ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [443] -- You Crazy, Lunatic, 70-Year-Old Man-Baby

[ Posted Friday, June 30th, 2017 – 17:04 PDT ]

That's a doozy of a subheading, but we felt it was completely appropriate this week. It is a direct quote, from conservative (and "Never Trump") commentator Ana Navarro. During an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Navarro responded to Trump's recent tweetstorm attacking Mika Brzezinski by calling on Republicans to say to Trump (either on television or personally) the following: "Listen, you crazy, lunatic, 70-year-old man-baby, stop it. You are now the president of United States, the commander-in-chief and you need to stop acting like a mean girl because we just won't take it." We've saved her entire rant for the talking points, because it is indeed worth reading in full; but because it was the most forceful pushback on Trump we heard all week, we thought it deserved headline status. Tell us what you really think, Ana!

Of course, she wasn't the only conservative to chime in on Trump's petulance. Charles Krauthammer pulled no punches in his response either: "Presidents don't talk like this. They never have. This is what it sounds like when you're living in a banana republic. This is how Hugo Chávez would talk about his opponents. This is how the worst dictator, Duterte in the Philippines, would talk about opponents." When a Fox News contributor meekly pointed out that at least Trump wasn't "sending military guards to go shut down" the press, Krauthammer fired back: "When you defend the president of the United States by pointing out that he hasn't sent the tanks out in the streets to shut down the media, you've reached a fairly low level of defense."

It wasn't just conservatives piling on, though. Anderson Cooper addressed the issue on his program: "Somewhere in the Twilight Zone, a teeny tiny violin is playing the world's saddest song for the most powerful man on earth. Other than that, few are shedding any tears for the president's plight."

Cooper went on to challenge the assertion that Trump was "tough," in no uncertain terms: "Tough is fighting for the health-care reforms that he actually campaigned on. Tough is rising above insults and actually leading. What our president does is not a display of toughness. It's a display of weakness of character, of thinness of skin." But the best thing Cooper did was to read from Trump's own Crippled America book, which was "full of advice on how a president ought to behave":

The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the world. The president is the spokesman for democracy and liberty. Isn't it time we brought back the pomp and circumstance and the sense of awe for that office that we all held? That means everyone in the administration should look and act professionally, especially the president. Impressions matter.

This is just a small sampling of the many, many responses Trump's whiny tweets gave birth to in the past two days. Mika Brzezinski may have had the best response, tweeting back a photo of a box of Cheerios with the slogan "Made for little hands." An NBC News executive had perhaps the most poignant response: "Never imagined the day when I would think to myself, 'it is beneath my dignity to respond to the President of the United States.'"

Orrin Hatch had the most head-scratching response, though, reportedly saying of Trump's tweeting habits: "Every once in a while, you get a dipsy-doodle!" Um, what? Can someone please translate that one, to twentieth-century vernacular?

The Morning Joe tweetstorm has now entered its second day, so there will undoubtedly be more reactions to come.

But, of course, there are other things happening in the political world in the meantime. At this time last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was confidently predicting that by this point the Senate would have voted on his healthcare bill. There would be a vote he swore, up and down. Then his own Republicans began fleeing the wreckage. He could only afford to lose two votes, but within hours of the plan's release, four had sworn they weren't going to vote for it. Then the dismal C.B.O. score was made public, causing moderates to abandon ship. By the time McConnell threw in the towel, that number had climbed to nine. He spent the remainder of the week desperately trying to square the circle between those who wanted the bill to be even more Draconian and those who were horrified by the real-world effects it would have on their own constituents. Now the Tea Partiers are just flat-out pushing for: "repeal Obamacare now, and then we'll replace it later." Trump has even weighed in on the "repeal now" side, tweeting: "If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!" Yeah, that's the ticket!

In other words, the wheels have officially come off the bus. A few billion extra for opioid addiction treatment isn't going to save this patient, in other words. If Trump and the Tea Partiers had their way -- and if they were unable to agree on a replacement plan in time -- then we already know what would happen (due to the C.B.O. scoring this exact plan, last year): instead of 22 million losing coverage, that number would jump to 32 million. Instead of 15 million forced off Medicaid, the number would instead be 19 million.

But we're spending a lot of the talking points section on healthcare, so we'll just move along for the time being. In other news: the Supreme Court wound up its session this week, and Anthony Kennedy did not announce his retirement (whew!).

Donald Trump continued to rail against what he called "fake news," while a news organization was busy figuring out that several Trump properties had an image hanging on their wall which showed Trump on the cover of Time magazine, dated March 1, 2009. This came complete with laughably non-standard Time headlines such as: "The Apprentice is a television smash!" and "TRUMP IS HITTING ON ALL FRONTS -- EVEN TV!" Turns out that Time didn't even put an issue out on that date, and the whole thing was nothing more than (you guessed it) fake news. Within days, these framed images began disappearing from the walls of Trump properties, but not before we all got a big laugh at him being hoist on his own petard.

To be scrupulously fair, we have to point out that sometimes the other side gets things wrong as well. Someone hired an airplane to fly a message over Charleston, West Virginia, in an effort to sway a senator's vote on healthcare. It read: "SEN HELLER KEEP YOUR WORD VOTE NO ON TRUMPCARE" -- but Dean Heller's state is a few thousand miles from where the message appeared. Next time, try "Senator Capito," folks, and it might be a wee bit more effective.

Other amusing news, this time from an economic conference in Germany. U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was there to deliver an address. Here's what happened: "Ross was allotted 10 minutes to speak. After he spoke for more than 20, the conference organizers cut his feed mid-sentence. The audience ‘laughed and clapped’ in response."

In other foreign news, this Washington Post headline pretty much speaks for itself: "Pentagon Plan To Defeat ISIS Looks Very Much Like Obama's Approach."

Jason Chaffetz is "pulling a Sarah Palin" and retiring early from his elected position in the House. On his way out the door, he had a rather bizarre suggestion -- representatives and senators should get an extra $30,000 a year as a "housing allowance." Because it's really, really hard making a $174,000 salary stretch, right Jason? This is the same guy, in case anyone's forgotten, who made news earlier this year by suggesting that poor people could afford healthcare if they'd just give up "that new iPhone they just love." Maybe his channeling of Marie Antoinette is merely a bargaining chip for his next job, though -- by week's end, he had announced he'd be a new regular on Fox News. Assumably, he worked out that extra $30,000 with them in advance.

Finally, to end on a positive note, we would like to wish all our neighbors to the north a happy sesquicentennial this weekend! As Canada celebrates its 150th birthday, though, it hit a milestone in polling it has never measurably hit before. From a Canadian news source (hence the British spelling) comes the following:

A deep national revulsion toward President Donald Trump has sent Canadians' opinions of the United States plummeting to a level of antipathy never before seen in the 35 years a pollster has been asking.

A major Pew Research survey released on Monday found that just 43 per cent of Canadians hold a favourable view of the U.S., with 51 per cent holding an unfavourable view.

That is a steep decline since last year, the final year of Democrat Barack Obama's presidency, when Pew found 65 per cent of Canadians favourably disposed to the U.S. And it is lower than even the low point of the unpopular presidency of Republican George W. Bush, when 55 per cent of Canadians were favourable.

At no time since at least the early 1980s, and likely much earlier, has a majority of Canadians held a negative view of our neighbour and ally.

"Maybe it was pretty bad in 1812," joked Environics Institute executive director Keith Neuman, "but there's no data for that."

The rise of Trump has almost certainly caused the precipitous fall. Under Obama last year, 83 per cent of Canadians had confidence in the president to do the right thing in world affairs. Under Trump this year, it is a mere 22 per cent.

Or, to quote the learnèd Canuck philosophers Bob and Doug McKenzie: "Take off, eh?"

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Congress is supposed to have a rather large say in whether America goes marching off to war or not, according to the Constitution. They have largely abdicated this responsibility for the past 16 years, and a good case can even be made that they haven't lived up to their clear constitutional duty in this regard since World War II.

Which is why our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is Representative Barbara Lee, who has been trying to remind her fellow congressmen of their responsibilities for many, many years now. This week, she was surprisingly successful in forcing this debate (at least in the House, for now). Here's the story:

Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee of California has expressed surprise that one of her anti-war proposals is actually going to be debated by the House of Representatives. It seems like that deliberative body is finally going to, well, deliberate.

The House Appropriations Committee panel has agreed to an amendment proposed by Lee that would force a vote on a 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, according to a report by the Associated Press. This would in effect constitute requiring a new vote authorizing the battle against the Islamic State.

