ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [441] -- Happy Birthday, Mr. President

[ Posted Friday, June 16th, 2017 – 17:00 PDT ]

President Donald J. Trump turned 71 years old this week. He held a party and invited all his cabinet members, who were all allowed to sing his praises in a manner one reporter summed up as: "honestly this is like a scene from the Third World." The internet, of course, had a field day afterwards. But it's pretty easy to understand why Trump felt the need to hold a public ass-kissing event to celebrate. After all, pretty much all of his other birthday presents were stinkers.

The news media and Robert Mueller brought the news (tied up with a bow) that Trump's biggest fear already came true a month ago -- he is now officially under investigation for obstruction of justice. When you consider how much time and energy Trump put into getting the word out that he was not under investigation, you begin to see what an enormous blow this news must have been to the birthday boy. He's been grumpily tweeting about it ever since, and leaking that he might just fire Mueller. Because, you know, what could possibly go wrong with that?

Maryland, D.C., and 200 Democrats all chipped in to bring two massive lawsuits against Trump, for blatantly ignoring the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution. Trump, as oblivious as ever, announced later in the week he was changing America's policy towards Cuba which would (surprise, surprise!) wipe out the advantage other hotel chains had over Trump properties on the island.

The Senate, not to be outdone, banded together in a breathtaking display of bipartisanship (a 98-2 vote) to pass a sanctions bill on Russia which gives Congress the final say on reducing any existing or future sanctions. This diminishes the power of President Trump in a big way, and just for good measure they threw in a statement affirming the U.S. commitment to NATO. Icing on the birthday cake, as it were.

The Ninth Circuit upheld the freeze on Trump's beloved travel ban, and since they knew that Trump already had several decisions against him on this score, they came up with a brand-new legal reason for why Trump can't do what he wants.

Yale held a confab of 125 big C.E.O.s this week, and they decided to give the president a report card for his birthday. A whopping fifty percent of them gave Trump an "F." Another 21 percent gave Trump a "D." Only a one percent of them gave Trump an "A." This is not a group known for being radical lefties, it bears pointing out -- these are the captains of industry who are normally quite favorable to Republican administrations.

The only person who got Trump a present that wasn't a total dud was Jeff Sessions, who gave Trump a big "stonewall" (assumably because he knew how much Trump loves walls).

All in all, not the happiest of birthdays for the president. To top the week off, Trump hit the milestone of 60 percent job disapproval in the Gallup poll, so that was really the public's big birthday present to him. Trump can feel proud in the knowledge that he hit this record mark much faster than any other modern president.

The following presidents never hit 60 percent disapproval, during their entire time in office: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. Here is how long it took the other four to hit this mark of public disapproval: Harry S. Truman -- 2,129 days into his presidency; Richard Nixon -- 1,736 days; George H. W. Bush -- 1,289 days; and George W. Bush -- 1,758 days.

It took Trump a mere 143 days for six out of every ten Americans to disapprove of the job he's doing. I guess the public's officially tired of all the "winning," or something. This led to the funniest graph-related tweet we think we've ever seen, the "Trump Disapproval Crocodile" (from Christopher Ingraham, Washington Post data reporter). Happy birthday, Mister President!

In other Trump scandal news, Mike Pence has now lawyered-up. Trump is considering firing Robert Mueller, which would pour gasoline on the fire in a big way. Or maybe that should be "nitroglycerine," since the move would immediately blow up in his face. What else? Jared Kushner's finances (and likely everyone else on Team Trump) are also now under investigation, for possible ties to Russia. If we were to place a bet, we'd bet that Mueller either already has or is in the process of obtaining Donald Trump's tax returns. It's the most obvious place to start looking, after all.

Politico reports on the current state of the president's mind:

Trump, for months, has bristled almost daily about the ongoing probes. He has sometimes, without prompting, injected "I'm not under investigation" into conversations with associates and allies. He has watched hours of TV coverage every day -- sometimes even storing morning news shows on his TiVo to watch in the evening -- and complained nonstop. "It's basically all he talks about on the phone," said one adviser.... Aides have tried to change the subject, with little luck. Two people close to Trump note that his is an obsessive personality [but staffers] say they fear his incendiary tweets and public comments have spurred "countless" leaks of damaging information.

So, in other words, Trump is still his own worst enemy.

In unrelated news, Trump broke another campaign promise this week, by totally abdicating his duties as commander-in-chief. He's letting the Pentagon now decide how many more troops to send to Afghanistan, which will likely be in the thousands.

Puerto Rico voted to become a state, but this isn't likely to happen any time soon, seeing as how Congress gets the final say and adding two Democratic senators would proportionally shrink the Republican majority in the Senate.

An extraordinary thing happened in Kansas, as the Republican statehouse passed -- over a veto -- an emergency plan to raise taxes. Yes, you read that right. They were forced to do so because -- just like it always does -- the conservative dream of trickle-down economics failed miserably, once again. You'd think they'd realize this after awhile, but you'd be wrong. What Kansas did (which led to utter failure) is exactly the same thing Paul Ryan desperately wants to do on a nationwide level.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Of course, there was a tragic shooting this week, in an apparent act of political terrorism on a baseball field in Virginia.

We have to say, the response from Democrats was pretty impressive across the board. The shooter (we refuse to use such people's names, because we feel such people don't deserve any personal recognition at all) was apparently a Bernie Sanders supporter. Sanders stood up on the floor of the Senate and denounced him in no uncertain terms.

The Democratic leadership was also speaking with one voice -- and in chorus with the Republican leadership. That was heartening, as were all the displays of unity in response to the shooting. Now, we're too cynical to expect any of this to last much past next week, but it was good to see virtually all of our elected officials coming together in very humane solidarity. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer did a good job of leading this effort for the Democrats.

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to the Democratic congressional baseball team. They impressively beat the Republicans 11-2, but that's not why we're giving them the MIDOTW.

After winning, the Democratic team was presented with a trophy. Rather than accept it, the Democrats gave the trophy to Steve Scalise, who is still in rather critical condition after being shot in the hip. While this was only a symbolic representation of unity, we have to admit it was a pretty good one. The spirit of "an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us" that Paul Ryan described was perfectly symbolized by giving the trophy to Scalise, where it will be sitting in his office awaiting his recovery.

So we though the 2017 congressional Democratic baseball team deserved an award for selflessly handing over the real award to one of the victims of the attack. They don't have a game trophy any more, so we thought we'd give them their own Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to replace it.

[There are really too many on the official roster to list here, so you'll have to look up their contact info if you'd like to let them know you appreciate their gesture.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

For the second week in a row, no Democrat did anything which we felt rose to the level of a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. As always, if you've got someone we either missed or forgot about who you feel deserves the award, please feel free to nominate them in the comments.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 441 (6/16/17)

As we are sometime wont to do, we do not have discrete talking points this week, but rather an extended rant on what is going on in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is desperately trying to come up with a healthcare bill in the next two weeks. Republicans themselves are all over the map on the issue, making McConnell's job almost impossible (Senator John McCain: "We've got a divided caucus. I listen avidly at lunch as we go over the same arguments over and over and over again."). But there's a very real danger that McConnell could twist enough arms at last minute to pass some rancid bill to hand over to the House, before they all leave for vacation.

We don't know about you, but we find all of this pretty outrageous. So we're venting that rage, today.

 

Where is the outrage?!?

I realize how much fun it is for the media to obsessively cover President Trump's numerous investigations and numerous Twitter outbursts. But while this is amusing ("Did you see what Trump just tweeted?!?") it is nothing short of a distraction from a very serious subject. Because while Trump is (as usual) flailing about in public, a very small group of Republican senators is hastily putting together their version of a "repeal and replace Obamacare" bill. This will affect one-sixth of the American economy, and they are doing it completely in secret.

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was being drafted, Democrats took well over a year, held hundreds of hearings and committee meetings, issued several drafts of the bill, allowed public comment, invited Republicans to add amendments along the way, got numerous scores from the Congressional Budget Office, and held long extended floor debates. Throughout this lengthy and downright exhaustive process, Republicans had the gall to complain that it was being "rammed through." Here's Mitch McConnell from back then:

Fast-tracking a major legislative overhaul such as health care reform or a new national energy tax without the benefit of a full and transparent debate does a disservice to the American people. [Democrats using such means] would make it absolutely clear they intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis.

That was then, this is now. Now, McConnell refuses to even let his fellow Republicans even have a peek at the bill being drafted. The entire process is supposed to wrap up before Congress takes another extended holiday for Independence Day.

The Senate will hold not a single hearing on the bill. There will be no testimony by doctors, nurses, patients, hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies, economists, or anyone else with an interest in the healthcare industry. Not a single voice will be heard, from anybody outside the locked room where they're writing the bill.

Even Republican senators outside the tight little group drafting the bill can't see the text of it. Even chairs of committees who are supposed to be responsible for such legislation haven't seen it. Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, responded: "Join the crowd, I'm in the same category," when a reporter complained the bill's text wasn't available. The most astonishing of these comments came from Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who admitted: "I haven't seen any legislative language." He's the guy who will be in charge of implementing whatever bill is produced, and he's not even allowed to peek at it.

The Washington Post had a good rundown on just how breathtaking the plan's changes will be (which, of course, is the whole reason for such secrecy):

It's important to understand that the secrecy with which this bill is being crafted is a tacit admission on Republicans' part that its likely effects on Americans' health care and financial security are so gruesome that it must be kept hidden until the last possible moment, lest the public have time to understand what's in it.

We don't know exactly what the Senate's bill will consist of, but there are a few things we do know. At its heart, it will do what the bill the House passed to repeal the Affordable Care Act does: take health coverage away from millions of people in order to give a tax break to the wealthy. While some hoped that a few moderates and senators from states that had accepted the A.C.A.'s Medicaid expansion might try to save the expansion, that hope is dead. According to various reports, those supposed moderates now support phasing out the expansion, but doing it over seven years instead of the three years that the House bill provided for.

The Senate bill would also likely transform Medicaid -- which today covers nearly 70 million Americans -- into a block grant, for the first time allowing states to toss people off and cut back benefits. It will cut back on the subsidies that currently allow those not poor enough for Medicaid to afford coverage. It will likely undo the A.C.A.'s mandates for essential health benefits, allowing the sale of "insurance" that in practice covers almost none of the needs people actually have. It will probably allow insurers to once again impose yearly and lifetime caps on coverage, which can turn a life-threatening illness or accident into a financial catastrophe as well. And it could undermine the protections the tens of millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions now enjoy.

Sarah Kliff, over at Vox was even more blunt in pointing out the hypocrisy: "It's become obvious to me, particularly this week, that Republicans plan to move more quickly and less deliberatively than Democrats did in drafting the Affordable Care Act. They intend to do this despite repeatedly and angrily criticizing the Affordable Care Act for being moved too quickly and with too little deliberation." Her entire piece is worth reading, and includes a section explaining how the White House is handling criticism of the bill: by just flat-out lying about it.

Vice President Mike Pence visited the Health and Human Services Department on Tuesday and delivered a speech to the agency's employees.

"Now, I know this room is filled with men and women who care deeply about bringing high-quality health care to every American," Pence said. "Rest assured, Donald Trump wants the exact same thing."

Trump is not acting that way, though. He held a Rose Garden ceremony last month to laud a bill that would cause 23 million Americans to lose coverage -- a bill he praised as "incredibly well-crafted."

This is now a consistent pattern from top Trump officials, who have decided that their strategy to hide the Republican health care plan will be to not tell the truth about what it actually does.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price has appeared on national television and claimed that Americans will "absolutely not" lose Medicaid coverage under the House-passed bill. Two separate, independent analyses of the A.H.C.A. find this isn't true. Millions of Medicaid enrollees would lose coverage under that bill.

Trump himself gave an interview to CBS in April where he said that people with pre-existing conditions would be protected under the A.H.C.A. They won't be: At the time he gave that interview, the bill had been amended to allow states to opt out of the requirement to charge people with pre-existing conditions the same prices as healthy enrollees, a move that will almost certainly price some patients out of coverage.

Trump said that deductibles will go down under the Republican plan. Nonpartisan analysis expects deductibles will go up.

The White House has decided to deal with an unpopular bill by refusing to acknowledge the parts of it that the public doesn't like. When asked in interviews about the expected loss in coverage or cuts to Medicaid, administration officials simply act as if they don't exist.

That House bill that Trump called "incredibly well-crafted" (back then) is now being described differently. Trump reportedly complained about the House bill to Republican senators this week, now calling it too "mean." Republican House members are reportedly not happy about this state of affairs: "It is having a lingering, and potentially devastating, effect on his credibility among House Republicans. Members are still talking about Trump's ["mean"] comment, and their frustration that he'd throw them under the bus is likely to damage his ability to negotiate on major items like infrastructure and tax reform."

So now the Senate Republicans have to make the bill ever-so-slightly less mean. Initially, it was thought that GOP senators from states which had expanded Medicaid would fight to keep the money. Now they've given up and are reduced to pleading to the other Republicans not to kick millions off Medicaid too quickly. A few years isn't really a difference worth mentioning, when the end result is still going to be the same, but people like Rob Portman will not fight to the mat on the issue.

Mitch McConnell is desperate to pass a bill -- any bill. This sense of desperation is going to lead to a lot more arm-twisting behind the scenes, in an attempt to bridge the gap between those who want to destroy everything and those who merely want to partially destroy everything. Think that's too harsh? Please remember that this entire exercise is designed to pass a disguised multi-billion dollar tax cut for the wealthy. In other words, they're not just intent on destruction, but also on looting and pillaging afterwards.

Three Republican senators is the magic number in all of this -- that is worth remembering. If three Republicans vote against the bill, it will die. If this happens, it is quite likely that the entire issue will be dead for the rest of this year, since the Senate has some hard deadlines staring it in the face immediately afterwards.

One of the necessary "no" votes is likely to be Rand Paul, who will probably vote no on anything short of an Ayn-Randian paradise of no federal interference in healthcare at all. Hey, he may be wacky, but at least he's consistent when it comes to voting his beliefs -- you've got to give him that. Counting Paul as a no, this means two other Republican senators will have the power to stop this legislative travesty in its tracks.

Democrats are impressively united, it also bears pointing out. To date, there have been no Democratic defections in either the House or the Senate on the issue. Not one Democrat is willing to put their name on this gruesome bill.

But the time for venting outrage is now, make no mistake. The public should be doubly outraged at what Mitch McConnell is doing in a locked backroom in the Capitol. They should be outraged at the outcome, of course, because it will be (as the president so aptly put it) "mean." It will devastate millions of lives and sentence tens of thousands to unnecessary early death each and every year. This is legislative mass murder, folks. Many will die early from easily-preventable diseases as a direct result of the Republican plan -- for lack of access to health insurance.

That is outrageous.

