ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [439] -- We're All Covfefeed Now

[ Posted Friday, June 2nd, 2017 – 17:45 PDT ]

Yesterday, Donald Trump finished off a two-week stretch of diminishing America's standing in the world by announcing he was pulling out of the historic Paris climate agreement. In Trumpian terms, this means we're all covfefeed now.

Trump's announcement, as usual, stated many things which are simply not true. America, Trump essentially said, was getting covfefeed over by the entire globe, who together with Barack Obama came up with an insidious plan to crush the American economy for no reason whatsoever. This was the big lie at the center of all the other lies Trump told during his speech, and it is (obviously) not true in the slightest.

But the bigger picture is shaping up to be momentous in nature, and it is one that few so far have noticed. What Trump is doing is abdicating America's leadership role in the world (and in Europe, in particular). Instead of "America First!" he is turning us into "Isolation Nation." And the biggest beneficiary to date is not Russia (as one might expect), but China. Trump is well on his way to making China great again, to put it in Trumpian terms.

Consider the following actions Trump has taken, and their geopolitical consequences. First, Trump pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Net result? China will become the dominant trade partner in the Pacific Rim region, and will be free to cut their own trade deals with numerous countries while the U.S. sits on the sidelines.

Trump refused to make good on his campaign promise to label China a currency manipulator. Supposedly he did this to urge China to rein in North Korea, but that hasn't noticeably happened yet. Instead, the net result was (again) favorable to China.

Trump, after promising in the Middle East that his first foreign trip wasn't going to include lecturing other countries, then went on to Europe... where he lectured both NATO and the European heads of state, in harsh terms. China didn't directly benefit from weakening NATO, although Russia did.

But in the aftermath of Trump's Paris announcement came the following news:

A day after President Trump pulled out of a key climate agreement, declaring he was fighting for "Pittsburgh, not Paris," an international realignment was already taking shape on Friday, as European and Chinese officials signed a raft of agreements to bind themselves tightly together.

The pullout left the United States as a global outlier, and, many European leaders and experts said, a severely diminished force in the world. And it gave China fresh weight in a newly unbalanced landscape where longtime U.S. allies are searching for stability.

. . .

"Today China and Europe have demonstrated solidarity with future generations and responsibility for the whole planet. We are convinced that yesterday's decision by the United States to leave the Paris agreement is a big mistake," European Council President Donald Tusk said Friday after meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang.

. . .

The [three-and-a-half] days of meetings between Trump and the Europeans may stand as a turning point in an alliance that was born from the ashes of World War II, as Europe turns toward China and other economic partners it views as more stable.

The New York Times also picked up on this new dynamic:

In pulling out of the Paris climate accord, [Trump] has created a vacuum of global leadership that presents ripe opportunities to allies and adversaries alike to reorder the world's power structure.... His decision is perhaps the greatest strategic gift to the Chinese, who are eager to fill the void that Washington is leaving around the world. China has long viewed the possibility of a partnership with Europe as a balancing strategy against the United States. Now, with Mr. Trump questioning the basis of NATO, the Chinese are hoping that their partnership with Europe on the climate accord may allow that relationship to come to fruition faster than their grand strategy imagined.

Remember when Trump used to rail against China for being so very unfair to the United States? Yeah, those were the days... now Trump's all about making China greater than America. If a Democratic president had done half so much to benefit China, Republicans would be angrily demanding they hew to the "American exceptionalism" line (with plenty of references to America as "the leader of the free world," no doubt) -- but with Trump, nary a peep from that direction is to be heard. How times have changed.

Of course, it's to be expected that partisans will support their president, but Trump toadies seem to have crossed over some sort of line into "Trump can do no wrong, Trump is our savior" territory. Watching the crowd shots of Trump's Rose Garden speech reminded us of nothing so much as North Korean politicians and military members (quite literally) clapping as if their very lives depended on it. Think this is overstating the case? We don't, or at least, not by much.

Last week, the Washington Post ran an article about how Trump was going ballistic on his aides on a regular basis, and how taking such abuse was par for the course for workers in the Trump White House. The White House responded with a stunning statement which sounds more like a translated North Korean press release:

President Trump has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000. He has built great relationships throughout his life and treats everyone with respect. He is brilliant with a great sense of humor... and an amazing ability to make people feel special and aspire to be more than even they thought possible.

Wow. Just... wow. "Treats everyone with respect"? "An amazing ability to make people feel special"? Really?!? The only surprising thing about this statement is that it didn't actually use the phrase "Dear Leader."

Sean Spicer followed up on this extraordinary (and breathtaking) toadying by insisting that Donald Trump didn't just make a simple spelling mistake by tweeting "covfefe," but instead that "the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant." Again, this would have sounded better in the original Korean. In normal times, a press secretary would have just laughed it off ("C'mon, guys -- you've never misspelled a word or posted a tweet by mistake?"), but these are anything but normal times.

Still think comparing Trump to Kim Jong Un's regime is too much? Well, how about this story -- White House officials have apparently instructed all their executive branch agencies from honoring any requests for information from Democrats on oversight committees in Congress.

At meetings with top officials for various government departments this spring, Uttam Dhillon, a White House lawyer, told agencies not to cooperate with such requests from Democrats.... It appears to be a formalization of a practice that had already taken hold, as Democrats have complained that their oversight letters requesting information from agencies have gone unanswered since January, and the Trump administration has not yet explained the rationale. The declaration amounts to a new level of partisanship in Washington, where the president and his administration already feels besieged by media reports and attacks from Democrats. The idea, Republicans said, is to choke off the Democratic congressional minorities from gaining new information that could be used to attack the president.

Got that? Anything which makes the Dear Leader look bad will not be revealed. Because it's not like we live in an open democracy or anything. The United States government's primary function is now apparently to avoid making Trump look bad in any way.

Sheesh. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that what makes Donald Trump look the worst is... Donald Trump (and his trusty Twitter account). Irony alert: this all happened during the same week that the White House communications director quit, only four months into the (thankless) job.

While all of the distractions continue to, well, distract, Team Trump is getting a lot of things done under the radar. Kudos to Sam Stein at HuffPost for compiling a list of how Trump is changing America for the worse:

On regulatory policy, Trump's impact has far outpaced the coverage it's often received. He's made it harder for workers to set up retirement accounts and has delayed the implementation of workplace safety rules. He repealed a regulation protecting workers from wage theft and allowed employers with spotty labor records to get government contracts. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has hit the brakes on a rule that would require firms to report worker injury data online. Trump has given coal companies permission to dump debris into local streams and canceled requirements for reporting methane emissions. Both the Dakota Access and Keystone pipelines have been allowed to proceed, and coal companies have been allowed to again lease on public lands.

. . .

And Trump has had a profound impact on women's health. He drastically expanded the so-called global gag rule, restricting a larger pool of funding from groups that mention or promote abortion, and he is poised to gut a mandate requiring employers to cover birth control for employees, broadening exemptions to the requirement that extend well beyond religious-affiliated groups.

Also notable, from the Washington Post:

The Trump administration is planning to disband the Labor Department division that has policed discrimination among federal contractors for four decades, according to the White House's newly proposed budget, part of wider efforts to rein in government programs that promote civil rights.

. . .

The proposal to dismantle the compliance office comes at a time when the Trump administration is reducing the role of the federal government in fighting discrimination and protecting minorities by cutting budgets, dissolving programs and appointing officials unsympathetic to previous practices.

So it's not like there aren't plenty of stories out there that do indeed make Trump look bad or anything. No wonder they're so worried. If the mainstream media ever gets its head out of its covfefe, maybe a few more of these stories would become more high-profile.

Here's our candidate for a story that should be getting more attention, before we move along to this week's awards: the California senate just passed a bill to move the state to a single-payer health system. Now, this is not a done deal yet, especially since they neglected to address the thorny question of "how will it be paid for?" in the bill, but the California assembly might just fill in those blanks. Even if the bill did pass, though, it's a coin-toss whether Governor Jerry Brown would sign it or not -- but even with all the caveats, you'd think the biggest state in the nation (population-wise) moving ahead on single-payer would get slightly better coverage than it so far has outside the Golden State's borders. But then that'd interrupt all the Kathy Griffin and covfefe news, we suppose. Sigh.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Before we get to the main award, we do have to give Senator Heidi Heitkamp an Honorable Mention this week, for her handling a "tracker" -- an opposition researcher who follows candidates around in the hopes of getting something juicy on tape to use against them. When Heitkamp was faced with such a tracker, she decided the best thing to do was go over and chat with him. She tweeted a photo of the two together, saying: "Sterling is a tracker w/ America Rising who's following me around. Nice guy so won't hold it against him. Intro urself 2 him when u see him!" Now that's the way to handle an unfriendly face in the crowd! Well done, Senator Heitkamp -- we'd love to sees more acts of civility like this in politics, personally.

OK, on to the big news. In the aftermath of Trump's Paris decision, one voice quickly rose above the rest of the chorus condemning the decision. Maybe he's just got a better press relations team, but the face of the opposition quickly became that of Jerry Brown, four-time governor of California.

Brown not only blitzed the media with appearances, he made a very strong case on why Trump is so wrong to pull out of the Paris accords. He knocked down all the misstatements of fact Trump made, especially the ones about how fighting climate change will kill the economy.

Brown's on solid ground on this, because California has not only led the way among American states on fighting climate change, it has pioneered several methods of doing so. And guess what? California's economy is doing just fine, thank you very much. California has actually been accelerating its own timetable to convert its energy portfolio from fossil fuels to zero-emissions or renewable sources. Despite all these aggressive efforts to reduce carbon emissions, California's economy is booming. This easily proves that "fighting climate change kills the economy" is sheer nonsense.

But Brown isn't just out there making the case for why Trump's wrong and why what California is doing is right. He was also quick out of the gate with an announcement that three states (California, New York, and Washington) were banding together to reaffirm their own commitments to the Paris goals. Over time, this list will likely grow.

So for being a great spokesman who knocked down Trump's false claims, for showing the rest of the states that fighting climate change can actually help the economy, and for being pro-active in co-founding an effort to resist the Trump administration's attempt to turn back the clock, Jerry Brown is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate California Governor Jerry Brown on his official contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We thought we had a winner in this category this week, for playing the victim card once too often. But then came today's all-time victim card ploy which trumped (pun intended) any lesser disappointment.

So we only have a (Dis-)Honorable Mention award this week for Hillary Clinton. Now, in the recent past, we refused to give Clinton the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award for finger-pointing and blame-gaming why she lost the election. We took her at her word that she was busily writing her book, and that the full story would be told there, with plenty of self-examination when it came to assigning blame for her loss to Donald Trump.

Now, however, we're not so sure. Here is Clinton, from a speech she gave this week: "I was the victim of a very broad assumption I was going to win. I take responsibility for every decision I make -- but that's not why I lost."

Wow. That's some pretty serious "mistakes were made" dodging, there. She was the victim, mind you, of an assumption. Not that she herself assumed anything she shouldn't, of course. And she didn't lose because of any decisions she made (in a sentence designed to completely avoid any responsibility, the first three words notwithstanding).

This prompted an extraordinary tweet from Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton's campaign manager for her 2008 run: "I [heart] @HillaryClinton but I'm tired of hearing who/what she blames 4 loss. Want 2 hear how Ds can win in 2018, 2020 & beyond. Time 2 move on."

But the worst pushback Clinton received was for the following claim:

I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation. I get the nomination. So I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it -- the D.N.C. -- to keep it going.

One of the people responsible for the D.N.C. data operation hotly disputed this in a tweetstorm, thanking all the hard work the data team had done and calling Clinton's claim "fucking bullshit."

But Clinton's replaying of the victim card this week was vastly overshadowed by the Kathy Griffin press conference today. Now, we wrote about Griffin earlier this week, where we attempted to put her "clutching Trump's bloody head" video into a little perspective (without either defending or condemning her for it). But today's presser signified a whole new level in the game of playing the victim card.

Griffin tried to simultaneously defend her right to be a bully, while complaining that she was being bullied. By the man she had just caricatured as being decapitated. This is jaw-dropping. Here's just some of what she had to say today:

A sitting president of the United States and his grown children and the first lady are personally trying to ruin my life forever. You guys know him, he's not going to stop.... I'm not good at being appropriate. I'm only good at doing comedy one way. It's in your face. I'm going to make fun of the president. And I'm going to do it more now.... The threats that I am getting are... detailed and they are specific. And today it's me, but tomorrow it might be you. I don't think I'll have a career after this. I'm going to be honest, he broke me.