If Lee's amendment is passed, it would repeal the law allowing military operations to continue beyond the durations that were initially considered when they first initiated. The repeal would occur 240 days after the bill's enactment.

Lee's objective is to have a robust debate on whether renewing authorization of the 2001 law is morally and strategically sound. Apparently, many of her fellow Republicans agree with her.

"The last 16 years, it has become increasingly clear that this AUMF has essentially provided the president, any president, the authority to wage war in perpetuity," Lee said, according to Politico.

She's right about that last part. America has been at war for 16 years now -- the longest wartime period the nation has ever experienced -- and Congress has completely punted any oversight of the executive branch during the entire period. This has now lasted through three different presidents. The AUMF passed back then is woefully out of date, and debating its scope and possible limitations and downsides is seriously overdue.

Lee has been introducing this idea for years, and was perhaps the most surprised that the House -- under Republican leadership, no less -- is now going to go forward with this debate. But then again this isn't so much a partisan issue as it is an issue of congressional cravenness. After all, Lee was not successful in her effort to force a debate under a Republican president and a Democratic president. She did not succeed while Republicans held the speaker's gavel, and she did not succeed while Nancy Pelosi led the House.

But she persevered, and she finally succeeded in moving the issue to the floor of the entire House (rather than just her committee). For refusing to give up, and for her effort to shame Congress into doing what the Constitution says they should have been doing all along, Barbara Lee is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. After all, the enemy we are now fighting (the Islamic State) did not even exist when the AUMF was originally passed in response to the 9/11 attacks. Debating the scope of the continuing war is indeed long overdue.

[Congratulate Representative Barbara Lee on her House contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one is going to be a collective award. To all the Democrats in the California state legislature, we are handing you your very own Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, for what we are going to call "pulling a Republican move." Republicans (most notably Paul Ryan, but he's certainly not the only one) have increasingly been reluctant to provide details for any of their grand schemes. Rather than put together a draft of a bill, they instead put out a "list of bullet points" or a laughably-inadequate "white paper" explaining (for instance) why cutting the safety net for everyone will be fantastic for all. By not providing actual numbers, it makes it a whole lot harder to fight back against such ideas.

Now, we've obviously seen in the past few weeks why this is true -- because when some neutral party actually does put realistic numbers on a Republican agenda plan, those numbers are terrible for everyone living outside the confines of the one percent. So it's understandable why they try to hide the numbers.

Democrats, however, cannot take the high road in complaining about such fuzziness when they themselves occasionally resort to the same shell game. Which is where California legislators come into the picture.

California's economy is huge. It routinely measures in the top ten national economies of the world (usually in sixth or seventh place). So it's big enough -- if the political will existed -- to go it alone on healthcare and institute a single-payer plan for everyone. It would certainly be an interesting experiment for the largest U.S. state economy to attempt.

The California senate passed a bill to do so. Or, to be strictly accurate, half a bill. They passed a draft which laid out how a single-payer system would work, but they omitted any mention of how it would be paid for. They didn't finish their homework, and scribbled in a few hasty lines on the bus-ride to school that morning.

This is beyond disappointing.

After passing their half-plan, they then had the nerve to be annoyed when the Democrats in the state assembly refused to deal with it at all. In effect, this sent the message: "We ate all the ice cream, so why didn't you guys eat all the vegetables?"

Single-payer systems will necessitate a lot of disruption. That is just a fact. Changes will be necessary, from how paychecks are figured to the split between government, employers, and employees, and all sorts of other things that will need adjusting to move from what we've got now to single-payer. Any honest progressive will easily admit as much. Progressives insist that single-payer will be better in the end, even if there will be some changes to get used to in the short term. Those changes will likely include a new payroll tax to pay for the system.

As we've seen with Obamacare, people are always wary of change. Especially in the healthcare arena. What this means is that it's going to take a period of education for the public to get used to the idea. The pros and cons must be weighed fairly, and this means letting people know what the entire system would look like.

The California Democratic senators didn't do so. They refused to even make the real argument, instead preferring if the assembly do all the heavy lifting. Now, we don't fault the Democratic senators and assemblymen equally -- we think the senators bear far more of this blame. The assembly could always have stepped up to the plate and laid out the real case, but it was really incumbent upon the senators to offer up a full and detailed plan. They didn't do so.

Progressives like to tout the superiority of single-payer systems. But they also need to explain "here's what the differences -- good and bad -- will be, for everyone." By refusing to do so, the California legislators have actually set the effort back, instead of advancing it.

Next time, we would strongly urge Democrats to stop acting like Paul Ryan. Lay out the entire plan, and allow the public to debate it in full. The effort could take years to accomplish, which is why it's important from the start to be honest about the scope of the changes which will have to take place.

California legislators absolutely failed to do so. For this, we are awarding them all a group Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. Go back to the drawing board, guys, and next time finish your work before introducing it to the public. Have the courage of your convictions, in other words.

[Contact California Democratic legislators via the official state legislative website, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 443 (6/30/17)

This was a week where there were so many possible talking points to choose from that we had to just ignore whole swaths of them to retain our focus on what's important. So we've limited the talking points about Trump's feud with his television screen to the final two, which contain the aforementioned full transcript of Ana Navarro's remarks. Most of the rest of them focus on what Trump was trying to distract us all from with his tweetstorm: the utter failure of the Republican Party to come up with anything even close to an acceptable replacement for Obamacare, after seven full years of promising to do so.

This is the real story. This is the important battle. So this week we've got to forgo all sorts of other distractions that could easily be made into talking points. Here's just one generic example: "Why is Donald Trump so afraid to hold press conferences? He's only held one solo presser in his entire time in office, whereas most presidents historically have held six or seven by this point."

This week, instead, we have to remain vigilant on the Mitch McConnell and the Senate healthcare bill. Some celebrated early that the bill was dead, but a more-correct view is that it could always come back -- as any horror movie fan will tell you, you never want to turn your back on the zombie, because it could come back to life at any moment.

With that cheerful image to contemplate, let's just get right to the talking points.

 

1
   Wealthcare!

Although he doesn't use the word, Paul Krugman lays out the painfully obvious case that what the Republicans are interested in passing isn't healthcare, it is in fact "wealthcare."

Because Republicans spent almost the entire Obama administration railing against the imaginary horrors of the Affordable Care Act -- death panels! -- repealing Obamacare was bound to be their first priority. Once the prospect of repeal became real, however, Republicans had to face the fact that Obamacare, far from being the failure they portrayed, has done what it was supposed to do: It used higher taxes on the rich to pay for a vast expansion of health coverage. Correspondingly, trying to reverse the A.C.A. means taking away health care from people who desperately need it in order to cut taxes on the rich.

 

2
   Perception? No, reality.

Jennifer Rubin used to be a rabidly-conservative blogger for the Washington Post. She harped on the Benghazi non-scandal so much it earned her the nickname "Jenghazi" in the comments, in fact. But since the rise of Trump, she has totally changed her tune. At this point, it wouldn't even surprise any of her readers in the least if she suddenly announced she's going to support the Democratic Party. She just laid out 20 reasons why the Republican healthcare bill "crashed and burned." Three of them could have been written by Krugman (except, in number 14, the word "perception" should really be "reality"), and the fourth we just threw in because it was so amusing, at the end.

3. Taking benefits away from people to give tax cuts to the rich is a dream target for Democrats.

. . .

14. Rolling out a half-baked tax plan with supersize cuts for the rich only intensified the perception that the GOP cares only about tax cuts for the rich.

. . .

19. Standing up for "hardworking taxpayers" could not disguise the fact that the overwhelming amount of tax relief was going to the richest Americans.

20. You cannot pass major legislation with a policy-illiterate president who cannot explain what's in it and therefore cannot persuade voters and lawmakers of its merits.

 

3
   The terrible, terrible numbers

There's a reason Republicans don't want to look at numbers, and that reason is that for all their wonderful Ayn Randian dreams, the numbers are terrible for most everyone.

"Because the Senate -- unlike the House -- actually waited until the Congressional Budget Office scored their legislation before voting on it, they were faced with the absolutely horrific outcome their bill would cause. Medicaid slashed by hundreds of billions of dollars. An astounding 22 million Americans forced off their health insurance. Democrat senator Ron Wyden even had the time to get additional numbers from the C.B.O. later in the week, which showed that even those terrible numbers didn't show the whole picture. Since much of the Medicaid budget-slashing was loaded at the very end of the 10-year period the C.B.O. scored, it didn't show what would happen next. In the first ten years, Medicaid would be cut by 26 percent. This rises to a jaw-dropping 35 percent in the next decade, though. As if all these brutal numbers weren't enough, by week's end public polling became available, showing that the Senate plan had the support of only 12 to 17 percent of the American public. This is not a popular plan, folks -- not by a longshot."

