Six straw man arguments, and ten dodges.

I see you counted some of those twice.

The Kick who didn't wake up on the wrong side of the planet was more interesting.

There is no "wrong side of the planet," mate, just people who think their side of the planet is the right one. Perhaps I'll seem more interesting as the world turns. ;)

Third time's the charm.

Six straw man arguments, and ten dodges.

The Kick who didn't wake up on the wrong side of the planet was more interesting.

A

My condolences.

To tell you the truth, we are still in mourning over the loss of our Editor-In-Chief here.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/11/03/requiescat-in-pace-1999-2015/

Four-legged friends are the best! Remember the good times forever with Diesel, and our thoughts are with you now.

-CW

Life gives me lemons, I make lemonade... With a healthy dose of Mango Rum... :D

Mango rum? I'm going to pretend you didn't say that.

Meyer's Dark, my friend... Meyer's Dark.

Heh.

-CW

I hope your day gets better.

I hope your life gets better. Yes, kidding. My day is fine. My thoughts today are with the victims of violence; a friend of a friend actually got shot so I've been in touch with her. He's fine, though.

Take a step back, and accept that when I offer my opinion, I'm not projecting onto you.
I felt it needed to be said.
How is that about you just because my comment is to you?

Yes, I know you can't project onto me, but that doesn't stop you trying.

Hillary's gone... her narrative continues to be used.

I blame the First Amendment and the fact that as long as the Berners whine incessantly about her, where has she really gone?

You do realize they didn't dispute the accuracy of the emails on Wikileaks... and that five people lost their jobs right?

I do realize lots of things; let's talk about the hanging chads of 2000.

But DNC meddling had no impact and is acceptable in your book? Quite the double standard.

There you go again NOT projecting your obsession onto me. Damn those hanging chads in Florida and that butterfly ballot.

Interesting.
Dems losing again by failing to learn from history doesn't concern you.
Go Trump?

Yes, brilliant. You display a stunning intellect by accusing me of being a Trump supporter. You've figured me out, mate. But seriously: How many times do I have to post that I'm not a Democrat?

Well, responding to my comments would help convey the recognition... but learning what I think isn't the issue.

Witness your handiwork above.

I was kinda hoping that some action could be motivated... but you're not concerned, so, never mind.

You think the focus on Russia is a waste of time and will hurt Democrats; I'm not concerned about that. Conflating that with anything else is your handiwork.

Alienating the left wing of the Democratic party didn't work out well for Hillary... but, oops, I forgot... you're not concerned. Never mind.
Go failed status quo?

Your obsession with Hillary is again duly noted; she is alive and well in you. Meanwhile, I'm still not a Democrat.

Or Russia, right?

Wrong.

Yes, it is horrible of me to want your opinions.
What was I thinking?
Or, was there an implied "it's beneath me" in there?

I'm now going to tell you what I believe Liz has reiterated to you many times over, but in my own words... in my own way. You seem more interested in taking my comments and conflating them to fit your narrative, and your tone... I will stop right there and simply say that if I thought you really wanted my opinion, you'd get it. :)

I hope your day gets better.

"that projection was/is all yours."

Take a step back, and accept that when I offer my opinion, I'm not projecting onto you.
I felt it needed to be said.
How is that about you just because my comment is to you?

"Oh, so that was about "NOT Hillary" spewing Hillary's views so therefore not about Hillary at all. I see."

Obviously, you don't.
Hillary's gone... her narrative continues to be used.
And the politically convenient nature of the origins of that narrative matter because they were bullshit from the get go according to all of the available "evidence".

You do realize they didn't dispute the accuracy of the emails on Wikileaks... and that five people lost their jobs right?
But DNC meddling had no impact and is acceptable in your book? Quite the double standard.

"I find it rather amusing that you can seemingly endlessly project and incorporate your "NOT Hillary" commentary into my responses"

You are using her narrative.
It's not projection, it's a fact.
Hillary isn't here at CW repeating that narrative... you and most of the people here are.

"I truly am not concerned about it"

A true Cold Warrior.
How admirable, if outdated.
Bad for the country and the world in my opinion. See?
Not projecting.

"Exactly right... all while proving I could channel Michale just like you did."
"So I see that you did see what I did there. :)"

I admitted fault when I did it by accident.
Is that all I'm getting from you?

"I'm truly not concerned about it."

Interesting.
Dems losing again by failing to learn from history doesn't concern you.
Go Trump?

"If you honestly think that anyone can read your posts and not recognize the divisions"

Well, responding to my comments would help convey the recognition... but learning what I think isn't the issue.
I was kinda hoping that some action could be motivated... but you're not concerned, so, never mind.

"I suspect the results will be insufficient too because those who worship..."

Alienating the left wing of the Democratic party didn't work out well for Hillary... but, oops, I forgot... you're not concerned. Never mind.
Go failed status quo?

"Oh, how I wonder what would qualify as "verifiable evidence""

Focus!
I spelled it out for you.
The same underlying information that was released for the hack by China.
It's there... why won't they release it?

"Is there nothing on the planet that can't be simply explained away by that ever present "inside job" theory?"

Or Russia, right?

"Who said anything about RT?"

Fully half of the "intelligence" report released in December to "prove" Russian "meddling" was about journalism on RT.
The other half was unsubstantiated assertions.
I expected you of all people to be up on the details.

"Do you think the Russian trolls and their commentary was limited to RT?"

Oh, you're referring to online trolls who may be Republicans? Or, maybe you're referring to the fake news coming out of Macedonia, not Russia, which Repubs spread around as facts?
Maybe you should just clarify, because the nationality and motivation of online trolls hasn't exactly been established by anyone.

"Well now here's some common ground; you admit that Republicans invented and disseminated lies... better than nothing."

Channeling the trumpling again?
Come on.

"Picked up on that, did you? Your concerns and my concerns are widely divergent here so I see no point in the attempt. Perhaps the tincture of time might be a remedy."

Yes, it is horrible of me to want your opinions.
What was I thinking?
Or, was there an implied "it's beneath me" in there?

"I have no interest whatsoever in taking that sharp left turn... none"

Who was it that said the facts have a leftist bias?
Do you remember?
I know the establishment types don't like that reality in either party, but I've come to expect better from you... the kick ass researcher.

If there is something other than what you have thus far presented that you are assuming I am aware of, please clarify.
And please don't refer to the empty assertions in the document from Reality Winner.

