ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [442] -- Trump Did Not Deny Tapes Exist!

[ Posted Friday, June 23rd, 2017 – 17:26 PDT ]

Every so often, we have a certain reaction to a bit of political news. We then fully expect at least a few other political commentators to have the same reaction, only to be surprised when it seems that nobody else read things the way we did. This is precisely where we find ourselves over President Donald Trump's recent tweets, where he supposedly put the issue to rest of whether secret audio recordings were ever made in his White House. Everybody seems to be buying his spin, and nobody questioned the obvious loophole he left himself. Because if you read what he wrote and take it at face value (not reading more into it than he actually says), Trump still has not answered the question of whether such tapes exist or not. Not even close.

Here are the two Trump tweets in question:

With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea...

...whether there are "tapes" or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.

Trump not only makes the loophole obvious, he actually rubs our faces in it -- "I have no idea whether there are 'tapes' or recordings." Got that? There might be tapes, but Trump "has no idea" if they even exist or not. His final declaration carefully uses the word "I" to avoid any statement pertaining to anyone else at the White House: "I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings."

This, as any parent of a teenager knows, is technically called "getting cute" with the facts. Trump's tweets were reportedly vetted by several lawyers before he was allowed to release them, which isn't really surprising at this point. Even without lawyers, Trump is a master at "getting cute" with how he says things. The tweet which got him into all this trouble is a prime example: "James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations" -- since all Trump is really saying is that Comey "better hope" that any such tapes don't exist.

In Trump's recent tweets, all he is really saying is that he personally "did not make, and do not have, any such recordings." Trump didn't push the "Record" button himself. Trump has no such tapes concealed upon his person. That's it. That's all Trump is admitting to. He's not saying that anyone else in the White House didn't make such tapes, or now has such tapes. Indeed, Trump even goes out of his way to state this explicitly: "I have no idea" whether any such tapes exist, or ever existed. No idea!

There is a world of difference between what Trump said and a real across-the-board denial, such as: "Such recordings do not and have never existed in my White House," or: "No tapes were ever made, period."

But, it seems, nobody else parsed Trump's statement in such a literal way. All the news stories so far blithely read into Trump's statement a lot more than is actually there. The assumption of: "Well, Trump has now fully addressed the issue -- there are no tapes" is utterly false, and yet the entire punditocracy seems to be happily pulling the wool over their own eyes. Now, we haven't read everything everyone's written, so if there are others who have noticed this wide discrepancy between what Trump seems to be saying and what he actually said, we apologize for not noticing. But it still strikes us as odd that so many are going along with what seems to be a pretty obvious ruse.

We sincerely hope that some congressional Democrats will bring this discrepancy up during some future hearing into the Trump White House, and also that Robert Mueller is paying attention to what Trump didn't say more than the extremely narrow admission that he actually did make. Because we don't think anyone really ever thought that Trump himself secretly pushed "Record" on his smartphone and then casually laid it on a table during Oval Office conversations. We don't think anyone ever thought that such recordings, if they do exist, would only exist on Trump's personal phone, either. Trump admitting that neither of these is the case certainly does not lay to rest the question of whether such tapes were ever made by anyone -- not by a long shot.

But we've got plenty of other things to get to, so we'll just leave it at that for the time being. Has it really gotten to the point where Trump uses blatant weasel words and nobody even notices? We sincerely hope not.

The week's political news was dominated by two events. The first was a special House election in Georgia, and the second was Mitch McConnell finally releasing the Senate's healthcare reform bill. We'll get to the Senate bill in the talking points, but we have to draw back a bit from the Democratic defeat in the Georgia election and take a bigger-picture look at what's going on. Because by week's end, there was almost an open revolt by some Democrats against Nancy Pelosi continuing to stay in her House leadership role.

We wrote about the Pelosi controversy yesterday, without taking a pro or con position. Pelosi's problem is her wide name recognition, and her negative numbers. A recent poll put her at 30 percent approval nationwide, and 50 percent disapproval. Independents disapprove of her to the tune of 58 percent. Even among Democrats, Pelosi has 19 percent disapproval. In order to win back the House, Democrats are going to have to compete in swing districts. In these districts, Pelosi's numbers are probably worse. And Karen Handel just showed every Republican House candidate how to successfully demonize Pelosi in their ads.

It's not just Pelosi, however. The party faces a much bigger problem. Divisions within the ranks continue, and nobody at the top of the party even seems willing to address the growing schism. When Republicans lost in 2012, they put together a post-mortem document recommending changes in the party by March of the next year. Democrats have yet to do anything similar. We wrote about this back in April, in an article that ended:

Convene a group to identify what Democrats have been doing wrong and what they've been doing right. Create a document which lays out strategies for future success, and then (unlike the Republicans) actually pay some attention to it. Create a list of priorities for the party and tactical advice for individual Democratic candidates. It is time to begin moving forward, and part of that should be examining what has been going so wrong over the past few years. People need to get beyond their 2016 primary election choice and start working together once again, or this sort of flareup is just going to happen over and over again. And nobody really wants to see that.

And yet, here we are, in the midst of yet another flareup, still with no plans to even identify what has gone so wrong for the party in the past few elections. The progressives are still upset with the establishment Democrats, and vice-versa. A whole lot of energy is spent on bickering that should really be spent on opposing Republicans.

The best argument for fixing what's wrong that we saw this week came from Billy Michael Honor at HuffPost. He lives in the Georgia Sixth District where Democrat Jon Ossoff lost to Handel. Here's what he had to say about the race, after personally experiencing it from within the district:

This, however, was not the only reason Ossoff lost the 6th. More than brand saturation the primary problem was messaging. Whether they admit it or not, the Democratic Party thought Ossoff could ride the wave of Trump hate into Washington DC. This is why Ossoff's campaign platform was pretty much a conglomeration of cherry picked issues that appealed to various 6th district interest groups topped with the ever motivating "help us stand up to Trump" message.

The problem with this message is it lacked any compelling progressive vision for the future. It also lacked anyway to substantively convince the average politically uninterested citizen why they should give a damn about the Democratic Party. The message simply says, "vote for us, we won't be as bad as the other group." This is how Hilary Clinton lost the general presidential election, this is how Jon Ossoff lost last night and this is how Democrats will continue to lose if they don't get the message right.

Hello? Tom Perez? Are you paying attention? Democrats have got to figure this out, and soon. How many political corpses does it take before you order an autopsy?

Of course, as always, there was plenty of other things going on in the political universe, so we're going to have to just run quickly through some stories you may have missed.

A contractor for the Republican National Committee left a massive database of almost every American voter (200 million of them) unsecured on the internet this week. It's impossible to say whether anyone else downloaded this information or not.

Sean Spicer is slowly fading into the background, but the Trump White House seems to be having problems replacing him. As CNN snarkily put it: "So far, all that search has revealed is that the people the White House wants aren't interested in the job and the people who are interested in the job aren't wanted by the White House." Not surprising -- who in their right mind would want Spicer's job, at this point?

Jobs -- two factories (Carrier and Boeing) that Trump hailed as "saving American jobs" are now either outsourcing the jobs or just laying people off. Winning!

Trump appointed William C. Bradford to a job dealing with Native Americans, even though he's had some eye-raising comments in the past about other minorities, including actually defending the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II by saying "it was necessary." Nothing like minority outreach from Republicans, folks!

Donald Trump called the notion that Russians meddled in the 2016 election a "big Dem HOAX" and then went on to -- bizarrely -- state that Obama didn't do enough to stop it. It either exists or it doesn't, Donny... you can't have it both ways.

Trump now starts his day with a call with all his lawyers about the mounting Russia scandal. The idea is to allow him to "compartmentalize" this so it doesn't get in the way of the rest of his day. How's that going?

By the time the president arrives for work in the Oval Office, the thinking goes, he will no longer be consumed by the Russia probe that he complains hangs over his presidency like a darkening cloud. It rarely works, however. Asked whether the tactic was effective, one top White House adviser paused for several seconds and then just laughed.

And we'll close today with a few blasts from the past, mostly because they didn't fit into the Talking Points section at the end. Here is Mitch McConnell, from February of 2010, on the process Democrats were using to pass healthcare reform.

Democrats on Capitol Hill are working behind the scenes on a plan aimed at jamming this massive health spending bill through Congress against the clear wishes of an unsuspecting public. What they have in mind is a last-ditch legislative sleight-of-hand called reconciliation that would enable them to impose government-run health care for all on the American people, whether Americans want it or not.

Boy, those were the days, eh? Here's one more to keep handy, since there will quite likely be a few last-minute deals struck by McConnell over the course of the next week. From December of 2009:

Americans are right to be stunned -- because this bill is a mess. And so was the process that was used to get it over the finish line. Americans are outraged by the last-minute, closed-door, sweetheart deals that were made to gain the slimmest margin for passage of a bill that's about their health care.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have two Honorable Mention awards this week, the first for Rhode Island's teacher of the year, Nikos Giannopoulis, who photobombed Donald Trump more successfully than anyone else has yet managed to do. Check out the photo to see why HuffPost wrote the headline: "Bold, Gay Teacher Of The Year Photo Bombs Donald Trump With Fan." Priceless!

The second Honorable Mention goes to all the disabled protesters who locked down Mitch McConnell's office yesterday, providing the evening news with film of cops trying to deal with protesters in wheelchairs. Visually, this was the perfect protest, really, and they are to be commended for their commitment and their impeccable timing.

But the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Senator Elizabeth Warren, for the speech she gave against the Republican healthcare bill. She does not, to put it mildly, mince words. Read the whole speech, it's a doozy (and it's not that long). Here are just a few highlights from it:

Today, we finally got a look at the monstrosity of a bill that Republicans have been hiding behind closed doors for weeks. Yes, it is finally clear how the Republicans were spending their time, locked in those back rooms.

Now we know the truth -- Senate Republicans weren't making the House bill better. Nope, not one bit. Instead, they were sitting around a conference room table, dreaming up even meaner ways to kick dirt in the face of the American people and take away their health insurance.

. . .

The Senate bill is crammed full with just as many tax cuts as the House bill. Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, tax cuts for wealthy investors, tax cuts for giant companies. But all those tax cuts don't come cheap. They start to add up after a while. So Senate Republicans had to make a choice. How to pay for all these juicy tax cuts for their rich buddies?

I'll tell you how: blood money. Senate Republicans wrung some extra dollars out of kicking people off tax credits that help them afford health insurance. They raked in extra cash by letting states drop even more protections and benefits, like maternity care or prescription drug coverage or mental health treatment.

And then they got to the real piggy bank: Medicaid. And here they just went wild. Senate Republicans went after Medicaid with even deeper cuts than the House version. The Medicaid expansion? Gone -- ripped up and flushed down the toilet. And the rest of the Medicaid program? For Senate Republicans, it wasn't enough that the House bill was going to toss grandparents out of nursing homes or slash funding for people with disabilities or pull the plug on health care for babies born too soon. No. Senate Republicans wanted to go bigger.

. . .

Medicaid is the program in this country that provides health insurance to one in five Americans. To 30 million kids. To nearly two out of every three people in a nursing home. These cuts are blood money. People will die. Let's be very clear: Senate Republicans are paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with American lives.

. . .

Senate Republicans know exactly what they are doing with this health care bill. Their values are on full display. If they want to trade the health insurance of millions of Americans for tax cuts for the rich, they'd better be ready for a fight. Because now that this shameful bill is out in the open, that's exactly what they're going to get.

Well said! While Democrats everywhere are denouncing the meanness of the Republican bill, this is clearly the best framing of the issue to date. Because make no mistake about it, it is blood money -- and Democrats should forcefully point this out.

Because Elizabeth Warren showed them the best way to do so, within hours of the bill's release, she is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week. Tell it like it is, Liz!

[Congratulate Senator Elizabeth Warren on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We have two Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out, one literal and one visceral.

Jon Ossoff certainly disappointed more Democrats than anyone else this week, by running the most-expensive House race in American history and losing. He lost by almost four points, which was much worse than expected. Democrats would be riding a wave of enthusiasm right now if he had pulled out a victory, but since he didn't they are pretty despondent instead.

Ossoff reportedly started out his campaign strongly against Donald Trump, but later decided to dial all of that back and run as a guy who could reach across the aisle and get stuff done. This, to state the obvious, didn't work with the voters. Whether his campaign was mostly at fault for his loss or not will be endlessly debated in the coming months by Democrats. But what cannot be debated is the sheer volume of disappointment Ossoff's loss just caused. By literal interpretation, Jon Ossoff was indeed the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

But before we get to the second award, we have two minor awards to hand out as well. Both Michael Bloomberg and Johnny Depp deserve at least an (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week, for idiocy. In Bloomberg's case, it was for telling Democrats to just get behind Trump for the better of the country. Um, OK, Mike... sure.

Depp's case was a little more serious, since he made a joke about assassinating presidents. This is always to be condemned as strongly as possible, but since he's not a Democratic politician we didn't feel it rose to the level of the MDDOTW award.

Especially since there was an even-bigger example of inhumane political comments this week. Which is why the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week goes to Phil Montag, who used to be "the volunteer co-chair of the technology committee" for Nebraska Democrats. Used to be, because he just got fired, for saying the following about Republican Steve Scalise, who was shot at a baseball field recently: "I'm glad he got shot. I'm not going to fucking say that in public." When then asked why he was saying it anyway, Montag responded: "I wish he was fucking dead."

The response was swift, from Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb:

"As soon as I heard it, I sent it to the (party) officers and then sent an email to Phil Montag informing him I am removing him from his appointed position as Co-Chair of the Technology Committee," Kleeb told the [Omaha] World-Herald. "Wishing a Member of Congress or any individual dead is disgusting and has no place in our party."

Kleeb reported the conversation to law enforcement out of concern it was a genuine threat, she told the paper.

That is entirely the right response, we have to say. Nobody who would say something that odious belongs in the party leadership in any way, shape, or form. Period.

On his way out the door, we have to throw into that box of personal possessions a brand-new Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Both Jon Ossoff and Phil Montag are now nothing more than private citizens, and it is our blanket policy not to provide contact information for such persons, sorry. Besides, Ossoff is probably already getting an earful from plenty of other Democrats right about now.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 442 (6/23/17)

Before we get to the awfulness of the Senate healthcare bill, we have to begin with two very funny tweets. Both transcend mere talking points and enter into the realm of downright laughable political humor. Apparently there was some strict interpretation of the dress code for women being enforced in Paul Ryan's office. Erica Werner tweeted her response:

Ladies of the House: there is a crackdown today on going sleeveless into the Speakers Lobby. Forewarned is forearmed as it were

Heh. That's pretty funny. But this effort was outdone by the response from Haley Byrd, which knocked it out of the park:

I thought @SpeakerRyan supported the right to bare arms

Well done! We doff our hats in salute to such excellent political humor.

One more amusing tweet deserves mention as well, as Matthew Yglesias beautifully bridged the gap between two Trump subjects this week:

Interestingly there ARE tapes of Donald Trump promising to cover everyone, cut deductibles, and lower premiums.