He broke you?!? Wow. As Hunter S. Thompson said: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

Most bullies have incredibly thin skin. Kathy Griffin has made a career out of being what is politely called an "insult comic." It's her whole schtick, in fact, and she once saw herself as the next Joan Rivers. But insult comedy, at heart, is just really funny bullying (at least when done right, such as pretty much any routine by Triumph The Insult Comic Dog). But if you can dish this sort of thing out, then you'd better be well prepared to take it when someone hits you back.

Trump's a pretty thin-skinned bully himself, of course. There's no denying that. Even so, he had every right to chime in on the controversy. Him doing so did not start this fight. Griffin did. That is inescapable. You simply cannot claim with a straight face that you're "not good at being appropriate" while complaining of inappropriate behavior towards yourself. You cannot promise to "do it more" and be "in your face" while demanding that others cease and get out of your face.

We have no idea whether Kathy Griffin is a registered Democrat or not, but we're waiving the rule since she jumped into the political debate on the anti-Trump side. Without a shadow of a doubt, Kathy Griffin deserves our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award -- not for her initial attempt at comedy, and not for how provocative and controversial it was -- but solely for trying to pin all the blame on her professional woes now on Donald Trump and his family. That is beyond chutzpah. It is beyond believability. You picked this fight, Kathy, so if you can't stand the heat, why did you enter this particular kitchen in the first place?

[Contact Kathy Griffin via Twitter, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 439 (6/2/17)

Before we begin, we have a few items that just didn't fit anywhere else. The first is to challenge everyone to come up with their own amusing definitions of "covfefe" -- the nonsense word that Trump tweeted. We've already (kind of) done so in our first few paragraphs today, but we certainly can't claim to be the first to come up with that particular definition. So far, the best responses we've read came from Representative Jared Huffman of California, who tweeted: "'Covfefe' is Russian for 'please don't release those Kompromat tapes!'" and from Representative Ted Lieu (also from the Golden State) who simply responded: "Yrsvjseubpihfcovswtvnjhgfefesxnklimnq." Heh. So, anyone seen anything funnier? Got your own take on covfefe? Do tell! Let everyone see down in the comments....

Secondly, any regular reader of our columns knows two things that set us off (in different directions). The first is how few days Congress actually works. The second is our love of a good chart or graphic representation of any particular set of hard-to-comprehend data. Which is why we just had to stick a link in here to a Washington Post story with a couple of extraordinary (and long!) charts, which show the days Congress works versus the days they take off. The second chart is the best, because it breaks down weekdays when Congress works versus weekdays when they are off. Anyone with any doubt that this is an absolute travesty, just take a gander at that second chart.

Bugaboos aside, though, let's get right to the talking points.

 

1
   Dear Leader

Can't resist this one....

"Donald Trump should really just go ahead and proclaim himself America's official 'Dear Leader,' since it seems now to be official White House policy that Trump is some sort of demigod who strides the Earth. First there was the statement which (Are you sitting down? Because this is pretty funny...) said Trump 'has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him.' Trump also has 'an unparalleled ability to communicate with people,' and furthermore is 'brilliant with a great sense of humor... and an amazing ability to make people feel special.' Sean Spicer can't even admit that Trump made up the word 'covfefe,' but then Sean's job seems to be hanging by a thread these days, so it's not like you can blame him personally for insisting that the Dear Leader is simply incapable of making a mistake, no matter how small. Plus the news that the Trump administration is going to refuse to release any information to Democratic congressmen which 'could be used to attack the president.' At the rate this is going, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear Sean Spicer swear one day soon that Dear Leader Trump just shot an 18-stroke round of golf, because he got a hole-in-one on every single hole. Because that is definitely the direction this is all heading, folks."

 

2
   Programs! Getchyer programs here!

It is very hard to keep up, these days, without a scorecard.

"The Washington Post has just posted a rather handy page that lists all the Trump administration officials and former officials who are now being investigated in the ongoing Trump/Russia scandal. We certainly hope they maintain this page, because it's already hard to keep track of how many people are under the microscope of the F.B.I., the congressional committees, and the special counsel's office. No doubt this list will grow over time, so it's convenient to have one place to look that lists them all. I mean, when you go to a baseball game, you have to get a program to appreciate what's going on, right?"

 

3
   Truly offensive

This is a dodge. We fully admit it. But Democrats have to have something ready to say when the inevitable Kathy Griffin questions come up (something beyond just "Ted Nugent did it too!"). A simple denouncement is good, but here's something better.

"When the subject of beheading arises, I'll tell you what I find truly offensive. Donald Trump just went to Saudi Arabia and refused to mention human rights at all -- he said he 'wasn't going to lecture' them. What this did was to give them a green light to accelerate the pace of executing their own citizens -- by cutting heads off with a sword. A 'terrorism' court there just upheld a death sentence against a 23-year-old disabled man for peacefully protesting his government. His conviction was based on a confession obtained under torture. As a leading watchdog of Saudi executions put it: 'it appears that president Trump's recent visit, and his explicit approval of the Saudi regime despite gross human rights abuses, may have emboldened Saudi authorities, who are now signalling their intention to resume protest-related executions.' So let's talk about real beheadings -- of peaceful protesters -- because that's what I find truly offensive."

 

4
   Congress-shaming

This is an ongoing effort that needs to continue and expand.

"I have a new political term to introduce: Congress-shaming. Congress-shaming is what several Democrats and Democratic groups are now doing to bring attention to all of those Republicans in Congress who are too afraid to speak to their own constituents and defend their recent votes. Congressman Darrell Issa was spotted on a rooftop recently, avoiding protesters at one of his district offices. Senator Pat Toomey refuses to hold town halls anymore, so one was held with an empty suit in his place. Devin Nunes wouldn't meet with his constituents, so they put a cardboard cutout of him onstage instead. The event moderator noted: 'He unfortunately had to recuse himself from attending this event because he's too busy not investigating the Kremlin.' Planned Parenthood sponsored a hunt for Representative Barbara Comstock of Virginia, who refuses to hold town halls. They called it a 'valiant quest to find Ms. Comstock,' and promised that 'volunteers will be equipped with any food and water the currently missing representative may require.' Republicans are refusing to meet with their constituents because it is now so painfully evident what the Republican agenda will really mean for average Americans. When they do, they need a healthy dose of Congress-shaming."

 

5
   Speaking of that agenda...

New poll numbers are in, and they're pretty bad.

"A recent poll on the House 'American Health Care Act' bill showed how massively unpopular it is with the public. Fully 55 percent disapprove of this legislation, and only a pathetic eight percent want to see it passed as it now stands. Those are pretty bad numbers, but it gets even worse for Republicans. Because this poll was actually conducted before the C.B.O. report came out which showed what a disaster the A.H.C.A. would be. So this was the public's opinion before they learned that 23 million people would be losing their insurance. I'd hate to see the polling after the C.B.O. report, because those numbers are already pretty dismal."

 

6
   Deepen the swamp!

Yet another Trump promise broken, bigly.

"Remember when Trump promised he'd 'drain the swamp' in Washington, while campaigning? He had a very specific definition of what this would mean, as shown by this late-October tweet from last year: 'I am going to expand the definition of LOBBYIST -- so we close all the LOOPHOLES! #DrainTheSwamp.' Now it appears what he really meant was 'I am going to expand all the LOOPHOLES -- so we get more and more LOBBYISTS in Washington! #FillTheSwamp.' The Trump administration admitted this week that it has issued 17 ethics waivers to allow lobbyists in and allow for exemptions of conflict-of-interest rules in their first four months in office. This is exactly the same number of ethics waivers that the Obama administration issued in eight full years. So rather than draining any so-called swamp, Trump appears to be restocking the swamp with bigger alligators. Or something. At this point, it's hard to tell what he's doing, really."

 

7
   God'll sort it out!

And we finish with what might be called the "head in the sand award" of the week.

"In an updated version of 'kill them all and let God sort them out,' Republican Representative Tim Walberg helpfully explained why he's not personally worried about climate change to a constituent. He said, and I quote: 'I believe there's climate change. I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time. I believe there are cycles. Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No. Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, He can take care of it.' Got that? God'll take care of everything, so why worry about it? Sadly, Walberg is probably not the only Republican in Congress with what might appropriately be called an antediluvian attitude."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

156 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [439] -- We're All Covfefeed Now”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Excellent choice for MIDOTW award!

    Governor Brown looks very poised to take on a role equivalent to that of the US Secretary of State.

    It is infinitely reassuring to know that leaders like Brown are willing and able, indeed eager, to take on the responsibility of representing the US abroad on the critical issues facing the US and the rest of the world.

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    And we're in the top ten list of the world's biggest economies -- California, measured against all the other countries in the world. Not too shabby!

    :-)

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's a thought ... let's call the MDDOTW award in honour of the one who gave us President Trump:

    the Hillary Rodham Clinton Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week award ...

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Number six, and rising!

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Personal note to first-time commenter Bclancy -

    Sorry for the delay in posting your comment to yesterday's article (posted as comment #3).

    I've since responded:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/01/farewell-scott-pelley/#comment-101542

    and wanted to say thanks for pointing the error out...

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [4] -

    We float around between #6 and #8, depending on how the general world economy's doing...

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    i think covfefe is a nickname for President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, five-time Ultimate Smackdown Champion, porn superstar, and president of the United States

    JL

  8. [8] 
    Steedo wrote:

    I understand that Covfefe is the name of the Russian hooker that urinates at the temperature, flowrate and acidity preferred by Comrade Don.

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    Taking care of old business....

    OK, throughout this discussion (which happened before Thursday's announcement, obviously), you state that Trump not bailing on Paris would be a tipping point for you.

    Obviously, it didn't tip, Trump did what you wanted.

    But this got me thinking, what else would Trump have to go back on for you to reach a tipping point? If you don't have an answer right now, that's OK, but I would be interested to hear updates like the one in this thread. I am very curious as to what it would take for Trump supporters to flip on him -- mostly because it hasn't happened in meaningful numbers yet. So let me know if any of these other decision points do it for you, that's all I'm really asking...

    Off the top of my head, none really come to mind.. It's more of a thing where I recognize them as they come up.. Also, it's unlikely it would be one single thing, but rather more of a cumulative process..

    Trump reversing his position on a couple immigration points has started the ball rolling.. And him reversing himself on the great human caused global warming religion would have been the last straw...

    But, you know me. If President Trump does something stoopid, I will call him on it...

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    Further taking care of old business...

    Bclancy,

    "WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    The reason I mention this is that Ted Knight was by all accounts, an intelligent and thoughtful person, and he was constantly made frustrated and unhappy because people didn't distinguish between him and the character he portrayed.

    That would be characterS... :D

    If I recall correctly, Ted Knight played the same type of character in Caddyshack...

    Typecasting is the bane of all great actors....

    It's no wonder that Knight did a LOT of voices for animated series...

    STAR TREK, SUPER FRIENDS, FANTASTIC VOYAGE, CAPTAIN CAVEMAN, SCOOBY DOO, INCH HIGH PRIVATE EYE and a bunch more...

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    OK, NOW we're caught up. :D

    Trump's announcement, as usual, stated many things which are simply not true. America, Trump essentially said, was getting covfefeed over by the entire globe, who together with Barack Obama came up with an insidious plan to crush the American economy for no reason whatsoever. This was the big lie at the center of all the other lies Trump told during his speech, and it is (obviously) not true in the slightest.

    May not be true, but it IS perfectly factual.. :D

    Here is President Trump's gift..

    He has the Left Wingery all tied in pretzel knots over an imaginary word that real patriotic Americans are just rolling their eyes at the Hysterical Left Wingery and the MSM... :D

    And the problem is your "sources", CW..

    You might as well be quoting HuffPoop and DailyStupid when ALL you mention is WaPoop and NY Grime....

    WaPoop as a reliable source is totally inane.. They have yet to back up ANY accusation they have made against President Trump...

    It's entirely likely that John Podesta is the "source" of the majority of "leaks" that WaPoop prints...

    Before we get to the main award, we do have to give Senator Heidi Heitkamp an Honorable Mention this week, for her handling a "tracker" -- an opposition researcher who follows candidates around in the hopes of getting something juicy on tape to use against them. When Heitkamp was faced with such a tracker, she decided the best thing to do was go over and chat with him. She tweeted a photo of the two together, saying: "Sterling is a tracker w/ America Rising who's following me around. Nice guy so won't hold it against him. Intro urself 2 him when u see him!" Now that's the way to handle an unfriendly face in the crowd! Well done, Senator Heitkamp -- we'd love to sees more acts of civility like this in politics, personally.