"Don't think I didn't see what you just did there when you moved those goalposts. :)"

Are you referring to the notion that "meddling" without an impact does concern you? (see above regarding the DNC meddling)
I guess that makes sense... since nuclear war and Dems losing doesn't concern you. Oops... I'm projecting again... no, wait... you actually expressed a lack of concern for those issues.
Who would have guessed?

A

Great... That guarantees a better GOP majority in the House and Senate...

Talking about Russia is GREAT.... For the Dumbocrat Party...

But the American people want Congress and the POTUS to do the jobs they were hired for...

And if Dumbocrats get in the way of that??

The American people will fire them...

It's THAT simple...

If you want to be an intolerant hater, you have that right... Live and let live, I always say...

You see, I am a tolerant person.. :D I acknowledge that every American has the right to hate as they see fit.. And hate whomever they wish to hate..

I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.. :D

If it helps any, I have the same opinion of anyone who thinks that Pauly Shore is funny.

So, you cannot allow someone their rights of having a different opinion than you.. You just insult them..

And you call this tolerance???

For the record, I agree with you that Pauley Shore just ain't funny..

But I would never denigrate anyone that things he is...

C'mon, Trump is an overprivileged effete boor of a man, and that's before we even get to his politics.

And yet you cannot reconcile this opinion with the 3 FACTS that I have laid out...

As long as you fail to do that, your opinion is factless and without merit..

So, no, I do not think highly of those who think him qualified to hold America's highest office.

So, in other words, you reek of intolerance...

Gotcha...

Ouch.
I admit your point, but the rationalizing about EO's to make the focus on Russia appear acceptable was an omission I felt was worth mentioning.

I remarked it was a lot to juggle. I didn't say a single word about it making the focus on Russia appear "acceptable;" that projection was/is all yours.

Well, "Clintonite" was a reference to corporatist Dems (not Hillary) spewing the narrative she created to distract first from the content of the DNC and Podesta leaks, then as an excuse for losing to Trump, and finally as an excuse by the corporatist wing to avoid the needed discussion about the real reasons the Democratic party lost the presidency and over a thousand elected positions and is a "smoking pile of rubble" as one pundit put it.

Oh, so that was about "NOT Hillary" spewing Hillary's views so therefore not about Hillary at all. I see.

I find it rather amusing that you claim to have moved on, while dwelling on that narrative endlessly.

I find it rather amusing that you can seemingly endlessly project and incorporate your "NOT Hillary" commentary into my responses whilst simultaneously claiming that it is me who is "dwelling on that narrative." I was commenting about the similarities of the lefties and righties and how with just a little tweaking they might close that gap in the horseshoe, and your response to that was the "Clintonite" focus.

And my expression of concern about them making nuclear war more likely is about you when you do as they do.
You may not be concerned about it, but that won't stop me from criticizing it.

Exactly right; you did have to bring up the "NOT Hillary" "Clintonite" issues in order to compare me to them. I truly am not concerned about it, which is why my focus is elsewhere. While you are certainly free to keep "criticizing it," please at least recognize that it's your endless narrative but not remotely mine.

Yeah, you ignored my previous sentence in a cutesy attempt to make an invalid point, all while dodging a response to what I wrote.

Exactly right... all while proving I could channel Michale just like you did.

You ignored what I wrote completely and created a straw man argument. Talk about an obvious comparison to the trumpling (no offence trumpling).

So I see that you did see what I did there. :)

MacFarlane repeating the failed lessor of two evils argument is about the future, not the past as you again falsely claimed, and my comment was about not making the same mistakes again.
Dems seem intent on doing just that.

I'm truly not concerned about it.

And, btw, I believe the Dem Unity Commission is meeting again this weekend, because unlike you, there are Democrats who do recognize that the divisions within the party are real and need to be addressed.

Now aren't you cute? Don't think I didn't see what you did there. If you honestly think that anyone can read your posts and not recognize the divisions, then you're not paying good enough attention to yourself... focus. ;)

I suspect the results will be insufficient, but at least they have a better grasp of reality... probably because of the ongoing discussion in alternative media and events like the People's Summit.

I suspect the results will be insufficient too because those who worship at the altar of Saint Bernard of Sanders {genuflect} have decided they are the "true Democrats" and that the actual Democrats are "neoliberals" and therefore not worthy of their support unless they clear an impossibly high bar of purity set by the revolutionaries and radicals who can't clear their own bar yet shame those who consistently vote for the Democratic candidate as ignorant and brainwashed sheeple. Quite obviously the "results will be insufficient" because there's just no pleasing the purists on any day that ends with a "y."

If you have access to some verifiable evidence, please share.
Thus far, you haven't.

Oh, how I wonder what would qualify as "verifiable evidence" to the Greenwald lefties and their ilk who share a love of WikiLeaks not unlike that of Benedict Donald. <---- See what I did there.

Instead, we are witnessing something more akin to the claims made about North Korea hacking Sony, and that turned out to have been an inside job.

Is there nothing on the planet that can't be simply explained away by that ever present "inside job" theory?

That is far from a "fact". Valid criticism from the left and the left wing of the Democratic party being repeated on RT doesn't make it invalid or make anyone a tool of Putin, just as Trump repeating criticism about Hillary from the left didn't make us his.

Who said anything about RT? Do you think the Russian trolls and their commentary was limited to RT?

Now, the Republicans certainly invented and disseminated lies about Hillary, but conflating the groups in exactly the same way Hillary conflated Republican trolls with Bernie supporters during the primaries is well beneath you.

Well now here's some common ground; you admit that Republicans invented and disseminated lies... better than nothing. I'll just chalk up that other utter nonsense with your refusal to focus on the the real reasons for Bernie's loss.

Quite the interesting pattern where you dodged answering every single one of the questions in my comment.

Picked up on that, did you? Your concerns and my concerns are widely divergent here so I see no point in the attempt. Perhaps the tincture of time might be a remedy.

Anyway, if Russian media reporting on the election in a slanted manner is the "evidence", then America is guilty of meddling far more often than the direct government actions, bribery, assassinations, coups and regime change wars.

Russian media? Reality bounces right off that Teflon layer of denial. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Russia is limited in their "reporting," and I'm still NOT interested in a "reap what you sow" debate... continuing down that "deserved it" road is proof of something, and I have no interest whatsoever in taking that sharp left turn... none.