But people should likewise be outraged at the process both Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have used. This is one-sixth of the American economy we are talking about, and the Republicans have held not one single hearing and not one single committee meeting on it, to date. No doctor has testified. No nurse has testified. No health insurance executive has testified. No patient has testified. No drug company executive has testified. No economist has testified. No healthcare expert has testified. No hospital administrator. Nada. The Republicans are so sure of their ability to change one-sixth of our economy that they have absolutely refused to talk to anyone outside their locked backroom. They won't even let their own fellow Republican senators know what they're deciding in this backroom. The head of Health and Human Services doesn't know what's in the bill. Nobody outside that room knows what will be in it, until they try to whisk it onto the Senate floor and pass it in the dead of night before anyone realizes what's in it -- in the nick of time, so they can go enjoy yet another week's vacation.

This is outrageous!

This is not the way Congress is supposed to work, folks. Even Republicans are complaining. Here is Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee: "I've said from Day One, and I'll say it again.... The process is better if you do it in public, and that people get buy-in along the way and understand what's going on. Obviously, that's not the route that is being taken." You can say that again, Senator Corker.

I would urge anyone concerned about this secret backroom dealing and complete and utter lack of input and transparency to contact your senator today. Especially those of you who live in states with Republican senators, and especially those in red states that have actually expanded Medicaid. They need to hear from you now. In droves. As Hawai'i Senator Brian Schatz tweeted this week: "The 13 dudes who are secretly working to take away your healthcare met again today. They have bill text. Light up the phones."

If you don't know what to say when contacting your senator, I would suggest using the words of Mitch McConnell, from 2009. When the phone is picked up, all you really have to do to register your disapproval is to read McConnell's own words:

Fast-tracking a major legislative overhaul such as health care reform without the benefit of a full and transparent debate does a disservice to the American people.

This is a travesty and an outrage. It is also, as McConnell himself put it, a massive disservice to the American people. Republicans have had eight full years to come up with a plan and they have not done so in all of that time. But now, for some reason, they have to throw something together in a few weeks and only let the public know what is in it at the last minute, right before the vote? Without any input at all from anyone concerned?

I don't know about you, but I find that outrageous, in the extreme.

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

240 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [441] -- Happy Birthday, Mr. President”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    i don't think you've been trying very hard lately when it comes to handing out the "golden jellyfish" (MDDOTW) award. my nomination, as reported by the LA Times:

    Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said this wasn't time to talk about gun control, but then essentially did just that.

    look, i believe in sensible gun control legislation as much as the next democrat, but mcauliffe's response to the baseball practice shooting was totally tone-deaf. i was listening in real time, as he had a big opportunity to talk about higher causes and shared values. instead he waded into the weeds of partisan policy, right after saying it wasn't the time for it. i don't know about you, but i for one was disappointed.

    JL

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:
  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    It seems there has been some concern expressed by various Republicans about the tone of our politics, in response to the shooting of one of their incendiary promoters of guns-for-everyone and no marriage for gay people and other such positions. Many of them were quite shaken by the experience of being shot at. I'd go so far as to say they objected to being shot at, and particularly objected to having people around them be hit and seriously wounded.

    Steve Scalise was shot through the hip, with one of those no-restrictions-on exploding-bullets. He has sustained damage to several organs and bones, and lost a lot of blood. Turns out, when you get a bunch of new blood pumped into you it doesn't clot like your own blood does, which adds complications. Turns out these exploding bullets mush up people's internal organs. Turns out people injured by such bullets -- who survive -- nearly always have life-long problems because you just can't put them back together normally, what with their bones and organs being shattered and shredded.

    But hey, FREEEEEEDOM! Second Amendment! You can't make omelets without breaking eggs! So long as the wounded/dead were someone else, most (if not all) Republicans have been totally on board with the NRA's guns-and-ammo-for-everyone position.

    Scalise should, when he can, have a party. He should celebrate. This is the world he, in a big way, helped create. Being the staunch conservative he should tell everyone he's glad to take a bullet for gun-nuts everywhere! He'll be happy to suffer the rest of his life for the cause! And put his family through all that anxiety too!

    And gun-nuts everywhere should also celebrate. There were cops nearby who took out the shooter! Isn't that the "good guy with a gun" dream come true they salivate over? That scenario always starts with a few innocents wounded or killed, so no problem there. But instead they're perturbed that the innocents happened to be a couple of Republicans and the shooter was a miserable wretch who voted for Bernie. The lefties are getting violent! Oh noooooooo! That's not right. The shooting is supposed to go right to left, never left to right.

    Ah well, no doubt some rightie will come along soon and balance the scales because that's today's America, the gun-nut's paradise where problems are solved through violence. Isn't that what they want?

    In contrast, Republican members of Congress -- shaken by their near death experiences -- may finally take a serious look at gun-control. Maybe, just maybe they'll finally realize that making it easy for every unhappy and unhinged American to express their feelings with repeating rifles and exploding bullets represents a safety hazard, not just to them, but to all Americans. You know, like the kids at Sandy Hook, who weren't important enough to do anything about. (Indeed, who's very deaths were disputed by alt-right white-supremacist luminary Alex Jones and others like him.)

    Maybe, when its their own precious skins, they'll finally act.

    I won't hold my breath, though. After all, things will settle down like they always do, and we'll be back to unimportant innocent people being shot. And Steve Scalise has medical insurance (about to be ripped out of the lives of millions of Americans if Republicans get their way) so he'll be able to get the multiple surgeries he'll need.

    Still, I'd imagine Scalise will eventually thank his preservers, a black lesbian cop who is, in fact, married, and another black officer. Folks from the NRA will surely stop by and thank him for his years of support. Possibly Ted Nugent will come to his hospital room and serenade him. Gabby Giffords will reach out to him. Interesting juxtapositions are in the offing.

    And the nice baseball-game trophy awaits him in his office. That should give him a warm feeling in the region where he used to have functioning organs.

    Then he'll begin legislating again.

    Should be interesting.

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    i agree with you completely on the policy level, and i know it's tempting to play the "serves them right" card, but that's not consistent with liberal values.

    sure, thirteen senators hiding in a backroom could kill forty thousand americans yearly, while one lone-wolf terrorist hiding in a baseball dugout only ended up killing himself - but that "miserable wretch" is still a terrorist, not a victim, and NOBODY on that field deserved to get shot.

    snarking at rep. scalise's injuries is not liberal and not okay.

    JL

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [ 3 ]

    I LOVED what you posted!

    I find it ironic that Republicans will complain that any time there is a shooting that Democrats will want to talk about gun control. Republicans don't want to discuss it after a shooting occurs!

    But, then again, Republicans don't EVER want to talk about what to do about the gun problem in this country!

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    would you love it if democratic congressmen were shot and the righties snarked about how it was the dems' own fault for not carrying?

    JL

    You just shot an unarmed man!

    He should have armed himself if he’s gonna decorate his saloon with my friend.

    ~unforgiven

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    President Donald J. Trump turned 71 years old this week. He held a party and invited all his cabinet members, who were all allowed to sing his praises in a manner one reporter summed up as: "honestly this is like a scene from the Third World." The internet, of course, had a field day afterwards. But it's pretty easy to understand why Trump felt the need to hold a public ass-kissing event to celebrate. After all, pretty much all of his other birthday presents were stinkers.

    Jeezus, can't the guy even enjoy his birthday in peace!?? :D

    The PTDS is strong with this crowd...

    Maryland, D.C., and 200 Democrats all chipped in to bring two massive lawsuits against Trump, for blatantly ignoring the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution. Trump, as oblivious as ever, announced later in the week he was changing America's policy towards Cuba which would (surprise, surprise!) wipe out the advantage other hotel chains had over Trump properties on the island.

    I get it..

    When the President has a -D after his name, lawsuits by Republicans are "bad"..

    When the President has a -R after his name, lawsuits by Democrats are "good"..

    :^/

    The Senate, not to be outdone, banded together in a breathtaking display of bipartisanship (a 98-2 vote) to pass a sanctions bill on Russia which gives Congress the final say on reducing any existing or future sanctions. This diminishes the power of President Trump in a big way, and just for good measure they threw in a statement affirming the U.S. commitment to NATO. Icing on the birthday cake, as it were.

    OR...

    The FACTUAL way to see it is that President Trump gave a throwaway and got all but one Democrat on board to help the President do away with Odumbo's Iran agreement.. :D

    The only person who got Trump a present that wasn't a total dud was Jeff Sessions, who gave Trump a big "stonewall" (assumably because he knew how much Trump loves walls).

    Credit where credit is due.. THAT was pretty cute.. :D

    In unrelated news, Trump broke another campaign promise this week, by totally abdicating his duties as commander-in-chief. He's letting the Pentagon now decide how many more troops to send to Afghanistan, which will likely be in the thousands.

    You mean, the President is actually allowing MILITARY men to prosecute a war!???

    "OH MY GOD, WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!!"
    -Marissa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    What you are saying is that the President gave the military a mission and let them decide how best to accomplish it.

    That's not an abdication..

    THAT is good leadership...

    n extraordinary thing happened in Kansas, as the Republican statehouse passed -- over a veto -- an emergency plan to raise taxes. Yes, you read that right. They were forced to do so because -- just like it always does -- the conservative dream of trickle-down economics failed miserably, once again. You'd think they'd realize this after awhile, but you'd be wrong. What Kansas did (which led to utter failure) is exactly the same thing Paul Ryan desperately wants to do on a nationwide level.

    Of course, ya'all don't want to talk about Illinois, which is a Democrat Government and may likely be the first state to declare bankruptcy...

    Gee... I wonder why that is!?? :D

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    For the second week in a row, no Democrat did anything which we felt rose to the level of a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. As always, if you've got someone we either missed or forgot about who you feel deserves the award, please feel free to nominate them in the comments.

    Yer kidding, right???

    I suppose gunning down Republicans doesn't qualify as "disappointing"??? :^/

    Of course, for SOME Weigantians, gunning down Republicans qualify Democrats for MOST IMPRESSIVE DEMOCRAT OF THE WEEK award.. :^/

  9. [9] 
    Paula wrote:

    [5] Listen: thanks!

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    Speaking of which...

    Paula,

    I have to hand it to you.. You get the Pendantic And Moronic Comment of the year award...

    Ahh yes, the good ole PAMC award..

    Not only are dumb-ass Democrats blaming a GUN for this scumbag Democrat terrorist's actions..

    We NOW have a Democrat blaming the bullets!!!

    I do believe that's a first.. :^/

    Of course, we CAN'T blame the scumbag DEMOCRAT terrorist for his actions!

    He has, or rather HAD, a -D after his name, after all...

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    i agree with you completely on the policy level, and i know it's tempting to play the "serves them right" card, but that's not consistent with liberal values.

    Where you been for the last year??

    Not only is that "consistent" with Liberal values....

    In the here and now.. That *IS* Liberal "values".... :^/

    But, you get a kewpie for trying...

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    Nice try, but most of the events on the 'list' you linked to were either high school kids (you should have seen some of the fights we got into in the 1960's), or at political events where there were competing protests.

    Oh, so THAT makes it OK... :^/

    I know that you desperately want to paint Democrats as the bad guys.

    I don't HAVE to "paint" Democrats as "bad guys"....

    Hodgkinson and our own Paula have proven beyond any doubt that, by and large, Democrats *ARE* the bad guys..

    The Republican mean streak is deep and dark and famous, and it's been that way since the days of Nixon.

    Just like a liberal.. Ignore ya'all's OWN violence and complain about Republican mean streak that is non-existent in the here and now...

    You have a Democrat scumbag terrorist who is targeting GOP congress for assassination and you HONESTLY want to talk about a non-existent REPUBLICAN mean streak???

    You have a Democrat comedian who does a mock beheading of a GOP POTUS and you want to talk about a non-existent REPUBLICAN mean streak??

    You have a Democrat organization putting on a play that has the GOP POTUS being stabbed to death and you want to talk about a non-existent REPUBLICAN mean streak???

    You have a long LONG list of Democrats attacking and assaulting Republicans and Trump supporters a mile long and you want to talk about a non-existent REPUBLICAN mean streak!???

    Yep... Liberal "values".... :^/

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    look, i believe in sensible gun control legislation as much as the next democrat,

    That's the point..

    We already *HAVE* "sensible gun control"...

    You are operating under the erroneous assumption that, just because there are still mass shootings, it MUST be because the laws aren't strict enough...

    That is a fallacy brought about by the completely BS notion that government and laws can fix ANYTHING...

    but mcauliffe's response to the baseball practice shooting was totally tone-deaf.

    Word....

    i was listening in real time, as he had a big opportunity to talk about higher causes and shared values. instead he waded into the weeds of partisan policy, right after saying it wasn't the time for it. i don't know about you, but i for one was disappointed.

    Disappointed?? naaawwww...

    Acknowledgement that this is what Democrats are???

    You betcha...

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    But, then again, Republicans don't EVER want to talk about what to do about the gun problem in this country!

    That's because there ISN'T a gun problem in this country..

    Guns don't shoot people.. PEOPLE shoot people..

    We don't have a gun problem. We have a Democrat violence problem...

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    look, i believe in sensible gun control legislation as much as the next democrat,

    Here's a fun fact that I know ya'all will ignore..

    NO "sensible" gun control law that COULD be passed under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment would have prevented *ANY* crowd-based mass shooting of the last 50 years..

    You want "SENSIBLE" laws that will ACTUALLY stop crowd-based mass shootings??

    Pass a law that prohibits Gun Free Zones, AKA Shooting Galleries For The Mentally Whacked zones...

    THAT will stop crowd-based mass shootings....

    The average deaths in CBM shootings where one of the crowd is armed is something like 3...

    The average deaths in CBM shootings where there are NO armed individuals in the crowd?? 11....

    Logic CLEARLY dictates what the solution is....

    But, by definition, a Party-based agenda is NEVER logical...

  16. [16] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 [1] -

    Hadn't heard that. I also didn't read the following until after posting:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/16/congress-is-considering-a-bill-that-would-expand-jeff-sessions-power-to-escalate-the-war-on-drugs/?utm_term=.e7490752a924

    If I had, DiFi would have won, hands down. Well, since the story appeared on the cusp, I can still consider her for next week...

    -CW

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale -

    I did consider the shooter for the MDDOTW award, and decided not to, for two reasons. One, it's a bit beyond "disappointing." Two, I refuse to honor any of these guys (no matter what their reasoning) who commit such acts by printing their names. That's an editorial decision on my part, so it kind of disqualified the guy.

    You can argue with my reasoning, but there it is. I did consider it, and then rejected it. Just wanted to make the distinction.

    -CW

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    You can argue with my reasoning, but there it is. I did consider it, and then rejected it. Just wanted to make the distinction.

    I can't (and won't) argue with your reasoning.. :D It's sound..

    On another note...

    Friday Talking Points [441] -- Happy Birthday, Mr. President

    I got this mental picture in my head of you up on stage in a silky dress sing HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MR PRESIDENT in a throaty voice...

    Best way to get a mental image out of your head is to put it in someone else's... :D

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Best way to get a mental image out of your head is to put it in someone else's... :D

    "You're welcome"
    -Maui, MOANA

    :D

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    Pass a law that prohibits Gun Free Zones, AKA Shooting Galleries For The Mentally Whacked zones...