    I could not possibly agree more with you on this point...

    Given the Left Wingery of the here and now, it's amazing Heitkamp's response..

    The vast majority of the Left would have gone over there and kicked the shit out of the tracker...

    Kudos, Senator Heitkamp.. If only a tenth of your fellow Democrats would show such class, this country would be a better place......

    As to your MDDOTW awards, I don't say this often, but it made me positively giddy!!! :D

    NOT-45.. The gift for Republicans that just keeps on giving....

    We spoke before of "tipping points"... I have to wonder where/when the tipping point for Democrats to just scream at NOT-45, "FOR THE LOVE OF GODS, SHUT THE FRAK UP!!!!"

    My guess it's going to be sooner rather than later...

    As to Griffin, you left out ANOTHER Griffin gem that just goes beyond the pale..

    “I’m happy to deliver beat down to Donald Trump — and also to Barron. You know a lot of comics are going to go hard for Donald, my edge is that I’ll go direct for Barron. I’m going to get in ahead of the game.”
    -Kathy Griffin

    This utter and complete moron (my apologies for the offense to morons) just explicitly stated, for the record, that she specifically targeted a 10 yr old little boy and will continue to do so...

    That's just.... words cannot describe how low this is...

    Griffin deserves a whole new series of condemnations from Democrats for that heinous statement...

    My guess is she won't get anymore pushback from the Left because that is what the Left is all about these days..

    Nothing is out of bounds when it comes to attacking anything Trump...

    Sad.....

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    It is infinitely reassuring to know that leaders like Brown are willing and able, indeed eager, to take on the responsibility of representing the US abroad on the critical issues facing the US and the rest of the world.

    The problem is, the planet's changing climate is simply NOT that critical of an issue facing the US and the rest of the world..

    The climate of the planet has been changing every since humans were nothing but a thought, a possibility...

    The climate of the planet will continue to change once humans have gone the way of the dodo...

    There is simply NO FACTUAL evidence to support the claim that humans can control the climate of the planet...

    This being factual, humans need to adopt the Vulcan discipline kaiidth....

    Mastery Of The Unavoidable...

    The climate of the planet cannot be controlled in the here and now, so why waste resources and lives trying to accomplish that??

    It's completely illogical...

    The human caused global warming religion is like all other religions.. It's an attempt to control the masses by way of extortion, persecution, threats and physical violence...

    If a group has to resort to persecution, threats and physical violence to push their agenda (as the Left has done) then it stands to reason that said agenda is not in the best interests of human kind..

    Again.. Simple logic....

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    I think the Germans are going to roll over because they are worried about the UK BMW/Mercedes market....

    :D

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    And, ever the dedicated lawman, Comey checked in with his old friend Bob Mueller to make sure that whatever he says to Congress won't impede prosecution of Trump. Damned decent of him, I'd say.

    Yea, I love it too when two devout and loyal Republicans get together to compare notes..

    I am just surprised that you approve... :D

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Steedo [8] -

    OK, well that's the most original answer I've heard so far, I have to admit!

    :-)

    michale [9] -

    Glad to see you're up! Yeah, I didn't want to put you on the spot, but I am genuinely curious about the cumulative effect. Please keep me posted.

    [10] -

    I dunno, in Caddyshack he was more of just a rich asshole than a complete idiot.

    The most memorable Ted Baxter bit I have always remembered was him pronouncing Arkansas on the air as "Are-Kansas."

    Heh.

    -CW

  16. [16] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, general notice to all -

    I have just caught myself up on answering comments for the whole week. Sorry for the delay, but check out each day's article for my responses.

    Of particular importance was Monday's column, where (much to my astonishment) the comments devolved into a spirited debate over the movie 2001.

    My contribution to this row begins at:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/29/from-the-archives-the-how-many-years-war/#comment-101559

    where I challenge michale to pistols at dawn.

    So there's that to look forward to.

    Heh.

    Seriously, though, I did go off on a tear for a whole 10 comments... but hey, it is Friday night, what better time to do so, eh?

    :-)

    -CW

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Or Galaxy Quest -- best Star Trek spoof ever!

    Maybe until now...

    The Orville
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5691552/videoplayer/vi511752473?ref_=tt_ov_vi

    :D

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Seriously, though, I did go off on a tear for a whole 10 comments... but hey, it is Friday night, what better time to do so, eh?

    And, in doing so, kinda made my point.. :D

    The detail WAS stunning... And the attention to it was mind-numbing.. I mean mind-boggling... :D

    Watching it in 1968 while drunk/stoned was likely a mind-blowing experience...

    But watching it in 2017 at 1000hrs somewhat sober....

    "Is.. Is that a beer!?"
    "Yea.. I'm nervous. Ya know, new crew and all. I want to make a good impression."
    "It's 9:15 in the morning!!"

    -The Orville

    :D

    ..... it just wasn't that good.. But I did enjoy 2010 and made 2001 make a bit more sense.. :D

    Hope that somewhat redeems me.. :D

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Glad to see you're up! Yeah, I didn't want to put you on the spot, but I am genuinely curious about the cumulative effect. Please keep me posted.

    Yea, it's gonna be a long day.. :D

    I didn't feel put on the spot, so no worries.. Any chance I get to prove I am not a Trump drone is aww right by me!! :D

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    There is simply NO FACTUAL evidence to support the claim that humans can control the climate of the planet...

    Let me put it another way..

    Scientists have theorized that there is a massive black hole that is wandering the universe and will eventually hit our neck of the woods and devour our planet..

    Now postulate a scenario where we have a hysterical group that is screaming hysterically (it's what hysterical groups do, after all) that we have to save the planet!!!

    This group pushes a crash course to save the planet.. They advocate spending trillions and trillions of dollars to talk about the problem, costing millions and millions of jobs, destroying countless economies in an effort to stop this massive black hole..

    And it's all for naught because.....

    (pause for effect....)

    The technology simply does not exist to stop a black hole or move the planet!!!

    Such a thing is totally and completely outside the realm of our technology so spending a single red cent towards that effort is completely and utterly moronic...

    So it is with trying to control the planet's climate..

    There is simply NO WAY that we can control the planet's climate...

    So, giving trillions and trillions of dollars to Al Gore, Dick Branson or {gag} the UN!???

    Completely and utterly ridiculous...

    I mean, if the goal is to stave off pollution and make things more green, wouldn't it make MORE sense to spend those trillions and trillions of dollars outfitting entire communities with solar power???

    THAT would be practical and actually ACCOMPLISH something...

    But I simply can't get behind a group who would rather spend trillions and trillions on lawyers and lobbyists and private jet-setting celebrities and jaw-jaw talking....

    Rather than use that money to actually ACCOMPLISH something....

    Such a group is simply a waste of oxygen....

    But kooky religions are all about giving the money and the power to the elitist few....

    The human caused global warming religion is no different....

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    I mean, if ya'all want to discuss a REAL and IMMINENT threat, read the book ONE MINUTE AFTER and it's sequel ONE YEAR AFTER...

    An EMP attack is a VERY real threat that has the capacity to destroy this entire country..

    Yet, no one wants to spend any $$$ on that???

    So, I just can't get excited about a mythical threat espoused by hypocrites who tell everyone else they must suffer and tighten their belts while the hypocrites jet-set around in private jets, dumping millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every day....

    Dick Branson owns a frakin' AIRLINES for christ's sake!!

    And the Left makes him the human caused global warming poster child!!???

    Al Gore owns a house that uses more electricity in one week than a hundred families use in a year!!!

    And the Left makes HIM the human caused global warming guru!!???

    And ya'all HONESTLY believe that THAT position has any merit!???

    On what planet!!???

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    A sitting president of the United States and his grown children and the first lady are personally trying to ruin my life forever. You guys know him, he's not going to stop.... I'm not good at being appropriate. I'm only good at doing comedy one way. It's in your face. I'm going to make fun of the president. And I'm going to do it more now.... The threats that I am getting are... detailed and they are specific. And today it's me, but tomorrow it might be you. I don't think I'll have a career after this. I'm going to be honest, he broke me.

    Look at that claim..

    On the one hand, Griffin claims that her career is making fun of the President (but ONLY a president with an -R after their name) and she is going to continue with her career even more so now..

    Then, in the next sentence, she claims her career is over and President Trump "broke her"....

    That right there is the problem with the vast majority of Left Wingery.. They talk out both sides of their asses...

    But if you can dish this sort of thing out, then you'd better be well prepared to take it when someone hits you back.

    Word.....

    Without a shadow of a doubt, Kathy Griffin deserves our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award -- not for her initial attempt at comedy, and not for how provocative and controversial it was -- but solely for trying to pin all the blame on her professional woes now on Donald Trump and his family. That is beyond chutzpah. It is beyond believability. You picked this fight, Kathy, so if you can't stand the heat, why did you enter this particular kitchen in the first place?

    I don't think I ever agreed with a MDDOTW award more than I do with this one...

    Both the dishonorable mention and the award itself are WELL earned....

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    NOT-45's problem is that she is clinging desperately to her 15 mins and trying too hard to be relevant in a Party that just wants her to go away...

    As long as the Democrat Party retains "leaders" like Pelosi and NOT-45, the Party will continue to lose elections...

    Only those who are Party drones can't see this...

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    And, ever the dedicated lawman, Comey checked in with his old friend Bob Mueller to make sure that whatever he says to Congress won't impede prosecution of Trump. Damned decent of him, I'd say.

    You also have to keep in mind one salient point.

    President Trump could block Director Comey from testifying simply by invoking Executive Privilege..

    Odumbo used EP dozens of times to block criminal proceedings...

    The mere fact that President Trump is ALLOWING Comey to testify shows that Trump isn't worried about anything Comey might say...

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    And you want to talk about polls???

    Suffolk University poll shows that the Democrat Party has a LOWER approval rating than President Trump... Fully NINE POINTS lower...

    So, if you want to live by the polls, you will also die by them... :D

    That's what's so great about polls. You can find ANY poll that "proves" whatever you want to prove... :D

    Dems actually suck MORE than President Trump and I have the poll that "proves" it!!! :D

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    And we're in the top ten list of the world's biggest economies -- California, measured against all the other countries in the world. Not too shabby!

    And what do you think is going to happen with that economy when California starts a 400 BILLION dollar a year project with absolutely NO IDEA how to pay for it???

    PRESIDENT TRUMP, PLEASE BAIL US OUT!!! WE'RE FISCAL MORONS!!!!

    heh :D

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Tiger Woods: Watch me destroy my career...

    Kathy Griffin: Tiger, hold my beer..

    Heh :D

  28. [28] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Gone fishing! Probably going to get very wet. Scattered T-storms all day tomorrow :-( Day 2 looks better.

    Am I going to miss the duel? Muzzle loaders or machine pistols?

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    Am I going to miss the duel? Muzzle loaders or machine pistols?

    Phasers.... :D

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    i think covfefe is a nickname for President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, five-time Ultimate Smackdown Champion, porn superstar, and president of the United States

    Covfefe is a code word for President Trump saying, "Watch how I can twist the hysterical Left Wingery and the Leftist MSM into knots and get them to chase their tails.."

    And lo and behold, it worked perfectly... :D

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    since you didn't respond to my prior posts, i'm guessing you haven't seen idiocracy, the film by mike judge (also of beavis and butt-head, king of the hill, SNL). the film is highly recommended.

    my serious answer is, based on the initial uses i've seen, the original type-o looks to have been intended to be the word "coverage" or "covered" - all the letters are pretty close on the keyboard.

    "despite the negative press covfefe"

    JL

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think the Germans are going to roll over because they are worried about the UK BMW/Mercedes market....

    :D

    Seriously Michale - my "leave" friends in the U.K. really believe that Germany is aghast at losing the U.K. market for luxury cars, and will lean on all the other nations (including the French who hate the English) to go nice on the U.K. to save Mercedes and BMW from losing a market.

    I just get snotty and tell them that after Brexit occurs there won't be anybody left in the U.K. able to afford a SMART car let alone a nice car.

  33. [33] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    I don't know why everyone's talking about "covfefe". It's a perfectly cromulent word.

  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @bleyd,

    it's less stressful than talking about climate denial, russian espionage, obstruction of justice, choke-slamming journalists, the killing of net neutrality, conflicts of interest, secrecy, nepotism, lobbyist ethics violations, threatening 23 million people's health insurance, or any of the other many and myriad scandals plaguing this administration and its allies.