As long as you and the misguided Dems maintain this narrative of blaming Russia with "evidence" rather than evidence, and claims of "meddling" without proof of an impact on the outcome of the election, and all at the expense of needed discussion on the true causes for the Dems losing over 1000 elections (when the supposed meddling only applies to one single election), Trump and the Republicans are more likely to prevail.

Don't think I didn't see what you just did there when you moved those goalposts. :)

I'd rather read about YOUR take on Canada's imperialistic military.

Any thoughts of your own?

it was a clever turn of phrase - sessions IMPLIED that hillary should have been prosecuted, without actually saying so. also, by using the word "usurped" he attributed a power-grabbing motive, rather than a motive to serve the country, and ignored the fact that comey's actions followed the directives of the AG at the time.

JL

Because he knows that it would fail on the merits, that's why. Comey said there was no evidence with which to reasonably form the basis of a prosecution, not that the Justice Dept couldn't try anyway, if it wanted to. Big difference.

Sessions is caught with his pants down, actively shilling on behalf of Trump, and wants us to believe that Trump's opinion of Comey had nothing to do with it. That's the biggest pile of public dung since Barnum & Bailey's went out of business.

Here's a take on Trudeau's proposed 70% increase in military spending from a different source.

Canada's Increased Military Budget Will Fuel the US War Machine
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19296:Canada%27s-Increased-Military-Budget-Will-Fuel-the-US-War-Machine

Run time about 12 minutes

What do you think about his claims that public opinion in Canada ranked increasing military spending near the bottom of their priorities?
(he didn't cite his source unfortunately)

A

That was a thunderous thing. He also commented at some length on the declination of the Clinton prosecution which you should not do. Policies have been historic. If you decline, you decline and don't talk about it."

~AG Sessions

(thunderous moose poop.)

"fresh start" was just the punchline. today, sessions doubled down on his claim that he recommended comey be fired because of clinton's e-mails. sessions criticized comey's handling of the clinton e-mail investigation by claiming that he usurped the justice department's decision on whether or not to indict. this is moose poop because it was AG Lynch who stated prior to comey's announcement that she would abide by the recommendation of the FBI, and that the people deserved an explanation.

JL

a) I can't recall

and

b) If I could recall, it would be protected by Executive Privilege

This is functionally about the same as taking the 5th, but without the PR downside.

The small amount of what Sessions could vaguely remember did not provide a very convincing narrative for why Comey was fired, other than the one-size-fits-all mumu of "fresh start."

My condolences as well.

I have a good story to tell you when you're ready for a "those were the days" type reflection.

A

Ouch.
I admit your point, but the rationalizing about EO's to make the focus on Russia appear acceptable was an omission I felt was worth mentioning.
I will strive for more carefully worded objections in the future.
Your acknowledgement that the more important issues were not spelled out without commenting on the relevance of those issues is not what I was hoping for, but that's probably my fault too.

"Your obsession with Hillary Clinton and warmongering is again duly noted. I don't wish to alarm you, but you need to entertain the idea that not everyone is uniquely focused on these subjects in quite the manner you exhibit so frequently."

Well, "Clintonite" was a reference to corporatist Dems (not Hillary) spewing the narrative she created to distract first from the content of the DNC and Podesta leaks, then as an excuse for losing to Trump, and finally as an excuse by the corporatist wing to avoid the needed discussion about the real reasons the Democratic party lost the presidency and over a thousand elected positions and is a "smoking pile of rubble" as one pundit put it.
I find it rather amusing that you claim to have moved on, while dwelling on that narrative endlessly.

And my expression of concern about them making nuclear war more likely is about you when you do as they do.
You may not be concerned about it, but that won't stop me from criticizing it.

"See what I did there?"

Yeah, you ignored my previous sentence in a cutesy attempt to make an invalid point, all while dodging a response to what I wrote.

"Punk, get over your obsession with Hillary, please. If you insist on focusing on the past and losses"

You ignored what I wrote completely and created a straw man argument. Talk about an obvious comparison to the trumpling (no offence trumpling).
MacFarlane repeating the failed lessor of two evils argument is about the future, not the past as you again falsely claimed, and my comment was about not making the same mistakes again.
Dems seem intent on doing just that.

And, btw, I believe the Dem Unity Commission is meeting again this weekend, because unlike you, there are Democrats who do recognize that the divisions within the party are real and need to be addressed.
I suspect the results will be insufficient, but at least they have a better grasp of reality... probably because of the ongoing discussion in alternative media and events like the People's Summit.

"You are free to continue to prattle on and on about the lack of "evidence to support the Russia election meddling claims.""

When China hacked various government databases back in the Obama years, the actual evidence was released so it could be independently verified by experts.
Nothing close to that has happened with the claims about Russia.
That is a simple fact.
If you have access to some verifiable evidence, please share.
Thus far, you haven't.

Instead, we are witnessing something more akin to the claims made about North Korea hacking Sony, and that turned out to have been an inside job.

"the fact that Russian trolls spoon-fed them anti-Hillary lies while they gleefully spewed them back and became Putin's useful idiots."

That is far from a "fact". Valid criticism from the left and the left wing of the Democratic party being repeated on RT doesn't make it invalid or make anyone a tool of Putin, just as Trump repeating criticism about Hillary from the left didn't make us his.
The sour grapes about Hillary's unconscionable behavior being used against her is simply denial about standard politics in this country and the world... with a heavy serving of hypocrisy on the side judging by the campaign tactics she employed.

Now, the Republicans certainly invented and disseminated lies about Hillary, but conflating the groups in exactly the same way Hillary conflated Republican trolls with Bernie supporters during the primaries is well beneath you.

"You'd be better served to concern yourself with the "potential consequences" of continuing to deny the evidence. There needn't be evidence of collusion to prove evidence of meddling."

Quite the interesting pattern where you dodged answering every single one of the questions in my comment.

Anyway, if Russian media reporting on the election in a slanted manner is the "evidence", then America is guilty of meddling far more often than the direct government actions, bribery, assassinations, coups and regime change wars.

As long as you and the misguided Dems maintain this narrative of blaming Russia with "evidence" rather than evidence, and claims of "meddling" without proof of an impact on the outcome of the election, and all at the expense of needed discussion on the true causes for the Dems losing over 1000 elections (when the supposed meddling only applies to one single election), Trump and the Republicans are more likely to prevail.