    "An armed society is a polite society"
    -Robert Heinlein

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    I know that you desperately want to paint Democrats as the bad guys. The better to justify the trashing of another policy that helps people or makes the world better.

    Really???

    How did James Hodgkinson Bernie Bro extraordinaire "help" people??

    Is Rep Scalise's world any "better"??

    Like I said.. I don't have to PAINT Dumbocrats as anything..

    The long long LONG list of violence, hatred, intolerance and attacks do all the painting needed....

    Do you have any such list from the last decade or so that paints the GOP like that ???

    No???

    Didna think so....

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Like I said.. I don't have to PAINT Dumbocrats as anything..

    The long long LONG list of violence, hatred, intolerance and attacks do all the painting needed....

    And as long as logical, rational and decent Democrats like ya'all turn a blind eye* to the violence and the hate spewing from the Left....

    It just ain't gonna get any better...

    And Democrats will continue to lose elections because who wants to vote for a Party filled with such hate and intolerance...

    * Credit where credit is do. Most of ya'all DO condemn the MAJOR violence.. But if the Left as a whole would condemn the MINOR violence as well as the MAJOR violence, maybe the MAJOR violence wouldn't happen...

    Something (I hope) to think about...

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Every lawyer has a bit of the ambulance-chaser lurking deep in his heart, and dreams of one day landing a permanent client. Even a lawyer as distinguished, as ethical, as high-minded, as above all reproach and as disdainful of personal glory and profit as a special prosecutor.
    A special prosecutor, any special prosecutor, is necessarily a canker sore on the body politic, but sharp enough, as ambitious enough, to get himself appointed special prosecutor, or special counsel. “Counsel,” suggesting distance and probity, sounds more seemly than “prosecutor,” which suggests a hint of grubbiness. We’ve all seen the movie about the tricks a clever prosecutor uses to nail coonskins to the wall on his way to higher office.
    The Washington Post’s blockbuster that Robert Mueller III (the most famous Washington name with that many Roman numerals since Robert Griffin III quarterbacked the Redskins) has Donald Trump in the crosshairs of his rifle is hardly news. Of course the president is his target. That was the point of the dance when it was first dreamed by the losers early in the morning of last Nov. 9. Mr. Mueller knows better than anyone that once he marches up the hill, he has to march down with the corpse of a president.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/15/robert-mueller-has-trump-in-his-sights/

    Note...

    Mueller is a LAWYER...

    Comey is a LAWYER...

    Being APPOINTED to head a COP agency does not automatically confer COP status on the appointee...

    They are lawyers.. With all the greed, corruptness and agenda that comes with the label...

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    Nancy Pelosi made a startling admission on the floor of the House Wednesday after Speaker Paul Ryan spoke about the shooting attack on Republican members of Congress and staff at a baseball practice: “To my colleagues, you’re going to hear me say something you’ve never heard me say before: I identify myself with the remarks of the speaker.” She was making a light-hearted reference to how unusual it is for her to agree with the leader of the Republican majority. She looked around as she delivered the line, expecting a laugh.

    It would be better if she instead looked in a mirror and considered how a culture of vilification she helped to create may have motivated that morning’s attacker. James T. Hodgkinson, the man who died after a shootout with Alexandria, Va., and Capitol Police officers, has been described by neighbors, acquaintances and at least one friend as a “mellow” guy who was politically active but in control. He campaigned for presidential contender Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary. But somewhere along the line, his outlook started to go off the rails and he joined various anti-GOP Facebook groups, including "Terminate the Republican Party"; "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans"; and "Join the Resistance Worldwide!!"
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/16/its_time_for_democrats_to_look_in_the_mirror_134212.html

    And there it is...

    ***** how a culture of vilification {Pelosi} helped to create may have motivated that morning’s attacker. *****

    It's not fair to Pelosi to be singled out...

    It's the entire Democrat Party whose to blame for the "culture of vilification"...

    That culture is to blame for Kathy Griffin, a play about assassinating President Trump and for every assault and violent attack on the Right in general and Trump supporters in particular...

    It is that culture of vilification that is condoned and advocated by the Left that needs to stop before there are more shootings, more vicious attacks, more violent assaults...

    The mere fact that this has to be explained to the Party that is, supposedly, the Party of love and tolerance should be a warning sign in and of itself..

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    I know, I know...

    Ya'all want to avoid the facts and reality..

    Ya'all would prefer to talk about ANONYMOUS sources and treat the illegal leaks as gospel, even though more often than not, the claims have had to be recanted and retracted..

    Anything ya can do to avoid looking in a mirror and saying, "hmmmmmm Maybe WE'RE part of the problem??"

    Maybe the Party of "Love" and "Tolerance" should actually try PRACTICING some of that "Love" and "Tolerance", eh??

    I'm just sayin'.....

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    if i were as inclined as you are to engage in tu quoque argumentation, i'd ask where you were when donald "joked" about hillary's assassination.

    JL

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    if i were as inclined as you are to engage in tu quoque argumentation, i'd ask where you were when donald "joked" about hillary's assassination.

    cite??

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    The above is just for you, Michale.

    Once again, you try to change the argument because you can't address the REAL argument..

    Like *NO ONE* disputes the climate is changing, *NO ONE* has expressed ANYTHING against *LEGAL* immigrants...

    It's the criminals that patriotic Americans want deported. Those who steal and trespass and rape and murder and assault......

    I'll ask again even though I know no one will answer because no one CAN answer..

    What is wrong with a government that takes care of it's OWN citizens first and WON'T put out a welcome mat for those who cause it's citizens harm???

    The fact that the Dumbocrat Party thinks there is something wrong with that is *EXACTLY* why Democrats have lost over a thousand elected seats in the last 6 years...

  30. [30] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    Ya'all whining about Trump's 2nd Amendment joke..

    Yet ya'all are completely silent when Trump supporters are attacked, vandalized, assaulted and shot...

    Hell, ya'all didn't even say dick about the 2 assassination attempts on Trump's life..

    You people have absolutely NO MORAL AUTHORITY or NO ETHICAL FOUNDATION to complain about ANY alleged violence coming from Trump.

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA.....

    Michale (8/9/16)

    not a word of condemnation for the poor taste of THAT joke. methinks it is time to call hypocrisy on thyself.

    JL

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    BILL COSBY IS INNOCENT...

    JUDGE DECLARES MISTRIAL IN BILL COSBY'S SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE AFTER JURY SAYS IT'S HOPELESSLY DEADLOCKED
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_APNEWSALERT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-17-10-19-02

    It's what happens when moronic Left Wingers use the courts for political persecution..

    Like with George Zimmerman, it's a lesson in futility...

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You didn't even read it.

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    not a word of condemnation for the poor taste of THAT joke.

    You want me to condemn POOR TASTE??

    And you think POOR TASTE in a joke is equivalent to a scumbag Democrat terrorist gunning down 4 Republicans SOLELY because they are Republicans???

    I am actually speechless on that attempt at equivalency...

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    You didn't even read it.

    I read the first few paragraphs.. Plenty enough to see where it was going...

    Once I saw the word "immigrants" all over the place, I knew EXACTLY where it was heading..

    A false strawman and pathetic defense to an argument that *NO ONE* is making...

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    not a word of condemnation for the poor taste of THAT joke. methinks it is time to call hypocrisy on thyself.

    When they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun..
    -Barack Obama

    THAT is what Trump's lame joke was equivalent to...

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The gist of the piece is that recent immigrants - relatively speaking and legal or otherwise - are not the root of what is wrong with America. On the contrary, they are America's only hope.

  37. [37] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    lots of hand-wringing about how nobody else has the right to be upset at such poor humor, and not a single word of condemnation about the joke itself. come to think of it, what "moral or ethical foundation" do you have saying anything about kathy griffin, caesar in the park, colbert, or any of the other awful and tasteless trump jokes coming from the left?

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/08/09/three-dot-tuesday-2/

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA.....

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    THAT is what Trump's lame joke was equivalent to...

    so... you're only an apologist for assassination humor when it's by a politician you like, and against a politician you don't like.

    noted.

    JL

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    mind you, appeals to hypocrisy are generally fallacious and not valid arguments. it's just that they're so frequently used here, someone who believes in using them ought to at least hold himself to the same standard.

    JL

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    The gist of the piece is that recent immigrants - relatively speaking and legal or otherwise - are not the root of what is wrong with America.

    No one is claiming otherwise...

    On the contrary, they are America's only hope.

    I dunno if I would go THAT far....

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    so... you're only an apologist for assassination humor when it's by a politician you like, and against a politician you don't like.

    SOunds like you are describing yourself as I don't recall you condemning Odumbo's violent statements.. :D

    And you still haven't addressed exactly how you can equate a lame joke with Democrat terrorism in gunning down Republicans???

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    The gist of the piece is that recent immigrants - relatively speaking and legal or otherwise - are not the root of what is wrong with America.

    I missed the "legal or otherwise" part...

    Illegal immigrants *ARE* a good part of what's wrong with America...

    Let's ask Kathleen Steinle's parents... Or any one of the other tens of thousands of Americans who have been killed or raped or assaulted or attacked by ILLEGAL immigrants....

    Why do you keep insisting that coming to this country is a RIGHT???

    It's not a RIGHT, it's a privilege. And ANY country has the RIGHT to insist that immigrants coming to the country obey said country's laws...

    WHY is that such a problem for ya'all??

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    SOunds like you are describing yourself as I don't recall you condemning Odumbo's violent statements.. :D

    really? i know you are but what am i? that's it?

    JL

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And ANY country has the RIGHT to insist that immigrants coming to the country obey said country's laws...

    Like the people, and I use that term loosely, that have been here forever, you mean? rotfl

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Like the people, and I use that term loosely, that have been here forever, you mean? rotfl

    When those people commit crimes, they are ALSO torn from their families and deported to jail..

    Why should immigrant criminals get special treatment???

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    really? i know you are but what am i? that's it?

    Apparently, since you didn't condemn Odumbo's lame joke... :D

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why should immigrant criminals get special treatment???

    Unless you are talking about the crime known as being here illegally, which I know you are not (see comment 42), then no one is claiming that immigrant criminals should get a pass.

    You're missing the point, Michale ... can't see the forest for the trees, etc. etc. ... :(

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Do you sometimes think that life is too short for all of the avoidable nonsense?

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    Unless you are talking about the crime known as being here illegally,

    Which I am...

    You're missing the point, Michale ... can't see the forest for the trees, etc. etc. ... :(

    No, I am simply pointing out that the point you are making is not a valid point because no one is making that argument against LEGAL immigrants..

    Yes, this country has been made great because of LEGAL immigrants..

    Just as factual is the *FACT* that many MANY thousands of Americans have had their lives turned to nightmares BECAUSE of ILLEGAL immigrants...

    I'll ask again...

    What is wrong with a government that takes care of it's OWN citizens first and WON'T put out a welcome mat for those who cause it's citizens harm???

    Until you can address THAT, it is you who is spouting nonsense..

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    You didn't even read it.

    Well I enjoyed the column. A bit snarky, but the comparison to Japan is key. America gets a large number of its new ideas from immigrants and their kids.

    A simple way to define GDP growth is:

    GDP Growth = population growth + productivity growth

    Productivity growth is getting more goods from the same number of hours of work. Most Western countries have a headwind as their population levels off but the percentage of non-workers (retirees, kids at school for longer, etc.) to workers is decreasing.

    Japan, as pointed out briefly in the column, is the poster child for this problem, but China has the same demographic time bomb (note: you are obliged to use the cliche "demographic time bomb" in this circumstance, don't blame me) ticking. Italy is seeing its population decline, and there are systemic problems already with their economy.

    If you can't grow your population organically, stealing people under 25 from other countries is a no-brainer. Except for the no-brainers.

    Reposting link:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/only-mass-deportation-can-save-america.html

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    percentage of non-workers to workers is decreasing.

    should read increasing

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    In other words, it's nonsense to think that a sovereign country should NOT be allowed to control it's own borders and immigration...

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    America gets a large number of its new ideas from immigrants and their kids.

    And NO ONE is disparaging LEGAL immigrants *OR* their kids...

    Just like with climate change, ya'all are giving a rebuttal to an argument that NO ONE is making..

    And ya'all are doing it because you CAN'T argue the REAL argument..

  54. [54] 
    Paula wrote:

    [4] JL: it is you who sees the word "deserve" in my piece. Your interpretation.

    I didn't imply Scalise deserved to have been shot. I implied Scalise was, in part, responsible for his shooter's ability to shoot him.

    Important distinction.

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    I didn't imply Scalise deserved to have been shot. I implied Scalise was, in part, responsible for his shooter's ability to shoot him.

    Yes...

    And the girl who wore the short skirt, no underwear and low cut top was, in part, RESPONSIBLE for her rapist's ability to rape her...

    Yes... I am sure that makes PERFECT sense to the Left Wingery.... :^/

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    And ya'all are doing it because you CAN'T argue the REAL argument..

    And the REAL argument is this:

    Does a sovereign nation have an obligation to protect it's citizens and a RIGHT to control it's borders and immigration..

    Of course, the answer is YES...

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    Paula,

    I think what JL is trying to tell you is that, when you make bigoted statements such as that that are totally contrary to the Liberal's STATED values, you give credence to my arguments that the Left Wingery is as bigoted, hateful and intolerance as the Left accuses the Right of being...

    That's my opinion, but I wouldn't presume to speak for JL... :D

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    The “Russian collusion” investigation, as Comey should know, is like Jerry Seinfeld’s brainchild, a show about nothing. It is the elite left-wing equivalent to the populist right-wing birther conspiracy. He knew that a collusion investigation makes him a hero to powerful Democrats while giving him leverage over Trump. That’s why this master political player has slyly allowed rumors to swirl, while refusing to end the investigation as he did when he had a real case against Hillary Clinton.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/337811-jim-comey-is-no-mark-felt

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    An extraordinary thing happened in Kansas, as the Republican statehouse passed -- over a veto -- an emergency plan to raise taxes. Yes, you read that right. They were forced to do so because -- just like it always does -- the conservative dream of trickle-down economics failed miserably, once again. You'd think they'd realize this after awhile, but you'd be wrong. What Kansas did (which led to utter failure) is exactly the same thing Paul Ryan desperately wants to do on a nationwide level.

    OFFICIAL WARNS ILLINOIS FINANCES IN 'MASSIVE CRISIS MODE'
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/APFN_US_ILLINOIS_PAYING_THE_BILLS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-17-11-53-44

    People in financially precarious houses should not be casting stones.... :D

  60. [60] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    First, I must thank you for this-

    "it is nothing short of a distraction from a very serious subject."

    Indeed.

    I would have written "from many very serious subjects" because the repeal of subsidized corporate health care is far from the only issue not being properly covered in the media...
    ... and I would have noted that elected Democrats are equally as guilty as the media for being distracted from them, but at least the concept was mentioned.