    JL

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not sure about Jerry Brown deserving Most Impressive Democrat. I thought there were some articles about Brown kowtowing to the natural gas and oil industries in California- though it doesn't mean those articles were true.
    But if they are true it certainly makes it easier to work on California's energy portfolio without hurting the state's economy when you're selling oil and gas to other states/countries.
    And wasn't there something to do with a major gas leak in California not too long ago ?
    But maybe he still is the Most Impressive Democrat- after all it's a pretty low bar.

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    But maybe he still is the Most Impressive Democrat- after all it's a pretty low bar.

    "There is mimicry and there is mockery... And THAT was definitely mockery"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy

    :D

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't know why everyone's talking about "covfefe".

    Because the Left isn't happy unless they can be hysterical about SOMETHING...

    No matter how utterly inane and inconsequential it is..

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Obama Unwittingly Handed Trump a Weapon to Cripple the Health Law
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/obama-trump-health-law.html?_r=0

    Odumbo is his own worst enemy.... :D

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Remember when Democrats argued hysterically and incessantly that raising the debt ceiling should be free of ANY conditions???

    Democrats Weigh Using Debt Ceiling Debate to Thwart GOP Tax Cuts
    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-03/democrats-weigh-using-debt-ceiling-debate-to-thwart-gop-tax-cuts

    What a difference an election makes..

    Once again.. Proof positive that it is NOT about principle and integrity..

    It's ALL about Party Uber Alles....

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all jump into bed with big corporations and big business over the Paris fraud...

    Small Businesses Cheer ‘New Sheriff in Town’ After Climate Pact Exit
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/business/dealbook/trump-climate-small-businesses.html

    But small businesses and middle class patriotic Americans are all on President Trump's side on this issue...

    Ya'all claim to be for Joe SixPack...

    But when the time comes, ya'all stand up to be counted with big business and big corporations to screw over the middle class and small business....

    No wonder Democrats can't win elections...

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    “When they go low, we go high.”
    -Michelle Obama

    Apparently, the majority of the Left Wingery hadn't gotten that memo...

    Colbert, Griffin and now Maher....

    Who could have predicted that the Left would sink and wallow in the gutter....

    Oh... wait....

  42. [42] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [32] -

    "He loved to drive in his Jaguar.
    So welcome to the machine..."
    -Pink Floyd, Welcome To The Machine

    Brits have their own luxury cars they can't afford! (to read that first line right, be sure to make it three full syllables: Jag-you-whar) Heh.

    -CW

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    Brits have their own luxury cars they can't afford! (to read that first line right, be sure to make it three full syllables: Jag-you-whar) Heh.

    I thought it was SHAG WIRE!!! :D

  44. [44] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [35] -

    Brown's got a mixed record overall, that's for sure. He's done some things I seriously disagree with, and some things I heartily support. But it's not a lifetime award, y'know? It's just last week, and I thought Brown was the strongest voice raised in protest of Trump's move, that's all.

    -CW

  45. [45] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [43] -

    " 'Scuse me, while I kiss this guy"
    -Jimi Hendrix (kind of)

    Heh.

    -CW

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:
  47. [47] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale (and others) -

    I realize this is the wrong thread, but after sleeping on it I think the "museum piece" desciption of 2001 is exactly the right way to look at it. When you see a historical artifact in a museum, you don't think "that's kind of handy, I could use that today" what you mostly think is "that's kind of handy, if I lived back then it would have been fantastic to have one of these." That's the way the film should be looked at -- in historical context.

    Just had to say that. Looks like dawn came and went and michale-n-me are still here, so I guess we both slept through the appointment. Heh.

    :-)

    -CW

  48. [48] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, that's it for now. Gotta go do chores...

    Play nice, everyone.

    -CW

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    I realize this is the wrong thread, but after sleeping on it I think the "museum piece" desciption of 2001 is exactly the right way to look at it. When you see a historical artifact in a museum, you don't think "that's kind of handy, I could use that today" what you mostly think is "that's kind of handy, if I lived back then it would have been fantastic to have one of these." That's the way the film should be looked at -- in historical context.

    I have to admit, that's a pretty accurate way of looking at it...

    Just had to say that. Looks like dawn came and went and michale-n-me are still here, so I guess we both slept through the appointment. Heh.

    I was in Samarra... I have no idea where you were at!! :D

    Play nice, everyone.

    I'll tell you the same thing my daughter tells me when I tell her "Drive safe..."

    Always.... :D

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    i think the "museum" concept was my comment, but i like how you fleshed it out and went into the specifics of how 2001 revolutionized sci-fi films.

    also, thank you for the links to hardware wars and the "cops" style parody. LOVED the wookie monster! HA!

    JL

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What has Brown done that you seriously disagree with, Chris?

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    But maybe he still is the Most Impressive Democrat- after all it's a pretty low bar.

    Very nice. :rolleyes:

    Two things ... he is and will be for the duration, number one; and, number two, he would get over any bar, in more ways than one.

    Extreme cynicism is a problem all unto itself.

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    And another terrorist attack, brought to you by the "religion of peace"...

    If only we had a President that was willing to restrict immigration from those countries that export this kind of terror...

    Oh... wait....

    And moronic Democrat judges based their rulings against the temporary immigration restriction *SOLELY* on campaign rhetoric!..

    How utterly moronic is that!!??

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    I just don't understand what all the fuss is about..

    These terrorists are just "the JV" and they are contained after all...

    {/sarcasm}

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    Ring of steel set to protect 50,000 fans: Huge security operation in place as Ariana Grande pays tribute to Manchester victims
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4568042/Ring-steel-set-protect-50-000-fans-One-Love-gig.html#ixzz4j1MSGSSr

    "Ring Of Steel"...

    Is that like... oh I dunno... A WALL!!???

    But walls for security don't work! The Left Wingery has said so!!!

    Maybe they should build bridges to make it easier for the terrorists to attend these events...

    I'm just sayin...

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    Democrats Have Lost On Climate Change, And It’s Their Own Fault
    This is what happens when science is hijacked in pursuit of ideologically driven economic policies.

    Whenever the United States fails to adopt climate-change policy favored by the Left, advocates like to point to polls that allegedly illustrate how a vast majority of Americans support “fighting climate change” or “reducing carbon emissions” or “believe in global warming.” These vague, feel-good moral declarations are equivalent to voters saying they are in favor “reducing poverty” or “helping children.” The more useful question is what are you willing to do? Give up one of your cars? Pay more for energy, food, housing, and everything else? Do you want to empower government to run the economy to help fix the problem?

    The cycle goes something like this: Americans are marginally (or what some of us believe, appropriately) concerned about carbon emissions. For Malthusian progressives, and increasingly the rest of the Democratic Party, this won’t do. So they ratchet up the apocalyptic rhetoric in an effort to scare those people into embracing a slate of economic policies. The problem, of course, is that many people don’t like progressive economic policies. So liberals ratchet up the doom and gloom, to the point where they’re talking about this as an extinction-level event. Lots of people ignore these hysterics. Progressives then go from scaring to attempting to humiliate and bully those who won’t accept that progressive economic policies are tantamount to “science.” Half the country goes from being increasingly immune to becoming increasingly angry.
    http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/02/democrats-have-lost-on-climate-change/

    Yep, yep, yep..

    If the Left has to threaten and attack and persecute and intimidate to push their agenda??

    It's highly likely that their agenda ain't worth pushing...

    THAT's the point that no one here gets...

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    The more useful question is what are you willing to do?

    And that *IS* the question...

    Ya'all are on record as to the "horror" and the "extinction" that climate change WILL cause..

    So... What are ya'all willing to do to help stop it??

    Ya'all willing to stop driving anywhere??

    Ya'all willing to stop using electricity and computers and phones??

    Ya'all willing to stop BREATHING!!??

    Because all those things, according to the hysterical Left, cause the climate to change..

    "But... But.... But...."

    And therein lies the rub...

    The Left wants EVERYONE ELSE to tighten their belts and sacrifice...

    But no one on the Left wants to put their actions where the mouths are at...

    Leonardo (the jackass, not the Ninja Turtle) wants everyone ELSE to sacrifice, but he won't give up his private jets...

    Odumbo wants everyone else to sacrifice but he is not willing to give up his huge carbon-producing motorcades or his vacays....

    When the Left Wingery starts ACTING like there is an imminent catastrophe, starts changing their ways to fight the changing of the climate...

    THEN I'll consider that ya'all's position has any merit...

    But as long as ya'all just pay lip service to it???

    I am going to treat it as the POLITICAL agenda that it is...

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    It is not conceivable to me that the president was particularly upset by the Mueller appointment; Senator Schumer, Congressman Schiff, (the incarnation of the political idiocy of Hollywood, which is in his district), and others had shouted themselves hoarse calling for a special prosecutor, by which they clearly meant an Archibald Cox or Lawrence Walsh or Ken Starr-like zealot who would completely immobilize the administration up to the mid-term elections. The engagement of Mueller, an apparently more sober personality than the special prosecutors mentioned, with a mandate to take over the existing well-advanced FBI investigation and lead it within reasonable guidelines as a special counsel, with constrained powers compared to what Schumer and Schiff were hoping for, was a well-placed shot. Comey had already said that Trump was not a suspect; and his deputy, acting director McCabe, had confirmed that the Bureau had not been interfered with or short-changed of resources, contrary to allegations in the New York Times.

    The tide is going out and the whole collusion nonsense (which Tom Friedman of the New York Times said was as serious as the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks) is now down to dark murmurings about the president’s son-in-law speaking after the election with the Russian ambassador. Jared Kushner has let it be known that the ambassador called him and that he will be happy to testify under oath to any appropriate congressional committee whenever he is asked.

    The rubbish about the president disclosing Israeli intelligence to the Russian ambassador was mocked by the Russians and denied by the Israeli prime minister, even as the anti-Trump leakers within the administration strained the alliance with the United Kingdom by releasing MI5 intelligence about the Manchester suicide bomber while the British were still rounding up suspected accomplices.
    https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/02/anti-trump-tide-recedes/

    The hysterical Left over-played their anti-Trump hand..

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that!??

    Oh... Wait.. :D

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    There......

    I have given ya'all a LOT of information, facts and logical discourse..

    Let's see if anyone can come up with any RATIONAL rebuttal.. :D

    I'll be standing by.....

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    If only we had a President that was willing to restrict immigration from those countries that export this kind of terror..

    You mean Britain?

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting read from an ex-Fox News "Hit Man" who exposes Fox News for the WWE version of "news"

    https://medium.com/@tobinsmith_95851/how-roger-ailes-fox-news-scammed-americas-la-z-boy-cowboys-for-21-years-1996ee4a6b3e

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    You mean Britain?

    No, I mean President Trump.... :D

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    The News Only Gets Worse For ObamaCare — And Democrats

    It is becoming extremely difficult to disguise or defend the Affordable Care Act's collapsing individual health insurance marketplace, but that isn't keeping the left from trying.

    For example, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, an ObamaCare architect who used to revel in that fact (and the money the government paid him), recently told Fox News, "Since President Trump has been elected … premiums are going up and insurers are exiting."

    While that claim is true, recent decisions to exit the ObamaCare exchanges are based on years of losses from providing ObamaCare-qualified coverage.

    Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City just announced it is dropping out of the individual insurance market. Blue KC will not sell coverage to those in and out of the ObamaCare exchanges next year, affecting some 67,000 policyholders.

    But note that the company's losses of $100 million are from 2014 to 2016 — not since Jan. 20.

    Earlier in May, Medica, the last insurer selling individual health insurance in most of Iowa, said it would be pulling out of ObamaCare. Wellmark and Aetna made similar announcements in April. Medica on Friday also announced that it might not offer ObamaCare-compliant plans in Nebraska next year, leaving as many as 100,000 Nebraskans with no options under ObamaCare at all.

    Also in May, Aetna said it would pull out of several other states. According to CNN, "The company said it expects to lose more than $200 million in its individual business line this year, on top of nearly $700 million in losses between 2014 and 2016. Aetna withdrew from 11 of its 15 markets for 2017."

    A few years ago, Democrats and the media boasted that California-based health insurer Molina was making money selling ObamaCare policies, and other health insurers just needed to follow the Molina model. But in early May Molina's board fired the CEO because the company was losing so much money.
    http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-news-only-gets-worse-for-obamacare-and-democrats/

    And THIS from an acknowledged reputable source...

    TrainWreckCare is a train wreck....

    Pure and simple...

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    No, I mean President Trump.... :D

    There was a movement to ban his re-entry to the U.S. when he went on his "The American Idiot Is Here and I'm Too Lazy to Walk" tour, but sadly they let him in to gin up the terrorists and cause more problems, this time in Britain.