And I am being completely sincere when I say I hope actual evidence is revealed, or actually released to the public for analysis by unbiased experts if it already exists.

A

Why doesn't somebody ask him what his answer would be if he knew Kislyak was taped?

Missed opportunity!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxoyrEbZxrAMNm9HV2tvcXFma1U/view

Hate mobile phone coding...BTW CW for some reason the comnent window doesent like to scroll on android..

As I was saying...

Gotta jet and see if I can't get a 50 year old cutter back out on the water and catching me some more drug runners.

Sorry for the loss...I was a wreck when I put down mine of 16 years...

Not much else worth getting in a circular FACTS argument.. especially when no supporting docs are provided.

Gotta jet and see

perhaps that's because facts have a left-wing bias. calling politifact a bad name is a fallacious (ad hominem) argument, and does not somehow make their fact checking suspect.

conservatives are right to be unhappy that a higher percentage of facts run counter to their claims than claims made by the left. however, they would be better served by making claims that are more accurate than criticizing those who do the fact-checking.

JL

We see the world very differently.
Your justifications for dismissing sources contrary to the establishment based on "critical thinking", "common sense" and an ability to "cut through the noise in the corporate media" when you adopt the narrative they espouse is indeed novel.

"a tendency on your part toward wholly misguided assumptions based mostly on a total misread of my comments"?

You use that as a justification for not discussing these issues when you completely refused to comment on the issues?
Since that is a fact, you must be holding a grudge about previous discussions.
Isn't it possible that a lack of clarity on your part is a contributing factor?
Are you perfect, thus making others always responsible for not grasping your point of view?
Isn't it also possible that your inability to convince me is playing a role?

Anyway, let's get to the heart of the claims about the issues you refuse to discuss.

When Trump issues a demand that NATO countries increase military spending and what ten days later the Trudeau government announces a 70% increase in military spending... and then you follow the corporate media narrative by claiming the increase is a way for Canada to be seen as acting independently of Trump, I have to wonder how you square that circle in your head.

When Trudeau's Foreign Minister says "War must be part of Canada's future", a neoliberal militarism fully in line with Trump, I have to wonder how you square that circle in your head.

When the neoliberal agenda of weakening unions results in a supposedly Liberal government making it criminal for construction workers to go on strike, I have to wonder how you square that circle in your head.

When you praise the governor of Hawaii for adopting the Paris Accords, and then take offence at criticism of Trudeau for supporting the extraction of tar sands oil (just like Trump)... the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet... and Trudeau's support for the pipelines across environmentally sensitive ecosystems into the US (just like Trump) and a pipeline through British Columbia for export to China, I have to wonder how you square that circle in your head.

So, which of the criticism of these policies in my comments and the links I provided qualifies as "crazy"?
Which of these stories isn't "relevant" or "credible"?

You didn't specify, but those are the stories to which I linked, and you must support one or more of those policies to consider criticism of them crazy... you must believe one or more of the issues to be irrelevant... and you must also believe that there were falsehoods reported for the stories not to be credible.
Are you worried about how it would look to go on record regarding the specifics?

A

So as for my questions about Russia:

An article from the dailycaller on 5/19 said:

A U.S. official read notes taken of the conversation to The Times’ reporters. Another government official confirmed Trump’s general comments, according to the newspaper.

“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Spicer told The Times.

When asked directly about whether or not this was said by Trump, Spicer did not deny it to be the truth. Furthermore, he chose to explain what Trump supposedly meant by the comments! THAT is affirmation as far as I am concerned!

Plus, you have H.R. McMasters claiming that he didn't remember the exact words used, but acknowledging that what the Times reported had been gist of what had been said.
I trust McMasters more than anyone else on Trump's team.

So are we done trying to find ways to avoid having to address the question I asked you?

If it helps any, I have the same opinion of anyone who thinks that Pauly Shore is funny.

C'mon, Trump is an overprivileged effete boor of a man, and that's before we even get to his politics. So, no, I do not think highly of those who think him qualified to hold America's highest office.

Now I shall pause to go watch the AG bury himself.

OBTUSE!

Amen... and cannot be reiterated enough.

And THERE it is....

Any Republican, ANYONE who backs Trump simply CANNOT be "honorable"....

Pure, unadulterated bigotry... :D

Believe it or not, Michale, there are some Republicans who are honorable, and have not drunk the Trump Kool-aid. While I may not agree with everything they say, I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt.

Really? That's news. I know a lot of progressives who won't go near Politifact because of its well-known tendency to give righties more leeway than lefties.

Well, since there's obviously no fact-checking on WorldNet Daily...

Re 56....

Yea, like I said.. I was banking off of ya'all's hysterical hatred of anything and anyone GOP... I made that clear in subsequent comments, which you conveniently left out.. :D

Oh, that! Nope, that explanation doesn't fly. You were actually spewing the exact same thing they were talking about in the majority of the right-wing rags at that time... that Trump wouldn't allow a Special Prosecutor to be appointed if he didn't have him in his back pocket... and Mueller was a Republican.

While it's true that you did try to claim that you were kidding later, you didn't post that utter nonsense that you were kidding until after I had earlier that day posted this comment that I like to think made you rethink your position.

LET'S REVIEW SOME MORE

[89] Kick wrote:

Paula
56

Note: Sgt. Schultz has no compunction about asserting Mueller will simply take his assignment as an opportunity to skip investigating 45 and turn it into an anti-Democrat investigation.

I know, right? He's also failed in epic fashion to factor in the fact that Director Comey is also a Republican, not of the Trumpian variety, of course, and a great friend of Director "Three Sticks" Mueller. As fate would have it, it turns out that Republicans aren't a monolithic block who just roll over for a chump like Trump; anyone who's watched the saga playing out between the White House and the IC should easily be able to recognize that, and these two men belong to a very exclusive club, even more exclusive than that long list of presidents of the US.

https://www.fbi.gov/history/directors

They also share service/appointments by President Obama, Mueller being reappointed by Obama to a special 2-year term and serving under PO from 01/2009 until 09/2013, whereupon Director Comey was then appointed by President Obama. There's a cute picture of the three of them together in the Rose Garden circa June 2013. To be perfectly clear here, I'd say there's a better case that Obama is behind the scenes pulling the strings than the moron who thought it would be a good idea to tweet:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to "leak" into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?
6:48 AM - 11 Jan 2017

while at the same time repeatedly praising one Vladimir Putin. In case anyone forgot, the IC investigation into that whole mess precedes the election by several months.