 

4
   McConnell snubs March of Dimes

Mitch McConnell has had a pretty rough week, all around.

"Mitch McConnell thought he'd use the same tactics the House of Representatives used -- with a secret bill, and almost no time to debate before voting on it -- but it all blew up in his face this week. By now, the Senate was supposed to have voted on the bill, but McConnell had to pull it from the floor early in the week, after the Congressional Budget Office score was so breathtakingly bad. With only 52 Republican senators, McConnell could only afford to lose two votes. By Wednesday, nine GOP senators had gone on the record against the bill as drafted. Ouch. The most biting criticism of McConnell's refusal to get input from anyone concerned, however, was the following tweet from Harry Reid's former chief of staff: 'The March of Dimes helped McConnell recover from childhood polio. They oppose his health care bill. But he refuses to meet with them.' Nothing shows the mean-spirited nature of McConnell's bill quite so personally and dramatically, I have to say."

 

5
   How the rest of the world sees us

No surprise here, really.

"Donald Trump said during his campaign that he wanted to restore the image of America in the rest of the world. So how's that going? A recent Pew Research poll of 37 foreign countries shows that favorable ratings of the United States decreased from 64 percent during the end of the Obama administration to only 49 percent today. When asked directly about the president, the numbers were even worse. Obama garnered 64 percent confidence from the rest of the world, while Trump manages a dismal 22 percent rating. The numbers are even more brutal when broken down by country. In Germany, Obama held an 86 percent confidence rating. Trump is rated at only 11 percent. In France, it went from 84 percent to 14 percent. In Britain, Trump gets 22 percent to Obama's 79 percent. And in Spain, while Obama got a 75 percent approval rating, Trump is down to single digits -- only seven percent of Spaniards approve of his presidency. The only big gain Trump got in the entire world was in Russia, where Obama only got 11 percent, while Trump enjoys a rating of 53 percent. That last one is not too surprising, though, when you think about it."

 

6
   Mean and nasty man-baby

And finally, we end with the promised full transcript of Ana Navarro, from Wolf Blitzer's show. Watch the clip, if you haven't seen it yet, as merely reading her words doesn't leave you with the same sense of outrage which Navarro put into her narrative on her reaction to Trump attacking the Morning Joe hosts.

Well look, when I first saw the tweet this morning, I was frankly disgusted. I thought to myself, this dude has such a fixation with women and blood. What is wrong with him? And then you remember that this dude, this disgusting dude, is the president of the United States. And you realize just how much he is diminishing the presidency of the United States. You realize that what he is doing is not just acting for Donald Trump. He's acting for all of us. He's acting for our president, and he is embarrassing. He is shameful. He is disgusting. And I'll say this about Republicans. I'm really tired of hearing words like: "disappointed," like: "disturbed," like: "I'm bothered," like: "I wish he wouldn't do it." It's time that somebody looks at the camera and looks at him and calls him up and says:

"Listen, you crazy, lunatic 70-year-old man-baby, stop it. You are now the president of United States, the commander-in-chief and you need to stop acting like a mean girl because we just won't take it. We won't vote with you, we won't work with you. I can't start talking about tax reform. I can't start talking about health care reform because I can't get past the fact that we have a president who lacks the sufficient character."

We have a president who is mean. We have a president who is nasty. We have a president who is immature, unstable, and just acts like a crazy person with anybody who attacks him because he has got thin skin and he is never going to pivot and anybody around him, whether it's his daughter, his chief of staff, his wife -- who I remind you had said her signature issue was going to be fighting against online bullying -- or any Republican on the Hill, stop enabling him. Confront this and confront this hard, or it will never stop, and it will embarrass all of us. It will take the presidency low, low, low.

 

7
   Tend your knitting, or seek therapy

Blitzer then asked Navarro what the president should do to fix the situation. Navarro was equally as blunt, speaking directly to the president.

Stop. Look, if you can't control your tweeting habits, then stop tweeting. Go seek therapy. Go knit. Find a hobby. Talk to your wife. Do anger management. You've got to realize, once and for all, you are no longer just Donald Trump. You're no longer just speaking for Trump Tower, and Trump brand, and Trump hotels, and Trump steaks. You are speaking for an entire country and our people do not deserve to be embarrassed and be represented by somebody who is so unfit for the job. So you've got to start pivoting. You've got to start acting presidential. You should have started six months ago. But start now if you couldn't do it back then.

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

147 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [443] -- You Crazy, Lunatic, 70-Year-Old Man-Baby”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    I know you had a lot of material, but this was one of your best CW!

    Thank you for calling out the CA Dem Senators - I'm done with "Headline Legislation" - at least in CA we need to be the adult part of America.

    I've bought California passport covers. I've advise my kids to say they are from California if asked - everybody loves CA around the World. If you say USA they envisage a brash clown with a big cowboy hat (e.g. JR), and there is a lot of latent hostility to the orange clown.

    The McConnell anecdote is a really sad indication of how badly DC has sold out. I can see why people voted for 45 - and understand Don and Altohone's disgust with similar Democratic politicians. Politicians, in the system we have put them in, have to be coin operated. Ultimately Don is right, as we all probably know, we need to get money out of politics. But it is like the talking about war, the only way to stop wars is to have a war.

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    Thank you. But unfortunately I only appear to be half right.
    It's easy to agree to get the money out- it's not so easy get people to agree on how.
    But I'm all for going to war against the Big Money interests.

    "Of course you realize this means war"
    -Bugs Bunny

    Let's unleash the one weapon that the Big Money interests can't control- our votes.
    As in my recent discussion with Kick and Balthasar the Big Money interests use their money to create the impression that only the Big Money candidates can win. It only works because people believe it.
    2016 proved that when people stop believing what they are told they can achieve what they have been told they can't.
    20% of citizens committing to only vote for small contribution candidates CAN work in 2018.
    All it will take is for 20% of voters to stop believing when they are told it can't be done.
    None of the naysayers here have had the courage to say if it could work in 2018 and elect 10-50 small contribution candidates to congress in 2018.
    Why?
    Because if it could work then why not try it?
    It's much easier to accept defeat without trying and claim pragmatism than to try and risk failure.

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Navarro inexplicably left out the word impeach from her critique of the Man Baby although the judges also would have accepted 25th amendment. You don't lecture a baby about how he should drive the car - you just yank him out of the driver's seat. More to the point, you should never let him drive in the first place! What were you thinking GOP? Isn't the GOP supposed to be the stern daddy party? Only with other families man children I guess.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Isn't the GOP supposed to be the stern daddy party?

    That is the saddest part of all. The Democrats are meant to be the out-of-touch idealistic hippies, and the Republicans the sensible adults who just can't see that the World has incrementally changed.

    We are in bizarro World where the hippies are saying "hold on man, let's not go crazy here" and the Daddy party is sniffing glue and dying their hair orange and spiking it.

  5. [5] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    I can't imagine why California is having such a problem figuring out how to pay for a universal healthcare program. The USA is the only first world country that doesn't have universal healthcare so it's not as though California doesn't have good examples to follow. Their failure also suggests they didn't bother looking at any successful universal healthcare programs when crafting their own. The stupidity of American politicians runs deep when it comes to healthcare.

    [2] Don Harris -

    Let's unleash the one weapon that the Big Money interests can't control- our votes.

    Of course they control your votes. They control who can vote and whose votes are counted. You're living in a fantasy world if you don't realize that by now.

    [3] TheStig -

    If you don't know yet why republicans will not impeach - and this congress will NEVER impeach - then you just haven't been paying attention. It wouldn't matter what the sad bloated carrot did - he could officially announce that the USA was a Russian territory and they still wouldn't impeach. Try thinking about what most motivates a human being and see if you can figure it out from there.

    Meantime, the "Morning Joe tweetstorm" has been labelled as a case of blackmail/extortion by lawyers weighing into the scandal. Of particular concern is the harassment of Mika's teenaged children. However, if Joe and Mika do not officially file a complaint with the FBI then they themselves are reducing the whole affair to a television stunt.

  6. [6] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Have to agree with Neil, CW. Today's FTP is up there with your best.

    On Maher's show tonight, Bill asked, 'why is this any different than what Trump has always done, why is this tweet getting all this attention?'

    The answer that came back (forget from who) was that the situation has indeed changed - Trump is now president, and ostensibly representing all of us now, and we're embarrassed by his behavior, and how it reflects the US around the world.