    "The Senate, not to be outdone, banded together in a breathtaking display of bipartisanship (a 98-2 vote) to pass a sanctions bill on Russia which gives Congress the final say on reducing any existing or future sanctions"

    Wow.
    The Iran portion of the sanctions bill just miraculously disappeared?

    You know, the unjustified sanctions sought by Trump and supported unanimously by all the Senate Democrats that not only may put the nuclear agreement in jeopardy, and deprive American business interests of a market thus harming our economy, but also makes another unjustifiable regime change war more likely...
    ... and, of course, causes damage to Obama's legacy while giving Trump a victory.
    Go resistance!

    I seem to recall a similar sanctions effort in Congress which Obama fought back, but I guess his wisdom on the issue can be discarded in favor of the reactionary impulses serving the war machine and extremist "allies"... which includes every single one of the so-called progressive Dems in the Senate.

    I can see why you might not want to even mention it.

    A

  61. [61] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I suspect you may agree with most said in this interview with David Sirota, but I think his take on the issues is worth remembering, and a few of the issues aren't ever discussed properly.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19348:David-Sirota-Discusses-the-Role-of-Journalism-In-the-Trump-Resistance

    A

  62. [62] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Liz

    Here's a brief discussion with a Canadian environmental lawyer helping the First Nations fight against the pipelines that Trudeau supports.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19349:In-Canada%2C-Indigenous-Groups-are-Litigating---And-Winning

    It's mostly just an update on the situation and status of numerous lawsuits underway, and not focused on the politics, so you may find it interesting and tolerable.

    A

  63. [63] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Liz

    I was hoping that the 50 year anniversary of the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory would merit a column or mention in a column here, and generate a discussion surrounding the effects on our politics and morality, but it seems that might have to wait for the all important 51st anniversary.

    So, here's an interview with the Palestinian representative in Canada.

    You may cringe at some of the questions, but I think you will agree that the answers are very diplomatic and hopeful.

    Part 1
    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19329:Canada%27s-Complicity-in-Fifty-Years-of-Israeli-Occupation

    At the end of Part 2, there's a good question about long overdue Palestinian elections, if you want to see a diplomat do the two-step regarding the divisions between the PA and Hamas.

    Warning, there are brief periods where there is popping from one of the mics, which I find terribly annoying.

    A

  64. [64] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Here's an interesting angle that was also papered over about the sanctions.

    Germany issues stinging rebuke of US sanctions against Russia

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/17/germ-j17.html

    A

  65. [65] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Oh, look at that.
    It doesn't show up on the Home page, or in the World section, but the BBC did report on the effects of US sanctions on Russia on Europe and their businesses.

    New US sanctions bill riles Germany and Austria

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40299760

    Not much of a difference with the angle of those crazy Socialists. Interesting.

    A

  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    whether we use the word "deserved" or "responsible," it's still blaming the victim of the crime instead of the person who shot him.

    JL

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    In other words, it's nonsense to think that a sovereign country should NOT be allowed to control it's own borders and immigration...

    You're trolling, right? You are not this stupid.

    This has nothing to do with the legal status. Japan is dead in the water because they basically ban immigration. My friend, I'll call him John, studied Japanese in Long Island in the early 1970's. He got a temporary teaching job in Japan and by and by married a Japanese woman. 40 years later he still is not a Japanese citizen - he is basically on a perpetual green card. The sticking point is that he has to give up his name and take an approved Japanese name.

    After the 2011 earthquake his wife's family called her up and asked if John was going back to America and if she was going too.

    Immigration is the lifeblood of society, and those that block it wilt and die.

    America is in a long term battle between new immigrants and older ones. There will always be the people who want to choke our future and condemn us to their bland and safe mediocrity. That is why it is important for the true American spirit of adventure to stay alive and to ensure our nation is the World's crossroads of ideas and innovation.

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

    You're trolling, right? You are not this stupid.

    No, I am asking a serious question because ya'all's entire argument is based on the idea that the US Government DOESN'T have the right to protect it's citizens and DOESN'T have the right to control it's borders..

    This has nothing to do with the legal status. Japan is dead in the water because they basically ban immigration.

    And if we were was talking about BANNING immigration, you would have a point.

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

    Immigration is the lifeblood of society, and those that block it wilt and die.

    LEGAL immigration...

    Not ILLEGAL immigration..

    America is in a long term battle between new immigrants and older ones. There will always be the people who want to choke our future and condemn us to their bland and safe mediocrity. That is why it is important for the true American spirit of adventure to stay alive and to ensure our nation is the World's crossroads of ideas and innovation.

    Again, you are talking about LEGAL immigration and NO ONE is questioning that..

    The topic de jour is ILLEGAL immigration..

    Do you have any facts or discussion on THAT topic??

    Because you won't get any argument from me on LEGAL immigration...

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    whether we use the word "deserved" or "responsible," it's still blaming the victim of the crime instead of the person who shot him.

    Why, yes.. Yes it is....

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil, Liz....

    Let me make it easy on ya'all...

    Unless we're talking putting Americans out of work so evil corporations can pay foreigners less money, I am willing to stipulate that I agree with ya'all completely and unequivocally when it comes to LEGAL immigration...

    So, unless ya'all want to talk about ILLEGAL immigrants... yunno... CRIMINALS... then we really don't have anything to discuss....

    "The defense is willing to stipulate that all 23 witnesses will testify substantially as Corporal Hammaker did, if the Government is willing to stipulate that none of them were in Dawson and Downey's room at 16:20 on August 6th."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

  72. [72] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22

    @russ,

    would you love it if democratic congressmen were shot and the righties snarked about how it was the dems' own fault for not carrying?

    Heck, Republicans are saying that now about their own people! While you felt that Paula's comments were just snark, I felt that they were very honest in that personal tragedy is often times the only way a person's opinion on a controversial topic like gun control will change.

    Look at how James Brady's views of our nation's gun laws changed very dramatically following being shot six times.

    Michale wrote In [15]:

    Here's a fun fact that I know ya'all will ignore..

    NO "sensible" gun control law that COULD be passed under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment would have prevented *ANY* crowd-based mass shooting of the last 50 years..

    THAT IS COMPLETE & UTTER BULLSHAT!!!!

    If our nation had a gun registry -- similar to our vehicle registry -- law enforcement would be able to identify houses where guns are present so that they can be removed when acts of domestic violence take place.

    When the police are called to help with someone being taken in for an involuntary psychological examination, they would know and would be able to secure the firearms that are there until such time that family members can retrieve/claim them.

    The shooter who shot up the Republican baseball team would have lost access to his firearms had these laws been in place.

    Requiring all gun purchases to have a back ground check conducted would also help. Sadly, Trump just signed orders that revoked laws meant to make it harder for those with mental illnesses to obtain guns.

    The Right's argument that we don't know whether any laws would actually help reduce the rate of gun violence might seem more genuine if they didn't block the CDC and other government agencies from conducting studies into the problem.

  73. [73] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22 [66],

    whether we use the word "deserved" or "responsible," it's still blaming the victim of the crime instead of the person who shot him.

    Sorry to butt in on your conversation with Paula, but that is crap! Acknowledging that a victim had supported and defended the gun laws that allowed the shooter access to the gun that shot them is not blaming them!

  74. [74] 
    Paula wrote:

    [66] JL: Steve Scalise has power no one here has, to enact/affect policies re: guns/ammo/mental healthcare, etc. He has used his power to increase the availability of weapons and extraordinarily vicious bullets, while reducing availability of mental healthcare. That is how he has chosen to do his job as a congressman. The direct results of his favored policies is gun violence and mass shootings. Generally, the victims are not the people who set the policies but in a rare case of irony, this time one of the victims WAS a person who actually creates and supports the policies that enable people like his shooter to have the means to shoot.

    There are places Bartenders/Bar owners are held liable for letting inebriated people or underage people to continue to drink if those same people then go out and drive their car into someone. In this case, the drunk driver happened to run over the bartender who served him.

    There are plenty of unstable people in this country who are encouraged to feel a sense of grievance. There are people, such as Steve Scalise, and all his pals, who actively encourage that sense of grievance. Simultaneously we are awash in guns. Every single day in America, sometimes in pursuit of crime, but often in the throws of anger or mental illness, someone shoots one or multiple people. Steve Scalise and gang says "Oh well, that's the price of freedom. People being hurt/killed is a shame, sure, but their suffering is outweighed by our beliefs about the second amendment."

    That's Scalise's position. People being shot daily is the outcome of Scalise's position. That doesn't excuse the shooter but that's not my point. My point is if you know someone is likely to shoot and you voluntarily hand him a gun you are, in part, responsible if he shoots you or anyone else.

    You can argue Scalise didn't know the shooter personally, didn't hand him the gun personally, but that's irrelevant. He knows people like the shooter are out there. He is one of the limited number of people in America who has the power to keep guns from dangerous people, but chooses instead to arm them. They shoot. He gets shot (along with others). If he believes what he has claimed he must welcome his wounds as a lamentable but acceptable consequence of the policies he's promoted. After all, he has expected other shooting victims, or their survivors, to accept those consequences.

    OR he could rethink those policies.

    But he (and his fellow-gun fans) can't have it both ways.

  75. [75] 
    Paula wrote:

    [72-73] Listen: Yep!

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale: Re: Legal vs. Illegal immigration

    Well I'm glad we agree on the benefits of immigration :)

    So let me state up front that I don't approve of illegal immigration.

    However, illegal immigration is a problem our country faces. There are two major aspects to it:

    1. Stopping people illegally immigrating
    2. Dealing with the people who are here illegally

    1. Stopping people illegally immigrating

    I'm fine spending money to protect our borders effectively. In no way am I advocating an open border policy (even though you frequently ascribe this to me - can you stop that please?). I think a border wall is an ineffective and very expensive way to spend the money we allocate to stopping illegal immigration. If I thought it was going to be effective and cheap, I'd be metaphorically fist pumping with the most ardent at a Trump rally.

    2. Dealing with the people who are here illegally

    One method, which I ascribe to the most heartless right wing of the Republican Party, is to deport everybody regardless of circumstance. I do not ascribe to this. Neither, it seems does 45. So now we are in the "deserving illegals" and "undeserving illegals" territory.

    So my question to you Michale, are you at the extreme end of thinking on this problem, i.e. if you are in the U.S. illegally you should be deported without taking any other considerations into account? To be clear, this is the policy that most nations follow - summary deportation is the norm, and the U.S. is, currently, in the minority, although I'd claim we are in the vanguard of thinking on this problem.

    Interested in your reply.

  77. [77] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    holding someone responsible for a crime against them is SIGNIFICANTLY more than an acknowledgment that they support the laws under which the crime occurred. i said it's blaming the victim and i stand by that statement.

    @paula,

    scalise didn't hand the gun to the terrorist. the guy went out and bought one, then drove across half the country to go out and shoot people. scalise also didn't abuse the guy's wife, violate electric code, or any of the other crimes the man committed prior to his latest and last.

    i'm not saying you're wrong about the policy; i happen to agree that conservative policies likely result in allowing gun violence that could in many cases be prevented. i also think that mental health policy could and should be improved. i even think it's worthwhile to hope that the experience leads the congressman to change his positions.

    however, it's unnecessary to be so smug about someone who was just the victim of a violent crime, even if we think he could have made better policy decisions that would prevent similar crimes. personal responsibility for the crime lies with the terrorist who shoots the gun, not with the politician who has a different opinion about how to regulate firearms.

    JL

  78. [78] 
    Paula wrote:

    JL: It isn't a matter of "better policy decisions", as though those decisions are inconsequential. Those decisions ARE HIS JOB.

    As a result of the "opinions' Scalise holds and strongly promotes, innocent people get shot every day. Scalise is one of 535 human beings in this country who make the policies governing guns and related issues. I don't get to do that. You don't get to do that. We can scream til we're hoarse, but only those 535 members of Congress can actually make the choices and write the laws that, in turn, impact millions of Americans.

    Scalise holds the lives of Americans in his hands every single day, and, to date, he's been fine with random lives being lost in sacrifice to his beliefs. Saying he's just a "politician who has a different opinion about how to regulate firearms" grossly understates his position in all this.

    As for the shooter, I am not disputing his responsibility. YOU are refusing to acknowledge Scalise's role in enabling mass shootings. That he is the victim of one doesn't negate his role, both in his, and others.

  79. [79] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    scalise has no role in mass shootings. he promotes policies that he thinks will prevent mass shootings. i think he's wrong about those policies, and i'm sure you think he's wrong too, but you're writing about policy consequences as if they're self-evident, and there's a proven cause-effect relationship between conservative gun policy and mass shootings, for which rep scalise is personally at fault.

    first off, the jury's still out on whether that relationship even exists:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

    while you're free to believe that scalise caused his own shooting, that may not be the case. your writing implies that not only is it fully proven, he's personally at fault for not caring.

    and even IF all of that did happen to be the case, even IF there were a self-evident, fully proven cause-effect relationship between current gun policy and every mass shooting ever, when someone is in a hospital bed bleeding is not the time for a big fat "i told you so"

    JL

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Heck, Republicans are saying that now about their own people!

    "Their own people"????

    "What do you mean, 'you people'!?"
    -Robert Downey Jr, TROPIC THUNDER

    :D

    If our nation had a gun registry -- similar to our vehicle registry -- law enforcement would be able to identify houses where guns are present so that they can be removed when acts of domestic violence take place.

    The scumbag Democrat Shooter was never CONVICTED of any domestic violence...

    The shooter who shot up the Republican baseball team would have lost access to his firearms had these laws been in place.

    That's a supposition unsupported by facts...

    Requiring all gun purchases to have a back ground check conducted would also help.

    Uh.... That's already a law, Russ.. :^/

    Sadly, Trump just signed orders that revoked laws meant to make it harder for those with mental illnesses to obtain guns.

    Total bullshit..

    The orders Trump signed has SOLELY to do with someone who has trouble managing their finances...

    How does not being able to handle money indicate that a person can't handle a weapon??

    The Right's argument that we don't know whether any laws would actually help reduce the rate of gun violence might seem more genuine if they didn't block the CDC and other government agencies from conducting studies into the problem.

    So, you want a DISEASE center to analysis gun issues???

    Why not have the DMV regulate air travel?? :D

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Sorry to butt in on your conversation with Paula, but that is crap! Acknowledging that a victim had supported and defended the gun laws that allowed the shooter access to the gun that shot them is not blaming them!

    Acknowledging that a rape victim had worn a short skirt, no underwear and a low cut top that allowed the rapist to get so excited is not blaming the rape victim!

    :^/

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Well I'm glad we agree on the benefits of immigration :)

    We have NEVER disagreed on the benefits of LEGAL immigration.. :D

    However, illegal immigration is a problem our country faces.

    Well, I am glad we agree that illegal immigration IS a problem.. :D

    I'm fine spending money to protect our borders effectively. In no way am I advocating an open border policy (even though you frequently ascribe this to me - can you stop that please?).

