will (correctly) perceive themselves losing power and status in the party, and they will be incandescent. Their first priority will be extracting signals of loyalty to themselves, not winning elections … and if the Republican experience is any guide, they may well get what they want.

    Yep, Yep, Yep

    Democrats *AND* their base are going to rue the day they threw away such a potent Minority Party weapon on a whim, just to appease a few fanatics who can't see past their own hysterical ideological agenda...

    You heard it here first..

Comments for this article are closed.