OK, all kidding aside, we're dedicating our whole Talking Points section to the Senate "take no prisoners" healthcare bill. We feel this is necessary, because if Mitch McConnell is to be believed, by this time next week the bill will already have been voted on. That's not much time to mount a resistance, which is (of course) the whole point of such an absurdly short schedule.

Some weeks we struggle to put together seven talking points. Not this week -- we had too many to choose from, in fact. AARP had a good talking point about how seniors' health costs would skyrocket (calling it an "age tax") but there were too many others to even include it this week. Democrats only have days to fight back against the GOP steamroller, so they'd better get busy, that's all we can say.

 

1
   The difference between the two bills

The Washington Post had a helpful column pointing out the differences between the House and Senate bills.

But in reality, the Senate bill will be at least as bad as the House bill over time. What we're really seeing here is an elaborate shell game: The Senate bill moves money around in a largely superficial way that enables Senate Republicans to vote for the same fundamental underlying policy priorities embedded in the House bill, while pretending not to. Here's the gist:

1. The House GOP bill gives the wealthy an enormous tax cut, financed (relative to current law) largely by hundreds of billions in cuts to health-care spending on poor people.

2. The Senate bill gives the wealthy an enormous tax cut, financed (relative to current law) largely by hundreds of billions in cuts to health-care spending on poor people.

 

2
   Dancing merrily

Alexandra Petri, also at the Post, was even snarkier. She wrote an entire article as a tongue-in-cheek plea to remember who the bill helps, and the dire circumstances for them if the bill were not to pass. We strongly recommend reading the entire article, because it is downright hilarious, in a gallows-humor sort of way.

Frankly, I think we are being unfair to the Senate version of the health-care bill. Too much time has already been spent on all the problems it creates -- for the indigent, the pregnant, the elderly, those who depend on Medicaid. But what about the problems it solves?

We are taking those too lightly, I feel. The Affordable Care Act placed a great burden on a great many people, and the Senate bill seeks to relieve their sacrifice.

Think of the families teetering at the steep pinnacle of the income distribution, wondering whether their finances will stretch to cover a lifesaving surgery for their purebred dressage horse. Thanks to the tax breaks this bill offers, they can rest assured that Dick Whittington Lord Mare Of London will get a replacement knee and continue to dance merrily over the course.

This is not just a tax break for the wealthy. It may well be the difference between life and death for countless sports cars and golf tourneys across America. Before, their money was wasted on dialysis for strangers who might possibly not even understand the finer points of badminton. Now that money is being restored, and it will go where it is most needed.

 

3
   $33 billion for 400 families

The credit for this statistic goes to Brandon DeBot at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"An analysis of the Republican healthcare plan exposed a jaw-dropping fact. The 400 richest families in the entire country will get a tax break to the tune of $33 billion. This is exactly the same amount that Republicans are cutting in Medicaid funds from four entire states. Anyone who doubts that this bill is nothing short of taking money from the sick and the poor in order to hand over to those who least need it, just think about that statistic. $33 billion could give big tax cuts to 400 families, or pay for medical care for four United States. Republicans certainly aren't trying to hide their real priorities in life, are they? I guess those vaunted Republican 'family values' only applies to the top-earning families in America, eh?"

 

4
   More than just politics

The American people have weighed in already.

"Of course, we don't have public polling on the Senate bill, and we likely won't before the Senate votes on it. But the public's view of the House bill is getting worse as time goes by. Only 16 percent of all Americans think the House bill is 'a good deal.' A full 48 percent think it is 'a bad deal.' Even among Republicans, only 34 percent think the House bill is a good deal. Now, if Democrats didn't care about the disastrous effect this bill is going to have on millions upon millions of families, and if they only cared about how it would help them politically, they'd be cheering Republicans on. 'Go ahead, pass your bill,' they'd be telling Republicans, 'it's only going to make it that much easier to defeat you in the next election.' Mitch McConnell is only scheduling 20 hours of debate for the bill in the Senate, while the final Senate debate over Obamacare took 25 days. So Democrats spent more days in open debate than Republicans are going to spend hours. That's pretty stunning, but the American people have already weighed in. The Republican plan is massively unpopular, and it will only continue to get more unpopular as the public learns more and more about what is in it. No wonder they want to move so fast."

 

5
   Obama trolls Trump's meanness

President Obama weighed in this week as well, and he didn't mince words. He also showed how Democrats everywhere should use the word "mean" or "meanness" as much as possible in the coming debate, just to get under Donald Trump's skin.

Simply put, if there's a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family -- this bill will do you harm. And small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation.

 

6
   Five, and counting...

Already, it looks like the bill may be in trouble within Republican ranks.

"Within hours of the Senate bill being released, four Republican senators went on the record as being against the bill. Since Mitch McConnell can only afford to lose two votes, this could be a problem. Or maybe not -- other than Rand Paul, it's hard to believe the other three will actually vote against the bill at the end of the day. The four state that the reason they can't support it is because they want the bill to be even meaner than it already is. So it's probably just posturing. But McConnell should be worried about the fifth Republican senator's stated reason for opposing the bill. Dean Heller of Nevada -- who is up for re-election next year -- voiced his concerns in a way that doesn't give him any wiggle room to change his mind later. On the drastic and deep cuts to Medicaid, Heller said: 'I cannot support a piece of legislation that takes away insurance from tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Nevadans.' That's pretty unequivocal, and it is impossible to fix by merely tweaking the bill next week. So if Heller and Paul are both solid 'no' votes, that means only one more Republican defection will kill the bill."

 

7
   Boehner put it best

We devoted a large portion of our FTP [429] column to what John Boehner (inaccurately) claimed Democrats were doing with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, back in the day. His words bear repeating once again, because they are so accurate when describing what Republicans are now doing. Boehner was visibly angry during this speech, screaming some of it at the top of his voice on the House floor.

No, today we're standing here looking at a health care bill that no one in this body believes is satisfactory. Today we stand here amidst the wreckage of what was once the respect and honor that this House was held in by our fellow citizens. And we all know why it is so. We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents. And when we fail to reflect that will, we fail ourselves, and we fail our country.

. . .

[L]ook at how this bill was written. Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals and struck behind closed doors hidden from the people? Hell, no, you can't!

Have you read the bill? Have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager's amendment? Hell, no, you haven't!

. . .

But what [Americans] see today frightens them. They're frightened because they don't know what comes next. They're disgusted because what they see is one political party closing out the other from what should be a national solution. And they're angry. They're angry that no matter how they engage in this debate, this body moves forward against their will.

Shame on us. Shame on this body. Shame on each and every one of you who substitutes your will and your desires above those of your fellow countrymen.

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

224 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [442] -- Trump Did Not Deny Tapes Exist!”

  1. [1] 
    michale wrote:

    But before we get to the second award, we have two minor awards to hand out as well. Both Michael Bloomberg and Johnny Depp deserve at least an (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week, for idiocy. In Bloomberg's case, it was for telling Democrats to just get behind Trump for the better of the country. Um, OK, Mike... sure.

    Yea... Support your President!?? Who DOES that!!??? :D

    Especially since there was an even-bigger example of inhumane political comments this week. Which is why the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week goes to Phil Montag, who used to be "the volunteer co-chair of the technology committee" for Nebraska Democrats. Used to be, because he just got fired, for saying the following about Republican Steve Scalise, who was shot at a baseball field recently: "I'm glad he got shot. I'm not going to fucking say that in public." When then asked why he was saying it anyway, Montag responded: "I wish he was fucking dead."

    A well deserved MDDOTW award, to be sure..

    But the problem is, that Montag is representative of the Democrat Party as a whole..

    Simply another indication that the very foundation of the Party has rotted...

    Democrats really REALLY need to take a good long look in the mirror and, hopefully, they will be aghast at what they have become...

    The Washington Post had a helpful column pointing out the differences between the House and Senate bills.

    Oh I am sure WaPoop was VERY helpful.. :^/

    GOP Bill Will Transform American Health Care - For the Better
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/06/23/the-new-senate-republican-bill-will-transform-american-health-care/#313a1d7a4318

    Of course, it would be better is WaPoop had FACTS to back things up..

    I'm just sayin'... :D

  2. [2] 
    michale wrote:

    We devoted a large portion of our FTP [429] column to what John Boehner (inaccurately) claimed Democrats were doing with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, back in the day. His words bear repeating once again, because they are so accurate when describing what Republicans are now doing. Boehner was visibly angry during this speech, screaming some of it at the top of his voice on the House floor.

    Inaccurately, my left arse cheek..

    It was PERFECTLY accurate at the time, just like ya claim it's perfectly accurate now..

    But NOW it's the GOP version so the Left doesn't like it..

    When the DEMS were doing the exact same thing and had the exact same "monstrous" legislation, the Left was all for it...

    This is exactly why I can't get too excited about ya'all's complaints on the GOP version of healthcare..

    Because I know for a FACT that if it was the Dems who were putting out this, ya'all would LOVE it.. :D

    And so it goes and so it goes...

    And so will I soon, I suppose... :D

    Gotta go to work.. Later, gator...

  3. [3] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    Why is Montag the one who is "representative of the Democrat(sic) Party as a whole", and not the Democrats who won the ballgame but gave the trophy to Steve Scalise? Why is Bernie Sanders and the many other Democrats(including Chris) who were quick to condemn the shooting not "representative of the party"? Are you saying that I am somehow responsible for the despicable behavior of a person who I've never even heard of until today, and whose actions I deplore, just because we have the same opinion on health care reform? This guy wasn't even elected, right? How can you say his views are "representative of the party" when he wasn't elected and his views have been contradicted in statements by many actual elected Democrats? Do you think that there is not a single Republican, not even some obscure rural volunteer for some local party who has ever publicly wished violence on a Democrat or said something similarly horrendous? Would you like to stake money on that? And if you admit that there have been individual Republicans who have been awful people, then why is it fair to generalize to the Democratic Party when a Democrat says something bad, but not fair to make the same generalization when a Republican does the same? Of course the fact that there have been Republicans who have said nasty things in the past doesn't justify what this a**hole Montag said, I'm just trying to challenge the fairness of generalizing from Montag to the Democratic Party.

    -Bridget

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Inaccurately, my left arse cheek..

    Thanks for the introduction. And what name does your right arse cheek go by?

    When the DEMS were doing the exact same thing and had the exact same "monstrous" legislation, the Left was all for it...

    How high are you? Seriously! What are you on and how can I purchase some?

    Let's be clear... you are either knowingly lying about believing that the two healthcare acts are "the exact same 'monstrous' legislation" , or you are ignorantly talking out of your inaccurately !

  5. [5] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Just because the Democratic party autopsy hasn't been conducted within the party apparatus, it doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

    The list of failures is long, and well known, but the party establishment is refusing to admit their validity or even discuss them.
    It's time to accept that that IS their official response... and it's time to condemn them and call them out directly, including a discussion of the consequences you are personally willing to pursue.

    If the "reform from within" option has been foreclosed, what is left?

    Can fighting Trump in order to help Democrats (who have no intention of addressing the real problems in this country) regain power even be considered a productive endeavor?

    Are voters clamoring to go back to the policies that were failing them, just because Trump and Republicans are worse?

    Haven't there been sufficient examples that this strategy isn't working?

    A

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    Why is Montag the one who is "representative of the Democrat(sic) Party as a whole", and not the Democrats who won the ballgame but gave the trophy to Steve Scalise?

    For the same reason that Steve Bannon is representative of the GOP as a whole and Robert Mueller is not...

    I'm just trying to challenge the fairness of generalizing from Montag to the Democratic Party.

    And yet, you accept as perfectly valid anytime someone here will comment about some scumbag Trump supporter and tries to generalize that as representative of the entirety of Trump supporters everywhere..

    Why is that??

    Personally, I agree with you.. One person does not an entire Party make...

    However, you have to concede that the violence and hatred and assaults and attacks and intolerance that has come out of the Left Wing the past year does support the case that Democrats have, overall, become MORE intolerant and MORE full of hate and MORE willing to commit violent acts in furtherance of the ideological agenda...

    It's all fine and dandy when ya'all condemn an actual assassination attempt..

    But where were the condemnations from ya'all when a Left Wing scumbag attacked a Trump supporter with a chain?? Or when Left Wing scumbags destroyed property and attacked innocent people just because of a Right Wing speaker???

    Silence on THOSE acts is tacit approval and condoning of those acts...

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    Inaccurately, my left arse cheek..

    Thanks for the introduction. And what name does your right arse cheek go by?

    WOuldn't YOU like to know!! :D heh

    Let's be clear... you are either knowingly lying about believing that the two healthcare acts are "the exact same 'monstrous' legislation" , or you are ignorantly talking out of your inaccurately !

    No, I am stating my opinion.. Which is MORE valid than your opinion..

    We KNOW that CrapCare is a train wreck... It's simply NOT viable..

    You THINK that the GOP version is a train wreck.. But that is SOLELY based on Party bigotry more than anything else..

    If Odumbo and the Democrats had come out with the GOP plan, ya'all would be ALL FOR IT....

    Just like ya'all were with TrainWreckCare...

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    Bclancy,

    Aftermath Of Alexandria Shooting Showed The Left’s Cultural Bullying At Its Worst
    The behavior of many on the Left this week sent a message that not only do they not 'get' the other half of the country, they don’t want to. That's a recipe for losing elections.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/23/aftermath-of-alexandria-shooting-showed-the-lefts-cultural-bullying-at-its-worst/#.WU05iYyrumo.twitter

    That's why there is overwhelming evidence to conclude that the propensity to accept and condone violence committed by the Left against the Right, both out in the real world and here in Weigantia is indicative of the Democrat Party as a whole...

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    Losing Again, For the Same Reason
    Jon Ossoff’s loss in Georgia shows that the Democrats have failed to broaden their appeal.

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/losing-again-same-reason-15282.html

    What's funny is that it's not just ME showing the Democrat Party what the problem is..

    It's HUNDREDS of other *DEMOCRATS* saying the exact same thing I am saying...

    To win elections, Democrats will have to win over Trump supporters..

    And Dems are *NOT* going to do that by insulting them, attacking them or shooting them..

    The fact that this NEEDS to be pointed out is indicative of how far off the reservation the Democrat Party has gone...

  10. [10] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Don't despair.

    The four special elections held right before the 2010 midterms were all won by Democrats.

  11. [11] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    Michale-
    (Sorry this is long)
    Thank you for providing some evidence for this claim about the culture on the left(I don't mean this in a snarky way, I really appreciate it). You may be right. I will have to do some would searching, and keep an eye out for corroborative evidence(incidentally, if you know of more such stories, I would much appreciate links).

    "But where were the condemnations from ya'all when a left wing scumbag attacked a Trump supporter with a chain?..."