    Good try tho'

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    TrainWreckCare is a train wreck....

    Another failed Republican idea. Let's face it, only single payer is functional. If we expect to treat patients, pay doctors, nurses and hospitals what they deserve AND pay for a large insurance industry and their profits we can't expect the system to work.

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    There was a movement to ban his re-entry to the U.S. when he went on his "The American Idiot Is Here and I'm Too Lazy to Walk" tour, but sadly they let him in to gin up the terrorists and cause more problems, this time in Britain.

    Ahhh... So President TRUMP is causing the terrorist problem in the UK???

    The massive influx of terrorists have NOTHING to do with it..

    That's a new one....

    Maybe if we work hard enough, we can get the President blamed for The Black Plague and Lucifer's fall from grace.. :^/

    Another failed Republican idea.

    Actually, the GOP idea was great.. Odumbo and the Dumbocrats took a great idea and royally fraked it up...

    Let's face it, only single payer is functional.

    Single payer in California is going to run a 400 BILLION dollar deficit..

    Your idea of "functional" is weird...

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ahhh... So President TRUMP is causing the terrorist problem in the UK???

    Of course. This clown is responsible for everything now. You had your 8 years of bashing a decent, smart President, so we get 4 years of bashing your ignorant evit President.

    Isn't politics fun :)

    Read the Fox News article I posted earlier and tell me if politics today isn't just the WWE with more serious consequences.

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:
  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    Read the Fox News article I posted earlier and tell me if politics today isn't just the WWE with more serious consequences.

    As long as you agree that the Left is as guilty as the Right??

    I don't have any problem with your characterization...

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    Ooops.. Haven't had an NNL Filter problem in a while...

    Hay!!! Let's create a boondogle that will cost 4 BILLIONS dollars a year!!!

    But how will we pay for it!!!????

    WHO CARES!!!! It's a progressive Holy Grail!!! Let's do it!!! What could POSSIBLY go wrong!!!???

    Yea..... Jerry Brown is one smart cookie!! :^/

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

    On Thursday, the California state Senate made the bold move of voting to create a single-payer health system without having any idea of how to pay for it.

    Ostensibly spurred by concerns over the future of the Affordable Care Act at the federal level, Senate Bill 562 by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, would create a single-payer system which would cover health expenses for every resident in California.

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Considering the magnitude of such a proposal,

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    thorough

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    You can ignore all the stuff in the NNL filter.. At least mine...

    For some reason, the NNL filters does not like the word acc-ounting

    Weird

  76. [76] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    California, from what I've read, has a very clear idea of how to pay for a single payer system, it's just that anti-progressives don't like the solution.

    Consider, for instance, the billions of dollars that Californians pay to health insurance giant Kaiser Permanente. Much of that money is never actually used to provide health care, going instead to 'administration' (many times the cost of administering the state's medicaid system), and to extended legal fees for lawyers whose sole purpose is to get the courts to deny care to customers who desperately need it, when they can't find enough loopholes in their own draconian rulebooks.

    Consider too, the savings that could be garnered from standardizing itemized costs. Right now, a hospital or doctor could charge anywhere from $8 to $1800 dollars for an aspirin, for instance, and there are no rules that require hospitals to tell consumers about these costs up front. Doctor's fees can be set to whatever they think the 'market' can bear (they too aren't required to disclose their fees to patients before providing treatment). There's a reason that Doctors become movie producers.

    Now consider the millions currently spent by the state's beleaguered system on heath-related services - costs run up by a medical device industry that regularly charges many times the cost of production for its goods (why else would a wheelchair cost so many times more than a riding lawnmower?).

    Finally, add in the cost of inefficiencies built directly into our current system, that send the poorest patients into trauma centers instead of clinics, and causes millions to delay care until the cost of treatment becomes exorbitant. The cost benefit of preventative and early treatment is in the billions of dollars, especially when it comes to pre-natal and other outpatient services.

    And don't even get me started on pharmaceuticals.

    Mind you, all of those savings are achieved before a single dollar of taxes are raised from Silicon Valley, the Defense industries, and other big-ticket corporations who regularly force workers into 'independent contractor' status, just to avoid the burden of paying for their employees' healthcare.

    Thing is, legislators aren't flying blind: there's lots and lots of data from countries who already have universal healthcare to draw from. We also know the results: far lower mortality rates, healthier children, and a far healthier work force generally.

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    Sounds like all the excuses Democrats made when creating TrainWreckCare...

    Basically you are counting on "savings" that may not materialize...

    Then what???

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    Basically you are counting on "savings" that may not materialize...

    Then what???

    "Oh, we can just stiff the middle class for the bill thru taxes."

    Yea, that sounds about right...

  79. [79] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You're right, Michale. Many of those savings - particularly to patients - were achieved on a modest scale by Obamacare - and that's why so many folks are angered by GOP plans to dismantle it.

    Those savings would have been even more pronounced had not so many Red States, and insurers, been allowed to opt out of the program.

    Obamacare, however, was hobbled at inception by Senators (including pro-insurance industry Sens Baucus and Lieberman) who were able to significantly water down the programs' effect on the worst offenders - the for-profit hospital industry, the health insurance industry, medical equipment providers and big pharma.

    Obamacare was far from Universal Healthcare, but yes, it was a start.

    As for savings, yes there were savings: my 85 year old mother isn't a pauper, my disabled niece can afford care, and my useless step-niece is far less of a burden on either the State or her own family.

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    No matter how much lipstick you put on TrainWreckCare, it's STILL going to be a train wreck...

    No amount of ideologically based fantasies will change that simple fact...

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:
  82. [82] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And there is but one truth: Republicans have no plan that would improve the health care situation for anyone, save for people making over $250,000 a year, and their reward would be only financial. Healthcare insurers would make out like pirates under the GOP proposals we've seen, and medical device manufacturers like lottery winners.

    And worse, they all do so by taking away from the disabled, the poor, the chronically sick and the elderly - precisely the populations that need help the most. It's sick, and it betrays every word they've ever uttered about their own Christianity.

    Moreover, they've made it very clear that the 'savings' discovered by cutting back Medicaid and making health insurance more onerous for poor and sick people are slated to be applied to a tax cut for multi-billionaires, as if to find the perfect means by which to add insult to measurable injury.

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    And there is but one truth: Republicans have no plan that would improve the health care situation for anyone, save for people making over $250,000 a year, and their reward would be only financial. Healthcare insurers would make out like pirates under the GOP proposals we've seen, and medical device manufacturers like lottery winners.

    Yes... That is YOUR "truth"...

    But, as I have pointed out time and time again with the FACTS to support it...

    YOUR "truth" is not factual....

    THEIR "truth" is that YOUR "truth" is full of shit...

    And so it goes and so it goes...

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    YOUR "truth" is not factual....

    THEIR "truth" is that YOUR "truth" is full of shit...

    And considering how full of shit the Left's "truth" turned out to be on TrainWreckCare, the GOP's "truth" is likely fairly factually accurate...

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    IN other words, the Left has absolutely *NO* credibility in complaining about Right Wing healthcare debacles...

    THAT is fact...

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The most boring blog comments section I have ever had the displeasure of checking in on.

  87. [87] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [51] -

    Brown has done many things which I haven't agreed with, such as his views on the educational budget in CA.

    To be fair, he came into office when CA was in this midst of the Great Recession, and CA's budget deficit was bigger than most state's entire budgets. He successfully pulled us out of that, and had to make some very tough choices to do so.

    But he has vetoed a number of very progressive bills, often times almost at random. I could look a few of them up, if you're interested.

    Brown (I believe) was originally trained as a Jesuit. This means he was taught to see all sides of every issue. Perhaps this is one reason why he's in no way an ideologue.

    He's done plenty I do agree with though -- I'm a fan of the bullet train he's been trying to build, for instance. Why can't America have cool trains when Japan and France and China put us to shame with their cool trains? But then I've ridden the TGV personally, so maybe I'm biased.

    -CW

  88. [88] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [53] -

    So why wasn't Saudi Arabia on his list? Hmmm?

    [66] -

    Read the whole story. If single-payer happens in CA, the total cost will be $400b a year. But we already get $200b in federal medical payments, which would be freed up if we got a waiver (other states have done so for various reasons). So that's half the cost, right there.

    As for the other, MIT studied it and determined it would save CA $37b a year. It would require new taxes to pay for, which the CA senate totally punted on (admittedly). BUT at the same time, it would mean: nobody pays anything (through paycheck deductions or otherwise) for insurance. So the tax would subtract from paychecks, while the savings on insurance would raise them. Until a tax proposal is made, it's impossible to tell how this would all shake out (how high a tax? Who would be a net winner and who a net loser?).

    It would also mean -- a big selling point that Dems have yet to adequately stresss -- no more copays, premiums, bills, or paperwork when you go to the doctor for any reason. Imagine not having to HASSLE with insurance when you get sick! That's a much bigger benefit to people's actual lives than most politicians even realize (even progressive ones). How much more in taxes are people willing to pay to avoid all the insurance company hassles? That is really the question that needs posing.

    As for Brown, it's an open question (it always is) whether he'll sign it or not.

    [70] -

    Sounds like I need to check the filter, sorry...

    [71] -

    Yeah, that's fair. It was a stunt. Just like the GOP in Congress likes to pull... seen an actual Ryan budget yet? Or just a "white paper" with no numbers... like the Trump tax plan...

    But I will admit the CA senate is guilty too...

    [75] -

    OK, I'll delete stuff. And thanks for zeroing in on the offending word, this helps.

    Balthasar [76] -

    Good point about drug prices. We'd be able to collectively bargain, saving hundreds of billions right there...

    [79] -

    Amen on singling out Baucus and Lieberman. They killed the public option all by themselves, and I will never forget or forgive either of them.

    LizM [87] -

    See above, tried to answer you, so that's less boring!

    :-)

    -CW

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    my view is that single payer will work best if it's restricted to "non-elective" medicines and procedures... the basics of medical care, not procedures that could be lived without, or drugs too new to have generics. that way it cuts out the mountains of graft that materialize whenever anything in the US is offered for free by the government.

    JL

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Well, that's better ... you've provided a basis for an enlightening discussion. :)

    Jerry Brown is nothing if not frugal. He understands the importance of having a "rainy day fund" and of knowing how to keep a good budget.

    My guess is that progressives have lots of issues with Brown having to do with his failure to pass every single solitary budget item on their wish list. You know, Biden has a piece of advice in that regard: if everything is important then nothing is important ... don't tell me what you value, show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value ...

    It's hard for me to believe that Brown would be going around rejecting progressive bills, willy-nilly, in random fashion.

    I actually would be interested in some of the bills he vetoed that you think should have passed ...

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's hard for me to believe that Brown would be going around rejecting progressive bills, willy-nilly, in random fashion.

    Oh, wait ... I forgot, it's progressives we're talking about here ... heh.

    Why are progressives so damned hard to please?

  92. [92] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    substitute humans for progressives and there's your answer.

    JL

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm a human, Joshua, and I'm very easy to please.

  94. [94] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    that makes you a very unusual human.

    JL

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    unusual is a very good word for it :)

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, what I really meant to say is that, unlike progressives, I know that I can't always get what I want when I want it.

    There, fixed it. :)

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The most boring blog comments section I have ever had the displeasure of checking in on.

    Yea, I get it.. It's kinda boring when there is a plethora of facts and ya'all simply have no rebuttal.. :D

    I get it.. I really do...

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    So why wasn't Saudi Arabia on his list? Hmmm?

    Is there any terrorism going on in SA that is a threat to the US???

    No??

    Then why worry??

    Is your complaint against the immigration restriction that it doesn't go FAR enough?? :D

    Further, you prove President Trump's point that it's NOT a Muslim ban... If it were, then SA *WOULD* be on the list.... :D

    Read the whole story. If single-payer happens in CA, the total cost will be $400b a year. But we already get $200b in federal medical payments, which would be freed up if we got a waiver (other states have done so for various reasons). So that's half the cost, right there.

    Oh.. Well, if it ONLY costs the taxpayers of California 2 Billion instead of 4 Billion.. Well hell, let's press on...

    Are you really OK with footing the bill??

    Sounds like I need to check the filter, sorry...

    No apologies needed.. I just thought it weird that a regular word like 'accounting' would trip the NNL filter...

  99. [99] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    So why wasn't Saudi Arabia on his list? Hmmm?

    Is there any terrorism going on in SA that is a threat to the US???