    You supported NOT-45.. NOT-45 dreamed of Open Borders..

    So the inference IS logical.

    However, now that you have specifically stated that you DON'T want Open Borders, I'll refrain.. :D

    I think a border wall is an ineffective and very expensive way to spend the money we allocate to stopping illegal immigration.

    And yet, California cut illegal immigration by 92% when they built their wall...

    So, the facts clearly show that a border wall IS effective..

    If I thought it was going to be effective and cheap, I'd be metaphorically fist pumping with the most ardent at a Trump rally.

    You have an IDEOLOGICAL opposition to the wall.. A wall has PROVEN to be effective...

    So my question to you Michale, are you at the extreme end of thinking on this problem, i.e. if you are in the U.S. illegally you should be deported without taking any other considerations into account?

    No...

    You an NCIS fan?? We're catching up on season 14 and there was an episode that dealt with this specific topic.. :D

    But, regardless of bleeding heart reasons (which I DO share, under certain circumstances) the fact is that these people *ARE* criminals and every day that they stay in this country is a day that they are committing a crime...

    I DO believe a policy should be in place that would allow deserving people to 'get legal', but I also believe that it is unfair to the MILLIONS of people who got legal the legal way to just let the criminals skate...

    I would wager to say that we would probably agree on specific cases... But the overall attitude that these people ARE criminals and deserve to be punished probably makes me unique around here...

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    However, now that you have specifically stated that you DON'T want Open Borders, I'll refrain.. :D

    Probably... :D

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    But, regardless of bleeding heart reasons (which I DO share, under certain circumstances) the fact is that these people *ARE* criminals and every day that they stay in this country is a day that they are committing a crime...

    I DO believe a policy should be in place that would allow deserving people to 'get legal', but I also believe that it is unfair to the MILLIONS of people who got legal the legal way to just let the criminals skate...

    What IS clear is that turning a blind eye to their crimes is NOT the solution..

    It would be as if you had a summer home in FL and you return there after a long absence and found a family had moved into your home and took over your stuff, eating your food that you continue to pay for and using your utilities that you continue to pay for...

    Wouldn't you want them out?? Send them back where they came from??

    Or would you gladly live on the street and continue to pay their bills??

    That is the illegal immigrant issue in a nutshell.. They have broken into OUR house, and are using OUR stuff and eating OUR food and using OUR utilities and we continue to foot the bill...

    I am as magnanimous and compassionate as the next guy... And if I *CHOOSE* to foot the bill and pay the way for illegals, then I don't have a problem with it.. Because it's my CHOICE...

    But most Americans don't CHOOSE to pay the way of illegals.. They are FORCED to....

    And that's just not right.

    ESPECIALLY when there are Americans who need that aid and those food stamps and that medical care and those jobs...

    Again, there is NOTHING wrong with the American government looking after AMERICANS first....

    AMERICA FIRST....

    Whatta radical concept, eh?? :^/

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    After a shooter in Alexandria left House Majority Whip Steve Scalise in critical condition and wounded four other people, a longtime New Jersey Democratic political strategist responded by introducing the hashtags #HuntRepublicans and #HuntRepublicanCongressmen.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/16/nj-democratic-strategist-launches-huntrepublicans-and-huntrepublicancongressmen.html

    The "peaceful" and "tolerant" Democrat Party.... :^/

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Again, there is NOTHING wrong with the American government looking after AMERICANS first....

    AMERICA FIRST....

    there's something very wrong with it, and has been ever since the term was coined. but it's generally not used in the context of immigration.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/02/06/513240634/america-first-from-charles-lindbergh-to-president-trump

    the fact is that these people *ARE* criminals and every day that they stay in this country is a day that they are committing a crime...

    that is factually NOT the case. illegal entry is a crime; unlawful presence is not a crime. further, not all people who are here unlawfully entered illegally, and most of those who did enter illegally only committed that crime once.

    your OPINION may be that staying here illegally is LIKE committing the crime of entering illegally, but in FACT, they do not have the same legal status. for people who actually do care about facts, claiming that they are the same is inaccurate.

    JL

  87. [87] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    another fact: the statute of limitations for improper entry is five years, so those who entered illegally and have committed no other crime for five years are NOT criminals. the principle of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply only to the president and his campaign team.

    JL

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    there's something very wrong with it

    Agree to disagree... As a slogan, it has a bad rap...

    As a concept, it's dead on ballz accurate..

    that is factually NOT the case. illegal entry is a crime; unlawful presence is not a crime.

    A distinction w/o a different..

    If a person robs a bank, he is a criminal.. He doesn't stop being a criminal just because he doesn't rob a bank every day...

    Further, while it may not be a CRIMINAL matter, the fact is unlawful presence IS a violation of the law...

    So if you want to split semantical hairs, by all means..

    It still doesn't change reality...

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    another fact: the statute of limitations for improper entry is five years, so those who entered illegally and have committed no other crime for five years are NOT criminals.

    How are they living?? How are the eating?? If they are not criminals, how are they surviving??

    We can INFER that they are committing crimes to survive... Identity theft, public assistance fraud, etc etc...

    And inference is good enough for ya'all, right???

    the principle of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply only to the president and his campaign team.

    According to ya'all it doesn't even apply to them...

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    According to ya'all it doesn't even apply to them...

    OK... OK.... OK....

    According to MANY of ya'all it doesn't even apply to them...

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    Liberals Got Their Blood, Will It Be Enough?

    When I wrote two weeks ago about how liberals would not stop until someone got killed, I was hoping it was more of a warning than a prophecy. Unfortunately, it was not.

    But the actions and words of leftists in the wake of the attempted slaughter of Republican members of Congress –for the sin of not being Democrats – has done nothing to bring about the moment of reflection one might expect from people with blood on their hands.

    Thankfully, the only life lost was that of the progressive terrorist who sought to embody the attitude of the media and the Democratic Party. But no sooner had the echoes of the shots stopped reverberating than that attitude returned.

    Liberal journalists and activists took to their Twitter accounts to blame everything except the reality that their twisted fantasies came true.

    But it did come true. And all the editorials and proclamations in the world will not change that.

    Worst of all, the “paper of record,” the paper that sets the agenda for the mainstream media, the glorified birdcage liner that announced its new slogan this year to be “the truth is more important now than ever,” took the attempted mass murder as an opportunity to rewrite history for a second time this week.

    In the wake of a mass-political assassination attempt the Times ran an editorial entitled, “America’s Lethal Politics,” that attempted, once again, to blame Sarah Palin for the shooting that killed six and seriously wounded former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., in Tucson in 2011.

    The editorial board of the Times actually wrote, “In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear.”

    It was? Because it wasn’t all that clear once it was discovered Loughner was a mentally unstable George W. Bush-hater.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2017/06/18/liberals-got-their-blood-will-it-be-enough-n2342683

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    The scary thing about this Democrat's act of domestic terrorism is that Hodgkinson wasn't a nutjob or a fanatic..

    He was a mainstream Democrat who's FaceBook page read like a FaceBook page that any one of ya'all or any other run o the mill Democrat could have...

    Who is the next James T Hodgkinson???

  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK Michale, we agree that we have deserving and non-deserving illegals.

    You be the judge:

    Case 1: Say a kid was brought to the U.S. as a baby to live with her legal relatives (i.e. brought up by her aunt and uncle), and is now 18 and is a good student and has never committed a crime - deport or keep?

    Case 2: A man flew into Boston and got a job working in a bar and stayed over his visa. He has been here for five years now, still working in the bar and has committed no crimes - deport or keep?

    Case 3: An illegal couple have a kid in America, thus the kid is American. The kid proceeds to grow up to be a viscous crime boss who is responsible for multiple gruesome deaths, including many innocent Americans who are in the wrong place at the wrong time during his crime spree. His lawyer gets him off of all charges on a technicality - deport or keep?

  94. [94] 
    neilm wrote:

    Who is the next James T Hodgkinson???

    Who knows, but you want to make sure he is armed to the teeth and I'm recommending we think a bit more about that ;)

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:

    Who knows, but you want to make sure he is armed to the teeth and I'm recommending we think a bit more about that ;)

    No, I want to make sure that the person he or she tries to kill is armed....

    Why would ANYONE want to disarm potential victims??

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    Case 1: Say a kid was brought to the U.S. as a baby to live with her legal relatives (i.e. brought up by her aunt and uncle), and is now 18 and is a good student and has never committed a crime - deport or keep?

    Depends.. Has he taken steps to be legal???

    If not, he goes...

    Case 2: A man flew into Boston and got a job working in a bar and stayed over his visa. He has been here for five years now, still working in the bar and has committed no crimes - deport or keep?

    Same answer...

    Case 3: An illegal couple have a kid in America, thus the kid is American. The kid proceeds to grow up to be a viscous crime boss who is responsible for multiple gruesome deaths, including many innocent Americans who are in the wrong place at the wrong time during his crime spree. His lawyer gets him off of all charges on a technicality - deport or keep?

    Shoot him...

    "That wasn't such a chore, now was it!??"
    -Bill Murray, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    If a person is deportable but has taken steps to remedy their illegal situation and have a clean record, they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

    But if they are here illegally, there is a good chance they are committing crimes.. Identity theft, fraud, etc etc...

  98. [98] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So if you want to split semantical hairs, by all means..

    we agreed that i wouldn't bug you about stuff unless you specifically said something was a fact that wasn't. stop calling your opinions facts, and i'll stop bugging you about the fact that they aren't.

    JL

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why would ANYONE want to disarm potential victims??

    Well if nobody is armed there won't be a victim, will there?

  100. [100] 
    neilm wrote:

    But if they are here illegally, there is a good chance they are committing crimes.. Identity theft, fraud, etc etc...

    You say this despite ample evidence that undocumented people commit far fewer crimes than the general public.

    C'mon, you like judging, who do you keep and who do you deport?

    Or can't Judge Michale call the tough cases? Only the obvious ones - I agree that a proven identity theft criminal who came into the country illegally should be deported, and I suspect that most people do, but we'll get into the finer detail later, let's start with some simple cases (1, 2, and 3 above).

    What's your call Judge Michale?

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    BTW, your answer to #3 has just put you in jail for the rest of your life. Just give yes/no answers, stop being mealy mouthed.

    1. Yes/No
    2. Yes/No
    3. Yes/No

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    Well if nobody is armed there won't be a victim, will there?

    Let's ask the Brits...

    Let's ask the French...

    Let's ask the people in Chicago...

    Guns don't kill people anymore than knives kill people and cars kill people..

  103. [103] 
    michale wrote:

    You say this despite ample evidence that undocumented people commit far fewer crimes than the general public.

    As we have seen, it depends on how you define "crime"...

    BTW, your answer to #3 has just put you in jail for the rest of your life.

    Not really.. It got me a Good Citzenship Medal.. :D

    What's your call Judge Michale?

    I already called it.. Don't blame me if you don't like the calls.. :D

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    Guns don't kill people anymore than knives kill people and cars kill people..

    We aren't going into this again. Why can't you answer three simple yes/no questions?

  105. [105] 
    michale wrote:

    BTW, your answer to #3 has just put you in jail for the rest of your life. Just give yes/no answers, stop being mealy mouthed.

    They aren't YES NO questions... They are Deport Keep questions and even THAT isn't the type of questions you are.. Unless you want me to answer as the black/white slave to the law that you are railing against..

    But, if you insist..

    YES DEPORT

    YES DEPORT

    NO KEEP THEN SHOOT

  106. [106] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    How are they living?? How are the eating?? If they are not criminals, how are they surviving??

    mostly they work in cash businesses that don't require documentation to operate. employers with tight budgets are all too happy to exploit labor below minimum wage limits. i know this isn't news to you, it just doesn't support your opinion. most known facts don't, which is why your inference is inferior to other, better-supported inferences.

    JL

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, if you insist, then let's assume both #1 and #2 have applied for American citizenship, and #3 just became a dual citizen of his parents original country.

    Yes/No?

  108. [108] 
    neilm wrote:

    YES DEPORT

    YES DEPORT

    NO KEEP THEN SHOOT

    OK, so basically who do you want to allow to stay?

    And you are still going to jail for killing an innocent (in the eyes of the law) man.

  109. [109] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    NO KEEP THEN SHOOT

    i think you meant prosecute for capital murder (and deport his parents). have i guessed correctly?

    JL

  110. [110] 
    michale wrote:

    We aren't going into this again. Why can't you answer three simple yes/no questions?

    Because you went off on a tangent from the questions and insisted on disarming people and leave them to the mercy of the evil Democrat terrorists...

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    i think you meant prosecute for capital murder (and deport his parents). have i guessed correctly?

    According to Neil, there already was a prosecution and the scumbag got off on a technicality..

    So, my original answer stands..

    But yes.. By all means, deport the parents...

  112. [112] 
    neilm wrote:

    Let's stop the extra judicial killing as an answer. Here are a couple more cases:

    Case 4: A 18 year old man just got American citizenship and the next day went on a crime spree resulting in the deaths of multiple innocent victims. His lawyer gets him off most charges on a technicality and he only serves 6 months for "the most vicious crime of the century". Do you deport him?

    Case 5: A 18 year old man got American citizenship at birth because his parents came illegally to America just to have him on American soil. He flunks school, has run ins with the law all his life then goes on a crime spree resulting in the deaths of multiple innocent victims. His lawyer gets him off most charges on a technicality and he only serves 6 months for "the most vicious crime of the century". Do you deport him?

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    OK, so basically who do you want to allow to stay?

    Oh, so NOW you want explanations for my answers?? :D

    And you are still going to jail for killing an innocent (in the eyes of the law) man.

    Nope, it was self-defense.. I looked at the scumbag cross-eyed and he came at me so I shot him...

    :D

    I like this game..

  114. [114] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you deport him?

    Let's make the question: Do you rescind his American citizenship then deport him?

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    Let's stop the extra judicial killing as an answer.

    Killjoy.....

    Case 4: A 18 year old man just got American citizenship and the next day went on a crime spree resulting in the deaths of multiple innocent victims. His lawyer gets him off most charges on a technicality and he only serves 6 months for "the most vicious crime of the century". Do you deport him?

    The first part of your first sentence answered your question...

    If I can't explain my answers.... HE STAYS

    And then I shoot him...

    Why do you insist on asking irrelevant questions..

    If the person is a citizen, then he or she cannot get deported...

    They can be shot by a masked vigilante...

    But they can't be deported..

    Are you trying to make the point that sometimes, life isn't fair??? That sometimes, life is a downright pain in the ass???

    No need..

    We agree on THAT point as well...

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    Let's make the question: Do you rescind his American citizenship then deport him?

    If it's legally possible, then yes, I would advocate that..

    If I can deport him, I promise not to shoot him..

  117. [117] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nope, it was self-defense.. I looked at the scumbag cross-eyed and he came at me so I shot him...

    So you personally would shoot the hypothetical example?

    OK, and I'm going to be very careful with my words here, because I do NOT advocate any murder, regardless of how much you like fantasizing.