    I cannot speak for anyone but myself. Personally, I tend to be a lurker. I don't usually comment on this blog or others. The only reason I commented this time is because your initial comment upset me because I took it personally(too personally, sorry about that). The other reason is simple. I haven't heard anything about these incidents. Which in itself is corroborative evidence for your point.

    I also think it is much easier for people to see tribalism, hypocrisy, or any kind of bad behavior the further removed it is from themselves. This is one reason why peer review is so important in science. We are very good at perceiving the bias of others, but very bad at perceiving our own biases.

    One of my major concerns is that our political culture, left and right has changed in a fundamental way that means that our democratic republic is not sustainable. As far as I can tell, for political leaders to get held accountable when they do wrong requires at least some members of their political faction to publicly express anger. It isn't good enough for only Democrats to hold Republicans accountable and only Republicans to hold Democrats accountable. I worry that our political culture has become so tribalist that no one will ever admit or even recognize that their own party's leaders have done something wrong. Also, I think that people on each side use the hypocrisy of the other side's leaders to excuse the hypocrisy of their own side's leaders. They use the fact that politicians of the other side weren't held accountable for past actions as an excuse to refuse to hold their own side's politicians accountable. And since both Democratic and Republican politicians have been hypocritical and had instances where they were not held accountable for their actions, that means both sides have a justification to not hold their own politicians accountable. So nobody in Washington gets held accountable for their actions.

    Also, one other reason I never comment is because I tend to assume any interaction with people I disagree with on anything will quickly turn nasty. You've challenged my assumptions and given me something to think about. That is a valuable thing. Thank you.
    -B

  12. [12] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    In the first paragraph that was supposed to be "soul searching". Auto correct.

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Bclancy,

    My tone was very defensive and pissy and as such I owe you an apology...

    Allow me to look at your comments thru different eyes and I will get back to you.. It may be a bit as my weekends are actually my work days..

  14. [14] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    No hurry tho I look forward to hearing what you think :)

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Altohone (5)-
    Absolutely on target.
    Don't buy the Democrats crocodile tears. Their whole strategy is waiting for the Republicans to self-destruct and leave citizens with no other choice but "What's left?".
    see: Balthasar comment 10.

  16. [16] 
    altohone wrote:

    Don
    15

    Yup.

    Disgust with Bush the Lessor gave Dems full control to do better, and they used that clear mandate and power to coddle Wall Street, increase inequality, legalize and expand mass surveillance, continue failed wars, start new wars, and pass right wing Romneycare.

    So, there's that to look forward to in 2024.

    Did you catch my explanation for including you in that comment yesterday?
    Sorry it came across the wrong way... and that apology was supposed to be at the end. Long day.

    A

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Altohone-
    Apology wasn't needed, the explanation was enough.

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [1] -

    Do I have to haul out that George W. Bush quote again?

    He is not representative of the Dem Party, because (if you would have kept reading) the party IMMEDIATELY fired him. And reported him to the cops, for good measure.

    Nobody defended him. No one. So how is that representative of the party?

    Does every GOP idiot who says something stupid represent the party as a whole? Methinks you've argued exactly the opposite here before...

    Just sayin'...

    [2] -

    Let's see... one bill had over 100 public hearings, testimony by all with concerns (doctors, hospital folks, patients, nurses, etc., etc., etc.), one bill had outreach across the aisle and dozens of amendments from the "out" party accepted, multiple public CBO scores long before final votes, and the bill's text was made available before 25 days of Senate hearings.

    The other one didn't have any of that, and only 20 hours debate in the Senate. So which bill does Boehner's rant describe better?

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Bclancy [3] -

    Hear, hear!

    OK, I went and looked it up. Took awhile, because I had to scroll through his whole repertoire since he only said it in 2016:

    "At times, it seems like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together. Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates too quickly into dehumanization. Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions. And this has strained our bonds of understanding and common purpose. But Americans, I think, have a great advantage. To renew our unity, we only need to remember our values. We have never been held together by blood or background. We are bound by things of the spirit – by shared commitments to common ideals."
    -George W. Bush

    I'm not alone among liberals who now look back at Bush's term a lot more fondly, ever since Trump took office...

    -CW

  20. [20] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear [4] -

    Thanks for the introduction. And what name does your right arse cheek go by?

    OK, now THAT was funny!

    Heh.

    -CW

  21. [21] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    altohone [5] -

    I've heard rumors that Perez is indeed quietly doing a review of some sort. Whether it'll be made public or not is an open question.

    I forget, was the GOP document released openly, or leaked? I want to say leaked, but I honestly don't remember.

    As for the big picutre, I kind of see it as the final death throes of the DLC centrism in the Dem Party. That may be overly optimistic, but it's at the very least the diminishment of the Clintonista wing of the party apparatus which now seems inevitable, at this point.

    -CW

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Balthasar [10] -

    I heard this stat quoted recently, except it was "7 special elections Dems won" before 2010.

    This was precisely the point when I realized how little special House elections meant on a nationwide scale, actually.

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Bclancy [11] -

    Dang, that was a good post!

    No need to apologize for how long it was, either.

    :-)

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    Does every GOP idiot who says something stupid represent the party as a whole?

    That's pretty much the consensus from *MOST* everyone here... :D

    Remember Todd Aiken??

    The other one didn't have any of that, and only 20 hours debate in the Senate. So which bill does Boehner's rant describe better?

    And yet, it's STILL just a bill..

    Are you willing to give it a chance?? :D

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    I heard this stat quoted recently, except it was "7 special elections Dems won" before 2010.

    And how many lost SINCE 2010??

    THAT is the problem facing the Democrats..

    Even when Democrats won the POTUS election in 2012, they lost ground in every other category...

    How can that be ANYTHING but bad for the Dem Party??

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    Does every GOP idiot who says something stupid represent the party as a whole?

    THAT coupled with the fact that a Dem idiot went on a shooting rampage and TARGETED Republicans, PLUS got support for the rampage from DEMS who created #HuntRepublicans and even from a couple of Weigantians who said that Scalise deserved/was responsible for what he got...

    Add that all together and what would a calm rational objective person deduce???

  27. [27] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Just curious -

    Did anyone else out there react to Trump's "I didn't tape" tweets the same way?

    I'm still searching for someone else who noticed the loophole big enough to fly Air Force One through...

    -CW

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    Dems push leaders to talk less about Russia

    Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia.

    Democratic leaders have been beating the drum this year over the ongoing probes into the Trump administration’s potential ties to Moscow, taking every opportunity to highlight the saga and forcing floor votes designed to uncover any business dealings the president might have with Russian figures.

    But rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare.

    In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/339248-dems-push-leaders-to-talk-less-about-russia

    WHO could have POSSIBLY predicted that Dems going hysterical over the Russia bullshit would actually HURT the Dems..

    Oh.... wait... I think it was me!!! :D

    "Who said, 'Those who can't do... Fight.' Oh.. I think it was me!!"
    -Judy Robinson, LOST IN SPACE

    :D heh

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    Did anyone else out there react to Trump's "I didn't tape" tweets the same way?

    Take him seriously, not literally??

    Remember??

    Do you think Joe Sixpack gives a rip about Comey tapes???

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW (27)-
    You made the mistake of reading.

    "Are you trying to read that? Are you a fag?"
    -Idiocracy (outside the Starbucks)

    Most political commentators (and people for that matter) just cherry pick what they want to hear that fits the narrative they want to (or are told to) promote.

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    i can see your point, but i admit that i read it as he thought there were no tapes, as opposed to weaseling out of producing tapes that someone else had made.

    by the by, did you get to read my hypothesis on the discrepancy between approval polls?

    JL

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    another thought:

    based on the 'trump's razor' principle, the most likely explanation is that donald has no knowledge of any tapes existing, but he strongly suspects that the left wing media deep state conspiracy secretly taped the conversations to use against him, and he has the white house staff actively searching for them.

    JL

  33. [33] 
    Aloysius McG wrote:

    C.W.

    Adam Schiff was on TV today noting the weasel words. Later, I saw a headline that he had given Trump until Friday to turn over tapes. I haven't spent the time to follow up. (:>)

  34. [34] 
    Aloysius McG wrote:

    C.W.

    Adam Schiff was on TV today noting the weasel words. Later, I saw a headline that he had given Trump until Friday to turn over tapes. I haven't spent the time to follow up. Presently eating popcorn (:>)

  35. [35] 
    Aloysius McG wrote:

    Note to self:

    ALWAYS preview.

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    WASHINGTON — YOU know who is really sick and tired of Donald Trump winning, to the point where they beg, “Please, Mr. President, sir, it’s too much”?

    Democrats.

    The Democrats just got skunked four to nothing in races they excitedly thought they could win because everyone they hang with hates Trump.

    If Trump is the Antichrist, as they believe, then Georgia was going to be a cakewalk, and Nancy Pelosi was going to be installed as speaker before the midterms by acclamation. But it turned into another soul-sucking disappointment.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-jon-ossoff-democrats.html

    These are the facts.... And they are undeniable...

  37. [37] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW
    21

    Thanks for the response.

    I hope your optimism isn't misplaced.
    But I suspect it is at this point.
    Perez wasn't installed in a brutal battle just so he could roll over and blame the folks who chose him for the job.
    And that is what he would need to do.

    Did you catch Bernie's speech at the Peoples Summit?
    Single Payer, the Fight for $15, infrastructure... cheers, cheers, cheers... he mentioned Putin... a few groans, but mostly silence.

    Even he can't rally his own supporters around that flag.

    A

  38. [38] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    "Everybody seems to be buying his spin, and nobody questioned the obvious loophole he left himself."

    This is not entirely the case. The NY Times article you reference clearly pointed out the Tweet in question was completely ambiguous, but it took them 7 paragraphs to get there, 'cause they're The Times and they like paragraph structure. The less fussy New York Daily News also noted the Tweet didn't actually deny anything. I'm pretty sure the New Yorker will get around to noting the non-denial in their next issue.

    Most print media chose to focus on other Kafkaesque aspects of the whole tape debacle...and there was plenty to choose from. Only the rate-of-speech constrained talking heads seemed to largely take the No Tapes claim at face value.

    The constant spin from the White House is making everybody dizzy and about 55% of the population nauseous with 8% undecided. "Kafkaesque" no longer adequately describes what is quaintly called the Trump Administration - it's gone totally Kafka.

  39. [39] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    Both Devon and I thought the same thing about his tweet... Trump-speak is typically filled with semantic loopholes that allow for plausible deniability. We have been ticked that the press has ignored comments like this and instead have chosen to give his comments very generous interpretations.

    Michale,

    If Odumbo and the Democrats had come out with the GOP plan, ya'all would be ALL FOR IT....

    Just like ya'all were with TrainWreckCare...

    I was all for the GOP's original healthcare plan! It was shown to be a better system than what was already in place.

    But then McCain loss and the GOP's plan got signed by Obama.

    The GOP could not handle losing credit for what was supposed to be the crown jewel in the Republican's legislative crown to a Democrat....especially one with far more melanin than they are comfortable with.

    You keep talking about what a train wreck the ACA was, but I have yet to hear you explain how this one is an improvement.

  40. [40] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Any readers ever make a "zilch" from a polyethylene cleaners bag? A common college trick. You tie knots in the bag like you were making a kite tail and hang it from a coat hanger over a bucket of water. You light the bottom of the bag with a butane lighter. The burning bag drops little melted globs of blue hot plastic that look pretty in the dark and make a make a noise that sounds vaguely like zilch....zilch....zilch...hence the name. The flame is astonishingly hot. Makes a good low budget sci-fi movie blaster ray if you flip the image 90 degrees.

    I bring this up because the NYT ran a story about the cladding used on the exterior walls of the Grenfell Tower. The one that burned and killed 79 people and counting. The cladding was made of polyethylene sandwiched between two sheets of aluminum. The tower block was a 24 story zilch full of people. It burned "like a fire you pour petrol on." This was the downside of cutting red tape. A whole lot of people need to spend a lot of time in prison.

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    B,

    I have read, re-read and read again your comment...

    And I'll be damned if I can find anything to disagree with.. :D

    It shouldn't be too surprising because I have said many of the same things myself over the years...

    And I especially like the way that you kept the criticism even handed.

    Politics has become a KILL OR BE KILLED process of late and that is a shame...

    So, I know you were probably expecting a point by point rebuttal of what you said, but I simply can't find anything to rebut.. :D

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You keep talking about what a train wreck the ACA was, but I have yet to hear you explain how this one is an improvement.

    That's because I can't compare TrainWreckCare to a plan that is nothing but preliminary stages of a plan...

    Once it's passed, THEN we can discuss and compare the merits, right??

    Until then ya'all are hysterical about nothing...

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    Remember how ya'all touted California's Single-Player healthcare legislation as the end all be all awesomeness of what healthcare insurance SHOULD be??

    Guess what???

    ‘Woefully incomplete’ universal health bill dead for the year in California
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article157974029.html

    They COULDN'T make it work!!

    Like I have always said.. Democrat ideas sound really REALLY good on paper...

    But, when the rubber hits the road, when reality sets in and rears it's head???

    They don't work...

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    Al,

    Adam Schiff was on TV today noting the weasel words. Later, I saw a headline that he had given Trump until Friday to turn over tapes. I haven't spent the time to follow up. (:>)

    So, Schiff put on his big boy pants and issued a "red line" to the President Of The United States...

    I bet that President Trump got a good laugh over that.. :D

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    B,

    Also, one other reason I never comment is because I tend to assume any interaction with people I disagree with on anything will quickly turn nasty.

    This makes me sad because, if I am being honest, I have to acknowledge my part in this..

    On the other hand, to be perfectly fair, it DOES take two to tango.. :D

    You've challenged my assumptions and given me something to think about. That is a valuable thing. Thank you.

    You are quite welcome...

    You can (usually) never go wrong if you operate on the assumption that Democrats are really no better than Republicans and versie vicie...

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

    :D

  46. [46] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    Chris(23)-

    Thanks I'm glad you liked it :) I'm very fond of your blog. My boyfriend and I have read it for several years now. If I have time later, I have some thoughts about your interpretation of the logical implications of Trump's statement.

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    Did you catch Bernie's speech at the Peoples Summit?
    Single Payer, the Fight for $15, infrastructure... cheers, cheers, cheers... he mentioned Putin... a few groans, but mostly silence.

    Even he can't rally his own supporters around that flag.

    Exactly..

    As I have said from the start, this Russia bullcarp is a DRAG on the Democrat Party.. Even Democrats are starting to recognize this and trying to shut everyone up about it...

    It's nothing but the Birther nonsense all over again.. Except this time it's coming from the Left...