    Which is why, CW, your headline is so appropriate, and sums this all up nicely.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Progressives insist that single-payer will be better in the end, even if there will be some changes to get used to in the short term. Those changes will likely include a new payroll tax to pay for the system.

    Why not keep employers out of it and institute a change to income tax to pay for it. If it truly is a single-payer, universal healthcare system and the costs are spread out over all taxpayers, then you're not even talking about a lot of money per taxpayer and it's not nearly as visible as a payroll tax or a burden directly on employers.

    I guess a payroll tax may be just as effective. I don't know - I'm just thinking out loud and not very coherently at the moment.

    Going from the system you have now, to a single-payer system is not going to be easy in the short run, to understate the reality of the situation. But, you're right - it's going to take A LOT of public education, not least about how insurance works and why healthcare insurance isn't like any other kind of insurance in terms of how it must work in order to cover everyone in a cost-efficient manner. It's a debate that hasn't even started yet!

    Anyway, I'm tuning out for the next several days and so I'd like to wish you and everyone here a very happy Fourth of July!

    As for Canadians' opinion of America and its global leadership role - I wouldn't put too much stock into the results of that survey, at least not in any long-term manifestations. Times will change and so will our fickle opinions.

    Although, I can't imagine why we would have lower opinions of the US in 1812 - we won that war, after all. And, we have a reputation for not rubbing it in, you know. :)

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry, Chris ... I meant to preface that comment above with ...

    Happy 4th of July, Chris!

    :-)

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    You people lost the election...

    Get over it.. :^/

  10. [10] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And btw, kudos for including Talking point 5, because it emphasizes exactly the reason that so many Americans slap their foreheads whenever something idiotic, uninformed, and unnatural comes out of this president's mouth.

    Tucker Carlson, when talking about this, gave the defense that Trump's virtues include being a 'brawler' and 'not playing by the rules', adding, "he's a threat to the people who make and enforce the rules, in this case the media establishment here in Washington, and they hate him for that."

    Ignoring for a moment the irony of highly paid Fox anchors sitting in D.C. studios railing against the Washington media, Carlson seems to believe that the dignity and gravitas that used to accrue to those who held the presidency were all simply 'rules enforced by the media', and not, say, 'behavior normally expected of someone who holds the highest office in America'. Apparently, he feels that the dignity of Washington, the gravitas of Lincoln, and the seriousness of Roosevelt were all just silly conventions foisted upon them by CNN.

    I would like to see how Carlson would react if his own lawyer showed up to Court wearing checkered overalls, sporting a rubber nose, and calling the Judge 'Chickee'. Would he then be so dismissive of the concept that someone who represents you should conduct themselves by 'the rules'?

  11. [11] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You people lost the election...Get over it.

    Guest reply by H.L. Mencken:

    "The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

    The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Ya'all are acting EXACTLY like ya'all accused the Right of acting when Odumbo was elected..

    And what's worse is that ya'all are so blinded by Party bigotry, you can't even see it...

    Sad....

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

    And yet, yer vaunted Democrat Party got totally devastated by this "downright moron"...

    So what does that say about ya'all who FOLLOW such a worse-than-moron Party??

    Think about it..

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    But hay...

    At least ya'all can lay claim to the VANITY VOTE, courtesy of the blue-est state in the union..

    Get used to it, Balthy.. That's all the Democrat Party is going to get.. :D

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all gotta ask yerselves one question..

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/30/fake-news-associated-press-engulfed-in-cnn-level-scandal-as-it-covers-up-invention-of-imaginary-pruitt-meeting/

    If President Trump is so bad, why does the Left Wing media have to make shit up to attack the President over??

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    All of ya'all's PTDS induced hysteria is about two things and two things only...

    The removal of a freely, fairly and legally elected POTUS and the nullification of a free, fair and legal election..

    That's it.. That is ALL that this is about...

    Ya'all lost... Hillary Clinton will *NEVER* be President...

    Get over it...

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    I mean, this isn't even about making a legally, fairly and freely elected POTUS a one-term POTUS..

    THAT is understandable and to be expected, even though ya'all went apeshit hysterical when the GOP tried to do it to Odumbo..

    As I said, THAT is normal politics.

    But what ya'all are doing, what the Never Trump'ers are doing is REMOVING a freely, fairly and legally elected POTUS.. Ya'all are wanting to nullify an election **SOLELY** because ya'all don't like the results..

    And that's just sad....

    President Trump is YOUR president...

    Deal with it like a grown-up, fer christ's sake!

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mopshell (5)-
    Yes, they try to control our votes by trying to control who can vote and how they are counted.
    But if they really controlled our votes then Hillary would have won over 90% of the primary vote and she would have been running against Jeb Bush.
    If what you say is true then why bother voting?
    The control they do have only works because people believe that the "choices" offered are the only choices.
    What you seem to be saying is that if 20% of the 2016 voters were to commit to only voting for small contribution candidates in 2018 it wouldn't make any difference because the Big Money interests would not let those people vote and/or not count their votes.
    If you are right then it's time for another revolution.
    But let's assume just for a moment that our political process isn't a complete scam and that the Big Money interests can't stop all the people from casting votes and having their votes counted.
    20% of the 2016 voters casting votes for small contribution candidates in the 2018 primaries could easily total up to 50% or more of the primary vote.
    In the recent 2017 NJ primary (which includes governor) only about 13% of voters participated.
    20% is greater than 13%. This would result in several small contribution candidates winning the primary for one of the CMPs, maybe even some primaries where a small contribution candidate wins both CMP nominations.
    In 2014, less than 70& of the 2012 voters voted in the general election. Just half of those people that didn't vote committing to only vote for small contribution candidates in 2018 would total about 20% of the vote in the general election.
    And many of the party regulars would also vote for the small contribution candidates that won their party's primary which could increase the percentage of small contribution voters near 50% in the general election.
    Are you saying that if this happened it would not result in 10-50 small contribution candidates elected to Congress (includes the Senate) in 2018?
    And remember- the question is if people DO participate. This is no different than IF there were public financing, IF there was a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United or IF the Big Money candidates that promise to fix the problem with money in politics after they are elected would actually do what they said they would do.
    Do you have the balls to actually answer the question or will you not respond or give a bullshit answer like in comment 5?

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    Nice response to comment #5 which was a prime example of the kind of extreme cynicism that can prevent progressive change right from the get-go!

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Thank you. But I wasn't trying to be nice. :D

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  22. [22] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale:

    YOU are the one who is so blinded, that you are supporting and defending a man who proves virtually every single day that he is deeply unqualified and unfit to be president of the United States. Just please, I beg you, to think about that for a moment and let it sink in.

    YOU just keep this in mind will you? Yes Trump won a legal and fair election. BUT, he just BARELY squeaked by in the closest election in recent modern times, without even a majority of the vote, and because of a FLUKE in the electoral system. NOT because he was the best, most qualified candidate.

    He won because he was the VANITY candidate.

    So we, as AMERICANS, have the right to bitch and moan and complain about this SADDEST state of affairs as much as we want until we can correct it.

    So, to use your own words, JUST GET OVER IT Michale and get used to it.

    Because as much as Trump is our LEGAL president, he is not and NEVER will be president in OUR HEARTS, the way a George Washington or Abraham Lincoln ARE.

  23. [23] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    What you seem to be saying is that if 20% of the 2016 voters were to commit to only voting for small contribution candidates in 2018 it wouldn't make any difference because the Big Money interests would not let those people vote and/or not count their votes.

    In the recent 2017 NJ primary (which includes governor) only about 13% of voters participated.

    20% is greater than 13%

    Yes, 20% is greater than 13%, but you started this by saying if 20% of those that voted..., so if only 13% voted in the NJ primary, then 20% of the 13% that voted is 2.6% of the voters.

    2.6% is less than 13%.

    I agree with and support what it is that you are wanting to see happen in this country, but I just do not believe this plan will be able to accomplish that -- not by itself, anyway.

    We already cap the amount of money that a person can give directly to a candidate's campaign. I have no problem with that amount being given. The problems, in my opinion, are the PAC's and Super PAC's that are the real bastions for corruption.

    2.6% of the voters won't produce the amount of money needed to run a successful campaign against unlimited dark money candidates.

  24. [24] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    You posted a FAKE NEWS article that comes from a FAKE NEWS site. Honestly, I'd put more faith in an Onion article than I can one from Breitfart.

    And do you actually read the articles you post links to, or do you just grab headlines that you think somehow prove your point without bothering to do the due diligence required?

    This article blasted the AP over one of their journalists' questioning if the EPA's ruling on a pesticide was influenced by Pruitt's meeting with Dow's CEO just prior to the EPA's announcement of the ruling. Only problem is that Pruitt and Dow never had their scheduled sit-down.