    There are a lot of people who fall into case #3 above walking freely around America at the moment. I'm not going to identify any because I don't want to be accused of selecting a target. However you have done nothing about these people (AND SHOULD NOT), so it sort of eviscerates your argument. Let's stick to reality.

  118. [118] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, so you like the idea of stripping Americans of their citizenship under certain circumstances. In one case we go back a day, in the other 18 years.

    What is the length of time that somebody can have American citizenship and not be deported?

    One generation (as in the case above). Two generations? Three?

  119. [119] 
    michale wrote:

    So you personally would shoot the hypothetical example?

    Which hypothetical?? Yours or mine??

    There are a lot of people who fall into case #3 above walking freely around America at the moment. I'm not going to identify any because I don't want to be accused of selecting a target. However you have done nothing about these people (AND SHOULD NOT), so it sort of eviscerates your argument.

    I am not making an argument. You won't let me...

    OK, so you like the idea of stripping Americans of their citizenship under certain circumstances.

    Yes..

    What is the length of time that somebody can have American citizenship and not be deported?

    No...

    One generation (as in the case above). Two generations? Three?

    Yes...

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    OK OK, I am just having fun.... :D

    I am not a real big fan of the Socratic Method...

    Can you just get to the point you are trying to make without any GOTCHA questions???

  121. [121] 
    neilm wrote:

    Here is another case for Judge Michale:

    Case 6: Two families illegally come into the U.S. and each has a kid - a boy and a girl. The parents are deported and take the American kids home. The American kids meet up later and have a boy, Adam, who is now a second generation American citizen, even though Adam nor his parents have spent more than a month total in America.

    Adam comes to the U.S. and goes on a murderous killing spree but only serves six months on a technicality.

    Do you strip Adam of his citizenship?

  122. [122] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    We can INFER that they are committing crimes to survive... Identity theft, public assistance fraud, etc etc...

    that inference is not merited factually. the vast majority of the undocumented find ways to survive without committing crimes. and even among the small percentage that DO stray from the straight and narrow, VERY few are crimes against people or property.

    JL

  123. [123] 
    michale wrote:

    Basically, you are wanting ABSOLUTE answers in a situation that is ANYTHING but absolute...

    My answers would depend considerably of the circumstances of the cases....

    AS THEY SHOULD BE...

  124. [124] 
    neilm wrote:

    Can you just get to the point you are trying to make without any GOTCHA questions???

    My point is that you claimed that you would not summarily deport anybody, but so far you have deported everybody, and now you are into the "stripping Americans of their lawful citizenship" arena.

    I'm working to the point where is you committed a heinous crime, would you advocate for yourself to be stripped of your citizenship.

  125. [125] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    of course, it's only my opinion that under 1% is a small percentage. cato institute has the facts:

    https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-myths-crime-number-illegal-immigrants

  126. [126] 
    neilm wrote:

    My point is that you claimed that you would not summarily deport anybody

    "anybody" should read "everybody" - my bad.

  127. [127] 
    michale wrote:

    that inference is not merited factually.

    It's as merited factually as ya'all's are...

    the vast majority of the undocumented find ways to survive without committing crimes.

    Yea?? Prove it...

    and even among the small percentage that DO stray from the straight and narrow, VERY few are crimes against people or property.

    I am sure that is a great comfort to the parents of Kathleen Steinle and all the other loved ones who have lost family and friends to illegal immigrant crime...

  128. [128] 
    neilm wrote:

    Basically, you are wanting ABSOLUTE answers in a situation that is ANYTHING but absolute...

    There only are two answers - deport or keep - am I missing some other option for these people? Do we put them in Florida as some sort of half-way-to-Latin-America option? Or Boston for the Irish? Or West Virginia for the Scottish?

    Exactly what non-absolute answer (i.e. deport or keep?) do you advocate. And before you start talking about detention, remember your primary complaint - that these people are living off American taxpayers - how would detention be anything but the most expensive way for American taxpayers to address the situation?

  129. [129] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Basically, you are wanting ABSOLUTE answers in a situation that is ANYTHING but absolute...

    how is that different from referring to an entire class of 11 million people as criminals, when most are not. is that label not an absolute answer? is it not prejudicial to situations that you yourself acknowledge are anything BUT absolute?

    JL

  130. [130] 
    michale wrote:

    What does me wanting to or not wanting to strip naturalized Americans of their citzenship have to do with illegal immigrants??

    Regardless of that, there are many ways that a naturalized citizen can have their citizenship revoked.. LEGALLY..

    LEGALLY you can't strip a natural born American of their citzenship...

    Can we please talk about apples and quite trying to bring Eskimos into the discussion...

    And no.. I would not strip Eskimos of their citizenship...

  131. [131] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, case #6 - do we let Adam wander around America free after he serves his six months?

    What is your answer:

    A: Keep or
    B: Strip a second generation American of his citizenship and deport?

  132. [132] 
    michale wrote:

    There only are two answers - deport or keep - am I missing some other option for these people?

    Am I allowed to expand on my answers now???

  133. [133] 
    michale wrote:

    What is your answer:

    A: Keep or
    B: Strip a second generation American of his citizenship and deport?

    What part of NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CANNOT BE STRIPPED OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP do you not understand???

  134. [134] 
    neilm wrote:

    Am I allowed to expand on my answers now???

    Sure - what are your criteria to decide who stays and who goes?

  135. [135] 
    michale wrote:

    how is that different from referring to an entire class of 11 million people as criminals, when most are not.

    Provide your FACTS that *prove* most of those 11 million people did not illegally enter the US...

    Once you answer that, I'll think about the rest of your question...

  136. [136] 
    neilm wrote:

    What is a "natural born American"?

  137. [137] 
    michale wrote:

    Sure - what are your criteria to decide who stays and who goes?

    Depends on the specific cases.. Which I have already said... Back when you were ignoring everything but YES OR NO answers..

  138. [138] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I am sure that is a great comfort to the parents of Kathleen Steinle and all the other loved ones who have lost family and friends to illegal immigrant crime...

    as i've pointed out before, this logical fallacy is the anecdotal. just as one smoker who lives to a hundred doesn't mean smoking doesn't kill people, one victim of one violent crime does not equal a trend.

    for every kathleen steinle there are five srinivas kuchibhotlas. who protects the legal immigrants who are victims of anti-immigrant fervor stirred up by fallacies such as generalizing the kathleen steinle anecdote?

    JL

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:
  140. [140] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Should we deport U.S. Marines who have served for our country and been awarded medals for bravery who stay in the country after they are honorably discharged?

  141. [141] 
    michale wrote:

    as i've pointed out before, this logical fallacy is the anecdotal. just as one smoker who lives to a hundred doesn't mean smoking doesn't kill people, one victim of one violent crime does not equal a trend.

    And THAT is also a great comfort to those who have lost friends and family to smoking...

    My point is that there are more considerations then simple statistics..

    "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."
    -Mark Twain

    for every kathleen steinle there are five srinivas kuchibhotlas. who protects the legal immigrants who are victims of anti-immigrant fervor stirred up by fallacies such as generalizing the kathleen steinle anecdote?

    And the relevance to our discussion is....??? What exactly??

  142. [142] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Provide your FACTS that *prove* most of those 11 million people did not illegally enter the US...

    so we're back to "guilty until proven innocent?" if you're going to apply it to 11 million undocumented, i get to apply it to the trump administration.

    JL

  143. [143] 
    michale wrote:

    Should we deport U.S. Marines who have served for our country and been awarded medals for bravery who stay in the country after they are honorably discharged?

    Of course not...

    Naturalization Through Military Service: Fact Sheet
    Special provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorize U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to expedite the application and naturalization process for current members of the U.S. armed forces and veterans. Generally, qualifying military service includes service with one of the following: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and National Guard. In addition, spouses of members of the U.S. armed forces who are or will be deployed may be eligible for expedited naturalization. Other provisions of the law also allow certain spouses to complete the naturalization process abroad.

    https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/naturalization-through-military-service-fact-sheet

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    so we're back to "guilty until proven innocent?" if you're going to apply it to 11 million undocumented, i get to apply it to the trump administration.

    You already do...

    I am simply following yer lead...

    But in MY case, the inference is a LOT stronger than anything you have... :D

  145. [145] 
    michale wrote:

    so we're back to "guilty until proven innocent?" if you're going to apply it to 11 million undocumented, i get to apply it to the trump administration.

    Further, I am simply asking you to PROVE your statement that MOST of the 11 million illegals have committed no crime...

  146. [146] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    your inference is garbage and you know it. here's the data:

    https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-myths-crime-number-illegal-immigrants

    JL

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    That's just a useless stat that DOESN'T include the crime of illegal entry...

    My inference is based on the FACT that the group is classified as ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS...

    Therefore the INFERENCE that the 11 million *HAVE* committed a crime is strong...

    A *LOT* stronger then your claim that "most" have committed no crime...

  148. [148] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    in case anyone has trouble finding and following a link, here's the full study:

    https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-reform-bulletin/criminal-immigrants-their-numbers-demographics-countries#full

  149. [149] 
    neilm wrote:
  150. [150] 
    neilm wrote:

    Therefore the INFERENCE that the 11 million *HAVE* committed a crime is strong...

    Can a one month old baby commit a crime?

  151. [151] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil

    Is it just me, or was all that talk about killing people coming from someone trying to spin a narrative about violence from the other side of the aisle a little weird?

    nypoet
    106

    I'm not sure if that is true or not.
    We know many illegals work in cash businesses, but I'm not sure if "most" is accurate.
    Do you have a source to share?

    We know that illegals contribute billions to Social Security and Medicare every year because of deductions from their paychecks... earned benefits they can never collect... so, obviously many are not being paid in cash... but I've never seen a breakout by percentage.

    A

  152. [152] 
    michale wrote:

    Can a one month old baby commit a crime?

    Is Joshua talking about 7.7 million 1 month old babies??

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    I'm not sure if that is true or not.
    We know many illegals work in cash businesses, but I'm not sure if "most" is accurate.
    Do you have a source to share?

    That's what *I* am trying to determine..

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    Is it just me, or was all that talk about killing people coming from someone trying to spin a narrative about violence from the other side of the aisle a little weird?

    There is nothing wrong with properly applied violence...

    The problem is that Democrats want to apply violence to Republicans *SOLELY* based on political disagreements.

    I understand that ..er... "MOST"... of the Left doesn't see this as a "problem", but rather as a solution...

    THAT is the problem..

  155. [155] 
    neilm wrote:

    Is it just me, or was all that talk about killing people coming from someone trying to spin a narrative about violence from the other side of the aisle a little weird?

    Good point - looks like random murder is OK, and even fun, if it is somebody Michale doesn't like.

    It is like Fox News, who have been spewing hatred for decades, suddenly condemning media that spews opposite hatred.

    Just another bunch of dumb fucks we have to live with I suppose. I wich they'd all deport themselves.

  156. [156] 
    michale wrote:

    We know that illegals contribute billions to Social Security and Medicare every year because of deductions from their paychecks... earned benefits they can never collect...

    And WHY can't they collect these earned benefits??

    Because they committed the crime to earn those benefits...

  157. [157] 
    michale wrote:

    looks like random murder is OK,

    If we were talking about "random murder" you would have a point.. But we're not, so you don't..

    It is like Fox News, who have been spewing hatred for decades, suddenly condemning media that spews opposite hatred.

    Or just like Democrats who claim "love" and "peace" and "tolerance" for decades then turn around and start gunning down Republicans and making #HuntRepublicans hashtags...

    Just another bunch of dumb fucks we have to live with I suppose. I wich they'd all deport themselves.

    I COMPLETELY agree... :D

  158. [158] 
    michale wrote:

    It is like Fox News, who have been spewing hatred for decades, suddenly condemning media that spews opposite hatred.

    Or just like Democrats who claim "love" and "peace" and "tolerance" for decades then turn around and start gunning down Republicans and making #HuntRepublicans hashtags...

    "Touche'" ;^)

    I know you won't concede it, so allow me to help ya out... :D

  159. [159] 
    michale wrote:
  160. [160] 
    altohone wrote:

    154

    "There is nothing wrong with properly applied violence..."

    Your examples above don't amount to "properly applied violence" or comport with the rule of law, and more broadly you support extreme violence up to and including war crimes.

    That may have something to do with the ineffectiveness of the right wing narrative about dangerous lefties... though the Shakespeare and bad comedians examples certainly don't help.

    153

    I was referring to the Americans and corporations who hire illegals as housekeepers, meat packers, construction workers, farm workers, etc. and pay by check, not cash.

    I'm guessing you wanted me to be referring to something else.

    156

    Ah yes.
    Illegals committing the crime of paying taxes for benefits they can't collect. How dare they!

    A

  161. [161] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    155

    There you go being a killjoy again :)

    I thought that choice of terminology was rather apt for the discussion... though disturbing given the context.

    A

  162. [162] 
    Paula wrote:

    JL: and even IF all of that did happen to be the case, even IF there were a self-evident, fully proven cause-effect relationship between current gun policy and every mass shooting ever, when someone is in a hospital bed bleeding is not the time for a big fat "i told you so"

    It's exactly the time. It's the precise moment, while attention is on the topic, and while the drama is unfolding. This entire episode should be seared into the cores of every guns-without-limits supporter in America. And every one of them should have to say to themselves one of two things: my unrestricted access to guns IS more important than the lives of innocent people, even those of people who agree with me, OR my unrestricted access to guns is NOT more important than the lives of innocent people. The former should have to make the choice consciously, in full knowledge of the price their beliefs forces on others. The latter should join other gun-owners who favor reasonable restrictions, background checking, statistics gathering and all the rest.

    On a personal level I'm writing comments he'll never see. I'm not going to his hospital room or calling up his wife. I'm not hassling him on Twitter. I'm just not willing to canonize the guy for getting shot, when he's spent his public life encouraging people to arm up, and persuading them to think any reasonable checks on gun ownership, etc., is unacceptable.

    The terrible experience he is undergoing is one many Americans have shared. He has power they don't to do something about it. Maybe he will in the future, which would certainly be a redemption.

  163. [163] 
    neilm wrote:

    OPINION: If Rod Rosenstein recuses himself, Robert Mueller may be next

    Wow, the right wing have a bad case of squeaky bum time over Mueller.

    Can I just remind them that Mueller is a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican Asst AG in a Republican administration.

    Bloody hilarious.

  164. [164] 
    neilm wrote:

    And every one of them should have to say to themselves one of two things: my unrestricted access to guns IS more important than the lives of innocent people, even those of people who agree with me, OR my unrestricted access to guns is NOT more important than the lives of innocent people.

    I think we need to see the shattered bodies of the victims. I understand the need to protect the identity and privacy of the families, but if there had been crime scene pictures from Sandy Hook that showed the real impact of bullets on small bodies perhaps people who think gun ownership is like a Hollywood movie might grow up.