    I don't expect anyone to concede that I have been correct all along.. It's sufficient that the facts clearly show that I have been... :D

  48. [48] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    Michale
    Thank you. I'm glad you liked my theory. I've really been wanting to run my ideas by someone on the right to see what they thought. I appreciate your honesty. Also, I think that snark between people who are well acquainted is fine and not part of the problem. Everyone who knows me in person knows I can be extremely snarky :P

    "Your good and your evil use the same methods to achieve the same goals"

    I couldn't agree more. Actually before you said that I was going to observe that there is nothing about support for single payer healthcare that logically entails endorsement of violent methods like the Bernie supporter who shot the Republican congressmen. And there is nothing about support for single payer healthcare(or the ACA) that logically entails support for peaceful, lawful methods like persuasion. Similarly there is nothing about support for the Republican health care bill that logically entails support for either violent or peaceful behavior. I judge people by their behavior. For instance, even though I am a liberal atheist/agnostic, one of the people that I know whom I admire most is a devout Christian conservative lady. She is incredibly passionate about the volunteer work she does with her ministry, giving charity to the poor and helping sex worker get out of the industry. I may think she is wrong in her views on abortion and tax reform, but here is someone who genuinely gets joy from helping people. I think it's better to be majorly wrong about some things(and who isn't?) but actually make the world a better place through you presence then it is to be right about everything but just sit on you a** all day being of no use to anyone.

    I'd also like to observe that one reason a widespread problem in America's political culture seems plausible to me, is how much the culture of each major political faction affects the other. It seems to me that the right and left are like two mirrors held up against one another, infinitely reflecting each other's behavior. I can't by myself change this, but I can at least do my best to be fair, and show empathy to the other side.

    Alright enough warm and fuzzy stuff...
    Michale, perhaps sometime we could debate something we actually disagree on? I would enjoy that.
    Bridget

  49. [49] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    Chris-
    President Trump said:
    "With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea...

    ...whether there are 'tapes' or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings."

    Trying to keep this brief, but Trump saying "I have no idea.." doesn't just mean, he can't be certain no tapes were made. It also implies "to the best of my knowledge, no tapes were made". If he asked someone else to make the recording for him, then he couldn't say "I have no idea... Whether there are tapes". Because then he would positively know that tapes *were* in fact made. If I say "I have no idea whether Hillary Clinton will run in 2020", the logical implication of that are
    1. I cannot be *certain* she is not running.
    2. I cannot be *certain* that she is running.
    If Hillary calls me up and says, "Hey Bridget. Just wanted you to know I am planning to run for president in 2020 come hell or high water", then I cannot say "I have no idea whether Hillary is running in 2020."

    As best I can tell, the only possibility Trump isn't ruling out with his statement is the possibility that someone else taped the conversation without Trump's knowledge.
    Of course, you can always say that Trump may be lying, but that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I don't think this particular statement is weasel worded.

    Bridget

  50. [50] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    Incidentally, I have a question for y'all:
    Do you think Hillary Clinton wants to/is intending to run in 2020? I'm guessing(from past writing) that Chris thinks the answer to that question is no. But I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks. Personally, I have a sneaking suspicion that the answer to that question is Yes. Also, what do you think of the idea? My personal reaction can be summed up as "eek!" But if we Democrats are really foolish enough to nominate her again, we deserve the results we get.

    Sorry if it's too early to be asking that question. As a political nerd, I enjoy such rampant speculation, but I understand not everyone does.

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    Re: Russia Interference

    As I have said from the start, this Russia bullcarp is a DRAG on the Democrat Party.

    There are four key questions that need to be answered regarding the investigation:

    1. Does Russia or Russian oligarchs have any financial power over 45?
    2. Did Russia deliberately try to influence the outcome of the election in 2016?
    3. Did any Americans help Russia in their attempts to influence the election?
    4. Did 45 or his family help Russia in their attempts to influence the election?

    My take is that:
    1. Based on real estate deals and admissions by 45's own family, there has been significant deals between 45 and Russia that 45 is denying.

    2. The intelligence agencies are pretty sure Russia was interfering

    3. Flynn's actions deserve a close look, and so do other actions by Americans who may be straying into treason territory

    4. I initially thought that there was nothing but the whole Kushner/Back Channel issue deserves a look.

    As for 45 himself, if I was running anything even slightly dodgy I'd use him as a "useful idiot" but assume he would blab everything so not involve him in any way.

    The right wing are trying to make this all about a small part of Q4 - but Q1-3 are just as important, if not more so.

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    B,

    Allow me to address the low hanging fruit first.. :D

    Incidentally, I have a question for y'all:
    Do you think Hillary Clinton wants to/is intending to run in 2020?

    I think that if she is physically able to run, she will... But her obvious health problems are real and will only be worse in 3+ years time..

    So, I don't think she will run in 2020. Not due to any lack of desire or any loyalty to the Democrat Party, but rather because she will not be medically up to the challenge...

    My personal reaction can be summed up as "eek!" But if we Democrats are really foolish enough to nominate her again, we deserve the results we get.

    Exactly... If the Democrat Party nominates a x2 loser as their candidate, they are guaranteeing a GOP win all up and down the board...

    The only one that the GOP can bring up that's worse for the Democrat Party than Nancy Pelosi is Hillary Clinton...

    No, the question facing us is not whether she will run or not..

    The question is, if she is medically able to run...???

    How will the Democrat Party stop her from running??

    I'll get to your other points probably tomorrow morning. It's my day off and your comments require me to think...

    I hate when that happens!! :D

    "Goose?? She's lost that lovin' feeling.."
    "No.. Mav??? No, she has NOT lost that lovin' feeling.. Com'on... Aw jeeze.. I hate when that happens."

    -TOP GUN

    :D

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mueller is running a tight ship, from a leak perspective. However whenever Mueller or one of his team start asking to talk to somebody or require information the leaks start springing.

    I've never seen a White House leak like this - it is incredible - why can't Republicans around 45 keep their mouths shut? We didn't see this with idiot boy back in the 2000's.

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    1. Based on real estate deals and admissions by 45's own family, there has been significant deals between 45 and Russia that 45 is denying.

    No more deals than the Russians made with the Clinton Slush fund, et al...

    2. The intelligence agencies are pretty sure Russia was interfering

    Let's be factual here. Intelligence agencies are pretty sure that Russia was TRYING to interfere... There is simply not a single wiff of factual evidence that Russia succeeded in changing a Hillary vote to a Trump vote..

    3. Flynn's actions deserve a close look, and so do other actions by Americans who may be straying into treason territory

    No more so than the actions of a number of Clintonistas...

    4. I initially thought that there was nothing but the whole Kushner/Back Channel issue deserves a look.

    There is no facts whatsoever to support a Kushner/Russia back channel..

    Even if there were, it wouldn't matter because such a back channel is completely normal.. Odumbo had dozens of back channels.. No one had a problem with back channels then..

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    Let's be factual here.

    I was being factual. Trying to interfere and interfering are the same thing. It isn't about outcomes it is about the action. We'll discover if they were successful when we investigate the interference to see what the result was.

    Even if there were, it wouldn't matter because such a back channel is completely normal.

    Then Mueller is wasting his time, so no worries. Or is he?

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    No more so than the actions of a number of Clintonistas...

    This is why I said Americans and not 45's entourage. I don't really care how somebody votes, if they help an enemy power undermine our country I want them investigated and if appropriate, punished. Why do you want to let potential criminals get away with their crimes?

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    Then Mueller is wasting his time, so no worries. Or is he?

    Depends on how you define "waste"...

    Considering he has stacked his team with NOT-45 sycophants and A-List donors, it's a waste of time from a JUSTICE point of view..

    This is why I said Americans and not 45's entourage. I don't really care how somebody votes, if they help an enemy power undermine our country I want them investigated and if appropriate, punished. Why do you want to let potential criminals get away with their crimes?

    So, you'll be perfectly OK with investigating Russia/Clinton connections, right?? :D

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    I was being factual. Trying to interfere and interfering are the same thing.

    Not really..

    Just like ATTEMPTED MURDER is a different charge than MURDER....

    The Russians probably tried to interfere in our presidential election, just like they tried in 2012 and 2008 and all previous elections for the last 60 years..

    You never had a problem with it then... How come??

    The *ONLY* reason that ya'all are pushing this Russia crap is because your chosen candidate got her ass handed to her and the Left is looking for someone... ANYONE to blame so they don't have to pin the blame where it belongs...

    That's it...

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, you'll be perfectly OK with investigating Russia/Clinton connections, right?? :D

    No problem at all. In fact, since Republicans own the White House and both Houses of Congress, why are you asking me? Why aren't you demanding that they have a special counsel for this as well? Or could it be that there is no evidence that justifies a special counsel?

    You need to work with your party and report back on why they aren't taking action on this accusation. You've got until next Friday to report back to us.

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Russians probably tried to interfere in our presidential election, just like they tried in 2012 and 2008 and all previous elections for the last 60 years..

    Well since the Republicans have had the house since 2010 and the senate since 2014, why have they not investigates Russian interference in 2008 and 2012?

    You keep forgetting that a Republican President's personally approved deputy AG chose to appoint the special counsel - the Democrats had no part of the process. This is not the work of the Democrats, this is the work of Republicans. That is what makes it so funny for me personally.

    I expect the calls to sweep this under the carpet will only increase from yourself and everybody else who is worried that there orange messiah is not as honest as they seem to believe he is.

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    investigates -> investigated
    there -> their

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    No problem at all. In fact, since Republicans own the White House and both Houses of Congress, why are you asking me? Why aren't you demanding that they have a special counsel for this as well?

    They are already on it.. :D

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/24/chaffetz-justice-watchdog-also-looking-into-lynchs-role-into-fbis-clinton-email-probe.html?

    I am sure it will blossom from there.. :D

    I expect the calls to sweep this under the carpet will only increase from yourself and everybody else who is worried that there orange messiah is not as honest as they seem to believe he is.

    Whoever claimed that Trump was "honest"?? Shirley, not me...

    He is about as honest as Odumbo was which was, in fact, pretty damn dishonest..

    Your point???

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    You need to work with your party and report back on why they aren't taking action on this accusation.

    Unlike most everyone here, I have no Party.. :D

    That's what makes me so damn awesome.. :D

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    What do you think about Justice Kennedy retiring??

    Looks like President Trump will get another SCOTUS that the Democrats can filibuster and stop...

    Oh... wait... They can't!! :D

    Justice Kid Rock... Has a nice ring to it, don'tcha think?? :D

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    Unlike most everyone here, I have no Party.. :D

    Sure. You keep telling yourself that :)

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    Justice Kid Rock... Has a nice ring to it, don'tcha think?? :D

    45 has already chosen - the guy who played along with the farce "Finale Scene" last time around will get it.

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    They are already on it.. :D

    So you've been whining about the investigation for weeks now, but you are happy that there is an investigation that you like.

    Go to your dictionary. Flip through to "H", then "Hy" then run your finger down to "Hypocrisy" and read the entry.

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    I expect the calls to sweep this under the carpet will only increase from yourself and everybody else who is worried that there orange messiah is not as honest as they seem to believe he is.

    Those "calls" you hear are coming from DEMOCRATS...

    Dems push leaders to talk less about Russia
    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/339248-dems-push-leaders-to-talk-less-about-russia

    The Democrats who actually CARE about winning elections more than taking down Trump have finally realized what I have said all along..

    The Russia crap is as much of a WINNER for Democrats as the Birther crap was a WINNER for Republicans...

    All talking about Russia does is cause Americans to roll their eyes and say, "Yep, typical Democrat.. Doesn't have a plan, doesn't care about middle class.. All they want to do is talk about Russia and take down Trump.."

    I *HOPE* that the Democrats continue to talk about Russia and continue to be hysterical every time Trump farts...

    I *WOULD* prefer that Democrats quit shooting innocent unarmed Republicans, but all the rest is just fine...

    Because as long as Democrats are so hysterical about Trump and Russia, Democrats will continue to lose elections...

    It's that simple...

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    So Republicans started the investigation and Democrats don't want to talk about it. Good for you.

    But that doesn't mean it isn't still happening, and this is Mueller's reputation on the line. He didn't work for 12 years running the FBI to be regarded as a failure in his final, and most important, investigation. He is working for the history books and his legacy.

    If there is nothing there, 45 will be fine, Mueller isn't going to gin anything up out of thin air. That would damage him.

    If there is something there and Mueller misses it, that would also damage him.

    So I expect a very thorough and scrupulously fair investigation that is fully documented for everybody to see (within bounds of national security).

    That is why 45 is worried - he knows there is something he wants hidden. My guess, money laundering.

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    That is why 45 is worried - he knows there is something he wants hidden. My guess, money laundering.

    No... It's your GUESS that President Trump is worried... :D

    It's wishful thinking, nothing more...

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    And the THOT PLICKENS!!!

    A secretive Washington firm that commissioned the dubious intelligence dossier on Donald Trump is stonewalling congressional investigators trying to learn more about its connections to the Democratic Party.

    The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House.

    Intel chiefs told Trump that Russia has dirt on him
    What is the company hiding? Fusion GPS describes itself as a “research and strategic intelligence firm” founded by “three former Wall Street Journal investigative reporters.” But congressional sources says it’s actually an opposition-research group for Democrats, and the founders, who are more political activists than journalists, have a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump agenda.

    http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    So I expect a very thorough and scrupulously fair investigation that is fully documented for everybody to see (within bounds of national security).

    And one of the aspects that Mueller will investigate is why the Odumbo Administration didn't forcefully react to the Russian "hacking" of our election until AFTER Trump won??

    Because from all the facts, it appears that Odumbo let the Russians continue unchecked because Odumbo didn't want to give any ammunition to the Trump campaign...

    Hurting national security to serve a partisan political agenda..

    Yea... Mueller should dig into that a LOT... :D

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    On another note..

    I am going to tackle another SciFi classic that I haven't seen...

    BLADE RUNNER

    Any viewing suggestions?? :D

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Because from all the facts, it appears that Odumbo let the Russians continue unchecked because Odumbo didn't want to give any ammunition to the Trump campaign...

    Well, you are, of course, entitled to voice that opinion.

    But, I am certain that the Obama administration would have acted much differently had Donald Trump not been trapesing across the country making explicit accusations - at every opportunity - of a rigged electoral system and that you would still have condemned them for it, just the same.

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    But, I am certain that the Obama administration would have acted much differently had Donald Trump not been trapesing across the country making explicit accusations - at every opportunity - of a rigged electoral system and that you would still have condemned them for it, just the same.

    That's EXACTLY why the Obama administration ignored the Russian hacking.. They didn't want to give Trump the ammunition..

    But Trump's bluster does not forgive Obama's lackadaisical and incompetent response...

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    Obama dragged his feet on a national security incident SOLELY for partisan reasons...

    Bad Obama!!! Bad!!!!

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But Trump's bluster does not forgive Obama's lackadaisical and incompetent response...

    Could and should the Obama administration done more in response to Russia's manipulation of the 2016 election? Perhaps.

    Perhaps they did and we just don't know the whole story, yet. I remember Obama saying that he will respond in ways that are public and in ways that are not.

    Sometimes, it is hard to put ourselves in other's shoes but, it is often very important that we at least try.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale[76],

    I can't tell you how much it means to me to see you refer to the former president by his real name.