Grand juries are convening and doing their jobs, and indictments being put under seal. The FBI is on the job. You know the FBI? They're not goobers who served their country for a few years and asserting that it somehow bestows upon them the title of "patriot;" they're a group of tens of thousands of men and women around the world who've dedicated decades of their lives in service to their country... the real patriots. Oh, and why so many leaks lately from the IC? They're protecting their country from the biggest threat to democracy they've seen in decades. They're the oath keepers. :)

[ Friday, May 19th, 2017 at 10:59 PDT ]

************************

So you know how I keep saying there is another shoe that is going to drop; it's a really big shoe... like a Michael Jordan size shoe... big, big shoe... big long centipede with some bigly big shoes.

Lordy, I hope there are shoes.

You mean the way that those people insult and demean the tens of millions of Americans that THEY don't agree with, and actively work to undermine every day, often not on the basis of political opinion, but because of skin color, origin, sex or economic status?

Yer darned tootin'.

Naw, I gave up on those folks a long time ago. I'll go with the 60% or so of the voting population that doesn't approve of Trump.

Way to go!

Way to insult tens of millions of Americans whose sole "crime" is that they think different than you do and believe in different things...

How "tolerant" of you... :^/

Politifact is a well documented Left Wing rag..

You might as well quote DailyShit, HuffPoop or WaPoop for your source...

So, you are still ignorant of the reasoning behind Obama's list...

According to Politifact, the basis of the list is found in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, a bill sponsored by Republican Candice Miller (R-MI).

The bill was originally meant to address the problem of european citizens, eligible for the visa waiver program, who had gone into Iraq and Syria to join Isis. It added an extra layer of scrutiny to the program which apparently included coordination with Interpol and other international law enforcement to screen euro citizens who had visited those countries. The scope of this screening was later widened to include Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

So to call this "Obama's List" is not only misleading, but beside the point, since the list not only didn't apply to citizens of those countries, but was never intended to restrict travel to or from those countries.

So face it, the real problem with the 'travel ban' is that Trump's bumbling rookie team seized on language it found in a bill that addressed an entirely different problem, and half-assed stuck it into a bill designed entirely and solely to appease Trump's Basket of Deplorables.

And they wonder why the courts have a problem with it?

What's that??

The people would rise up, you say!!??

Which "people" would those be??

The "people" that the entirety of the Left Wing has been insulting and calling them names like "racist" and "deplorable" and "irredeemable" for the last year!??

THOSE are the "people" that are going to rise up and help the Left further their anti-US, anti-Military, anti-Cop agenda???

Shirley, you jest.... :D

You people truly are living in a fantasy world....

I really hope President Trump fires Mueller....

I would love to see the entirety of the Left Wingery's heads explode en masse.... :D

There's no "false" equivalency. BOTH parties are guilty of this, which I've always said. They are equally at fault, nothing false about that at all.

That's the point I was making...

But those who are ensla.... zealot'ed by Party would call ANYTHING like that a "false" equivalency...

Much of what the WPG calls a "false" equivalency really isn't false....

:D

Much of the same things he said about Comey **AFTER** President Trump fired Comey...

BEFORE that, Comey was scum of the earth and couldn't be trusted at all..

Like I said, it's impossible to keep track of ya'all's good guys/bad guys without a playbill...

Sometimes, like in the case of Comey, the guy is a BAD GUY until he does something that is ideologically desired or acceptable.. THEN he is a good guy.. :D

Right there.... :D

Looks like ya got played a second time.. :D

Re 56....

Yea, like I said.. I was banking off of ya'all's hysterical hatred of anything and anyone GOP... I made that clear in subsequent comments, which you conveniently left out.. :D

Boy, you really do seem worried! Wasn't it just last week you were begging us all to just "let it go until Mueller finishes" and drop the whole matter?

Again, that's not what I was thinking..

I was more asking ya'all to quit being hysterical over every anonymous source that says exactly what ya'all want to hear and let's ALL wait until FACTS become available..

Ya'all seem to attached to ya'all's hysterical Party bigotry to even entertain such a revolutionary idea as FACTS.... :D

And yet here you are -- bringing up all the details, and making what you believe (hey, whatever helps you sleep at night) are exoneratory arguments that Trump has never done a single thing wrong in his life, etc.

And once again, you are saying things I never said.. I get my wee-wee whacked when I do that.. :D

I simply ask that ya'all come to this forum with FACTS and not hysterical Party bigotry and anonymous sources that couldn't POSSIBLY know the things they are claiming to know...

Is that too much to ask?? Facts???

I mean... if you're looking for people who "can't let it go" maybe you better start with your own mirror?

I am not the ones in the hysterical throes of PTDS.... :D

Wasn't he supposed to give them to the Senate Intelligence Committee? The FBI's already got copies, and Comey gave his to Mueller.

That seems to be my cue to stop commenting and go check on the breaking news... for now, ta ta everyone.

-CW

Yeah, it took court battles and lots of political battles here, too. From memory, I think it was while Ahhh-nold was our Governator.

AZ had to go all the way to SCOTUS, but the people won in the end.

If I ran the universe (boy, there's a scary thought!), all districts would be drawn by computer programs which just looked at population, where it was on maps, and where it lumped together as communities. That's really all the data that is needed to draw districts neutrally.

-CW

OK, now that sounds interesting! I will check it out...

-CW

Boy, you really do seem worried! Wasn't it just last week you were begging us all to just "let it go until Mueller finishes" and drop the whole matter?

And yet here you are -- bringing up all the details, and making what you believe (hey, whatever helps you sleep at night) are exoneratory arguments that Trump has never done a single thing wrong in his life, etc.

I mean... if you're looking for people who "can't let it go" maybe you better start with your own mirror?

Just sayin'...

Heh.

-CW

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/18/scandalpalooza/#comment-100271

michale wrote:

"Actually, having Mueller appointed is the BEST thing that could have happened to President Trump...

Mueller, a loyal Republican, will be able to re-open the NOT-45 Email scandal, find out why Obama ordered surveillance on Trump and his campaign and why Susan Rice ordered the unmasking of Americans in fragrant violation of the law... :D

Ya'all are rejoicing about a Special Prosecutor but, in the throes of ya'all's PTDS, ya'all don't realize how bad it's going to be for Democrats when all THEIR secrets are exposed..