    No??

    Then why worry??

    Is your complaint against the immigration restriction that it doesn't go FAR enough?? :D

    Further, you prove President Trump's point that it's NOT a Muslim ban... If it were, then SA *WOULD* be on the list.... :D

    Read the whole story. If single-payer happens in CA, the total cost will be $400b a year. But we already get $200b in federal medical payments, which would be freed up if we got a waiver (other states have done so for various reasons). So that's half the cost, right there.

    Oh.. Well, if it ONLY costs the taxpayers of California 2 Billion instead of 4 Billion.. Well hell, let's press on...

    Are you really OK with footing the bill??

    Sounds like I need to check the filter, sorry...

    No apologies needed.. I just thought it weird that a regular word like 'acc-ounting' would trip the NNL filter...

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    But then, as the manufactured “Russiagate” conspiracy was fizzling, the WaPo published its sensational May 26 story that made it seem as if there was something nefarious about what the paper three months earlier had known Kushner was doing. This time, his private, back-channel meetings with Russia were cast in a dark and sinister light.

    The new story, “Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin,” got wall-to-wall coverage on CNN and NBC, but in fact there was no there there.

    Indeed, the White House had already explained publicly in March that Kushner’s supposedly “secret” meeting the previous December with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was meant “to explore whether a channel could be set up between the Russian government and the incoming administration to improve relations” and “cooperate on issues in the Middle East, an area Mr. Kushner has been deputized to take the lead on.”

    Fox News, moreover, revealed it was the Russian ambassador who suggested establishing a secret back channel, not Kushner. And the idea of a permanent back channel was never discussed, only a one-off for a call about Syria and ISIS. No secret line was ever established.

    The Washington Post also based its story last week on an anonymous letter. That’s right: It has no idea who wrote it.
    http://nypost.com/2017/06/02/kushnergate-is-a-big-fat-nothing-burger/

    I can't believe how badly ya'all get sucked in on ANYTHING that makes President Trump look bad...

    I mean, me?? Yea, I can go off half-cocked on any ODUMBO IS A MUSLIM SPY!!! story...

    But I am just one person.. Ya'all are an entire group that's SUPPOSED to be smarter than me!

    Seriously... Don't ya'all think yer hysteria is a little unusual??

    Especially considering how "pragmatic" you were over the Email Server and the Benghazi fiascoes???

    Then ya'all demanded COLD HARD and PROVEN SIX WAYS FROM SUNDAY facts....

    Now, an anonymous letter that WaPoop refuses to even release is all it takes to get yer hysteria all a'twitter...

    Isn't this all er.. EMBARRASSING for ya'all???

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    And here is the ONE fact that there is just no getting around...

    If Trump was in collusion with the Russians, there was absolutely NO NEED for Kushner to have a "back channel" to the Russians...

    Inadvertently, to be sure, WaPoop just totally destroyed and decimated the TRUMP WAS IN CAHOOTS WITH THE RUSSIANS narrative... :D

    The Democrats always frak things up when they throw TOO much shit against the wall in hopes that something sticks... Inevitably the Dems get covered in their own shit...

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    MSNBC Anchor Wonders If Trump Trying To Provoke A Terror Attack To Prove A Point

    MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts theorized on Sunday that President Trump is trying to provoke a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in order to “prove himself right” about Islamic terrorism.

    Roberts floated the theory during two separate interviews, one with Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and another with former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

    Roberts pointed to Trump’s tweets early Sunday in the wake of a terrorist attack that left at least seven dead in London.

    Trump wrote that “we must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people.” He also criticized London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, who said that there was “no reason to be alarmed” following the attacks.

    “The president doesn’t want us to be politically correct, right? So let’s not be PC about this. Is the president trying to provoke a domestic terrorist attack with this Twitter rant, because only to prove himself right?” Roberts asked Reed during an interview.
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/04/msnbc-anchor-wonders-if-trump-trying-to-provoke-a-terror-attack-to-prove-a-point-video/

    This is the "news" ya'all buy into????

  103. [103] 
    michale wrote:

    The Left Won’t Rest Until Someone Gets Killed

    I’m old enough to remember when “violent rhetoric” was the root of all our problems, and crosshairs on a website no one ever saw was the reason for mass murder.

    Of course, those were different times, times in which the president had a (D) after his name, not an evil (R). Since that important change happened, everything flipped – over-the-top rhetoric is no longer the domain of the fringe; it’s the currency of the mainstream media. Worse, it’s turned from heated political disagreement to paranoia and pure hatred, and it’s going to get someone killed.

    The people on the political left didn’t just lose an election last November, they lost their minds. And their leadership has been exploiting that for power and profit ever since.

    Yep....

    It's amazing that the alleged Party of "love" and "tolerance" is nothing more than a cesspool of hatred and violence and intolerance..

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW wants the meaning of covfefe, and I am here to set the record straight regarding this term.

    DEFINITION
    covfefe: Noun. Fake twitter account. Plural: covfefe.

    USED IN A SENTENCE
    Little known fact: Approximately half of Donald Trump's twitter followers are covfefe.

    Seriously. Yesterday, Don the Con got caught tagging a covfefe that's never tweeted... Repeat: Zero tweets from the covfefe @nklaeger ... Sad!

    Don't believe me? Check for yourself.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/474191435387129858

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    "@nklaeger We need a successful business person to upright the USA...no rookies. Trump is the man to do it!" Thanks, I agree!
    9:10 AM - 4 Jun 2014

    So President Trump quotes and agrees with the covfefe with zero tweets! At what point do the gullible finally realize they're being conned by PT? What will it take?

  105. [105] 
    michale wrote:
  106. [106] 
    Kick wrote:

    All of those PT cultists who insisted that the "Travel Ban" is not a "travel ban" have just been thrown under the bus by none other than their messiah, Donald J. Trump.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version!

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!

    Note to SCOTUS: The bird sings on Twitter. Alas, Poor Donald... we all knew it was a travel ban already.

    Poor Donald is upset this morning. He knows about some sealed indictments that the general public doesn't know about. He also knows about Flynn. Poor guy. I would be upset too if I were him.

    It's going to be an interesting week, people. Don't be fooled or distracted by the fool and keep your eyes on the Wednesday hearing... got a bombshell coming out of that one... and get your popcorn ready for Comey on Thursday. Comey has a nice notebook full of notes. Director Comey is a great note taker. :)

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    Note to SCOTUS: The bird sings on Twitter. Alas, Poor Donald... we all knew it was a travel ban already.

    The problem with your theory is that it doesn't MATTER what the POTUS tweets...

    It ONLY matter what the text of the law says and what the powers of the POTUS are...

    The SCOTUS will re-institute the immigration restriction while the Hysterical Left cowardly tries to fight it in court...

    You can take that to the bank...

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    It's going to be an interesting week, people. Don't be fooled or distracted by the fool and keep your eyes on the Wednesday hearing... got a bombshell coming out of that one... and get your popcorn ready for Comey on Thursday. Comey has a nice notebook full of notes. Director Comey is a great note taker. :)

    I'll remind you of your "bombshell" prediction when there is none.. :D

    Here's the facts, though..

    If there was a "bombshell" IE President Trump asking Comey to do something illegal, then Comey had the DUTY to either prosecute the President then and there or resign...

    The mere fact that Comey only took notes on this alleged "egregious" crime???

    Proves that there was no crime at all. :D

    At best, all ya'all will have at the end of the day is a bunch of innuendos and twisted fake facts..

    Which is funny because that is all ya'all have now!!! :D

    hehehehehehehehe

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    CW wants the meaning of covfefe, and I am here to set the record straight regarding this term.

    DEFINITION
    covfefe: Noun. Fake twitter account. Plural: covfefe.

    USED IN A SENTENCE
    Little known fact: Approximately half of Donald Trump's twitter followers are covfefe.

    Seriously. Yesterday, Don the Con got caught tagging a covfefe that's never tweeted... Repeat: Zero tweets from the covfefe @nklaeger ... Sad!

    Don't believe me? Check for yourself.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/474191435387129858

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    "@nklaeger We need a successful business person to upright the USA...no rookies. Trump is the man to do it!" Thanks, I agree!
    9:10 AM - 4 Jun 2014

    So President Trump quotes and agrees with the covfefe with zero tweets! At what point do the gullible finally realize they're being conned by PT? What will it take?

    TRANSLATION:
    OHHH!!!! Look at that shiney object!!!
    Mean??? What's it mean!!???
    I don't have a clue!! But it's shiney!!! ooooooooooooooooooooo

    I have to give it to ya'all...

    Ya'all have taken whacked hysteria to new heights!! :D

    hhehehehehehehehehehehe

  110. [110] 
    michale wrote:

    The SCOTUS will re-institute the immigration restriction while the Hysterical Left cowardly tries to fight it in court...

    And, if the 4 Dem SCOTUS justices prove that they are Supreme Court Justices first and foremost and not just Dumbocrat Party drones, it will be a 7-0 decision to institute the immigration restriction...

    But I ain't gonna put a prediction on THAT because I know how moronic Party drones can be..

    I have a front row seat to THAT every day here in Weigantia....

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    106

    Note to SCOTUS: The bird sings on Twitter. Alas, Poor Donald... we all knew it was a travel ban already.

    The problem with your theory is that it doesn't MATTER what the POTUS tweets...

    Oh, I see your problem; you are confusing facts with a "theory." It's a travel ban, and what the POTUS says and tweets does matter. If it didn't matter, it wouldn't have already been introduced in several courts and argued by multiple teams of lawyers. Anyone familiar with the order from the Court of Appeals knows that so I assume you haven't read it and have no clue what's in it and are just repeating the bullshit you're being spoon-fed by right-wing rags like the New York Post and Fox News... both owned by Rupert Murdoch. The National Enquirer are also quite fond of carrying Trump's water too. *LOL* Anyone who thinks it doesn't matter what the President tweets needs to have their tiny brain examined.

    It ONLY matters what the text of the law says and what the powers of the POTUS are...

    What law do you think exists that supersedes the Constitution of the United States of America?

    The SCOTUS will re-institute the immigration restriction while the Hysterical Left cowardly tries to fight it in court...

    You can take that to the bank...

    It's a temporary restriction. The 90 days have long since passed. Don't be surprised if the SCOTUS refuses to hear it on those grounds and your bank account remains as empty as ever. Time will tell. Do I think the SCOTUS might hear it and rule on party lines and against the Constitution? I would hope not, but... no, that would not surprise me. These justices are, however, each on record in multiple cases with their opinions, and a ruling in favor of Trump wouldn't exactly track with prior rulings regarding animus.

    p.s. It's always nice of you to prove your ignorance with your own words... such a time saver for the rest of us. :)

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    Note to SCOTUS: The bird sings on Twitter. Alas, Poor Donald... we all knew it was a travel ban already.

    So, it's a travel ban..

    Big woop.. It's within the prerogative of the POTUS...

    Oh, I see your problem; you are confusing facts with a "theory." It's a travel ban, and what the POTUS says and tweets does matter.

    ONLY to Democrats who are out to ruin this country..

    To the LAW, it doesn't matter..

    Which is why the SCOTUS will take down the obstacles and re-instate the immigration restriction/travel ban..

    Do you want to make a wager??

    No???? Didn't think so..

    "Whatsa matter, McFly?? Got no scrot!?"
    -Back To The Future II

    :D

    What law do you think exists that supersedes the Constitution of the United States of America?

    If the Constitution applied to foreigners, you would have a point.

    But it doesn't, so you don't...

    Don't be surprised if the SCOTUS refuses to hear it on those grounds and your bank account remains as empty as ever.

    Wanna bet???

    Come on.. I DOUBLE DOG dare ya!! :D

    p.s. It's always nice of you to prove your ignorance with your own words... such a time saver for the rest of us. :)

    As you said.. Time will tell who is the ignorant one... :D

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    107

    I'll remind you of your "bombshell" prediction when there is none.. :D

    Here's the facts, though..

    If there was a "bombshell" IE President Trump asking Comey to do something illegal, then Comey had the DUTY to either prosecute the President then and there or resign...

    Oh, you're believing the spoon-feeding from the right-wing rags; that's so cute. Hard to believe you were a law enforcement occifer when you prattle on thusly. Regardless, you really need to get hold of your reading comprehension problem and educate yourself. Coats, McCabe, Rogers, and Rosenstein will appear before the committee in both open public and closed-door hearings on Wednesday to discuss FISA, among other things. Comey doesn't testify on Wednesday so there goes your whole bullshit theory where you define my use of the term "bombshell" in your own terms and prattle on and on about Comey who doesn't even testify on Wednesday.