  165. [165] 
    neilm wrote:
  166. [166] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    if there had been crime scene pictures from Sandy Hook that showed the real impact of bullets on small bodies perhaps people who think gun ownership is like a Hollywood movie might grow up.

    Alex Jones, for instance, who can't seem to discern the difference. I'm sure holocaust deniers would be more numerous too, if it weren't for all that pesky documentary evidence.

  167. [167] 
    neilm wrote:

    Alex Jones, and some of the other creeps who make a lot of money from peddling conspiracy theories on a daily basis (Rush Limbaugh falls into this category) remains a mystery to me. Is the whole thing an act that gullible people fall for, or does he actually believe the nonsense he spouts.

    Jones claimed he is a "performance artist" in his divorce when his show was brought up regarding his abilities as a parent. Limbaugh regularly hides behind "it was a joke, can't you tell" to get himself off the hook.

    If these people really are just saying things to get an audience to sell to they are below pond scum. And if they actually believe it, they need to see a man in a white coat and a secure padded cell for a while ... say a couple of decades.

  168. [168] 
    neilm wrote:

    In Jon Ronson's book "Them" Ronson and Alex Jones sneak into the Bohemian Club annual event near Occidental, CA. Ronson presents Jones as a deeply suspicious person.

    Jones probably started with some slightly out there conspiracies (a secret cabal who rule the World and meet at Hotels and Campgrounds on an annual basis, with child sacrifices mixed in with other nefarious activities). Once he realized he could get a bunch of suckers to pay him, he probably just went off the deep end, probably surprised himself that he could get people to believe just about anything.

    "Them" is a good book if you haven't read it. I'm a bit of a Ronson fan (he is the "Men Staring at Goats" guy).

  169. [169] 
    michale wrote:

    Your examples above don't amount to "properly applied violence" or comport with the rule of law, and more broadly you support extreme violence up to and including war crimes.

    "Properly" is subjective in the extreme

    Given Neil's ridiculous fantasy scenario, my application of violence was extremely proper, especially since the murders that Neil's scumbag committed was my entire family...

    Illegals committing the crime of paying taxes for benefits they can't collect.

    No, illegals using identity theft to get the jobs in the first place...

  170. [170] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil

    To answer your scenarios in absolute terms..

    If an illegal immigrant hasn't committed any crimes and has made a sincere effort to get legal, then he or she should be allowed to stay to continue those efforts..

    If an illegal immigrant hasn't made any effort to get legal and is continuing to violate the law by staying in the US illegally, then they should be deported..

    It's really that simple...

  171. [171] 
    michale wrote:

    I think we need to see the shattered bodies of the victims.

    So, basically ya'all want to traumatize an innocent family and victimize them all over again, just to further the Left's anti-gun agenda...

    :^/

    Let me lay it out for ya'all succinctly...

    Any anti-gun law that CAN pass under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment HAS been passed...

    No anti-gun laws proposed by the hysterical Left Wingery short of a complete BAN would not have had ANY effect on any of the crowd-based mass shootings of the last 20 years...

    Even if ya'all COULD achieve a complete ban there is plenty of evidence that overly restrictive gun laws do NOT work... Chicago has proven that beyond ANY doubt...

    Since I know ya'all just BOW down to and revere statistics, statistics prove that in crowd-based mass shootings were a potential victim is armed, the death count is considerably lower than a completely unarmed crowd..

    This is fact...

    Repeal the 2nd Amendment.. THEN you can have your gun ban..

    Once again, it's that simple...

  172. [172] 
    michale wrote:

    You have to wonder how liberals think this works. So, a manifestly conflicted special counsel leading a pack of maxed-out Democrat donors decides Donald Trump has to be kicked out of office for “obstructing justice” regarding a cynical lie about him cavorting with the Kremlin and…then what? President Pence, until they do the same thing to him? Or do we just skip right to President Felonia von Pantsuit, shrug our shoulders, and give up on our foolish dream of having a say in our own governance?

    Straightforward from here is…chaos.

    Because normal Americans are woke to the scam. No, the affidavits of a zillion DC/NY establishment types attesting to Robert Mueller’s impeccable integrity – ever notice how the guy trying to hose us always has the establishment’s “impeccable integrity” merit badge – are not going to make us unsee the fact that he’s carrying water for an establishment that thinks we need to just shut up and obey.

    Now, pulling off the soft coup is going to be harder than they think. The establishment has not thought this out. They sort of assume that if they squelch Trump then everything somehow just goes back to them being in unchallenged control. Wrong.

    Mueller can’t indict Trump – that stupid Constitution, always getting in the way! No, the goal is for Mueller and his crack team of committed liberal activist lawyers to generate some head-shaking, tsk-tsk, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger, report claiming Trump “obstructed” the probe into Hillary’s Trump/Russia collusion lie that even the liberals reluctantly acknowledge never happened.

    But their problem is that impeachment is a purely political act – this isn’t going to get tried before some leftist DC judge and a 96% Democrat DC jury. No, they have to convince the Republican members of the House of Representatives to impeach and, well, have you taken a look at a political map of the US lately? It’s as red as a baseball field full of conservatives after a Bernie Bro shows up with a rifle.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/06/19/if-the-left-wins-their-soft-coup-everyone-losesbut-mostly-them-n2342884

    Word.......

  173. [173] 
    michale wrote:

    Here’s how this goes: If you end the rule of law, you begin the rule of power, and the rule of power means the folks with the most guns rule. Do they think the predominantly red state soldiers of our military are going to murder other Americans and risk their own lives to secure the unearned power of a bunch of Chardonnay-swilling liberals and their fakecon lackeys?

    Word x10

  174. [174] 
    michale wrote:

    If you end the rule of law, you begin the rule of power, and the rule of power means the folks with the most guns rule.

    The entirety of the hysterical Wingery should have that tattooed on themselves where they can read it every day...

    If the Left overturns a free, fair, legitimate and legal election, there will be hell to pay...

    Ya'all can take that to the bank...

  175. [175] 
    michale wrote:
  176. [176] 
    michale wrote:

    Never in the history of the republic have there been so many legislative and political simultaneous efforts to 1) sabotage the Electoral College, 2) sue to overturn the presidential vote in key swing states, 3) boycott the Inauguration, 4) systematically block presidential appointments, 5) surveille, unmask, and leak classified or privileged information about the elected president, 6) nullify federal law at the state and local level, 7) sue to remove the president by invoking the Emoluments Clause, 8) declare Trump unfit under the 25th Amendments, 9) demand recusals from his top aides, 10) cherry-pick sympathetic judges to block presidential executive orders, 11) have a prior administration’s residual appointees subvert their successor, and 12) promise impending impeachment.

    When you end the rule of law, the rule of power replaces it...

    And in the rule of power, the group with the most guns rule...

    Even if you ignore all the 2nd Amendmentors out there, the military and the police are decidedly pro-President Trump...

    Does the Left *REALLY* want to take on three VERY LARGE groups of well-armed and well-trained Americans??

  177. [177] 
    michale wrote:

    The Trump administration should insist that all universities and colleges that receive federal funds guarantee to their students First Amendment protections of free speech, due process, civil rights, and the right to assemble peacefully. If they cannot or will not comply with the Bill of Rights, then campuses should come under review of their funding from Washington.

    Moreover, anyone who makes a direct threat or clear allusion to killing the president of the United States should be put on a terrorist no-fly list for six months, an act that can be done without a formal indictment and trial. If revving up a crowd in Washington by yelling out a personal wish to blow up the White House and its occupants, or holding up a facsimile of the decapitated head of the president to galvanize a video audience does not constitute enough suspicion to take a breather from flying, then nothing much else does. If Madonna had to take a slow freighter back to London, then she might curb her macabre enthusiasm at her next rally.

    The only way that the Resistance can be halted is to insist that its efforts remain lawful. If they are not, perpetrators must be held accountable.

    https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/19/trumps-way-progressive-labyrinth/

    Yes!! Yes!! A thousand times, yes!!!

  178. [178] 
    neilm wrote:

    If an illegal immigrant hasn't committed any crimes and has made a sincere effort to get legal, then he or she should be allowed to stay to continue those efforts..

    If an illegal immigrant hasn't made any effort to get legal and is continuing to violate the law by staying in the US illegally, then they should be deported..

    It's really that simple...

    So if a kid is brought as a baby to the U.S. and is not 15 years old and has no idea that s/he is illegal so doesn't make "a sincere effort to get legal", out they go, but a mass murderer who is in the INS process gets to stay.

    Thanks for clarifying that Michale.

  179. [179] 
    michale wrote:

    So if a kid is brought as a baby to the U.S. and is not 15 years old and has no idea that s/he is illegal so doesn't make "a sincere effort to get legal", out they go, but a mass murderer who is in the INS process gets to stay.

    If I had said that, you would have a valid point...

    But I didn't, so you don't...

  180. [180] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    [169-170] it's an extreme scenario, but your response would still be manslaughter.

    it doesn't require identity theft for an illegal to pay and file taxes. the IRS gives tax identification numbers to anybody who doesn't have a SSN - they don't check immigration status. you have established two nominally valid categories, but made an incorrect blanket assumption about which category fits most individuals who are unlawfully present in the US. as i provided above, cato research

    [171] the data are inconclusive on the effectiveness of stronger regulation in preventing gun crimes. i guess what many here don't understand is that showing all those gruesome photos will galvanize righties to be EVEN MORE committed to arming as much as possible of the law-abiding population. they genuinely believe that more weapons will keep the public safer. to me that doesn't make much sense, but objectively i must acknowledge that the data so far are inconclusive.

    [172-177] what a load of moose poop. donald's wounds are mostly self-inflicted; blaming them all on wild-eyed lefties in the bowels of government or on late-night television is just plain inaccurate. even donald's most fervent supporters (including mccarthy who you referenced a couple days back) acknowledge that he and his own chosen staff have contributed significantly to his own problems.

    Oh, come and see the violence inherent in this system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
    ~monty python and the holy grail

  181. [181] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Does the Left *REALLY* want to take on three VERY LARGE groups of well-armed and well-trained Americans??

    Yee Haw! An armed rebellion! Why, makes you wanna run downstairs and clean out the ol' shotgun, just in case one of them liberturds comes looking to take it away with their black helicopters!

    Nothin' like sprinking a bit of fantasy treason on your breakfast to wake you up, eh?

    Great way to distract from the giant nothingburger being produced by the party in control of all three branches of government.

  182. [182] 
    neilm wrote:

    Does the Left *REALLY* want to take on three VERY LARGE groups of well-armed and well-trained Americans??

    No, we have the military to kill traitors, and the police to lock away any survivors. Your team tried that in the 1860's and just haven't accepted that you live in the United States of America.

  183. [183] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    [169-170] it's an extreme scenario,

    No more "extreme" than Neil's scenarios.. :D

    but your response would still be manslaughter.

    Maybe.. Maybe not...

    But it would be proper...

    t doesn't require identity theft for an illegal to pay and file taxes. the IRS gives tax identification numbers to anybody who doesn't have a SSN - they don't check immigration status. you have established two nominally valid categories, but made an incorrect blanket assumption about which category fits most individuals who are unlawfully present in the US. as i provided above, cato research

    And if illegals availed themselves of that, you would have a point..

    But since "most" illegals just use someone else's SSN, it's identity theft..

    AND a crime...

    [171] the data are inconclusive on the effectiveness of stronger regulation in preventing gun crimes. i guess what many here don't understand is that showing all those gruesome photos will galvanize righties to be EVEN MORE committed to arming as much as possible of the law-abiding population. they genuinely believe that more weapons will keep the public safer. to me that doesn't make much sense, but objectively i must acknowledge that the data so far are inconclusive.

    Or.. More accurately, you don't WANT to believe what the data is showing you conclusively...

    [172-177] what a load of moose poop. donald's wounds are mostly self-inflicted; blaming them all on wild-eyed lefties in the bowels of government or on late-night television is just plain inaccurate. even donald's most fervent supporters (including mccarthy who you referenced a couple days back) acknowledge that he and his own chosen staff have contributed significantly to his own problems.

    I'll acknowledge that President Trump has contributed to his problems..

    But if the Left wasn't hysterical about bringing Trump down, it would not have seized on ridiculous accusation..

    Cofevve??? Really???

  184. [184] 
    michale wrote:

    Great way to distract from the giant nothingburger being produced by the party in control of all three branches of government.

    As opposed to ya'all's nothingburger of Russia collusion, eh???

  185. [185] 
    michale wrote:

    No, we have the military to kill traitors, and the police to lock away any survivors. Your team tried that in the 1860's and just haven't accepted that you live in the United States of America.

    Then the Left should start ACTING like it... Instead of cowardly shooting unarmed Americans, *SOLELY* because they are Republicans...

    How do you like your Left Wing now???

  186. [186] 
    michale wrote:

    And yes.. Hodgkinson is your Left Wing now...

  187. [187] 
    michale wrote:

    Matter of fact, Hodgkinson is a PERFECT example of the Left Wing in the here and now....

  188. [188] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if illegals availed themselves of that, you would have a point.. But since "most" illegals just use someone else's SSN, it's identity theft..

    that is incorrect. read the research i provided. between 83% and 93% of those unlawfully present have done nothing else illegal.

    Or.. More accurately, you don't WANT to believe what the data is showing you conclusively...

    also incorrect. factcheck.org did a fairly exhaustive review of the studies on both sides of the issue, and found that nothing conclusive exists. correlation data actually connects stronger regulation with fewer gun deaths, while right wing generalizations based on outliers like chicago don't stand up to scrutiny. there's no causal relationship established.

    But if the Left wasn't hysterical about bringing Trump down, it would not have seized on ridiculous accusation..

    hysterical partisans trying to bring down their opponents is where we've been as a country for the past thirty plus years. the main difference between past presidents and the current president is that he's really going out of his way to help his opponents try to bring him down.

    JL

  189. [189] 
    altohone wrote:

    169

    No, actually, "properly" in your discussion with neil revolves around the rule of law, and you were advocating murder in an act of vigilantism... blatant criminality.

    Of course, you also defend war crimes and advocate for torture, so your idea of "proper" violence is inherently psychopathic... so, once again, your narrative remains false and your hypocrisy staggering.

    A

  190. [190] 
    michale wrote:

    that is incorrect. read the research i provided. between 83% and 93% of those unlawfully present have done nothing else illegal.

    That's the claim...

    Unsupported by any facts..

    Do you honestly believe that illegals will say anything BUT, "Oh yea.. I never committed ANY crimes!!!"

    factcheck.org

    Left Wing rag...

    Yea, ad hominem fallacy.. Doesn't change the fact that FactCheck's Left Wing bias is well documented..

    hysterical partisans trying to bring down their opponents is where we've been as a country for the past thirty plus years.

    Yea, but the Left's never escalated it to a shooting war...

    the main difference between past presidents and the current president is that he's really going out of his way to help his opponents try to bring him down.

    That's an opinion...

  191. [191] 
    michale wrote:

    No, actually, "properly" in your discussion with neil revolves around the rule of law, and you were advocating murder in an act of vigilantism... blatant criminality.