    ... just wanted to acknowledge that.

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    That is why 45 is worried - he knows there is something he wants hidden. My guess, money laundering.

    No... It's your GUESS that President Trump is worried... :D

    Dude, read!

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    But congressional sources says it’s actually an opposition-research group for Democrats, and the founders, who are more political activists than journalists, have a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump agenda.

    Firstly, the NY Post, really?

    Secondly: No, shock horror! The Democrats, and the Clintons in particular, were playing hardball! Frankly, I think this should be the example that the rest of the party follow - Ossoff should have been skewering the secret h/c bill with wild speculation derived from "respected research".

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    And one of the aspects that Mueller will investigate is why the Odumbo Administration didn't forcefully react to the Russian "hacking" of our election until AFTER Trump won??

    I agree. He should have basically forced 45 to prove he wasn't involved with them and investigated every single property deal 45 did for the whole election. The Democrats have to stop being the "good guys" and start fighting back.

    We are going to have a Supreme Court operating 50 years in the past soon because 44 didn't stick it to 45 just like 45 is going to stick it to the country and everybody who earns under $250K.

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    BLADE RUNNER

    Any viewing suggestions?? :D

    Bloody hell - you haven't seen it?

    Make sure you have the volume high, the room very dark and lots of popcorn at the ready! Enjoy!

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    But, I am certain that the Obama administration would have acted much differently had Donald Trump not been trapesing across the country making explicit accusations - at every opportunity - of a rigged electoral system and that you would still have condemned them for it, just the same.

    I also think that, since everybody was sure Hillary was going to win, he didn't want to hand the Republicans a massive whining point before she even started.

    Why he was the nice guy as they were deep sixing his Supreme Court choice is beyond me. High road my ass.

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    Firstly, the NY Post, really?

    WaPoop?? Really??? NY Grime?? Really???

    :D

    I also think that, since everybody was sure Hillary was going to win, he didn't want to hand the Republicans a massive whining point before she even started.

    So, you agree that Obama swept a national security matter under the rug for political reasons...

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not everybody was sure Hillary would win.

    I just want to make that perfectly clear.

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not everybody was sure Hillary would win.

    I just want to make that perfectly clear.

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, that's why I wrote it twice! :)

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    Any viewing suggestions?? :D

    Bloody hell - you haven't seen it?

    Make sure you have the volume high, the room very dark and lots of popcorn at the ready! Enjoy!

    A 70" LED won't hurt either!!! :D hehehehehe

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That sounds bloody dangerous.

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    Not everybody was sure Hillary would win.

    I just want to make that perfectly clear.

    Some were even sure she WOULDN'T win :D

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, you agree that Obama swept a national security matter under the rug for political reasons...

    Basically yes.

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Some were even sure she WOULDN'T win :D

    True enough.

  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not everybody was sure Hillary would win.

    I just want to make that perfectly clear.

    Yup - I posted the day before the election that I thought she had a 33% chance of losing and was derided for it.

    Michale: you were 100% 45 without any analysis - you just put your money on Red (will in this case Orange) and hoped the wheel would pay out, so I'm not giving you anything like the credit you award yourself for understanding the system. Sorry mate, blind hope that has the added bonus of trolling the rest of us here for 18 months isn't keen political science skills, it is being a consistent jerk, and I mean that in an OK way - it isn't like I'm not a fairly consistent jerk as well. That is why I'm happy here.

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is that kind of like blind luck on PokerStars?

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    A 70" LED won't hurt either!!! :D hehehehehe

    Nice - I'm getting by with a 50" screen. When I got it it seemed like being at the movies, but now I see my friends' 70"+ screens I feel like I'm watching on my iPhone :)

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You need a pretty big room for a 70" screen ...

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale: you were 100% 45 without any analysis - you just put your money on Red (will in this case Orange) and hoped the wheel would pay out, so I'm not giving you anything like the credit you award yourself for understanding the system.

    Not true...

    I was on the fence until Trump dispatched numerous "establishment" candidates with more experience and formidable financial backing..

    Once Trump put them all away, I *KNEW* that the non-establishment candidate was going to win..

    Sorry mate, blind hope that has the added bonus of trolling the rest of us here for 18 months isn't keen political science skills, it is being a consistent jerk, and I mean that in an OK way - it isn't like I'm not a fairly consistent jerk as well. That is why I'm happy here.

    Heh :D

    Nice - I'm getting by with a 50" screen. When I got it it seemed like being at the movies, but now I see my friends' 70"+ screens I feel like I'm watching on my iPhone :)

    hehe.. We had to go back to a 60" from a 70" for a month or so.. It was like night and day... I fixed a nice 70" VIZIO and breathed a sigh of relief... :D

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    So, you agree that Obama swept a national security matter under the rug for political reasons...

    Basically yes.

    "Yes?? .... yes...well.. Yes.. Thank you..."
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

  99. [99] 
    michale wrote:

    Should we hate cops, or hug them?
    http://www.ocregister.com/2017/06/25/should-we-hate-cops-or-hug-them/

    The fact that this is even a "legitimate" question amongst the Left is indicative of the problem WITH the Left...

  100. [100] 
    Kick wrote:

    LWYH
    4

    I can't stop laughing! I loved your post.

    Thank you :)

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    Everyone seems to love the posts about my arse...

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

    :D

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not everyone.

  103. [103] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well, it's always helpful to let people know which orifice one is speaking from...

  104. [104] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Bclancy

    It also implies "to the best of my knowledge, no tapes were made".

    You are assuming that Trump intended for his comment to imply that, which is exactly the point that Chris was making -- Trump never comes right out and directly states that the conversation was not recorded.

    He may not know "if tapes were made", but he could know that CD's/MP3's were made of the conversation. With Trump's history of dishonesty, these are the loopholes that you have to recognize could be in play with his comments.

  105. [105] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW [20] & Kick [100],

    Thanks! I couldn't resist.

    -Russ

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Tapes or no tapes, the pertinent piece of information here is that Comey and Trump reside at opposite ends of the credibility spectrum.

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    Tapes or no tapes, the pertinent piece of information here is that Comey and Trump reside at opposite ends of the credibility spectrum.

    The pertinent OPINION...

    Comey's credibility took a HUGE hit when he illegally leaked confidential government information he had no right to leak..

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    Listen,

    You are assuming that Trump intended for his comment to imply that,

    And you are assuming that Trump DIDN'T intend for his comment to imply that..

    Remember the three facts...

    1. Very successful businessman

    2. Decimated 19 strong, experienced, well funded opponents

    3. Devastated the biggest meanest and most well funded candidate in history

    It's a sure bet that he didn't accomplish all those FACTS by being the wounded bull in a china shop ya'all would like to THINK he is...

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    "It's time to ask whether the attack on the United States Congress Wednesday was foreseeable, predictable and, to some degree, self-inflicted."
    -CBS News Scott Pelley

    You see.. I am not painting an entire Party with the brush of a single individual...

    I can quote HUNDREDS of Left Wingers, including several right here in Weigantia, who make claims to the effect that Scalise deserved to get shot...

    A single quote is a one-off.. A few quotes is a coincidence.. HUNDREDS of people with the EXACT same attitude???

    THAT is a movement...

    Once again, the solution is simple.. Take a good long look in the mirror and ask, "Do I like what I see??"...

    But we know from PLENTY of factual evidence that the Democrat Party is loath to look in the mirror.

    For ANY reason...

    It's that PARTY CAN DO NO WRONG attitude that really sucks...

  110. [110] 
    michale wrote:

    B,

    Thank you. I'm glad you liked my theory. I've really been wanting to run my ideas by someone on the right to see what they thought. I appreciate your honesty. Also, I think that snark between people who are well acquainted is fine and not part of the problem. Everyone who knows me in person knows I can be extremely snarky :P

    Then you should fit in quite nicely here.. :D

    I judge people by their behavior.

    As do I... That is why I am at a loss to understand why the violence and hatred and attacks by a plethora of Democrats and liberals is virtually ignored by the majority of the Left and practically everyone here...

    Oh sure.. A Democrat Bernie Bro goes on a shooting rampage and shoots 5 Republicans. What human being could possibly NOT condemn THAT act...

    But where was the condemnation amongst the Democrats and amongst Weigantians when a Democrat professor attacked a Trump supporter with a chain?? Where was the condemnation when Left Wingers rioted at Berkeley and caused millions of dollars in property damage and numerous injuries???

    You say you judge people by your behavior and I have no doubt that you do..

    But the general consensus around this here parts is that Weigantians judge people by their behavior but that their Party affiliation comes first...

    If a Trump supporter hits a Democrat in the face with a chain the hysterics hit the ceiling and the knives come out..

    If a Democrat hits a Trump supporter in the face with a chain, it's not even worth a mention, let alone a condemnation...

    And I think that really sucks...

    And I have documented and verifiable FACTS to support my position..

    I'd also like to observe that one reason a widespread problem in America's political culture seems plausible to me, is how much the culture of each major political faction affects the other. It seems to me that the right and left are like two mirrors held up against one another, infinitely reflecting each other's behavior. I can't by myself change this, but I can at least do my best to be fair, and show empathy to the other side.

    And that right there is the biggest problem...

    Up until recently (last decade or so), politics was cutthroat, but it was at least somewhat amiable. It was like cutthroat rivalry between departments, but all working for the same business..

    We were all Americans first and Dem/GOP second.

    These days, it truly is an enemy situation..

    Hillary Clinton stated emphatically that one of the "enemies" she is most proud of is the Republicans...

    That says it all right there..

    I can also pinpoint the EXACT second that these hostilities came about..

    It was at the moment that Democrats in Congress started calling Republicans "terrorists" *SOLELY* because of partisan differences...

    "Arsonists"... "Criminals"... "Hostage takers".....

    Democrats spew all this kind of hateful and intolerant rhetoric and then wonder why the political climate is so poisonous!!???

    Which is not to say that the Right doesn't share the blame...

    They do... Since that time that the Dems crossed the line, the GOP has also ratcheted up the hate/enemy rhetoric as well...

    It's just sad that this TAKE NO PRISONERS / KILL OR BE KILLED style of political debate has permeated our entire culture....

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    https://youtu.be/EAYyq1EWLHQ

    A mention of Russia every 37.25 seconds in a 38 minute Left Wing broadcast...

    "Geeee.. I wonder why the American people roll their eyes whenever we mention 'Russia'???"
    -Democrat Party

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    B,

    Michale, perhaps sometime we could debate something we actually disagree on? I would enjoy that.

    Take your pick... :D

    National Security issues... LEO and Security matters... Terrorism...

    Those are my areas of expertise...

    Health care.... Economics.....

    Not so much, but I am always willing to express an opinion... :D

    Illegal immigration is always a popular topic around here... :D

    Pick a topic, not necessarily any of the above, and dive right in.. :D

    If we find we agree, we simply move on to the next one.. :D

  113. [113] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    "It's time to ask whether the attack on the United States Congress Wednesday was foreseeable, predictable and, to some degree, self-inflicted."
    -CBS News Scott Pelley

    Yeah that really floored me. Not that I have a high opinion of cable news to begin with. But taking things that are said on cable news as indicative of our political culture seems fair game to me. After all, people here(myself included) judge the right for stuff that happens on Fox News. Other readers should definitely check out Michale's link near the beginning of our exchange.

    I will respond to at greater length later on
    B

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    So, looks like today is going to be a big day for a SCOTUS watch... :D

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    Yeah that really floored me. Not that I have a high opinion of cable news to begin with. But taking things that are said on cable news as indicative of our political culture seems fair game to me. After all, people here(myself included) judge the right for stuff that happens on Fox News. Other readers should definitely check out Michale's link near the beginning of our exchange.

    Holy crap!!!

    Where have you been all my life!!!??? hehehehehe

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    Yeah that really floored me. Not that I have a high opinion of cable news to begin with. But taking things that are said on cable news as indicative of our political culture seems fair game to me. After all, people here(myself included) judge the right for stuff that happens on Fox News. Other readers should definitely check out Michale's link near the beginning of our exchange.

    Holy crap!!!

    Where have you been all my life!!!??? hehehehehe

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:

    Senate leaders have been trying to lock down Republican votes by funneling money to red states, engineering a special deal for Alaska and arguing that they could insure more people at a lower cost than the House, which passed a repeal bill last month.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-senate-health-care-bill.html

    Apparently, Republicans didn't learn any lessons from the CornHusker Kickback or the Louisiana Purchase..... :^/

    Morons....

  118. [118] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    "Up until recently (last decade or so), politics was cutthroat, but it was at least somewhat amiable. It was like cutthroat rivalry between departments, but all working for the same business..

    We were all Americans first and Dem/GOP second."

    Yes this is what I have been thinking. It feels like things have changed in our politics. It's hard for me to know for sure as I am only 24, so don't remember what it was like a few decades ago. And also, I think people have a strong tendency to nostalgize, to see the past through rose tinted glasses. So I'm not sure things have changed. But it certainly feels like it, a change that seems to be felt by Democrats and Republicans alike. Well maybe not alike. But both sides seem to feel something important has changed.

    So if there has been a change, what has caused it? I would guess that there have been more than one factor. For instance, I wonder if at least some of the nastiness dates back to the time of Bill Clinton and Gingrich's speakership. Hmm I'm just not sure. A good question to ask is, to what extent(if any) is the decay of political culture we observe in America also happening in other countries? For instance, is there a similar phenomenon occurring in the UK? Because if it is, it obviously implies broader, more global factors are at work.
    B

  119. [119] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    "You are assuming that Trump intended for his comment to imply that, which is exactly the point that Chris was making -- Trump never comes right out and directly states that the conversation was not recorded."

    I'm not speculating about intentions. I'm just saying logically, if there are tapes and Trump knows this, that makes this statement a lie. One could of course assert that the president is lying. But this isn't relevant to my point. What I understood Chris to be arguing was that the statement itself is so vaguely worded that it allows Trump a loophole, i.e. even if he knows there are tapes, as long as he didn't push the record button himself, he wouldn't technically be lying. I do not believe this to be true. Personally, my intuition is that there are no tapes. But again, that is speculation on my part. If there are tapes and Trump knows this, it would be a lie to say "I have no idea whether tapes were made".
    B

  120. [120] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    "Where have you been all my life!!!??? hehehehehe"

    :D

  121. [121] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    Yeah Pelley should absolutely have been fired.

  122. [122] 
    michale wrote:

    B,

    The problem for the vast majority of Weigantians is they START from the premise that President Trump is a lying, no-good, corrupt scumbag spawn of Lucifer..

    THEN they look at the "evidence"....

    :D

  123. [123] 
    michale wrote:

    So if there has been a change, what has caused it? I would guess that there have been more than one factor. For instance, I wonder if at least some of the nastiness dates back to the time of Bill Clinton and Gingrich's speakership.

    That could possibly be a turning point.. Clinton surely caused the prestige of the office to plummet like a stone and that might have royally pissed off the GOP..