    Again, you proving your own ignorance is such a time saver for everyone.

    The mere fact that Comey only took notes on this alleged "egregious" crime???

    Proves that there was no crime at all. :D

    Again, you're defining my word "bombshell" as a crime and applying it to Comey's testimony on Thursday. Any moron with reading ability can see I was referring to Wednesday's testimony there. Seriously, though, Mr. Law Enforcement Occifer wants everyone to believe that Comey's excellent note taking proves Trump has committed no crimes. You might be that gullible and downright stupid, but it would be colossally stupid of you to assume that the rest of us are as stupid as you are. :)

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, you're believing the spoon-feeding from the right-wing rags; that's so cute. Hard to believe you were a law enforcement occifer when you prattle on thusly. Regardless, you really need to get hold of your reading comprehension problem and educate yourself. Coats, McCabe, Rogers, and Rosenstein will appear before the committee in both open public and closed-door hearings on Wednesday to discuss FISA, among other things. Comey doesn't testify on Wednesday so there goes your whole bullshit theory where you define my use of the term "bombshell" in your own terms and prattle on and on about Comey who doesn't even testify on Wednesday.

    You are the only one who is mentioning Wednesday....

    Face reality...

    Ya'all don't have ANYTHING.... It's all nothing but anonymous sources and innuendo..

    Ya'all's claims remind me EXACTLY of ya'all's predictions on NOT-45's "50-State" win...

    Based on NOTHING but wishful thinking.. :D

    Again, you're defining my word "bombshell" as a crime and applying it to Comey's testimony on Thursday. Any moron with reading ability can see I was referring to Wednesday's testimony there. Seriously, though, Mr. Law Enforcement Occifer wants everyone to believe that Comey's excellent note taking proves Trump has committed no crimes. You might be that gullible and downright stupid, but it would be colossally stupid of you to assume that the rest of us are as stupid as you are. :)

    Says the one who predicts a BOMBSHELL in the same manner she predicted a NOT-45 win... :D

    So, who is the stoopid one???

    Apparently, the facts clearly show that it's YOU... :D

    There will be no crime... There will be no bombshell..

    It's just going to be a bunch of Dumbocrats holding their wee-wees and wondering how they could have scrooed the pooch so badly.. :D

    And, of course, I will get to laugh my ass off!! :D

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    Fractured Democratic Party Struggles to Find Footing
    Special-election losses, Clinton's jabs at DNC, new superdelegate drama spur liberal dissent

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/fractured-democratic-party-struggles-to-find-footing/

    Like I said..

    Rudderless, leaderless, clueless and brain dead....

    That's ya'all's Democrat Party...

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    The DNC's data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it."
    NOT-45

    hehehehehehehehehe

    With "leaders" like NOT-45....

    Dumbocrats are SURE to lose!!!!!

    Gotta love it....

    I know I do....

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:

    es. You might be that gullible and downright stupid, but it would be colossally stupid of you to assume that the rest of us are as stupid as you are. :)

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

    And WHO is the stoopid one??? :D

    hehehehehehehehehehehe

  118. [118] 
    michale wrote:

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

    An oldie but goodie :D

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    111

    So, it's a travel ban..

    Yes... yes, it is a travel ban Sean Spicer and all you other liars. Those court rulings that explain in hundreds of pages how it is an unconstitutional travel ban agree with you.

    If the Constitution applied to foreigners, you would have a point.

    But it doesn't, so you don't...

    The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China.... The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.... The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

    So says the SCOTUS in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), when it overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

    So by your own admission, I have a point because that simply couldn't be any clearer to anyone with any reading ability. Over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court explicitly said that the rights of the Constitution extend to citizens and foreigners alike. The High Court has repeatedly applied that principle over and over, and they're on record multiple times in doing so, including Justice Scalia.

    Where have you been that you didn't know this already? Probably reading the bullshit on the right-wing rags instead of reading the United States Constitution and court cases already decided on long settled law. :)

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    Yes... yes, it is a travel ban Sean Spicer and all you other liars. Those court rulings that explain in hundreds of pages how it is an unconstitutional travel ban agree with you.

    Funny how it wasn't when Odumbo instituted a travel ban...

    You have no case...

    And when I am proven right.. AGAIN you will run away and hide like you always do..

  121. [121] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    113

    You are the only one who is mentioning Wednesday....

    Yes, I did mention Wednesday's testimony should have a bombshell, and your reading comprehension rears it's ugly head again because you define "bombshell" as a crime and explain a whole load of shit about Comey. You don't get to define my terms and move them to another day. I did mention Wednesday, and your reading comprehension problem sent you off on a wild goose chase making shit up that I never said.

    To be clear: I'm talking about paying attention to Wednesday's testimony... while you're defining my terms and applying them to other testimony because you can't read and understand English.

    Face reality...

    Ya'all don't have ANYTHING.... It's all nothing but anonymous sources and innuendo..

    Direct testimony is NOT anonymous sources, dumb ass. Wednesday should contain a bombshell if they go ahead and allow that testimony. Thursday should be interesting because Comey is a great note taker. That's all I said. Learn to read and comprehend, and stop twisting my words around and defining them through your ignorance and inability to comprehend the written word.

    Ya'all's claims remind me EXACTLY of ya'all's predictions on NOT-45's "50-State" win...

    No one predicted a 50-state win, and you know it. Your straw man arguments aren't relevant, and your lies are even less relevant and utter bullshit and prove nothing except your propensity to lie.

    Based on NOTHING but wishful thinking.. :D

    You've got no problem with lies but "wishful thinking" you take issue with!? The fact is, you have no idea what you're talking about, that's why you so frequently change the subject to how you predicted the 2016 election. Feel free to brag incessantly about the equivalence of calling a coin toss correctly. You're only reminding everyone here and proving over and over without doubt that your definition of brilliance is pretty damn substandard. :)

  122. [122] 
    michale wrote:

    The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China.... The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.... The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

    And how does that apply to a travel ban, which is what we are discussion??

    Answer: It doesn't...

    It's nothing more than a shameful desperate attempt to TRY and make a relevant argument...

    Yer gonna lose, Victoria.. Just like you lost with the Presidential Election and just like you lost with every Trump prediction in the last year...

    Yer simply wrong...

    And I'll be around to remind you of that... :D

  123. [123] 
    michale wrote:

    No one predicted a 50-state win, and you know it.

    Actually several here predicted a 50-state win and NO ONE contested the prediction...

    So, the FACTS clearly show that a 50-state win was the general consensus around here..

    And ya'all were totally, completely and unequivocally WRONG....

    So, why should ya'all have any credibility with this latest Anti-Trump prediction??

    Answer... Ya'all don't....

    It's simple logic...

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    119

    Funny how it wasn't when Odumbo instituted a travel ban...

    You have no case...

    Funny how you're projecting your own position with your whataboutism. You can't refute what I posted so you take the standard "but, but, but Obama" line of utter nonsense. Your spewing the standard line of right-wing BS is not surprising, but Obama never had a travel ban. Although it is true that the State Department’s enhanced review of applications from Iraq in 2011 slowed their processing time significantly, President Obama did not ban or completely stop all entry from one (or seven) countries.

    And when I am proven right.. AGAIN you will run away and hide like you always do..

    You mustn't confuse me ignoring your redundant shit and not responding to you as "hiding." Oh, wait... rewrite. Please feel free to characterize me ignoring your redundant posts however you please because I wouldn't want to burst your bubble or compromise the low standards you've set for yourself.

    If you think someone skipping over and/or NOT responding to your ridiculous nonsensical repetitive prattling means they're "hiding," then by all means... knock yourself out. Trump loves the uneducated and easily conned, and your gullibility and willingness to fool even yourself makes the job of a con like Benedict Donald all the more easy by meeting him more than halfway... practically at the finish line even by your own low standards. :)

  125. [125] 
    michale wrote:

    Everything ya'all have obsessed about has come to NOTHING...

    Russia collusion...

    Well, that's all ya got...

    And it's nothing....

  126. [126] 
    michale wrote:

    Funny how you're projecting your own position with your whataboutism. You can't refute what I posted

    What you posted was absolutely NOT RELEVANT to the discussion..

    Odumo instituting a travel ban and you ignoring it IS relevant to your Party bigotry...

    If you think someone skipping over and/or NOT responding to your ridiculous nonsensical repetitive prattling means they're "hiding," then by all means... knock yourself out. Trump loves the uneducated and easily conned, and your gullibility and willingness to fool even yourself makes the job of a con like Benedict Donald all the more easy by meeting him more than halfway... practically at the finish line even by your own low standards. :)

    Yada yada yada yada...

    Do you every have ANYTHING new than Trump, a negative noun and a negative verb???

    {{yyyaawwwwwnnn}}}

  127. [127] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Everything ya'all have obsessed about has come to NOTHING...

    that statement presupposes that all of this administration's scandals are done, when in fact all of the investigations are still in progress. there can be no definitive conclusions when nothing has concluded.

    Russia collusion...
    Well, that's all ya got...

    that's certainly not the case. this is far from a complete list, but just off the cuff:

    1. hiring flynn, who was already known to be in the employ of a foreign power or multiple foreign powers, most notably turkey. flynn successfully advocated turkey's position in the prosecution of the war against ISIS.

    2. not firing flynn until it became public knowledge that he had lied to the VP about his foreign entanglement. (at least that's the story he and pence went with; who knows whether or not it's true)

    3. obstruction of justice, by firing director comey. it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. if comey's notes are accurate, simply asking him whether or not he could obstruct justice by neglecting to investigate flynn wasn't a crime; nor was asking him whether or not he could jail reporters for pursuing leaks on the topic. however, firing comey after he refused to comply well could be.

    4. obama wiretap conspiracy theories. no source has confirmed this accusation, anonymous or otherwise. later the trump administration claimed they were referring to "unmasking" (which may sound sinister, but only means asking redacted names on classified reports to be un-redacted on her copies so she'd know who they were. we still don't know who they were, because she never leaked them.)

    5. AHCA - supporting a bill that would take away healthcare from 23 million to fund a giant tax cut for the ultra-rich.

    6. interfering in congressional investigations by feeding information on the "unmasking" narrative to rep. nunes through ezra cohen-watnick.

    7. possible conflicts of interest, refusing to release tax documents, property records, bank records.

    8. signing a bill to allow internet providers to sell their customers' data without their consent.

    9. supporting a bill to end net neutrality by letting ISP's create fast and slow lanes to advantage some websites over others.

    10. has already granted as many waivers to lobbying rules in five months as obama did in eight years.

    11. HHS secretary price insider trading of a third of a million dollars in stocks relating to bills he was personally involved in.

    12. lawsuits for inciting violence at campaign rallies. donald is being sued both by the victims who were harmed, and the perpetrators who claimed that his speeches incited them.

    y'know, just for starters...

  128. [128] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, that's all ya got...

    that's certainly not the case. this is far from a complete list, but just off the cuff:

    All of which is NOTHING but partisan ideology and NOTHING that will get him removed from office..

    In other words, throwing a whole bunch of worthless shit on the wall and HOPE something sticks...

    Kinda like ya'all accused the Republicans of doing...

    Funny, eh? :D

  129. [129] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In other words, throwing a whole bunch of worthless shit on the wall and HOPE something sticks.

    This, you'll recall, has happened to every president since Truman. Clinton was even sanguine about it, saying often, "well, that's your job. I have mine."

    Obama was the rare president who was so careful and so deliberate in his appointments that the GOP had a hard time manufacturing scandals to accuse him of. (Remember "fist-bump-gate", one of the first attempts?) There may be folks under 30 who don't realize as a result that scandalizing everything is pretty much the way that things usually work in D.C., but I don't get the impression from your posts that you're that young and pink and new at this.

  130. [130] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    All of which is NOTHING but partisan ideology and NOTHING that will get him removed from office..

    on the latter point i agree; it's unlikely that anything short of shooting someone in the face in the middle of fifth avenue, so to speak, would move this republican congress to impeach and convict. and even THAT wouldn't be a sure thing.

    on the former point i strongly disagree.
    what flynn did for turkey isn't partisan ideology.

    asking comey to obstruct the investigation of flynn isn't partisan ideology.

    firing comey for not obstructing the investigation of flynn isn't partisan ideology.

    the CBO score of the AHCA isn't partisan ideology.

    leaking misleading information to influence a congressional investigation is not partisan ideology.

    sixteen waivers to former lobbyists to work on policy areas in which they recently lobbied, is not partisan ideology.

    net neutrality and not allowing your data and mine to be sold without our consent, is not a partisan ideology.

    insider trading by the head of an executive department, isn't partisan ideology.

    a candidate for office choke-slamming a reporter isn't partisan ideology.

    instructing executive departments not to release information to congressmen if they are democrats... well... that actually is partisan ideology.