    Why would the AP journalist make up this fictional story that the meeting occurred???

    Could the fact that Pruitt's office had published his schedule showing that he was supposed to meet with Dow? And while there was no sit-down meeting, the two were both speaking at a conference and they did speak to each other.

    So Breitfart is saying that the AP is lying only because Pruitt did not have an official sit-down meeting with Dow's CEO, while acknowledging the FACT that Pruitt met and spoke with Dow's CEO!

    Pruitt's office says that the two spoke briefly at the conference. It doesn't require a lot of time to say:

    "Do we have your support?"

    "Do you have the money?"

    "We have the money."

    "You have my support."

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    You didn't catch the right mistake.
    It was 20% of 2016 voters, not just primary voters. But the 13% is 13% of eligible voters so that 13% is around 20% of 2016 voters give or take a percentage point or two. They are pretty much equal at 20%.(50% of primary vote)
    I have demonstrated (and so has Bernie) how enough money can be raised from small contributions to be competitive.
    Again, it is not about how much money can be raised that is what makes the 20% effective- it's the VOTES THEY CAST.
    The part about how you don't think it would work, at least not by itself, reminds me of when the Republicans say that raising taxes on the rich is pointless because it wouldn't cover the whole deficit.
    It doesn't have to solve every problem and effect every congressional election to be effective in 2018. But it is the only option that can be effective at all in 2018 and begin the process that will effect the majority of congressional elections long before public financing, a constitutional amendments or any promises from the Big Money candidates will be passed, implemented or fulfilled.
    It's really an easy question to answer yes or no:
    If 20% of the 2016 voters participated in 2018 COULD it elect 10-50 small contribution candidates to Congress in 2018?

  26. [26] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    CW... Awesome commentary it is definitely one of the better FTP in a while. TP 5 is a good one but the poll numbers are only the leading edge of where we are headed. In the parts of the world I inhabit, Trump twitter shenanigans are not even mentioned and as good tell of how things go, news of the US policy/ interactions are buried on page 4 or 5 vs in the first three pages. Positive news and views of China, Russia and Germany occupy our former place.

    Comments section...

    Whew... Needed a good laugh...

    The 7 M comments decrying "Y'all's" behavior about how we are treating the Trump are the best...

    When it comes to, How does he put it? Oh, yea, that's it MORAL LEG TO STAND ON... M must be a virtual legless and armless person... Talk about growing up and dealing with it.

    I guess he doesn't realize that TDS is really kinda the reverse of ODS... At 7 Cartman comments I rate the TDS strong in this one...

    I needed that after the new and improved foreign bureaucratic river of shit I have had to deal with for the past since January or so.... Trump has definitely made things better in that regard. :s

    As they say where I am at in SOUTHAM. ciao ciao....

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    Good [26]

    TDS is brought to us by the same people that gave us ODS.

    ODS: They claimed everything Obama did was wrong and needed to be opposed and ultimately overturned.

    TDS: They believe that 45 isn't completely incompetent and out of his league.

    Same people, same inability to grasp reality.

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    You posted a FAKE NEWS article that comes from a FAKE NEWS site. Honestly, I'd put more faith in an Onion article than I can one from Breitfart.

    Do you want to field this??? :D

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    JM,

    YOU are the one who is so blinded, that you are supporting and defending a man who proves virtually every single day that he is deeply unqualified and unfit to be president of the United States.

    By WHOSE standards??

    Yours??? The rest of the Left Wingery??

    Sorry, ya'all's standards gave us Odumbo and the worst 8 years in the history of this country.

    JM, let me say it clearly so you can understand.

    YOU LOST...

    Act like a grown up about it fer christ's sake..

    YOU just keep this in mind will you? Yes Trump won a legal and fair election. BUT, he just BARELY squeaked by in the closest election in recent modern times, without even a majority of the vote, and because of a FLUKE in the electoral system. NOT because he was the best, most qualified candidate.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.

    But the simple matter is Trump won..

    YOU lost..

    Trying to nullify the election because you don't like the results is the epitome of immaturity..

    Ya'all blasted Trump before the election about how he wouldn't state that he would abide by the results and now it's YA'ALL who refuses to accept the results..

    Isn't that hypocritical??

    He won because he was the VANITY candidate.

    Like I said.. Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru the day...

    Because as much as Trump is our LEGAL president, he is not and NEVER will be president in OUR HEARTS, the way a George Washington or Abraham Lincoln ARE.

    In other words, ya'all lost and yer gonna continue to be immature babies about it and whine and cry and stamp your feet for the next 8 years..

    Fine... And I'll be here telling you how utterly immature and childish ya'all are being for the entirety of the 8 years..... :D

    And then, in 2024, we'll have President Pence, then I'll have even MORE fun!! :D

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational rebuttal to my arguments and must therefore resort to immature personal attacks and childish name-calling..

    Your concession of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant.. :D

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    TDS is brought to us by the same people that gave us ODS.

    Glad you acknowledge the hypocrisy of ya'all's PTDS...

    Now if ya'all could just learn to quit with the hypocrisy, I wouldn't have to constantly remind you of it.. :D

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    Trying to nullify the election because you don't like the results is the epitome of immaturity..

    I mean, honestly.. Look at how pathetic the Dumbocrats have been..

    First they try that lame and totally bullshit claim about Russian collusion..

    When THAT choice cut of BS failed due to absolutely NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE, Dumbocrats tried to push OBSTRUCTION on the bullshit Russia collusion..

    And now that *THAT* resounding piece of total BS is going down the tubes, NOW Dumbocrats are trying to push a 25th Amendment solution because of President Trump's tweets!!!

    My gods, how utterly and completely desperately are Dumbocrats in trying to nullify the election!!???

    Let me say it very clearly for the cheap seats..

    YA'ALL LOST!! Trump and his supporters WON!!

    Get over it already...

    President Trump is YA'ALL'S leader of the free world....

    "Dems da facts, jack!!!"
    -BILL MURRAY, STRIPES

    It's time to act like mature adults and accept it...

    The alternative is for me to lecture ya'all every day about the facts of life... :D

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    "Hay Taka?!? Shark head!!"
    -Maui, MOANA

    :D

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    Why would the AP journalist make up this fictional story that the meeting occurred???

    You would have to ask the AP journalist why he lied...

    Could the fact that Pruitt's office had published his schedule showing that he was supposed to meet with Dow?

    Yes, a meeting was scheduled.. But the AP journalist didn't MAKE the claim that a meeting was scheduled.. He made the claim that a meeting HAPPENED..

    He lied..

    But you don't CARE about when Lefty journalists lie as long as it's to bring down President Trump..

    And while there was no sit-down meeting, the two were both speaking at a conference and they did speak to each other.

    They had an intro and a handshake..

    And YOU want to call that a meeting!?? :^/

    Pruitt's office says that the two spoke briefly at the conference. It doesn't require a lot of time to say:

    "Do we have your support?"

    "Do you have the money?"

    "We have the money."

    "You have my support."

    And do you have ANY facts to support that claim??

    There were MANY people present at that intro... ANYONE come forward and claim that what you said happened actually happened??

    No....

    But FACTS don't matter to ya'all as long as the BS brings down your President..

    THAT's the point...

    Ya'all are *ALWAYS* about facts... Unless the facts get in the way of your agenda...

    THEN ya'all are about bullshit...

    The FACTS to support this conclusion are as abundant as they are conclusive...

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    Same people, same inability to grasp reality.

    Says the person who swore up and down that NOT-45 was going to be our next POTUS.. :D

    Me thinks it's readily apparent who the ones are that DON'T have a grasp on reality.. :D

    "OHMYGODS!!! PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TWITTING!!!! LET'S SACK HIM UNDER THE 25th AMENDMENT!!!!"

    Yea.. Ya'all have a grasp of reality.. :^/

    That was sarcasm in case ya missed it.. :D

  36. [36] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    It's really an easy question to answer yes or no:
    If 20% of the 2016 voters participated in 2018 COULD it elect 10-50 small contribution candidates to Congress in 2018?

    Yes, if 20% of the 2016 participated in 2018, it COULD elect 10-50 small contribution candidates to Congress... And it could elect ZERO candidates. But let's think positively and say it does elect 20 small contribution candidates to Congress.... Then what? They will have to run as independents at first, obviously.

    I am still having a hard time understanding why anyone would agree to vote for a candidate solely based on their agreeing to only accept small donations. If someone like Trump ends up being the only candidate in a race that only accepts small donations, I just do not think I could vote for them.