    Social media could also be partially to blame.. We're so inured to saying what we want online without any consequences, it's a logical natural progression that we would take such nastiness into real life..

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    Yeah Pelley should absolutely have been fired.

    Which is probably why he saved his BS for his last day.. :D

    He KNEW it would get him fired.. heh

  125. [125] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    "Social media could also be partially to blame.. We're so inured to saying what we want online without any consequences, it's a logical natural progression that we would take such nastiness into real life.."

    I hadn't thought of that. Good hypothesis.

  126. [126] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    And then there's the fact that many people reportedly get their news from social media. I looked up the Scott Pelley thing on Google and found that the only news sites that seem to have reported his comment are right leaning ones. Getting news through social media will help ensure that you are only hearing from sites that cater to your political ideology. Meaning, if you're liberal, you won't have heard about Scott Pelley's comment, as I hadn't. Social media seems to facilitate the creation of bubbles where you only interact with people who already agree with you. And I think that people tend to have less empathy for groups of people they have little to no interaction with. Interacting with people we disagree with can help remind us that these are actual *people*. So social media isolates people from interaction with opposing views and when interaction does happen, the anonymity of the Internet makes bullying and nastiness much easier. So yes, that has probably had an impact on our culture as a whole.

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    Bclancy
    49

    As best I can tell, the only possibility Trump isn't ruling out with his statement is the possibility that someone else taped the conversation without Trump's knowledge.
    Of course, you can always say that Trump may be lying, but that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I don't think this particular statement is weasel worded.

    Oh, it's weasel worded alright because Benedict Donald said it, and he is nothing if not a Treason Weasel and conspiracy theorist extraordinaire himself. He's most likely heard the rumors circulating out there that the Director of the FBI at that time may have legally allowed his phone to be used as a hot mic, and Poor Donald just isn't sure whether or not those rumors are true or not. Stay tuned. :)

  128. [128] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, it's weasel worded alright because Benedict Donald said it, and he is nothing if not a Treason Weasel and conspiracy theorist extraordinaire himself.

    The problem for the vast majority of Weigantians is they START from the premise that President Trump is a lying, no-good, corrupt scumbag spawn of Lucifer..

    THEN they look at the "evidence"....

    Like I said..... :D

  129. [129] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bclancy,

    Personally, I have a sneaking suspicion that the answer to that question is Yes.

    Why do you suspect Hillary Clinton wants or is intending to run for president again? I mean, what might factor into her decision to run in 2020?

  130. [130] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @bc[118],

    US politics has always had its periods of relative cooperativeness and its periods of extreme nastiness - it has sort of ebbed and flowed over the centuries. chris weigant, the leader of our little community, has some quotes from the 1820's that would make today's politicians blush. and then there's the little matter of alexander hamilton getting killed in a duel by aaron burr. that sort of political violence wasn't so unusual for the times.

    however, i think you're right that we happen to be living in one of the nastier partisan periods. i would say that the current trajectory was first embarked upon by richard nixon and his staff, amplified by specific partisan battles (bork hearings, clinton impeachment, bush v. gore, etc.), and solidified by technological advances that have removed the common narrative and incentive to cooperate, like cable and internet news services and computer-aided gerrymandering.

    the other undercurrent to today's partisan nastiness is our overall social and economic decline. more americans today are in danger of becoming poor and homeless, and political opponents make a very convenient scapegoat. i believe the main way we reached this point economically was giant tax cuts for the rich and the gutting of worker protections, but some of it was just the inescapable march of progress.

    JL

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    50
    Bridge

    Incidentally, I have a question for y'all:
    Do you think Hillary Clinton wants to/is intending to run in 2020?

    Absolutely and unequivocally NOT going to happen. That ship has sailed. Whenever that possibility enters your mind, just remember the emails... not only the purported 30,000+ that are conspiracy theory rumored to be out there "somewhere" but also the hacked emails of WikiLeaks and Donald Trump who lies about his political opponents as a campaign tactic... his Birtherism lies, the lies about Ted Cruz's father being involved in JFK's assassination, his latest lies just this morning accusing Barack Obama of colluding with Russia in order to harm Democrats/HRC.

    Donald Trump has long been a con artist and bloviating pathological liar, and that's the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but I digress. HRC is finished running for the office of the presidency, but she is by no means finished.

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    107

    Comey's credibility took a HUGE hit when he illegally leaked confidential government information he had no right to leak..

    Comey's private notes are not government information any more than your statements on this blog about your time in the service are owned by the government. The government doesn't own your free speech. When Trump fired Comey, he was free to speak freely and the press was free to report his free speech.

    Cite: First Amendment of the United States Constitution, circa 1789.

    You don't mind Trump reading Wikileaks from hacked emails, but you take issue with a United States citizen exercising their constitutional rights of free speech. Careful now, your hypocrisy is showing. :)

  133. [133] 
    michale wrote:

    Comey's private notes are not government information any more than your statements on this blog about your time in the service are owned by the government.

    My comments on this blog are not a transcript of an official government meeting between myself and the POTUS..

    If they were, and they were transcribed on government time using government equipment, as Comey's were, you can bet your bippy that they would be government documents..

    I only need on fact to PROVE my case..

    Comey went thru an intermediary to release the government documents.. There was absolutely NO REASON to do so unless Comey knew he was dirty. If those documents were his to do with as he pleased, there was no reason to leak them via a friend. Comey could have posted them himself on any one of a number of public outlets...

    When Trump fired Comey, he was free to speak freely and the press was free to report his free speech.

    But Comey DIDN'T speak "freely"..

    He skunked around in the dead of night and release the documents on the sly..

    Thank you for proving my point..

  134. [134] 
    michale wrote:

    SCOTUS

    Agreed to review right of private parties to deny services to same-sex couples, particularly in industries involving expression (case page here);

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    Neil
    53

    I've never seen a White House leak like this - it is incredible - why can't Republicans around 45 keep their mouths shut?

    There are multiple factions in the Oval with multiple agendas. The Bannon/Miller faction are trying to take out the Kushner/Ivanka faction and vice versa. There are also factions in the Oval in service to their country who leak accordingly. Multiple leaks. Donald Trump himself is a legendary liar/leaker for nigh a half century... e.g. John Miller, John Barron, etc.

  136. [136] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Any predictions on how the court will decide this one?

    :-)

  137. [137] 
    michale wrote:

    Any predictions on how the court will decide this one?

    :-)

    The SCOTUS will decide in favor of religious freedom.....

    ESPECIALLY if it's true that Kennedy retires and the President is able to seat a new Justice..

  138. [138] 
    michale wrote:

    Any predictions on how the court will decide this one?

    :-)

    The SCOTUS will decide in favor of religious freedom.....

    ESPECIALLY if it's true that Kennedy retires and the President is able to seat a new Justice..

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    Sorry bout the double-tap

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    OHMYGOD!!! :D

    Had withdrawals for a second..

    :D

    OK, Trump's ban is re-instated with the exception of the plaintiffs...

    Point to Trump...

  141. [141] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Here's a comment I posted before the bottom fell out.. :D

    ===========================================
    Why do you suspect Hillary Clinton wants or is intending to run for president again? I mean, what might factor into her decision to run in 2020?

    I know you didn't address me on this....

    BUT..... :D

    For Hillary NOT to run, she would have to learn, quite quickly in fact, some humility and the ability to put others before herself... Further, she would have to show that she has at least SOME tenuous connection to reality and acknowledge her responsibility in her last 2 POTUS-run campaigns..

    It's doubtful that Hillary has the capacity to learn those qualities..

    As such, the *ONLY* thing that will stop Hillary from running is that if she knows that running again will kill her..

    It's entirely possible that THAT won't even stop her..

  142. [142] 
    michale wrote:

    The only way this day could have gone more better is for Justice Kennedy to announce his retirement or RBG announcing she is moving to New Zealand and renouncing her citizenship.. :D

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, let's not forget, Michale, the Kremlin must have quite a lot of ammunition that it could unleash against her should she run again.

    Surely, she and her campaign-sabotaging husband are not so clueless as to not feel that particular sword of Damocles hanging over her head. Ahem.

    Is that enough to put to rest all thoughts of another comeback? We can only hope.

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Re: #143

    Too be sure... There are PLENTY of logical and rational reasons why Hillary should be the LAST person that Democrats choose for their champion...

    Quite a few of those were in place in 2016, so....????

  145. [145] 
    michale wrote:

    Another point about the Travel Ban that I was not aware of..

    President Trump had amended the second order that it would take effect immediately after the SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional and within the power of the POTUS..

    So, the Travel Ban is in effect starting immediately...

    No matter how ya'all want to spin it, this is a win for the President and the country...

  146. [146] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    140

    OK, Trump's ban is re-instated with the exception of the plaintiffs...

    Incorrect.

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Not incorrect.. Incomplete...

    Anyone who has a connection to the US is exempt from the Travel Ban...

    The Government decides if the connection is sufficient to allow travel..

    You can spin it all you want, but you lost..

    ESPECIALLY when you said the court would not even take up the question...

    This is a win because it affirms that the Travel Ban is constitutional and is within the purview of the POTUS...

    Which is what I have been saying all along..

  148. [148] 
    michale wrote:

    It's also interesting to note that the decision to implement the portion of the ban was UNANIMOUS... 8-0....

    Doesn't bode well for the Democrats.. :D

  149. [149] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    "Oh, it's weasel worded alright because Benedict Donald said it, and he is nothing if not a Treason Weasel and conspiracy theorist extraordinaire himself. "

    With all due respect, this appears to be an ad hominem. Trump is a terrible person, therefore anything he says must therefore be weasel worded. Since you consider him a "treason weasel", would you still consider it weasel wording no matter the actual content of what he said?

    Now on the other hand, if you are talking about motive, as I said before that is different from the argument I was making(although I don't think it has been proven that he is guilty of treason. On the other hand, I suppose it depends on how one defines treason). I haven't argued anything as to Trump's intent. One could say, for instance, that he was trying to cover himself by being ambiguous, but simply missed the mark. The whole point of weasel wording as I understand it, is to give the vague impression you are saying A, but when A turns out not to be true, the exact wording of your statement means that it was technically not a lie. Like if you called me and asked to speak to my sister, and I said "I'm sorry, I don't see her around anywhere". But it turns out I was closing my eyes when I said it and she was right there in the room with me. Even though it would be dishonest, technically it would not be a lie. But if I said "I have no idea where she is", that would be a lie because I have a very good idea where she is; namely in the room with me. To my way of thinking, if Trump is aware of the existence of tapes, then "I have no idea... whether tapes were made" would not be a mere dishonest equivocation. It would be an outright lie. Which to me means it is not weasel wording. Note that this assessment has nothing to do with my opinions on Trump's motives or character, or indeed anything other than the wording of the statement itself. Perhaps we are talking around each other, since my point is admittedly quite narrow in scope.

  150. [150] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    The whole point of weasel wording as I understand it, is to give the vague impression you are saying A, but when A turns out not to be true, the exact wording of your statement means that it was technically not a lie.

    Doesn't THAT sound familiar??? :D

  151. [151] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Will Hillary run in 2020?
    Has anyone that lost ever run again in the next election against the candidate they lost to?
    If not, then it will not happen because 2016 has proven that if it never happened before it can't happen.

  152. [152] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    54

    Neil: Flynn's actions deserve a close look, and so do other actions by Americans who may be straying into treason territory

    Michale: No more so than the actions of a number of Clintonistas...

    Wow, you really have drank the Kool-Aid. Which one of the "Clintonistas":

    * Violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution of the United States by accepting payment from a foreign government without advance permission from both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Army.

    * Had several material omissions regarding payment of foreign funds, etc., on his SF-86 application for renewal of his security clearance in January 2016 just months after he traveled to Moscow.

    * Was a paid lobbyist for a Turkish consultancy while working for the Trump campaign and receiving security briefings.

    * Was tape recorded discussing the sanctions with the Russian Ambassador, a violation against the current government of the United States; we have one president at a time.

    * Received an undisclosed $45,000 to speak at an event hosted by RT, during which he was seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    * Received payments for speeches to Russian firms Kaspersky and Volga Dnepr.

    Neil: I initially thought that there was nothing but the whole Kushner/Back Channel issue deserves a look.

    Particularly because it appears on its face to have been an attempt to subvert the current administration of the United States; the specific request by Kushner to use Russian gear to establish a line of communication, the request of an amateur which dumbfounded the Russian Ambassador. A private citizen requesting use of secure comms of a hostile power to undermine US policy undetected is not normal. It doesn't matter if he was a member of the incoming administration or not; he was a private citizen when he attempted to establish comms with an adversary of the United States.

    Michale: There is no facts whatsoever to support a Kushner/Russia back channel..

    *LOL*

  153. [153] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    128

    The problem for the vast majority of Weigantians is they START from the premise that President Trump is a lying, no-good, corrupt scumbag spawn of Lucifer..

    THEN they look at the "evidence"....

    Like I said..... :D

    Michale, Donald Trump has been a lying con artist for decades, a FACT that precedes his presidency by a long shot and hasn't somehow magically disappeared upon his taking the oath of office. Denying that FACT says more about you than it does about the "vast majority of Weigantians."

  154. [154] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    "Why do you suspect Hillary Clinton wants or is intending to run for president again? I mean, what might factor into her decision to run in 2020?"

    Trying to keep this brief, but mostly because of my assessment of her personality, which I'm afraid may be markedly more negative than most people here(Michale excluded of course). I will try to say this nicely. Basically, I think she really wants to be president. I believe she has spent the better part of the past 15 years preparing to run/running. I think she is really ambitious. Look at how long she stayed in the race in 2008. She wants it very badly I think. And I think she still has a lot of favors she can call in from various power holders in the party. I suspect she blames everyone but herself for her loss. Sorry I don't recall where, but I remember hearing some rumors to the effect that Clinton values loyalty above all else in her staff, and that to tell her she is wrong about something, is well... not encouraged by her.

    I think the zeitgeist in the Democratic Party(the base of voters, not the politicians) has turned increasingly against the very type of Democrat that Clinton is. The connections to Wall Street and the super pacs especially. Also her record of often lackluster support for issues like gay marriage, and more currently, pot legalization. Trying to be gentle here, but there's an impression that Democrats like her are more interested in pleasing their billionaire donors than showing courage in fighting for issues that Democrats care about. There's a sense that the interests/desires of the Democratic base are in conflict with the interests of rich Democratic donors, and that as a result, the there's a divergence between the behavior and agenda of the Democratic leadership, and that of the party base. I don't think I need to say which side Clinton seems to fall on.

    Now you can argue that Clinton is a "true progressive" and has been unfairly portrayed as establishment. But she has certainly said and done quite a few things that add to that perception. Like her response when asked why she took such large sums for the Goldman Sahcs speeches. Problem is, I don't think that Clinton is really perceptive when it comes to which way the wind is blowing politically. She always seems to be several steps behind. So I'm not sure she fully realizes how much her own actions... well if not led to her loss, then maybe could have helped her win if she had done things differently(then again she has been close to Wall Street for years, so I'm not sure how much she could have distanced herself). I'm not sure she realizes how much a lot of Democrats really don't want her to run again. And I'm especially not sure she realizes how bad it might be for her party if she ran again. And.. I'll go one further. I don't think she wants to realize.