    The "rule of law" failed...

    Ergo, sterner measures are deemed proper by those most aggrieved...

    Of course, you also defend war crimes and advocate for torture, so your idea of "proper" violence is inherently psychopathic... so, once again, your narrative remains false and your hypocrisy staggering.

    Your opinion is noted, but it's the opinion of a bleeding heart commie, so it doesn't mean much.. :D

  192. [192] 
    michale wrote:

    Yea, but the Left's never escalated it to a shooting war...

    Until now.....

  193. [193] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    180

    It may be worth adding that the cases of identity theft by people trying to work are rather different than what most people think of as identity theft... and it is frequently the employers who facilitate the fraud.

    For some reason, these discussions tend to ignore the more serious criminality of those who create the demand, who knowingly file falsified forms, who reap the majority of the financial benefits, and who do so at the expense of American workers.

    A

  194. [194] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Matter of fact, Hodgkinson is a PERFECT example of the Left Wing [is] in the here and now...

    Pro-gun and over 60?

  195. [195] 
    michale wrote:

    Russia to treat US jets in Syria as 'targets' after America guns down first regime warplane
    Communication channel between Washington and Moscow to be suspended immediately

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-shoot-down-all-flying-objects-in-syria-us-regime-warplane-isis-terror-a7797101.html

    But... But... But...

    Putin and Trump are BFF and Trump is working FOR Russia..

    We know it's true because Left Wing MORONS says it's true!!!

    {/sarcasm}

    Don't ya'all EVER get tired of being wrong???

  196. [196] 
    michale wrote:

    It may be worth adding that the cases of identity theft by people trying to work are rather different than what most people think of as identity theft... and it is frequently the employers who facilitate the fraud.

    Yea... It's not a REAL crime when illegal immigrants do it..

    :^/

  197. [197] 
    michale wrote:

    Matter of fact, Hodgkinson is a PERFECT example of the Left Wing [is] in the here and now...

    Pro-gun and over 60?

    Hysterically anti-Trump...

  198. [198] 
    altohone wrote:

    191

    "The "rule of law" failed"

    Almost every violent criminal creates rationalizations.
    Yours is pathetic given the nature of the discussion.
    By your "reasoning", every cop that shoots an innocent person, every politician and general who wages illegal war, and every bankster on Wall Street can be justifiably dealt with by vigilantes... not to mention the countless other examples.
    Your position is in direct contradiction to the idea of the rule of law, and particularly disturbing for a former LEO who should know better.

    Falsely calling me a "commie" in a pathetic attempt to defend your psychopathically criminal support for mass murder and torture probably makes sense to you.
    Rather than debate, you simply lie in order to dodge the discussion. At least you are consistently ethically depraved.

    A

  199. [199] 
    altohone wrote:

    196

    Another straw man argument from the ethically depraved trumpling.

    A

  200. [200] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That's the claim...
    Unsupported by any facts..
    Do you honestly believe that illegals will say anything BUT, "Oh yea.. I never committed ANY crimes!!!"

    this comment is evidence you did not read the cato institute research. it IS supported by facts collected by the researchers, and is NOT a survey of the undocumented asking them whether or not they committed crimes. since the products of your own imagination are being substituted for reading the research, it's unsurprising that your conclusions end up being completely wrong.

    Yea... It's not a REAL crime when illegal immigrants do it..

    it's still a real crime, but extenuating circumstances matter. stealing a loaf of bread to prevent your kids from starving isn't the same as robbing a bank to buy a porsche.

    JL

  201. [201] 
    michale wrote:

    Altohone,

    It's hilarious how you whine and cry that I call you names and then turn around and call me names... :D

    The difference is I don't whine and cry.. I just laugh my ass off...

    :D

  202. [202] 
    michale wrote:

    his comment is evidence you did not read the cato institute research.

    It's self serving Left Wing garbage, designed to justify the unjustifiable..

    Why would I waste my time??

    t's still a real crime, but extenuating circumstances matter.

    ONLY when it suits the hysterical Left Wing agenda...

  203. [203] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone [193]:

    For some reason, these discussions tend to ignore the more serious criminality of those who create the demand, who knowingly file falsified forms, who reap the majority of the financial benefits, and who do so at the expense of American workers.

    You've hit the nail on the head. A few perp walks for some high level CEOs of e.g. Meat Packers and a large portion of the demand for illegal immigrant labor disappears overnight - but this would be the Republicans holding their paymasters to the rule of the law instead of poor and downtrodden people.

  204. [204] 
    altohone wrote:

    195

    Of course you raise a domestic political angle rather than address the illegal bipartisan warmongering against a sovereign nation that risks confrontation that could lead to global nuclear war.

    You and Trump and Hillary and the Republicans and Democrats are all on the same side.

    A

  205. [205] 
    altohone wrote:

    201

    A lie, a straw man and a dodge.

    A

  206. [206] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    Republican: Congressional shooting will win us Georgia election

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40331765

    "He went on: "Moderates and independents in this district are tired of left-wing extremism. I get that there's extremists on both sides, but we are not seeing them.""

    Then he defended Trump.

    A

  207. [207] 
    michale wrote:

    You and Trump and Hillary and the Republicans and Democrats are all on the same side.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to dodge the facts about yourself.. :D

  208. [208] 
    michale wrote:

    but this would be the Republicans holding their paymasters to the rule of the law instead of poor and downtrodden people.

    Okay, Che.... :D

  209. [209] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Matter of fact, Hodgkinson is a PERFECT example of the Left Wing [is] in the here and now...

    Pro-gun and over 60?

    But I am glad you concede that Hodgkinson is the typical Left Winger these days... :D

  210. [210] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's self serving Left Wing garbage, designed to justify the unjustifiable..

    that's demonstrably false as well. as a point of fact, cato is an expressly conservative institution, founded and funded by the koch brothers. if you'd like me to find a left wing source, i'm sure i can oblige that request, but i suspect the results will not be any more to your liking.

    Why would I waste my time??

    sure, why waste time becoming informed on issues when it's so much easier to engage in lazy argumentation that doesn't require actually knowing anything?

    JL

  211. [211] 
    michale wrote:

    I mean, prior to 13 Jun 2017, Hodgkinson is simply your run o the mill hysterical anti-Trumper...

    ANYONE on the left can be a Hodgkinson...

    One would think that THAT would cause the hysterical Left to take a deep breath and really examine their beliefs..

    If those beliefs could lead someone like Hodgkinson to do what he did, maybe.... just maybe... there is something wrong with the hysterical Left's beliefs..

    An unwillingness to even EXAMINE those beliefs would be a warning sign that one is traveling down Hodgkinson Road....

  212. [212] 
    michale wrote:

    sure, why waste time becoming informed on issues when it's so much easier to engage in lazy argumentation that doesn't require actually knowing anything?

    And yet... you know the rest.. :D

    Ya'all sure spend a LOT of time trying to convince me I don't know anything...

    And yet...... :D

  213. [213] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    You can quote all the Left Wing garbage you want to..

    But you'll NEVER convince me that illegal immigrants don't commit crimes because I *KNOW* better...

    When you are willing to take and eat some skittles, knowing that "most" are not poisoned and won't kill you then, and ONLY then, will you have a logical foundation to stand on...

    Until then, yer just pissing in the wind..

  214. [214] 
    michale wrote:

    When you are willing to take and eat some skittles, knowing that "most" are not poisoned and won't kill you then, and ONLY then, will you have a logical foundation to stand on...

    Or, here's an idea..

    Take a hundred illegal immigrants into your home.. Feed them, clothe them, provide for their medical care and pay them wages.. ALL at YOUR OWN expense...

    Don't want to do that??? Can't afford to do that???

    But!!! But!!!! But!!!! "MOST" of them aren't criminals!!!

    Why won't you take care of them!!!

    Are you {GASP} a REPUBLICAN!!!???

    :D

  215. [215] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    A BBC report on the recent events in Syria.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40331252

    See if you can spot the obvious one-sided slant to several claims being made.

    Hint- there is no mention of the ISIS attack in Tehran when "Iran's motivation" is discussed, no legal justifications for the violations of international law, and no mention of the al Qaida affiliation of the "rebels" we are supporting... but there are more.
    In other words, typical Western "journalism".

    Funny how "trustworthy" sources serve an agenda eh?

    A

  216. [216] 
    altohone wrote:

    207

    "facts"?
    Pathetic.

    Go ahead.
    Try to provide a single citation to support your lies.

    And you're still dodging as usual when you can't defend your indefensible crap.

    "Run away!!!"

    A

  217. [217] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    203, 208

    Oops.
    Sorry.
    You've officially been labeled part of the red menace for wanting the rule of law to be applied equally in response to my comment.

    It wasn't my intent to expose you.

    A

  218. [218] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ya'all sure spend a LOT of time trying to convince me I don't know anything...

    if i thought you were a lost cause perhaps i'd stop trying.

    JL

  219. [219] 
    michale wrote:

    "Run away!!!"

    And yet, here I am, exposing you for the whining lying cry baby you are..

    Waaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Shall I call you a WAAAAmbulance?? :D

  220. [220] 
    michale wrote:

    if i thought you were a lost cause perhaps i'd stop trying.

    aaawwwwwww That's sweet of you.. Really..

    Thank you...

    "I'm fatter... er FLATTERED..."
    -Eddie Murphy, THE NUTTY PROFESSOR

    :D

  221. [221] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    204 -

    Of course you [michale] raise a domestic political angle...

    Of course he does. There's a palpable sense that now that the president's team has confirmed an investigation (at least in the Schroedinger's Cat sense), the Obstruction trip wire is set as tight as possible.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see the narrative shift slightly toward abuse of power. That's closer to one of the administration's major offenses, seen through the lens of an extensive and enabled administrative state.

  222. [222] 
    michale wrote:

    I wouldn't be surprised to see the narrative shift slightly toward abuse of power.

    Iddn't it funny how the narrative ALWAYS seems to shift about the time that the original narrative has collapsed under the weight of it's own bullshit??

    :D

  223. [223] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    206

    Republican: Congressional shooting will win us Georgia election http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40331765

    There's always voters who don't vote around issues, because either they don't see them as pertaining to them, or "issues" are beyond their level of political engagement.

    Many of those do vote against demons. With omnipresent Demon Hillary slain, this shooting personifies the Hydra Demon of the Left, and there's a big election tomorrow. Turnout.

  224. [224] 
    altohone wrote:

    219

    Your projection smells like victory.

    Still running away too I see.

    A

  225. [225] 
    michale wrote:

    Your projection smells like victory.

    Yer just smelling your own bullshit and calling it victory.... :D

  226. [226] 
    michale wrote:

    Alty,

    You can't win.. I have god on my side!!!
    -Leland Gant, NEEDFUL THINGS

    :D

  227. [227] 
    altohone wrote:

    LeaningBlue
    223

    "they don't see them as pertaining to them, or "issues" are beyond their level of political engagement."

    And comprehension... particularly with the unintentional irony.

    I have no doubt you are correct about many voters though. It's too bad that Ossoff is an establishmentarian corporatist. If he actually represented the left, the charges would only be false instead of being ridiculous and false.

    A

  228. [228] 
    altohone wrote:

    225, 226

    Projection, denial, and wimping out on engagement is your shtick.

    Keep running.

    A

  229. [229] 
    michale wrote:

    Projection, denial, and wimping out on engagement is your shtick.

    And living in a fantasy anarchist world where Iran is the good guy is your shtick.. :D

    Keep running.

    Still here.. Still standing.. :D

  230. [230] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    Happy Juneteenth!
    152 years, and still fighting.

    A

  231. [231] 
    altohone wrote:

    229

    You can't even keep your lies straight.
    First I'm a communist, now an anarchist?
    It takes a herpetologist to keep up.

    And standing ain't playing wallflower.
    You're still dodging the debate.

    A

  232. [232] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    Personal details of nearly 200 million US citizens exposed

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40331215

    Violating privacy for profit.

    A

  233. [233] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40332236

    Trumplings bashing the wrong theatre companies.

    A

  234. [234] 
    michale wrote:

    And standing ain't playing wallflower.
    You're still dodging the debate.

    Son, you ain't OFFERING a debate..

    All you have is childish name-calling and immature personal attacks..

    This is just like the time you claimed I don't wager "properly" and then promptly ran away crying when I told you to set the wager...

    Trumplings bashing the wrong theatre companies.

    Really!!! Trump supporters did THAT!!???

    Better get your rifle and start shooting them!!!

    THAT is what Demcorats think is "proper"..... :^/

  235. [235] 
    michale wrote:

    No one wants to talk about Trump's poll numbers??

    Gee, I wonder why!?? :D heh

  236. [236] 
    michale wrote:

    But even if you took a paragon of modern presidents — a contemporary Abraham Lincoln — and you directed a democratically unsupervised, infinitely financed team of prosecutors at him and gave them power to subpoena his staff and look under any related or unrelated rock in an attempt to bring him down, there’s a pretty good chance you could spur even this modern paragon to want to fight back. You could spur even him to do something that had the whiff of obstruction.

    The people who hype the politics of scandal don’t make American government purer. They deserve some of the blame for an administration and government too distracted to do its job, for a political culture that is both shallower and nastier, and for fostering a process that looks like an elite game of entrapment.

    Things are so bad that I’m going to have to give Trump the last word. On June 15 he tweeted, “They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story.” Unless there is some new revelation, that may turn out to be pretty accurate commentary.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/opinion/russia-investigation-trump.html?ref=opinion

    From the NY GRIME, of all places! :D

    But give credit where credit is due..

    “They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story.” Unless there is some new revelation, that may turn out to be pretty accurate commentary.

    That sums up this whole sad affair perfectly....

  237. [237] 
    michale wrote:

    I'll ask again..

    How does one "obstruct" a fraudulent investigation brought SOLELY and COMPLETELY for political purposes?

    Answer. You can't...

    There is not obstruction of an investigation of a crime because there was no crime...

    There was no Obstruction Of Justice, because there was no justice.... There was only political bigotry, hatred and hysteria...

  238. [238] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    founded and funded by the koch brothers.

    Ad Absurdum Connecticium

    And The John McCain Institute is funded by uber-Dumbocrats Soros and Teneo..

    I don't care who runs your Green Hornet institute

    It's "statistics" are biased and one sided and meant to push an agenda that is counter to American values....

  239. [239] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ad Absurdum Connecticium
    And The John McCain Institute is funded by uber-Dumbocrats Soros and Teneo..

    uh, michale? does this variety of word salad happen every time someone provides facts that prove your statements completely inaccurate, or is it reserved only for friends?

    JL

    You stole from my kin!

    Who was fixing to betray us!

    You didn't know that at the time!

    So I borrowed it till I did know!

    That don't make no sense!

    ~o' brother where art thou

  240. [240] 
    michale wrote:

    uh, michale? does this variety of word salad happen every time someone provides facts that prove your statements completely inaccurate, or is it reserved only for friends?

    Yes... :D

Comments for this article are closed.