    I have demonstrated (and so has Bernie) how enough money can be raised from small contributions to be competitive.

    You've demonstrated how this could work? In theory?

    I am pretty certain that Bernie had SuperPAC's spending money to support his campaign, even if he claims he didn't want their help. Bernie's ability to excite people is how he was able to draw so many small donations. Bernie's running his campaign from small donations was the exception to the norm. Without his charisma, experience, and message there would have been no donations. I hope you have some incredible people lined up to run under this platform.

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    THANK YOU for answering my question.

    What would happen if 20 small contribution candidates were elected in 2018?
    This would inspire more citizens to participate in 2020 and elect more small contribution candidates in 2020 and each subsequent election reaching the point in a few election cycles when the majority of congressional districts have competitive small contribution candidates.
    And a competitive third party or independent small contribution candidate could allow a CMP candidate to win in a district gerrymandered for the other CMP in the general election reducing the effectiveness of gerrymandered districts in subsequent elections.

    They will not have to run as independents. See comment 18 about small contribution candidates running in the primaries. While some states have the top two false primary model that allows third parties and independents to run in their false primaries, in most states only the CMPs can participate in the primaries.
    But if 20 SCC's were elected some probably would be independents or third party candidates.

    Voting for SCC's is not the only reason to vote for them. It is a starting point.
    It is the same as any other issue that a citizens draws a line on.
    If the only SCC on the ballot is someone that is otherwise unsuitable then the 20% cast a write in vote writing in their own name to register a vote against the BMC's and to create demand for suitable SCC's in the next election. This is a better option than validating the BMC's or not voting.

    Yes, Bernie has shown it can work in practice.
    And I have shown it in theory.
    That is how it works.
    You identify a problem, come up with a theory on how to fix it and then test that theory out to see if it works.
    The theory that continuing to vote for BMC's has been tested and proven NOT to work.
    It's time to try another theory.

    And when you say that you hope I have some incredible candidates lined up to run it shows you are looking at the theory backwards.
    The citizens make the demand which creates and demonstrates the demand for SCC's first and then the SCC's respond to and fill the demand.
    Bernie's message and charisma (not a word that was associated with Bernie before 2016) did help his campaign raise money.
    But a small contribution campaign was part of his message and 80% of citizens (including a majority of Republicans) want the Big Money out.
    This a way to get Trump supporters to work together with Hillary supporters, Bernie supporters, Stein supporters,etc. against the BMC's in both CMPs for Congress in 2018 without requiring that they denounce Trump.
    It can help break down the divisions that the CMPs created, maintain and exploit to protect the Big Money Party duopoly.

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen (36)-
    THANK YOU for answering my question.

    What would happen if 20 small contribution candidates were elected in 2018?
    This would inspire more citizens to participate in 2020 and elect more small contribution candidates in 2020 and each subsequent election reaching the point in a few election cycles when the majority of congressional districts have competitive small contribution candidates.
    And a competitive third party or independent small contribution candidate could allow a CMP candidate to win in a district gerrymandered for the other CMP in the general election reducing the effectiveness of gerrymandered districts in subsequent elections.

    They will not have to run as independents. See comment 18 about small contribution candidates running in the primaries. While some states have the top two false primary model that allows third parties and independents to run in their false primaries, in most states only the CMPs can participate in the primaries.
    But if 20 SCC's were elected some probably would be independents or third party candidates.

    Voting for SCC's is not the only reason to vote for them. It is a starting point.
    It is the same as any other issue that a citizens draws a line on.
    If the only SCC on the ballot is someone that is otherwise unsuitable then the 20% cast a write in vote writing in their own name to register a vote against the BMC's and to create demand for suitable SCC's in the next election. This is a better option than validating the BMC's or not voting.

    Yes, Bernie has shown it can work in practice.
    And I have shown it in theory.
    That is how it works.
    You identify a problem, come up with a theory on how to fix it and then test that theory out to see if it works.
    The theory that continuing to vote for BMC's has been tested and proven NOT to work.
    It's time to try another theory.

    And when you say that you hope I have some incredible candidates lined up to run it shows you are looking at the theory backwards.
    The citizens make the demand which creates and demonstrates the demand for SCC's first and then the SCC's respond to and fill the demand.
    Bernie's message and charisma (not a word that was associated with Bernie before 2016) did help his campaign raise money.
    But a small contribution campaign was part of his message and 80% of citizens (including a majority of Republicans) want the Big Money out.
    This a way to get Trump supporters to work together with Hillary supporters, Bernie supporters, Stein supporters,etc. against the BMC's in both CMPs for Congress in 2018 without requiring that they denounce Trump.
    It can help break down the divisions that the CMPs created, maintain and exploit to protect the Big Money Party duopoly.

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Sorry about the double post.

  40. [40] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    M-

    Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational rebuttal to my arguments and must therefore resort to immature personal attacks and childish name-calling..

    If you had made any arguments you would have a point but you haven't so you don't

    Speaking of grasp of reality we really need you to up your game in that area. Where did I call you a name or make a personal attack?

    Your concession of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant..

    Given that you typed out a flinching response that contains made up FACTS about my statement IRT us "having to grow up" and you are now shown as having typed before thinking very hysterically.... I accept your concession that you are not superior and in fact had no equally sarcastic and humorous response.

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    I accept your concession that you are not superior and in fact had no equally sarcastic and humorous response.

    If I had made such a concession you would have a point..

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

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/02/media-horrified-after-trump-tweets-video-body-slamming-cnn/

    "Waaaaaa Waaaaaaa Waaaaaaa Waaaaaaa"
    -Democrat Party & Their MSM Lapdogs

    :D

    Ya just gotta love the hypocrisy of the Left Wingery...

    Plays about stabbing President Trump to death are perfectly acceptable..

    And obvious parody video of President Trump kicking the shit out of a Leftist MSM company is "horrible"...

    You Democrats wouldn't start none, there wouldn't BE none...

    It's that simple...

  43. [43] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Liz

    Just went back and saw your response about keeping the tar sands oil in the ground, and self determination. etc.

    Here's a brief interview that raises some of the issues we discussed and more.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19449:Indigenous-Activists-See-Canada%27s-150th-as-%27Celebration-of-Colonization%27

    I haven't had a chance to go digging, but I would suspect some similar sentiments have been expressed on big US anniversaries... though the details would vary some.

    A

  44. [44] 
    altohone wrote:

    42

    I know you don't care about reality, or presenting it accurately, but I will point it out once again.

    The Left has been condemning the bullspit Russia story since long before trumplings joined the fray.

    The Left also condemns the corporate media with more accuracy and passion, and pretending like those outlets represent us is lying through your teeth.
    They don't and they never have.

    This little sibling rivalry between the right wing corporatist establishment Democrats and the far right establishment Republicans to bicker over which corrupt group gets to do the bidding of the oligarchs who control both parties does not involve the left wing of anything.

    The left condemns both groups of corrupt boot lickers.

    You are propagating a big lie for political gain, which has the effect of maintaining that which you claim to oppose.

    You are either intentionally perpetuating the lie to serve the status quo, or you are willfully ignorant.

    I know you won't stop... this is a just a PSA for anyone interested.

    A

  45. [45] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    "Charles Krauthammer pulled no punches in his response either: "Presidents don't talk like this. They never have. This is what it sounds like when you're living in a banana republic. This is how Hugo Chávez would talk about his opponents."

    Leave it Krauthammer to lie when justifiably bashing Trump.
    Chavez was democratically elected in free and fair elections that represented the will of the people, and went on to enact policies that served the interests of that majority in Venezuela (and did not talk about his political opponents in any way remotely similar to Trump... he bashed them with accurate statements)... which does not match the definition of a banana republic in any way.
    I know you meant well, but repeating such falsehoods perpetuates them, and a short note about the fallacy in his quoted statement wouldn't have taken much effort.

    "to end on a positive note, we would like to wish all our neighbors to the north a happy sesquicentennial this weekend!"

    I would strongly urge you and anyone interested in Canada to check out the link I posted in comment 43 to Liz.
    Not everyone is celebrating, and for good reason.

    "After all, the enemy we are now fighting (the Islamic State) did not even exist when the AUMF was originally passed in response to the 9/11 attacks. Debating the scope of the continuing war is indeed long overdue"

    We are fighting IS in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban and assorted factions in Afghanistan, the Houthis in Yemen, a supposedly IS supporting clan in the Philippines, numerous factions across Africa... and AIDING al Qaida (which the AUMF actually labels the enemy) via proxies in Syria.