    Anyway, this ended up being longer than I intended. Please understand this is rampant speculation, and take it in the spirit it is meant. I could be talking out my ass here.

  155. [155] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    123

    That could possibly be a turning point.. Clinton surely caused the prestige of the office to plummet like a stone and that might have royally pissed off the GOP..

    You naturally decide on "Clinton" causing the "prestige of the office to plummet" as if Richard Nixon and Watergate and Ronald Reagan and Iran Contra and hundreds in their respective administrations being investigated and jailed for multiple felonies had never happened. Very telling indeed.

    Allow me to refresh your memory. You're welcome in advance. :)

  156. [156] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    130

    Exactly right, JL. I'm reading these and responding before I move to the next one. I will stop doing that straight away now in order to avoid duplication! :)

  157. [157] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the scotus ruling looks like a compromise between factions. it was a narrow ruling based on the specifics of the case that was brought. because the plaintiffs have connections to the united states, the court has essentially treated the lawsuit as if it were only brought on behalf of people with connections with the united states, and others were outside the scope of the suit.

    in a sense i agree with the dissenters that this isn't the kind of decision that can be made halfway, and will likely result in chaos as immigration officials try to operationalize what a bona-fide connection is and is not.

    what's most interesting to me is the fact that gorsuch and alito sided with thomas's dissent. this case is far from over, but it can't be denied that even allowing part of the ban to go forward counts as a win for the administration.

    JL

  158. [158] 
    michale wrote:

    You naturally decide on "Clinton" causing the "prestige of the office to plummet" as if Richard Nixon and Watergate and Ronald Reagan and Iran Contra and hundreds in their respective administrations being investigated and jailed for multiple felonies had never happened. Very telling indeed.

    None of which really compares to a President getting a blow job in the oval office, as far as prestige is concerned..

    Reagan and to a lesser extent, Nixon at least did the wrong thing for the right reasons..

    Clinton was ONLY interested in getting off...

  159. [159] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    "Surely, she and her campaign-sabotaging husband are not so clueless as to not feel that particular sword of Damocles hanging over her head. Ahem.

    Is that enough to put to rest all thoughts of another comeback? We can only hope."

    Oh good it's not just me. That was hard to write. It's difficult to express my own idle speculation based on personal feelings while simultaneously being as polite about Hillary as possible :S

  160. [160] 
    michale wrote:

    what's most interesting to me is the fact that gorsuch and alito sided with thomas's dissent. this case is far from over, but it can't be denied that even allowing part of the ban to go forward counts as a win for the administration.

    Thank you...

    For me, the main questions were answered by the SCOTUS, 9-0...

    YES, a Travel Ban is constitutional

    and

    YES, the President has the authority to initiate a Travel ban...

    Having said that, to be fair, it's enough of a muddle that, had we wagered, I would have accepted it as a PUSH..

  161. [161] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    "None of which really compares to a President getting a blow job in the oval office, as far as prestige is concerned..

    Reagan and to a lesser extent, Nixon at least did the wrong thing for the right reasons.."

    What reasons are you referring to?

    "Clinton was ONLY interested in getting off..."

    How is that a bad motive? ;)

  162. [162] 
    michale wrote:

    What reasons are you referring to?

    Reagan was trying to free hostages....

    Nixon?? Well, in his bizarre warped vision of reality, he thought he was the savior of the country.. :D

    How is that a bad motive? ;)

    All things being equal, it isn't.. :D

    But when you are SUPPOSED to be running the country from that chair rather than making it all sticky with yer... well, ya get the idea..

    Think of it as if the Pope would get a handjob while addressing a Good Friday crowd..

    While it might be a GOOD Friday for the Pope...??? It tends to diminish the prestige of the office.. :D

  163. [163] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    Michale
    Lol somehow I missed your response to Elizabeth's question to me(why I think Hillary may run in 2020)::
    "For Hillary NOT to run, she would have to learn, quite quickly in fact, some humility and the ability to put others before herself... Further, she would have to show that she has at least SOME tenuous connection to reality and acknowledge her responsibility in her last 2 POTUS-run campaigns..

    It's doubtful that Hillary has the capacity to learn those qualities.."

    Damn it could've saved me the trouble of typing that long response. This sums up my reasons perfectly.

  164. [164] 
    michale wrote:

    How is that a bad motive? ;)

    On the other hand, a man who is only interested in getting himself off and to hell with his partner???

    35 years of marriage to my gorgeous best friend has taught me that THAT is a bad motive.. :D

  165. [165] 
    michale wrote:

    Damn it could've saved me the trouble of typing that long response. This sums up my reasons perfectly.

    heh I have my moments.. :D

  166. [166] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    unless there's been a conviction of which i'm unaware, "lying con-artist" definitely falls into the realm of opinion. there is certainly copious evidence of donald's statements being divorced from factual reality, but the name-calling weakens your argument.

    @michale/bclancy,

    hillary may still want to continue running for president, but it's doubtful the democratic primary voters will continue to support her. hillary had her bite at the apple and blew it; i see it as highly unlikely she'll win the nomination again.

    JL

  167. [167] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    133

    My comments on this blog are not a transcript of an official government meeting between myself and the POTUS..

    I never said they were. If you are saying that a private citizen's notes and his free speech belongs to the government, then you're simply mistaken and/or have drank the right-wing Kool-Aid. As long as the notes do not contain classified information, Comey has committed no crime by exercising his right to free speech.

    If they were, and they were transcribed on government time using government equipment, as Comey's were, you can bet your bippy that they would be government documents..

    "Bippy"? Government employees are allowed to receive personal information on government equipment and allowed to perform limited personal tasks thereon in their spare time. Sorry, bubba, you lose again. They're called breaks, and no one can own your free speech.

    If you seriously think James Comey wasn't allowed to take breaks to take notes while in the performance of his government duties, perhaps you haven't seen Donald Trump in action on the golf course. Breaks for personal time are allowed. :)

    I only need on fact to PROVE my case..

    This is a very telling statement. *LOL*

    Comey went thru an intermediary to release the government documents.. There was absolutely NO REASON to do so unless Comey knew he was dirty. If those documents were his to do with as he pleased, there was no reason to leak them via a friend. Comey could have posted them himself on any one of a number of public outlets...

    How a citizen exercises their right of free speech is really none of your business. It's his business.

    But Comey DIDN'T speak "freely"..

    He skunked around in the dead of night and release the documents on the sly..

    I would not call a major newspaper "the sly." He simply passed off his notes to a friend to get his story out there. I can understand exactly why. The president was lying on twitter about him and attempting to influence his testimony.

    Thank you for proving my point..

    Your delusion is intact. Run along now and drink your Conservative Kool-Aid wherein you are spoon-fed to believe a private citizen is not allowed to speak freely about his time in office. It's well-settled case law: Absent a specific legal prohibition, government employees have a constitutional right to speak out on matters of public concern. This right was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1968 and is unchallenged today.

  168. [168] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    absolutely right about comey. i can understand why the president's supporters want to discredit comey and his testimony, but there's nothing illegal about the way he released his account of his conversations.

    JL

  169. [169] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    If you are saying that a private citizen's notes and his free speech belongs to the government, then you're simply mistaken and/or have drank the right-wing Kool-Aid.

    No, I am not saying that a private citizen's notes and his free speech belongs to the government.

    I am saying that Comey wasn't taking notes as a private citizen, he was taking notes as an employee of the President...

    And he wasn't exercising his free speech, he was skulking around in the dead of night leaking papers he had no business leaking..

    I would not call a major newspaper "the sly."

    It is when he could have posted those papers himself..

  170. [170] 
    michale wrote:

    The president was lying on twitter about him and attempting to influence his testimony.

    Then Comey's BEST course of action would be to release the notes himself, instead of leaking them...

    But Comey COULDN'T release them in that manner because he KNEW it was illegal to do so..

  171. [171] 
    michale wrote:

    Government employees are allowed to receive personal information on government equipment and allowed to perform limited personal tasks thereon in their spare time. Sorry, bubba, you lose again. They're called breaks, and no one can own your free speech.

    And, if talking to the President Of The United States was considered a "break", you would have a point..

    But it's not, so you don't..

    I get it, Kick.. I really do... You just got yer wee wee whacked on the SCOTUS siding with President Trump 9-0 so your reaching for ANYTHING to save face...

    I understand..

    But Comey himself knew he was doing something illegal which is why he didn't leak the documents himself...

  172. [172] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    147

    Not incorrect.. Incomplete...

    Your statement that "Trump's ban is re-instated with the exception of the plaintiffs" is incorrect. As the decision is written, there are likely millions more exceptions than just the named plaintiffs. That is not spin; that is a fact.

    Anyone who has a connection to the US is exempt from the Travel Ban...

    So quite a bit more exceptions than "the plaintiffs."

    You can spin it all you want, but you lost..

    If you think the one-word response "incorrect" constitutes "spin" when your statement was indeed incorrect, that says more about you than it does about me. :)

    ESPECIALLY when you said the court would not even take up the question...

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. I said I thought the court would find a way to NOT rule on it. Review what I said here:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/05/let-trump-be-trump-kellyanne/#comment-101970

    The court hasn't ruled on it yet, and they didn't rule now. They simply allowed the 90-day stay to remain in place for those constitutionally protected while allowing the stay to be enforced for those not otherwise constitutionally protected. There's something for everyone in the partial lifting of the stay, but there's no ruling yet.

    I am guessing the SCOTUS will later decide there's no need to making a ruling on the issue because the 90 days has lapsed. If they rule otherwise, I will then concede I was wrong.

    This is a win because it affirms that the Travel Ban is constitutional and is within the purview of the POTUS...

    Well, I would actually say it affirms the travel ban is partially constitutional and partially unconstitutional, which is why the stay is being allowed to remain in place for some persons yet be enforced for others.

    As for your and JL's bet, I'd call this one a push. :)

  173. [173] 
    michale wrote:

    Sorry, kick.. That was prick-ish....

  174. [174] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    you seem to be acknowledging that comey's actions were not illegal, while at the same time claiming that he was being sneaky by knowingly NOT doing something illegal. this argument doesn't make any sense.

    JL

  175. [175] 
    michale wrote:

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. I said I thought the court would find a way to NOT rule on it. Review what I said here:

    And you were WRONG...

    The SCOTUS DID rule on it.. :D

    The court hasn't ruled on it yet, and they didn't rule now.

    You can spin it any way you want it, but it's clear that the Court DID rule that Trump's Travel Ban can go into effect except for a very narrow sliver of people that the GOVERNMENT gets to define..

    It's a win for President Trump's travel ban...

    I am guessing the SCOTUS will later decide there's no need to making a ruling on the issue because the 90 days has lapsed.

    WRONG.. The administration updated the EO to take effect after the SCOTUS rules.. Hence, the 90 days hasn't even started yet...

    As for your and JL's bet, I'd call this one a push. :)

    As did I...

    But, in reality, I won because the SCOTUS did re-instate the ban which affirms that the ban is constitutional and within the purview of the POTUS...

    That's President Trump, in case ya forgot. :D

    Sorry, sorry.. Prick-ish again. :D

  176. [176] 
    Kick wrote:

    Bridge
    149

    With all due respect, this appears to be an ad hominem.

    Really? *LOL* ;) I'm just kidding you.

    Consider my names for "Benedict Donald" as the equivalent of Michale referring to Barack Obama as "Odumbo." Merely an opinion based on facts both public and some that have yet to be released.

    Trump is a terrible person, therefore anything he says must therefore be weasel worded.

    Actually, that depends on what he actually says, in my opinion. His mental faculties in decline are ever present regardless, however. :)

    Since you consider him a "treason weasel", would you still consider it weasel wording no matter the actual content of what he said?

    Do you take me for a scoundrel? *LOL* ;)

  177. [177] 
    michale wrote:

    Consider my names for "Benedict Donald" as the equivalent of Michale referring to Barack Obama as "Odumbo." Merely an opinion based on facts both public and some that have yet to be released.

    Except for the fact that my "Odumbo" is contingent on ya'all's name-calling..

    In other words, if ya'all wouldn't do none, there wouldn't be none...

    Actually, that depends on what he actually says, in my opinion. His mental faculties in decline are ever present regardless, however. :)

    And yet, you cannot reconcile your OPINION with the three accepted FACTS...

    Do you take me for a scoundrel? *LOL* ;)

    No.. Just a typical Democrat.. :D

  178. [178] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don
    151

    Has anyone that lost ever run again in the next election against the candidate they lost to?

    Right off the top of my head: William Jennings Bryan lost to William McKinley in 1896 and 1900. Ross Perot lost to Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996 as an Independent candidate along with Ralph Nader... although one of those campaigns of Nader's was on the ballot while one was as a write-in candidate.

    Don makes a very good point here, though. :)

  179. [179] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    adlai stevenson was the most recent, lost twice to ike.

  180. [180] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    you seem to be acknowledging that comey's actions were not illegal,

    When did I ever claim Comey's actions were not illegal??

    They are clearly illegal per US Code Title 18

  181. [181] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Then Comey's BEST course of action would be to release the notes himself, instead of leaking them...

    But Comey COULDN'T release them in that manner because he KNEW it was illegal to do so..

    by your own reasoning, comey's request for his friend to give the press a secondhand description of a copy of his memos was not illegal. comey kept the original documents secure, and ceded them to the special counsel when they were requested. that's factual.

    furthermore, as i've already explained to you, the statute requires anything removed to be "of value," in order for its removal to be illegal. comey's written words on a few pieces of paper, or on a digital screen, do not meet that standard under any existing case law.

    you know it's not illegal, but you're still repeating that opinion, which is not factually supported.

    JL

  182. [182] 
    michale wrote:

    furthermore, as i've already explained to you, the statute requires anything removed to be "of value," in order for its removal to be illegal

    No, it does not...

    you know it's not illegal, but you're still repeating that opinion, which is not factually supported.

    It is factually supported..

    You just don't like the facts... :D

  183. [183] 
    michale wrote:

    by your own reasoning, comey's request for his friend to give the press a secondhand description of a copy of his memos was not illegal. comey kept the original documents secure, and ceded them to the special counsel when they were requested. that's factual.

    Also irrelevant..

    Comey leaked confidential information..

    THAT is factual..

  184. [184] 
    michale wrote:

    Comey's own actions PROVE that he knew what he was doing was illegal..

  185. [185] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    158

    I am determined to catch up here!

    None of which really compares to a President getting a blow job in the oval office, as far as prestige is concerned..

