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...

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kinda says it all.... heh

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...

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

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

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

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

Kathy Griffin?

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.

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

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?"

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...

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.

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....

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....

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

on the former point i strongly disagree.

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

Nothing more...

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

"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.

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.

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

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.

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

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...

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}}}

Russia collusion...

Well, that's all ya got...

And it's nothing....

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. :)

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...

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

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. :)

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..

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. :)

An oldie but goodie :D

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

And WHO is the stoopid one??? :D

hehehehehehehehehehehe

hehehehehehehehehe

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

Dumbocrats are SURE to lose!!!!!

Gotta love it....

I know I do....

Like I said..

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

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

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

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

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. :)

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

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. :)

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....

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

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

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...

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
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. :)

The sad decline of the American Left.....

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?

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..

“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????

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...

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???

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...

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...

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...

There, fixed it. :)

that makes you a very unusual human.

JL

substitute humans for progressives and there's your answer.

JL

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

Why are progressives so damned hard to please?

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 ...

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

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

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

THAT is fact...

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...

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...

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.

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

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.

Then what???

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

Yea, that sounds about right...

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

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

Then what???

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.

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

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.

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/06/04/half-baked-single-payer-health-plan-amounts-to-political-stunt-3/

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!! :^/

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

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

hehehehehe Now THAT's funny... :D

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.

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...

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.

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'

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...

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

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

You mean Britain?

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.....

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

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...