    Given the Democratic support in Congress for ALL of those wars (wars plural CW, not war btw), I have little hope that Lee will accomplish anything other than legalizing currently unconstitutional interventions.

    She is a welcome voice in the wilderness of the militarism that is BOTH parties, but this award could have been flipped to a Most Disappointing for the majority of the elected Democrats who are perpetuating our endless wars... and, it should be noted, thereby giving up an effective and very real line of attack against Trump and Repubs that would benefit them politically with a large segment of the population, who would rather spend those trillions of dollars here at home.

    As for the CA Single Payer plan, your Most Disappointing award completely misses the mark.

    The speaker of the Assembly Rendon claims to support Single Payer and yet just blocked it using the same bogus reasoning you laid out. This was the fourth attempt in two decades to pass Single Payer in CA... they've been at the drawing board... they know where the money needs to come from... and their job is to simply finalize it. Writing legislation is the job description.

    Single Payer would cover everybody AND cost less.
    The money is already there, and they'd need less of it.
    Hundreds of billions less that what is currently being spent.

    The "where's the money coming from" argument is bogus.

    It's a stalling tactic to avoid doing what the majority in CA wants.
    You accurately called it a "shell game", but the con job is different than how you present it.

    And this bit is maddening-
    "Progressives like to tout the superiority of single-payer systems. But they also need to explain "here's what the differences -- good and bad -- will be, for everyone." By refusing to do so..."

    The activists fighting for Single Payer DID lay out the details. Your blaming of the activists when the legislature caves in to Big Money by refusing to do their jobs is absurd misinformation. Not factual.

    Someone made the analogy that they are being offered a new car, and the payments will be $200 per month... and they're turning down the offer using the above argument even though they are currently paying $300 per month on their old car.
    It makes no sense whatsoever.

    And Rendon taking $150,000 from pharma and insurance interests is the real reason.
    Blaming the Senate and activists is bunk. You are playing the game the corrupt politicians want you to play by finger pointing in the wrong direction.

    And Jerry Brown's refusal to support the bill deserves a mention as well... and for the same reason.

    Also worth mentioning is the fact that the switch away from price gouging premiums paid to private insurance companies to increased (but far lower than those premiums) payroll taxes would by CA law also require the passage of a ballot referendum by voters... and one that exempts itself from Prop 98 restrictions and possibly Prop 13 I believe.
    So, the passage by the legislature is simply the first step.

    Now it seems the real first step that is necessary is removing Rendon and others from office, including electing a new governor who serves the public interest.

    Of course, the Most Disappointing award could have also gone to the CA Democratic party who violated the concept of democracy by undermining the vote of their elected party delegates in order to install a Pharma lobbyist as their new chairman, but that is a different though related story... and should have been the award a few weeks ago.

    A

  46. [46] 
    altohone wrote:

    BTW CW

    Here's some news out of the UK which the BBC for some reason doesn't think worthy of their attention.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19423:UK-Judge-Rules%3A-Illegal-to-Ban-Palestine%27s-BDS-Movement

    The government ban on supporting the non-violent BDS movement for councils, pensions and even student unions was ruled illegal.

    A recent poll showed that the under 50 crowd in the UK supports BDS 4-1, and the Israeli backed UK government measures to go against public opinion (which are also occurring in the US, Canada, and France among others) must end.

    Funny how the BBC doesn't consider this smack down newsworthy, eh?

    A

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al [44]: The Left has been condemning the bullspit Russia story since long before trumplings joined the fray.

    Couldn't have been that 'long before' as most folks found out about Russia's meddling at about the same time. Okay, Trump's folks weren't watching a variety of channels, so they were a bit slower on the uptake...

    And support for the current Russian regime by the left today, as I've pointed out before, is so SAD. These bullies aren't the progeny of leftists, as even the late-20th century Soviets were (even though they'd long gone from 'leftist' to 'dickish' before even Birth of a Nation was made). They've financially raped their country, shut down all opposition, to the point of hunting down and killing opposition figures who have fled to other countries, and generally done everything that the left likes to accuse western countries of doing, except in a shockingly public "we don't give a shit" way. Yet, there's Jill Stein, liberal darling, meeting with Putin. It seems everyone except the left these days understands that the Russians are in the 'Right wing' camp these days, promoting Nationalists like LePen, and of course, Trump.

    Michale [42] Plays about stabbing President Trump to death are perfectly acceptable..

    Yeah, funny about how the right didn't complain when Fox New's sister company, 20th Century Fox, portrayed blowing the head off Obama in its 2012 film Kingsmen, or when the Guthrie theater staged its own production of Julius Caesar using an actor that resembled Obama that same year.

    You guys are great defenders of the Second Amendment, how about a little love for the First?

    [If] you Democrats wouldn't start none, there wouldn't BE none...

    And yet, this whole 'the left is violent' meme appears to have started with an NRA video that was originally put out months ago (see "Freedom's Safest Place | S2 E2: "The Violence Of Lies"). You see, it seems that gun sales dropped off a cliff after Trump was elected, and the gun lobby needed a new, non-governmental villain for the Trump era to scare the yahoos into arming themselves some more.

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Pruitt's office says that the two spoke briefly at the conference. It doesn't require a lot of time to say:

    "Do we have your support?"

    "Do you have the money?"

    "We have the money."

    "You have my support."

    And do you have ANY facts to support that claim??

    Yes, I have FACTS! I just said those lines in under 10 seconds... And I have a southern drawl!

    Yes, a meeting was scheduled.. But the AP journalist didn't MAKE the claim that a meeting was scheduled.. He made the claim that a meeting HAPPENED..

    He lied..

    But you don't CARE about when Lefty journalists lie as long as it's to bring down President Trump..

    If he lied, then he would have had to have known that the scheduled meeting did NOT occur when he wrote the article. I have yet to see any proof that the reporter had that information; so he was not lying...he was WRONG!

    This was about Pruitt, not Trump. The fact that Pruitt and Dow's CEO did not have a sit-down meeting (supposedly....but Trump's cabinet and advisors are not known for remembering when they have and when they haven't met with people before) did not really matter. The article was questioning why Dow's pesticide that has been linked to causing brain damage in children was cleared by the EPA. The EPA was set to ban the stuff and Pruitt chose not to do so with no explanation for the decision.

  49. [49] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Al,

    "Charles Krauthammer pulled no punches in his response either: "Presidents don't talk like this. They never have. This is what it sounds like when you're living in a banana republic. This is how Hugo Chávez would talk about his opponents."


    Leave it Krauthammer to lie when justifiably bashing Trump.
    Chavez was democratically elected in free and fair elections that represented the will of the people, and went on to enact policies that served the interests of that majority in Venezuela (and did not talk about his political opponents in any way remotely similar to Trump. he bashed them with accurate statements)... which does not match the definition of a banana republic in any way.

    Chavez "did not talk about his political opponents in any way remotely similar to Trump... he bashed them with accurate statements"??? Really???

    You sound like a DV victim defending their abuser! Your opinion that Chavez BASHED opponents with accurate statements instead of lies ignores the fact that he BASHED his opponents! That is exactly what Trump does!

    And technically, Krauthammer said that Trump's comments are what one would expect to hear if they lived in a banana republic... He's correct! He then said the comments are what you'd expect to hear someone like Chavez make. He is correct, again! Whether Venezuela fits the definition of a "banana republic" is a moot point. Krauthammer's comments were correct.

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    LWYH [49]

    I agree. Chavez's moral authority deteriorated, even though he was definitely promoted as a cartoon dictator by some parts of the press.

  51. [51] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [45] Leave it [to] Krauthammer to lie when justifiably bashing Trump.

    Following his put-down of the Fox defender, and an attempt at clarifying his remark, he did make a direct and much more telling rebuke of the president's character:

    Tweeting is the most direct avenue to the id. ... We're getting a look into the psyche of the President, and what we're seeing is a vindictiveness, a cruelty ... a lack of self control that is truly shocking.

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    And yet, this whole 'the left is violent' meme appears to have started with an NRA video that was originally put out months ago (see "Freedom's Safest Place | S2 E2: "The Violence Of Lies"). You see, it seems that gun sales dropped off a cliff after Trump was elected, and the gun lobby needed a new, non-governmental villain for the Trump era to scare the yahoos into arming themselves some more.

    Yea??

    It's not as if some Left Wing luser went on a shooting spree and shot a bunch of Republicans...

    Oh.. wait...

    Face the facts.. The Left Wing LOVES violence when it's committed by the Left against the Right..

    This is well documented..

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Yes, I have FACTS! I just said those lines in under 10 seconds... And I have a southern drawl!