    You've admitted you weren't a "history buff" before so I'm going to chalk up this comment to that FACT you prove regularly. If the keeping of enemies' lists, wiretapping, espionage, burglaries, leaked national secrets, and conspiracy to commit murder against a journalist that went on in the Nixon administration are worse than two consenting adults, then clearly you are simply misinformed regarding history. :)

    Reagan and to a lesser extent, Nixon at least did the wrong thing for the right reasons..

    So you think there is a "right reason" for an administration to knowingly violate the laws of the United States regarding drug sales and conspiracy to commit murder of a journalist? You think obstruction of justice where Nixon instructs his chief of staff H.R. Haldeman to tell the FBI, "Don't go any further into this case, period" is okay with you?

    Careful there, Mr. LEO, you're teetering on the edge of your moral foundation to preach about issues of law to the rest of Weigantia. :)

    Clinton was ONLY interested in getting off...

    You should crack a history book and learn something. If you have an aversion to reading, perhaps listening might more suit your tastes.

    http://nixontapes.org/transcripts.html

    :)

  186. [186] 
    michale wrote:

    If the keeping of enemies' lists, wiretapping, espionage, burglaries, leaked national secrets, and conspiracy to commit murder against a journalist that went on in the Nixon administration are worse than two consenting adults, then clearly you are simply misinformed regarding history. :)

    Sounds like yer describing the Clintons :D

  187. [187] 
    michale wrote:

    You should crack a history book and learn something. If you have an aversion to reading, perhaps listening might more suit your tastes.

    And Nixon transcripts has exactly WHAT to do with Clinton only wanting to get himself off???

  188. [188] 
    michale wrote:

    I am determined to catch up here!

    I admire your perseverance... :D

  189. [189] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No, it does not...

    it's in the text of the statute. were your eyes closed when you read it?

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641

    JL

  190. [190] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Comey's credibility took a HUGE hit when he illegally leaked confidential government information he had no right to leak..

    that's simply not the case. nothing comey wrote in his memos was classified "confidential" (nor in any other way classified) - and since he is no longer in the employ of the government, any information he knows that is not classified is his prerogative to share with whomever he chooses. unless there's a compelling national security concern, the government doesn't have any right to control the thoughts or words of its former employees.

    JL

  191. [191] 
    michale wrote:

    that's simply not the case. nothing comey wrote in his memos was classified "confidential" (nor in any other way classified) - and since he is no longer in the employ of the government, any information he knows that is not classified is his prerogative to share with whomever he chooses. unless there's a compelling national security concern, the government doesn't have any right to control the thoughts or words of its former employees.

    And yet, he did not leak those papers himself..

    Ergo, he knew it was illegal...

    That's the point you just can't explain...

  192. [192] 
    michale wrote:

    But it's all a moot point..

    I am ecstatic about the SCOTUS ruling so I don't really care about Comey right now.. :D

  193. [193] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    171

    And, if talking to the President Of The United States was considered a "break", you would have a point..

    But it's not, so you don't..

    Wow, Michale. You are confusing the dinner with the note taking. You think Comey took out a pad in between the steak with ketchup course and the 2 scoops of ice cream?
    *LOL*

    No one owns your free speech regarding anyone. Comey is allowed to take notes and disseminate whatever he desires as a private citizen that wasn't deemed classified or privileged. Donald Trump has claimed no privilege yet for any witnesses... not a single one.

    Comey could exercise his free speech however he sees fit. He could write a book, testify, forward it to whatever press he wanted via whatever method he wanted... because he is a private citizen. Let that sink in, and get over it already.

    I get it, Kick.. I really do... You just got yer wee wee whacked on the SCOTUS siding with President Trump 9-0 so your reaching for ANYTHING to save face...

    Wow. You deserve this: You really are ignorant if you claim to know what I'm thinking and why.

    I understand..

    Wow. Claiming to understand what I'm thinking says more about you than it does about me. Dang.

    But Comey himself knew he was doing something illegal which is why he didn't leak the documents himself...

    Doubling down on the ridiculous and claiming to know what James Comey "knew" is equally telling. You must not mind at all appearing foolish and... oh, I will stop there. :)

  194. [194] 
    michale wrote:

    As I told JL... I realize your dodging and I am in too good a mood to care.. :D

  195. [195] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    169

    I am saying that Comey wasn't taking notes as a private citizen, he was taking notes as an employee of the President...

    Well, there's part of your problem. The President is NOT an employer. The United States is Comey's employer, and he swears to uphold the Constitution. He like many if not all employees of the United States swear an oath to the country, NOT any person.

    COMEY'S OATH: "I, James B. Comey, [Holder: do solemnly swear] do solemnly swear [Holder: that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States] that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States [Holder: against all enemies, foreign and domestic] against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    Comey: And I’m so excited to be working again with the people of the FBI and serving the American people.

    It is when he could have posted those papers himself..

    Utter nonsense. :)

  196. [196] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bclancy,

    With all due respect, this appears to be an ad hominem.

    With all due respect?? Why is it that commenters who use that phrase have no intention of being respectful?

    "This appears to be an ad hominem" ... Seriously? Please don't tell me that we have another hypersensitive girl on this blog!

  197. [197] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick[176],

    Very nice!

  198. [198] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    173

    Sorry, kick.. That was prick-ish....

    Well, looky there; it seems we do NOT disagree on everything. No problem, though. I gave you some right back... though not quite as prickly. :)

  199. [199] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    174

    Yep!

  200. [200] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bclancy,

    I could be talking out my ass here.

    You haven't been here long enough to allow such an assessment.

  201. [201] 
    michale wrote:

    With all due respect?? Why is it that commenters who use that phrase have no intention of being respectful?

    "This appears to be an ad hominem" ... Seriously? Please don't tell me that we have another hypersensitive girl on this blog!

    I didn't read it that way...

    To me, it sounded like the tone of a new person who doesn't want to come in here and start throwin' their shit around... :D

    But that's probably because I like what she has to say.. :D

  202. [202] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Utter nonsense. :)

    I respect your opinion..

    I just disagree with it. :D

  203. [203] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And yet, he did not leak those papers himself..
    Ergo, he knew it was illegal...
    That's the point you just can't explain...

    as i (and CW and others) have proven many times over, the act was NOT illegal. and comey DID explain it, in his senate hearings. he said he wanted his version of events to get out, but didn't want reporters dogging him and his family. his exact words were:

    “Because I was worried the media was camping at the end of my driveway at that point, and I was actually going out of town with my wife to hide, and I worried it would be like feeding seagulls at the beach..."

    As I told JL... I realize your dodging and I am in too good a mood to care.. :D

    there's nothing to dodge; you're tossing out stuff that's been thoroughly disproved many times over.

    JL

  204. [204] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But that's probably because I like what she has to say.. :D

    Indubitably. :)

  205. [205] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    175

    And you were WRONG...

    The SCOTUS DID rule on it.. :D

    They ruled on whether or not to allow the stay. They didn't rule on the case. That ain't spin, pookie; that's a FACT. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy both joined the majority opinion that agreed to keep parts of the ban on hold until oral arguments this fall. The fact that neither Roberts nor Kennedy agreed with the United States dissenters to put the full Executive Order into effect is a huge clue for how they'd be likely to rule on the merits, a bad sign for the Trump administration with regards to certain citizens protected under the Constitution.

    So no ruling on the case, just the stay. :)

    The SCOTUS thread the needle. I suspect they'll decide in the fall that the 90 days is past and the issue on the merits of the plaintiffs' case is moot and make no further ruling.

    You can spin it any way you want it, but it's clear that the Court DID rule that Trump's Travel Ban can go into effect except for a very narrow sliver of people that the GOVERNMENT gets to define..

    A ruling on a stay in a case is NOT a ruling on the merits of a case. If they've agreed to hear oral arguments in the fall, then the case hasn't been ruled on, pookie. I'm sorry if it's over your head, but there is no ruling on the merits of the case.

    I will concede I was wrong when and if the court makes a ruling on the case. :)

    It's a win for President Trump's travel ban...

    I would agree that there was something for everybody, both sides won regarding the stay with oral arguments to be heard on the merits of the case in the fall.

    WRONG.. The administration updated the EO to take effect after the SCOTUS rules.. Hence, the 90 days hasn't even started yet...

    The 72 hours? *LOL* Do the math, dearest; the 90 days will still and nevertheless be long since completed in October.

    As for your and JL's bet, I'd call this one a push. :)

    As did I...

    But, in reality, I won because the SCOTUS did re-instate the ban which affirms that the ban is constitutional and within the purview of the POTUS...

    Nope. Only three justices did what you're claiming. The majority dissented against them including Chief Justice Roberts, Kennedy, and the 4 liberals (must I name them?)

    So to recap: Trump got a partial lift of the stay on his second executive order that was "watered down," and "politically correct." Trump's words, NOT mine.

    That's President Trump, in case ya forgot. :D

  206. [206] 
    michale wrote:

    as i (and CW and others) have proven many times over, the act was NOT illegal. and comey DID explain it, in his senate hearings. he said he wanted his version of events to get out, but didn't want reporters dogging him and his family. his exact words were:

    So, in other words, he wanted to do the "right" thing, but didn't have the balls to accept the consequences...

    Like I said.. A cowardly act...

    And an illegal one, despite your opinion to the contrary...

  207. [207] 
    michale wrote:

    They ruled on whether or not to allow the stay.

    And they ruled 9-0 to remove the stay except under very narrow circumstances as defined by the Trump administration...

    It's a win no matter how you want to spin it.. :D

  208. [208] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    You're entitled to believe that comey was cowardly in trying to protect his family from the consequences of the media circus that would surround a release of his memos. You're not entitled to believe that it was illegal, because that view has been proven inaccurate.
    JL

  209. [209] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    177

    And yet, you cannot reconcile your OPINION with the three accepted FACTS...

    I've kicked down your "accepted" BS multiple times while you ignored it and kept spewing the utter nonsense.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/10/will-youre-fired-be-trumps-undoing/#comment-99677

    **********
    And yet, he is a highly successful businessman..

    So was Al Capone. Oh, come on... that's not a "fact"... that's an opinion that depends on one's definition of "highly successful businessman." Most people who've paid millions to the government for breaking the law and landed in court as many times as Trump for violations of federal law and paid millions of dollars to people in restitution for breaking their contracts or taking their money in fraudulent scams aren't considered "highly successful businessmen;" they are what the majority refers to as "cons."

    He beat 19 highly qualified, highly experienced and well-funded GOP candidates.

    You keep typing this over and over as if it's a "fact." It's not a fact for many reasons:
    * First off, you keep typing "19" over and over. Trump didn't beat 19 GOP candidates. Check your math; it's wrong.
    * Second, someone should tell Scott Walker he was well-funded. He dropped out early because he actually wasn't. There are other candidates who weren't remotely well-funded, but you already know that.
    * "Well-qualified"... ROTFLMAO. Another opinion. Besides, beating "well-qualified" candidates when you're an unqualified ignorant con artist just means you knew what Party contained a plethora of "easy to snow" flakes.

    Typing that utter nonsense over and over doesn't magically make it become a "fact."

    And he totally DEVASTATED the biggest, meanest and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet...

    The biggest, meanest, and most-well funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet is in Russia and run by one Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin... who didn't exactly run against Trump.

    **********

    No.. Just a typical Democrat.. :D

    (1) The question wasn't to YOU.
    (2) Every time you continue to type that out, it's another LIE. I'm NOT a Democrat. Let that sink in and stop lying about posters. You want to be taken seriously or keep lying repeatedly about others? You choose.

  210. [210] 
    Kick wrote:

    189
    JL

    Bonus points to JL for the case law. +++

    Michale, you lose on this... get over it. :)

  211. [211] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    200

    You haven't been here long enough to allow such an assessment.

    Spew alert! *wipes off screen* *LOL* :)

  212. [212] 
    Kick wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS

    Collins tweets she is a NO!

    And down goes the "tax cut" bill disguised as health care (at least for now). :)

  213. [213] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    I said
    "With all due respect, this appears to be an ad hominem..."

    Elizabeth Miller said:
    "With all due respect?? Why is it that commenters who use that phrase have no intention of being respectful?

    'This appears to be an ad hominem' ... Seriously? Please don't tell me that we have another hypersensitive girl on this blog!"

    Let me ask you a question. Is pointing out when you think someone made a logical error necessarily being disrespectful? My major area of interest is philosophy, and I tend to draw a distinction between insults/ personal attacks and arguing that someone has made an error in reason. One is directed at the person. The other is directed at the person's argument. "With all due respect" is a tired cliche, but in this case I was using it to try to communicate that I am not attacking Kick personally, merely that I thought the formulation of his argument was flawed. People in general(here I absolutely include myself) tend to take criticism of their arguments as a personal attack. And when people feel they are being personally attacked, they tend to shut down the reasoning part of the mind and become defensive. It means they won't analyze the critic's argument on it's logical and empirical merits(or lack thereof). Through my use of a cliche, I was simply trying to avoid this happening.

  214. [214] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    Kick(176):
    "Really? *LOL* ;) I'm just kidding you.

    Consider my names for 'Benedict Donald' as the equivalent of Michale referring to Barack Obama as 'Odumbo.' Merely an opinion based on facts both public and some that have yet to be released."

    Sorry about that. I misread the tone of what you were saying.
    B

  215. [215] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bclancy,

    This blog may be the wrong one for you.

  216. [216] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Btw, Bclancy, Kick is not a he.

    Here's a piece of free advice for you ... avoid making unsubstantiated assumptions.

  217. [217] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,
    What was so insulting that you'd suggest B.C. ought to leave? I didn't read anything bad on her part, except thinking kick was male, but just about everyone makes that mistake at first. I wonder what that says about us...
    JL

  218. [218] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You misunderstand, Joshua ... I don't think she should leave.

    I just think she needs to learn how to take constructive criticism (which she claims she takes as a personal attack) and not call it an ad hominem attack.

  219. [219] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    She appears to be the hypersensitive type and I just wanted to nip that nonsense in the bud, so to speak. :)

  220. [220] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    BC's use of the term ad hominem was a description of kick's criticism of donald trump's words. ad hominem in this context meant that kick claimed the words were weasely because donald said them, which is fallacious reasoning - nothing to do with what anyone said about anyone else here in the comments section. perhaps this is just me being thickheaded, but i don't really understand why it read as hypersensitive to you.

    JL

  221. [221] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Precisely.

  222. [222] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Seriously, Joshua, don't worry about it - perhaps a valuable lesson has been learned by the newcomer.

  223. [223] 
    Kick wrote:

    Bridge
    214

    Sorry about that. I misread the tone of what you were saying.

    No apology necessary; I could easily discern that you misunderstood. The fact is, I call Donald Trump "Benedict Donald" all the time and have been doing so on this website since my first post in mid May 2016.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/05/13/ftp391/#comment-75291

    It's by no means whatsoever an accident that I refer to Donald Trump in such a manner and ain't about to stop doing it now. ;)

  224. [224] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    Kick
    Thanks for not being offended by my bungle :-)

Comments for this article are closed.