Because, as CW has said, the SP can GO ANYWHERE... INVESTIGATE ANYTHING..

So, here we have a LOYAL and DEVOTED Republican with a blank check and carte blanche to go ANYWHERE and investigate ANYONE...

I wonder how ya'all are going to feel about the SP when NOT-45 or Obama is subpoenaed?? :D

Do ya'all HONESTLY think that a loyal and devoted Republican is going to concentrate SOLELY on his President?? :D

If ya'all honestly believe that, I have some swampland down here in FL I would dearly love to sell ya'all.. :D

And, again as CW pointed out, ALL of this Demcorat malfeasance is going to come out right before the 2018 mid-terms..

Democrats will be lucky if they can get elected dog-catcher!! :D

If ya'all could get past ya'all's PTDS, ya'all SHOULD be very VERY scared about what Director Mueller(R) will uncover about Democrats.. :D

I can picture Director Mueller's first meeting with President Trump..

"Don't worry, Mr President.. Yer in the clear. Now, with this blank check I have, let's see what we can dig up on the Democrats, shall we?!?"

:D

And the Democrats, and ya'all incidentally, will *HAVE* to accept EVERYTHING that Director Mueller comes up with because they (and ya'all) have gone on record as touting the integrity and honesty of Director Mueller...

It's going to be a fun time for Michale... :D

******************

I see all that "winning" is turning into all that "spinning" today. :)

florida passed two citizen initiatives to make gerrymandered districts illegal, and the state legislature mostly ignored them, forcing a protracted legal battle.

JL

Couldn't find dictionary, but I did find "supplement" (put there to block vitamin supplement spam), which I removed. Maybe that was in a dictionary url you were trying to use? Dunno...

-CW

Thanks, let me check it out...

-CW

There's no "false" equivalency. BOTH parties are guilty of this, which I've always said. They are equally at fault, nothing false about that at all.

The only imbalance is who controls what. In Dem states, the gerrymanders favor the Dems, in GOP states, they favor the GOP. The GOP had more states after the 2010 Census, so they've largely been the winners this particular decade. If the positions had been reversed, I have no doubt the Dems would have done much the same.

Nothing false about that. They're both at fault, and the only inequality is built into the system (by who is in charge of which states) and swings like a pendulum over time.

-CW

You're sounding awfully worried about all this stuff.

I don't think I would characterize my feeling as "worried"....

Life gives me lemons, I make lemonade... With a healthy dose of Mango Rum... :D

I am just pointing out that ya'all with impeachment are like the dog chasing the car...

What are ya'all going to do when you catch it and you find President Pence in the driver's seat?? :D

But you're right, it certainly does give rise to second thoughts, I'll admit that much.

I know, right!??

Yer better than practically every other Lefty... You at least give thought to it...

Everyone else can't get past their hatred of President Trump... They are so blinded by their hate and bigotry, they can't see the consequences of their actions..

They are like Bartleby in DOGMA....

They just want to prove god wrong and don't care that doing so would destroy creation and the totality of the universe..

I have to thank you for the work you did to isolate the problem (all those comments you instructed me to delete, where you narrowed it down to one or two possible words). That made fixing the problem a piece of cake. So thanks for the assistance.

"One is honored to be of service"
-Robin Williams, BICENTENNIAL MAN

:D

the filter also seems to have issues with some variants of "dictionary"

Yeah, that's exactly what took place here in CA before the change. Dems were dominant, but they played footsie with the GOP so each party got mostly safe districts, with very few competitive districts left over (we have 53 total).

We passed a ballot initiative to wrest this power away from the governor and legislature. They both fought back, and we passed another one which did the same thing. Every so often, they try again with an initiative to overturn the non-partisan redistricting commission, but that's been shot down. The politicians -- from BOTH parties -- fought this tooth and nail, but the people's will prevailed. In AZ, the GOP took the whole thing to SCOTUS, and lost. So in both states, the process has become much less (but not entirely) divorced from politics. Gerrymandered districts are going the way of the dodo here.

To other states: get on board! End the process with ballot initiatives!

:-)

-CW

Your post proves the filter's OK now. "Accounting" has been freed!

I have to thank you for the work you did to isolate the problem (all those comments you instructed me to delete, where you narrowed it down to one or two possible words). That made fixing the problem a piece of cake. So thanks for the assistance.

If anyone else notices comments with one particular quote or word or phrase are getting blocked, let me know and I'll try to fix the problem.

-CW

Yeah, the GOP seems to pick VPs based on how awful they would be for Democrats, as insurance against possible impeachment. Quayle, Cheney, Pence... starting to become a pattern.

Heh.

But you're right, it certainly does give rise to second thoughts, I'll admit that much.

-CW

You're sounding awfully worried about all this stuff.

Tired of "winning" yet, maybe?

Heh.

-CW

It was Comey who then accepted further one-on-one conversations that he shared with no one but perhaps some of his staff. It was Comey who agreed to say the Hillary Clinton email investigation was a “matter,” but then refused to clarify publicly that Trump was not under investigation.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/337372-opinion-dont-repeat-the-mistakes-of-clinton-and-1998

Russ...

Are you implying that, since President Trump didn't deny the ANONYMOUS SOURCES that says he called FORMER Director Comey a "nut job", that the accusation is factual??

A simple yes or no is all that is required... :D

EO's is all you mentioned... as if the far worse can be ignored... the way the Dems are doing because their billionaire donors support the warmongering and deregulation agenda btw.

Congratulations, you are debating like Michale (no offense Michale, but he is). I mentioned Trump's signing of EOs is largely symbolic. You commented back that you are "disturbed that" I "argue it's ONLY executive orders." Once again, nowhere did I argue that's it's ONLY executive orders, and now you respond with this utter nonsense that "all I mentioned was EOs... as if the far worse can be ignored."

Yes, Michale... excuse me, Punk... I did not provide an exhaustive list of the shirt show and/or circus going on currently in Washington, DC, but your argument that mentioning some of it equals ignoring the rest of it by omission is complete and utter BS logical fallacy... argumentum ex silentio which I actually thought would have been beneath you... but alas... apparently NOT.

This tactic to dismiss everybody on the left who doesn't buy into the Clintonite blame shifting narrative that coincidentally serves their ongoing and undeserved dominance of the Democratic party and the warmongerers too is getting old.