    JL

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    121

    And how does that apply to a travel ban, which is what we are discussion??

    Answer: It doesn't...

    Answer: Your failure to understand how settled case law applies to the admitted "travel ban" is not my problem; it's obviously over your head. You said if the Constitution applied to foreigners then I would have a point. I proved the Constitution applies to foreigners, and you move the goal posts. Regardless your ignorance, it's settled case law and has been used in countless briefs in courts across the country regarding the "travel ban." If it wasn't relevant, the lawyers on both sides wouldn't be citing it ad nauseam in their legal filings.

    Your ignorance regarding legal briefs as is your ignorance in general... as always... is duly noted.

    It's nothing more than a shameful desperate attempt to TRY and make a relevant argument...

    What is "shameful" is your pathetic ignorance. That settled case law is cited all throughout briefs in courts all over the country by lawyers for both sides of the "travel ban" issue. You should read some of the briefs and then explain how Trump's lawyers are shamefully and desperately citing it to prove Trump's case. *LOL* You might as well have typed out your admission that you're an uneducated rube flailing in an attempt to understand that which is way over the tiny brain in your vacuous head.

    A law which is facially neutral violates equal protection if it is applied in a discriminatory fashion. Government action also violates principles of equal protection if it is motivated by discriminatory animus and its application results in discriminatory effect.

    While it's not dumbed down to your "simple logic" level, to be sure, it's pretty basic legal stuff settled for well over a century.

  132. [132] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "But, you know me. If President Trump does something stoopid, I will call him on it..."

    I am not going to hold mt breath waiting for THAT to happen.

    Regarding Jerry Brown, the governor of California, on a somewhat silly note, I can't help but keep thinking of those old UPS commercials. You know the ones? Where they say something like: "What has Brown done for you lately?"

    Michale wrote:

    "There is simply NO FACTUAL evidence to support the claim that humans can control the climate of the planet..."

    AND YET, Humans WERE able to HALT and start to REVERSE, the destruction of Earth's Ozone layer through an international TREATY that banned the further production and use of chlorofluorocarbons in 1987.

    Are you really saying that we can't do the same and that it will not have ANY effect, with the production of carbon dioxide and methane?

    As another example, I give you the TNG episode "When The Bough Breaks" and Aldea. Again, simple logic.

  133. [133] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    As another example, I give you the TNG episode "When The Bough Breaks" and Aldea. Again, simple logic

    You get an extra five points for using an apt ST analogy.

  134. [134] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    on the former point i strongly disagree.

    Your interpretation of each and every issue is partisan ideology..

    Nothing more...

  135. [135] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    This, you'll recall, has happened to every president since Truman. Clinton was even sanguine about it, saying often, "well, that's your job. I have mine."

    OK, so we agree that Democrats are doing exactly what they accused Republicans of doing...

    Glad we could find some common ground..

    :D

  136. [136] 
    michale wrote:

    JM,

    I am not going to hold mt breath waiting for THAT to happen.

    It's already happened on more than one occasion...

    Not that yer enslavement by Party ideology would ever let you acknowledge it...

    Regarding Jerry Brown, the governor of California, on a somewhat silly note, I can't help but keep thinking of those old UPS commercials. You know the ones? Where they say something like: "What has Brown done for you lately?"

    Heh... :D

    AND YET, Humans WERE able to HALT and start to REVERSE, the destruction of Earth's Ozone layer through an international TREATY that banned the further production and use of chlorofluorocarbons in 1987.

    Bullshit.. There never WAS any problem..

    The environmental whackjobs just got a shiny new toy to play with...

    Are you really saying that we can't do the same and that it will not have ANY effect, with the production of carbon dioxide and methane?

    Do you know what will happen if the Left succeeds in eliminating CO2??

    *THAT* will kill all life on earth!!!

    Are you Left Wingers so utterly stoopid that you can't see that!!???

    As another example, I give you the TNG episode "When The Bough Breaks" and Aldea. Again, simple logic.

    And if we had 24th Century technology, you would have a point..

    But we don't, so you don't....

  137. [137] 
    michale wrote:

    a candidate for office choke-slamming a reporter isn't partisan ideology.

    And HOW is that even REMOTELY related to President Trump??

    Answer: It isn't... You are just throwing ANY handful of shit you can find against the wall in hopes of it sticking...

    Just as I said...

    But, if you WANT to discuss that...

    How utterly and TOTALLY frak'ed are Democrats that they can't even win an election under THOSE circumstances!???

    I mean, honestly.. How bad are Democrats when patriotic Americans say, "I would rather have a violent hothead with no self-control working for us than a DEMOCRAT!!!"

    If THAT doesn't convince you how utterly lame the Democrat Party is, nothing will....

  138. [138] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Bullshit.. There never WAS any problem..

    errr! Denial. You lose six points.

    Do you know what will happen if the Left succeeds in eliminating CO2??

    Straw man argument. That's another 8 points off.
    The Left isn't trying to eliminate CO2, but then you know that...

    And if we had 24th Century technology, you would have a point.

    If we only had 19th century technology, he'd have a point, or have you never heard of the 'killer fog' of London in that era, which was actually what we later called 'smog'.

    We have the technology RIGHT NOW to meet every goal of the Paris agreement, with room to spare. What we needed was the worldwide political will to do it, something Trump's action seems deliberately designed to undercut. Meanwhile, no one outside of American Trump supporters has tried to defend him or this action. No one, not even Exxon.

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    errr! Denial. You lose six points.

    Just stating facts.. It was all nothing but fear mongering..

    The Left isn't trying to eliminate CO2, but then you know that...

    Eliminating CO2 is EXACTLY what the Left is trying to do....

    You're the one in denial if you can't see that...

    We have the technology RIGHT NOW to meet every goal of the Paris agreement, with room to spare.

    Which simply proves that the Paris agreement was a huge con...

    Once again, thank you for proving my point...

  140. [140] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ...when patriotic Americans say, "I would rather have a violent hothead with no self-control working for us than a DEMOCRAT!!!"

    That's when other patriotic Americans say, "What kind of idiots would put a violent hothead with no self-control in charge of a Nuclear arsenal for ANY reason? Have they all lost a lobe?"

  141. [141] 
    neilm wrote:

    The goal of terrorism is to leverage small actions and create maximum fear.

    Who is ginning up most fear in the United States at the moment, i.e. who is the biggest terrorist?

  142. [142] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It was all nothing but fear mongering..

    Revisionist science history. Sort of like 'drunk history' without the comical burps.

    Eliminating CO2 is EXACTLY what the Left is trying to do..

    Really? You're sticking to this? I mean, you've got lots of arguments that AREN'T ridiculous (well, not THAT ridiculous..).

    Which simply proves that the Paris agreement was a huge con.

    Sure. "Conned" everyone except for Syria and Nicaragua. At some point you've got to admit just how isolated Climate deniers are in the world, somewhere on the order of folks who believe that Sasquatch is hiding Elvis.

  143. [143] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Who is ginning up most fear in the United States at the moment, i.e. who is the biggest terrorist?

    Kathy Griffin?

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    The goal of terrorism is to leverage small actions and create maximum fear.

    The Left Wingery with the Human Caused Global Warming claptrap... :D

  145. [145] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    The goal of terrorism is to leverage small actions and create maximum fear.

    The Left Wingery with the Human Caused Global Warming claptrap... :D

  146. [146] 
    michale wrote:

    Revisionist science history. Sort of like 'drunk history' without the comical burps.

    That's yer claim... As usual, no FACTS to support it..

    Really? You're sticking to this? I mean, you've got lots of arguments that AREN'T ridiculous (well, not THAT ridiculous..).

    Once again.. Totally devoid of facts...

    Sure. "Conned" everyone except for Syria and Nicaragua. At some point you've got to admit just how isolated Climate deniers are in the world, somewhere on the order of folks who believe that Sasquatch is hiding Elvis.

    No facts once again..

    The simple fact is, even if the Paris agreement worked perfectly, it would only reduce global temps by LESS than a degree over 100 years...

    Are you TOTALLY whacked in the head that you would think that THAT is worth all the trillions of dollars it would cost and all the millions of US jobs it would cost??

    Is your Party THAT important to you that you would destroy the country???

    Tell ya what.. Quit driving or riding in ANY gas powered conveyance... Until you do that, you have NO moral authority or foundation to preach..

    Everyone on the Left is ADDING millions of tons of CO2 in the air by yammering on and on about this claptrap..

    Either DO something about it or just shut up...

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    That's when other patriotic Americans say, "What kind of idiots would put a violent hothead with no self-control in charge of a Nuclear arsenal for ANY reason? Have they all lost a lobe?"

    Apparently, that's infinitely preferable than having a DEMOCRAT in charge!!! :D

    Kinda says it all.... heh

  148. [148] 
    michale wrote:

    And it just pisses ya off to NO END that President Trump totally and completely devastated NOT-45!!! :D

  149. [149] 
    michale wrote:

    As far as Kathy Griffin??

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

    Yea... Tell me again how Griffin is an aberration and not the normal Left Winger.... :^/

  150. [150] 
    michale wrote:

    Yea... That's what I thought... :^/

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all are so damn predictable.. Almost takes the fun out of commenting.. :D

  152. [152] 
    michale wrote:

    A Virginia imam said female genital mutilation prevents ‘hypersexuality,’ leading to calls for his dismissal
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/06/05/virginia-mosque-embattled-after-imam-said-female-genital-mutilation-prevents-hypersexuality/

    But.... But.... But.... Democrats are fully and completely behind muslims....

    But... Democrats are ALSO fully behind a woman's right to choose...

    Once again.. Democrats are talking out of BOTH sides of their ass....

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    Grrr.. Hate it when I forget to close an attribute..

    But, since it's obviously a valid point that can't be rebutted, the point was made perfectly.. :D

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    We were discussing the SCOTUS case re: the Travel Ban...

    A couple of points you are forgetting..

    One, the Liberals are going into the case with one of their numbers recused...

    Ginsburg will have to recuse herself, due to the disparate and hostile statements she made about President Trump during the campaign...

    So, right off the bat, Liberals are in the hole..

    Further, there has NEVER been a SCOTUS case.. NEVER... NOT ONCE... where the SCOTUS took into account campaign rhetoric to render a decision..

    NEVER....

    And there is a reason for that.. Campaign rhetoric, by it's very definition, is heated and full of inaccuracy and errors...

    The *ONLY* evidence that the Justices will look at is the law itself...

    And the ONLY questions the Justices will ask themselves is A>Is this law Constitutional and B>Is this law within the purview of the POTUS...

    And the answer to both questions is a resounding, unfailing and certain YES

    Yer gonna lose, Victoria and lose big...

    Not quite as big as when you lost for backing NOT-45... But still gonna lose... :D

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    michale [53] -

    So why wasn't Saudi Arabia on his list? Hmmm?

    I'll answer your question WITH a question... (anyone else, feel free to chime in..)

    Do you know the parameters of the list?? By that I mean, do you know exactly WHY Odumbo put those countries on the list???

    When you discover that, you will have your answer as to why SA is not on the list...

  156. [156] 
    michale wrote:

    As if on cue, in the wake of Saturday’s terrorist attack in London political leaders are trotting out the usual treacly lines that have become so rote. But the words they pretend will provide comfort to anyone but the most naïve are borderline worthless. Worse, they’re an insult to the families who have had to experience the shocking pain of the sudden loss of a family member or friend at the hands of a terrorist.

    Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, called Saturday’s attack “deliberate and cowardly,” and asked “all Londoners to remain calm and vigilant today and in the days ahead.” Most notably, he said: “You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers. There is no reason to be alarmed by this. We are the safest global city in the world.”

    What a thing to say at a time like this. Shouldn’t Britons be alarmed? Isn’t Saturday’s attack in London, coming as it did on the heels of the Manchester bombing, deeply disturbing? Why isn’t Khan more concerned about the threats that are so obviously at the doorstep, or better put, in Britain’s streets? Does anyone really take comfort from being told about swift police response times after yet another terrorist attack?
    http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/05/london-bridge-world-sick-politicians-downplaying-terrorism/

    The Left is completely and utterly clueless when it comes to terrorism and the means to fight it...

Comments for this article are closed.