Your obsession with Hillary Clinton and warmongering is again duly noted. I don't wish to alarm you, but you need to entertain the idea that not everyone is uniquely focused on these subjects in quite the manner you exhibit so frequently. More succinctly: That's your thing... NOT mine. Continuing to project that attitude onto me is just repetitive and monotonous silliness.

And the DNC and Podesta leaks are at the heart of the charges by the Clintonites and their election meddling narrative. Forgive me for stating the obvious when discussing the issue.

No problem, but many of us have moved on and don't wish to have that attitude projected into our comments where it doesn't exist: That's your thing... NOT mine.

I am not wishing away the threat... I am wishing away the fear mongering by the Dems that is increasing the threat and actively preventing reasoned discussions with Russia to actually disarm more warheads... not to mention making the wasteful trillion dollar nuclear weapon "modernization" plan approved by Obama unnecessary. Silly me for such concerns eh?

I am disturbed that you argue that it's ONLY Obama's wasteful trillion dollar nuclear weapon plan. <---- See what I did there?

Did you read the responses to his tweet?
The few establishment Dems defending MacFarlane were the ones dwelling in the past.
But the vast majority were criticizing him for his rehash of the "Better than Trump" approach that failed for Hillary so miserably.
That is the reality I was referring to, and it remains relevant.

Punk, get over your obsession with Hillary, please. If you insist on focusing on the past and losses, figure out why Bernie failed so miserably; blaming Democrats for voting for the Democrat and blaming the DNC for Saint Bernard's loss and intentionally not engaging on the real reasons behind the loss is the issue. ;)

But going back, ask yourself, what if all the Dem candidates in 2018 or even worse 2020 are STILL harping about Russia at the expense of other issues, and Mueller comes out with a report that finds no evidence to support the Russia election meddling claims?

*LOL* M'kay. You are free to continue to prattle on and on about the lack of "evidence to support the Russia election meddling claims."

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

I do realize that the Greenwald lefties and their ilk actually admitting that Russia did attack our election would mean that they'd also have to come to grips with the fact that Russian trolls spoon-fed them anti-Hillary lies while they gleefully spewed them back and became Putin's useful idiots. Like I said: When it fits the narrative or worldview, no evidence is required, but when it doesn't, no amount of proof is sufficient.

With all the assertions being made, and all the leaks we've seen, aren't you the slightest bit disturbed that no actual evidence has been revealed, and disturbed about the potential consequences if none ever is?

You'd be better served to concern yourself with the "potential consequences" of continuing to deny the evidence. There needn't be evidence of collusion to prove evidence of meddling. Keep this up and you might as well be begging to have your nickname changed from "Punk" to "Punked." ;)

in the case of russ's post, he doesn't explicitly suggest that the white house's silence on the issue means they accept the reports as true.

So we're back to defining what the definition of 'is' is.. :^/

I love how you equivocate to hell and back to give anyone with a -D after their name the benefit of the doubt.. :D

I admire such loyalty, I really do... :D

you claim outright that silence gives assent, which is demonstrably false.

in the case of russ's post, he doesn't explicitly suggest that the white house's silence on the issue means they accept the reports as true.

so perhaps that's not what he meant. if that is what he meant then he's wrong. maybe the white house staff have learned, based on their experience with the travel ban and the reasons for comey's firing, that it's best not to deny anything unless they're certain, since the president may make liars of them.

JL

DEMOCRAT CIVIL WAR!!!!! :D

You people are lucky to have me around...

If it wasn't for me, ya'all wouldn't have a CLUE how badly yer Party is frakin' up!! :D heh

Well,of course, there is Altohone... :D

"Democrats won in nine of the 10 most-gerrymandered districts. But eight out of 10 of those districts were drawn by Republicans."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?utm_term=.f9757f6896ee

Other than the fact that Russ' claims are ideologically acceptable to you and mine are not.....

:D

"Just the facts, ma'am... Just the facts.."

:D

yes, and it's still wrong. just because i didn't reply to russ's post doesn't mean i agree with it.

ANd yet, you quite often dispute MY claims that involve SGA.....

What's the difference between my claims and Russ' claims???

the fact that the white house did not deny reports has zero bearing on their veracity.

I completely agree.. Apparently, it's RUSS who disagrees... :D

yes, and it's still wrong. just because i didn't reply to russ's post doesn't mean i agree with it. the fact that the white house did not deny reports has zero bearing on their veracity.

JL

And yet, because President Trump was "silent" on denying it, according to Russ that means that President Trump is assenting to the accusation... IE he is admitting it..

Either silence gives assent or it doesn't..

Ya'all can't have it both ways...

Now, if you say silence DOES NOT give assent and President Trump was silent on the accusation, that means that the *ONLY* evidence the Left has on that accusation is ANONYMOUS sources who are not even in government and were not at the meeting in question...

Would that be an accurate summation???

For the purposes of this comment section and, just to be crystal clear, silence does by no means imaginable mean consent.

During his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak last week, President Trump told the men that fired FBI Director James Comey was a “nut job,” and that his removal would relieve pressure on his administration over its ties to Russia. The NY Times reported this and the White House did not deny it.

So, what you are saying is that SILENCE GIVES ASSENT

Is THAT what you want to go on record as saying??

And, since SILENCE GIVES ASSENT, anyone who DIDN'T object to this is ALSO agreeing that SILENCE does indeed GIVE ASSENT...

You see my point, JL??

Ya'all have ONE set of standards when it comes to the LEFT and another completely different, oft times diametrically OPPOSITE set of standards for the RIGHT...

When it a RIGHT winger is silent, that means it DOES give assent...

When a LEFT winger is silent, that DOESN'T mean it gives assent...

I swear to the gods, one needs a frakin' playbook to keep up with ya'all's "principles" and standards...

Grrrrrrr......

"Your good and your evil employ the same methods to achieve the same goals."
-Yarnek/General George Washington, STAR TREK

Exactly...

As is with the case of most partisan issues, there is now "FALSE" equivalency... :D

Ahhh yes.. The peace and tolerance and respect of the Left Wingery.... :^/

I remember when the Left went hysterically apeshit because Lucifer in THE BIBLE mini-series had a "passing resemblance" to Obama.

By "passing resemblance" I mean that they were both black... :^/

But, apparently, it's perfectly acceptable to simulate the KILLING of a sitting President....

As long as said POTUS has a '-R' after his name.. :^/

Kathy Griffin an aberration, my left arse cheek!! Kathy Griffin is the norm for the Left Wing...

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18119319_1293274007374768_9163800286366729781_n.jpg?oh=3c1d6167f9ff7078e70c4bd3a3616733&oe=59E83069

heh :D

OK, freed a few comments, and (thanks, michale)

"What can I say except 'Yer Welcome!!'"
-Maiu, MOANA

:D

fixed the problem that would flag any comment with the word "accounting" in it.

Sorry 'bout that...

Yea, what's up with that!??

suspect = suspend

Grrrrrrr

Credit where credit is due...

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/09/ftp440/#comment-102467

You had an opportunity to really slap me down.

You chose not to..

I won't forget that... :D

Probably... :D

I'm going to ignore that utter nonsense because it doesn't apply. I'm also going to go on record that you were not long ago singing the praises of Director Mueller because them "R's" stick together, but you'll soon be referring to him as serving the "Democrat Party" too.

My sung "praises" of Director Mueller was tongue in cheek, using ya'all's opinions of Republicans in general...

It's becoming clear that Mueller's friendship with Comey is making him more sympathetic to Comey's case...

Comey's own statements prove that Comey illegally leaked the documents so that a Special Prosecutor would be appointed.. It's entirely likely that Comey knew that his mentor and bestest buddy Mueller, would be the one chosen...

A case can be made that Comey intentionally and illegally leaked the government documents so as to get his mentor a really good paying gig.....

It's clear that Comey is not the honorable altar boy I thought he was...

But that should come as no shock to ya'all??? The entirety of the Left Wingery has been demonizing and castigating Comey as Satan himself...

RIGHT UP TO THE POINT that it was ideologically dependent to make Comey the Left's bestest buddy..

"Director Comey is an honorable man.. Director Comey has ALWAYS been an honorable man."

:^/

"The president's power to exert executive privilege is very well established; however, in order to facilitate a swift and thorough examination of the facts sought by the Senate Intelligence Committee, President Trump will not assert executive privilege regarding James Comey's scheduled testimony."

President Trump will not assert executive privilege regarding James Comey's scheduled testimony."

President Trump exerted his right to suspect Executive Privilege for a very specific time frame in a very specific setting...

Comey leaked the government owned confidential documents prior to Trump's announcement.. An announcement that was very specific as to time and place that EP was waived..

You have no case to claim that President Trump waived EP so Comey had the permission to leak the documents..

Further, one can correctly argue that President Trump was not WAIVING EP, he was merely not going to exercise EP in the very specific time and place of Comey's testimony...

These are the facts that clearly prove beyond any doubt that Comey did not have ANY authority to leak the government documents...

The mere fact that Comey did it in the most cowardly fashion imaginable PROVES beyond ANY doubt that Comey himself knew that he was dirty and that leaking the documents was illegal..

It's no coincidence that his "friend" has now gone into hiding due to Comey's confession...

It's going to be HILARIOUS if President Trump is impeached and removed from office..

Democrats will have, for all intents and purposes, APPOINTED President Mike Pence!!!

Ya'all will have absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to complain about ANYTHING President Pence does!!! :D

Won't that just be a hoot!!???

"Ya know, it IS funny!! It's a hoot!!"
-Tony Stark, AVENGERS-CIVIL WAR

:D

I have had a problem both at work and at home where FLASH will quit and lock up the system for as long as 60 seconds..

https://www.howtogeek.com/103292/how-to-fix-shockwave-flash-crashes-in-google-chrome/

THank you very much...

I'll give it a shot...

A question totally unrelated to politics..

Doesn't exist. ;)

Touche' :D

During his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak last week, President Trump told the men that fired FBI Director James Comey was a “nut job,” and that his removal would relieve pressure on his administration over its ties to Russia.

Bullshit..

It was ALL based on anonymous sources and the sources claimed are not even in the government and were not present at the meeting..

Of course YOU believe it because you *WANT* to believe it...

Why do some Americans refuse to believe what the Russians are up to, in America and throughout the West?

For the same reason Obama et al refused to believe what the Russians were up to in 2012 and actually ridiculed people who said otherwise....

Party loyalty.. Party agenda...

That is *ALL* what it boils down to...

It is a crime for an employee, such as Comey, to convert government property to his own personal use. Yes, 18 USC 641 makes it a felony to “steal, sell or convey” it to someone else. That is exactly what Comey did by giving it to a professor at Columbia University Law School for the sole purpose of leaking it to the media. Comey’s ultimate design was for the leak to prompt the appointment of a special prosecutor which, conveniently, is his good friend Robert Mueller.

Comey, and ya'all incidentally, are "stunningly" wrong...

This is exactly why President Trump should fire Robert Mueller...

There is a clear concise law that says that a Special Prosecutor MUST recuse themselves if there is a clear conflict of interest...

Mueller's conflict of interest is clear and undeniable..

If Mueller doesn't do what is legally binding, then President Trump is well within his rights, legally, ethically and morally to show Mueller the road...

It's clear from Mueller's team that he intends to turn the case into a witch hunt....

President Trump?? Fire Mueller... Sooner rather than later...

Ya'all have stated that the US Constitution applies to non-US citizens not on US Soil..

There was a case where a US Border Patrol agent shot and killed a 15yr old Mexican boy on the Mexico side of the border..

The parents tried to sue in US courts, but the federal court threw out the lawsuit because the US Constitution doesn't apply to non-US citizens on non-US soil...

Coming to the United States is a privilege, NOT a right..

It's a privilege that can be suspended at any time for any reason at the direction of the President Of The United States..

That's Donald Trump, in case ya'all missed it.. :D

https://news.fastcompany.com/the-new-york-times-vows-to-stand-by-theater-despite-trump-julius-caesar-controversy-4040493

The facts clearly say otherwise...

It's general Left Wingery philosophy that this country would be better off if someone stepped up and off'ed POTUS....

As I have said time and time again and have ooodles of facts to support...

The Left is acting EXACTLY as they accuse the Right of acting...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/12/comey-admitted-single-trump-leak-but-were-there-others.html

Looks like there is a lot of factual evidence that indicates Comey was responsible for a good portion of leaks coming out of the FBI/DOJ....

Now that Comey is out the leaks should stop...

No one here wants to talk about the basis for Obama's list because if ya'all understood the exact parameters, ya'all would say, "Hmmmmm That IS reasonable, logical and necessary for national security"

At least the logical and rational ones would.. :D