    Do you have ANY facts that THAT is what was said??

    No, you don't..

    Ya'all NEVER have any facts to support your accusations..

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    You guys are great defenders of the Second Amendment, how about a little love for the First?

    Says the guy who supports violent Left Wing thugs trying to eliminate the free speech of those they disagree with...

    Where is YOUR love for the First??

    Oh yea.. That's right... You only care about the First when it's Left Winger speech...

    So hypocritical....

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    Waaaaaa Waaaaaaa Waaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaa

    President Trump said mean things!!!

    Waaaaaa Waaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaa

    Here, let me help...

    I'll call the WAAAAAAAAAAmbulance for the Left Wingery.... :^/

    "My god, what a bunch of pussies!!"
    -Tommy Lee Jones, UNDER SIEGE

    :D

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    The alarmed way to read the tweet is that the president is inciting violence against journalists. That is the way that most journalists chose to see it. "The president of the United States is encouraging violence against journalists," tweeted Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg Sunday morning, reflecting what dozens of other establishment journalists were saying. CNN's statement in reaction to the president, plus that of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said much the same thing.

    It's just an impression, but one could note that some journalists seemed more alarmed by the president's tweets than by other recent examples of violent political expression — Kathy Griffin holding what appeared to be Trump's bloody, severed head, or the Trump-as-Caesar assassination, for example. That is probably because many journalists are simply more worried about the prospect of right-wing violence than they are about the prospect of left-wing violence. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a favored source among some reporters, did not built up a nine-figure endowment by warning about violence from the Left.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-reflections-on-the-presidents-tweet/article/2627664

    Left Wing violence is a LOT more prevalent and pervasive in the here and now..

    But, of course, no one here wants to condemn all the violence from the Left..

    THAT's because it's ALL based on Party zealotry...

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal-fever-swamps/530736/

    Yep, yep, yep...

    The Left is as bad as the Right...

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    ILLEGALS STAY HOME
    TOO SCARED TO CROSS

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/world/americas/honduras-migration-border-wall.html

    President Trump....

    Making America Great Again...

    Sorry Democrats.. No more illegal votes for ya'all!! :D

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    Someone was saying before how the VA works so good??

    Sergeant Michael Verardo, who lost an arm and a leg while serving with the US army in Afghanistan in 2010, says he was failed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He had to wait 57 days to get his prosthetic leg fixed and three and a half years for adaptations to his home. But then came Donald Trump.

    “Thank you, President Trump and [Veterans Affairs] Secretary [David] Shulkin for ensuring that we are not forgotten and that we will receive the care we need and deserve,” Verardo said at the White House recently.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/03/donald-trump-winning-oval-office-twitter

    Well, it does NOW....

    President Trump... Making America Great Again...

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    http://nypost.com/2017/07/01/why-the-media-has-broken-down-in-the-age-of-trump/

    This is EXACTLY what ya'all don't get as to why patriotic Americans ignore the MSM...

    Compared to the MSM, President Trump is as true and honest as the pope...

    The MSM simply has no credibility..

    And anyone who constantly slurps up their BS w/o ANY question or critique??

    THEY have no credibility either...

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How would you assess your own credibility, Michale?

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    You guys are great defenders of the Second Amendment, how about a little love for the First?

    Fine... If it's LOVE for the First that is your point, then ya'all shouldn't have ANY problem with President Trump's tweets, right??

    But THERE is ya'all's problem..

    The Left *ONLY* "loves" the First as it applies to speech that the Left agrees with...

    The Left doesn't "love" the First.. The Left just wants to use the First as a weapon to silence those they disagree with...

    "Free Speech is for me, but not for thee"
    -The Left Wingery

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    How would you assess your own credibility, Michale?

    Not as good as it could be to be sure....

    But much better than most everyone here...

    And infinitely better than the Left Wingery in general...

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    Photographer: Jim Young/Bloomberg
    Manufacturing Pickup Signals Boost to U.S. Economic Growth

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-03/manufacturing-pickup-in-u-s-signals-boost-to-economic-growth

    President Trump...

    Making America Great Again...

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, let's tease this out a bit, Michale ...

    On a scale of one to ten, where one is zero credibility, so to speak, and 10 is absolute credibility, what number would you attach to your credibility?

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll go first!

    I would put mine at about 8.5, plus or minus 1, depending on how much my cockeyed optimism clouds my thinking on any given day.

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    On a scale of one to ten, where one is zero credibility, so to speak, and 10 is absolute credibility, what number would you attach to your credibility?

    Depends on the subject matter..

    If we're talking health care or economics, probably around a 4...

    If we're talking National Security, LEO or other security related matters, I would estimate my cred as around an 11... :D

    If we're talking general politics where a 1 is completely subservient to Party ideology and complete political agnosticism as 10, I would be about a 9, 9.5... :D

    The majority of Weigantians would be a 1 or 2, with some actually hitting the 6-8 mark.. :D

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If we're talking general politics where a 1 is completely subservient to Party ideology and complete political agnosticism as 10, I would be about a 9, 9.5... :D

    Wrong question!

    When talking general politics, how would you assess your credibility?

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    When talking general politics, how would you assess your credibility?

    A 9-9.5.... I thought I said that???

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If we're talking National Security, LEO or other security related matters, I would estimate my cred as around an 11... :D

    Hmmm ... that's pretty high! I mean, for someone who tends only to see one side of these issues, all the time.

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, you were looking at the wrong scale ... party loyalty vs agnosticism ... instead of zero credibility vs absolute credibility.

    When you admittedly sit at one extreme end of the party loyalty/agnosticism spectrum, they you can't expect your credibility to follow suit.

    I would asses your credibility on issues of general politics to be around a 6, on a good day!

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh I see where your confusion is...

    I equate "credibility" with subservience vs objectivity...

    If one is subservient to Party ideology, one simply cannot have any credibility..

    And, of course, the converse...

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My point with this little exercise is to suggest that credibility is inversely proportional to extreme or one-sided views.

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale[72]

    See comment # 73

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here is another little test for us ...

    Let's look at a whole other spectrum of thinking and assess each of our levels of credibility ...

    If 1 is past-oriented and 10 is future-oriented, how would you assess your thinking on any given issue?

    I would put myself at a 7 but, trying desperately to improve.

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    When you admittedly sit at one extreme end of the party loyalty/agnosticism spectrum, they you can't expect your credibility to follow suit.

    Absolutely you can...

    Let me see if I can format this properly...

    L1
    TOTALLY SUBSERVIENT TO LEFT WING IDEOLOGY
    NOT AT ALL CREDIBLE
    | L2
    | L3
    | L4
    | L5
    | L6
    | L7
    | L8
    | L9
    | L10
    COMPLETE PARTY AGNOSTICISM
    COMPLETE CREDIBILITY
    | R10
    | R9
    | R8
    | R7
    | R6
    | R5
    | R4
    | R3
    | R2
    TOTALLY SUBSERVIENT TO RIGHT WING IDEOLOGY
    NOT AT ALL CREDIBLE
    R1

    I am around an R9...

    The majority of Weigantians are an L2 or L1

    I would estimate a select few around here as an L5 or L6..

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I still think that look far too one-sided to be at such a high level of credibility ...

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I would put you closer to an R5 on that scale ...

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    Here is another little test for us ...

    Us?? I seem to be the only one who takes tests around here.. :D

    I would put myself at a 7 but, trying desperately to improve.

    I stand corrected.. :D

    If 1 is past-oriented and 10 is future-oriented, how would you assess your thinking on any given issue?

    Considering I voted and support President Trump, the answer would HAVE to be around an 8 or 9....

    Anyone who supported Hillary would have to be low because she epitomized the past, status-quo way of doing things...

    Because of that, I would put you at an 8 because you recognized the folly of going back to the past..

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    IN other words, your central position should actually be a third axis, unto itself ...

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    YOu know, this might be a neat topic for Chris to take a look at after the holidays ...

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    I would put you closer to an R5 on that scale ...

    I am sure you would.. But that's your view from the L5 or L6 of the scale...

    I don't mean that to be insulting so please don't take it that way..

    People like Balthy et al would put me at an R1 or R2 because THEY are looking at me from an L1 or L2 position..

    But if we had an alien presence here who knew everything about our political system but was of neither side and read all of our comments here, he or she would put me at about a 9, give or take a decimal....

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    NOw. there is some wishful thinking, Michale! :)

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    IN other words, your central position should actually be a third axis, unto itself ...

    Exactly....

    It's a point that EVERYONE should strive for...

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    NOw. there is some wishful thinking, Michale! :)

    Having an alien among us??

    You betcha!!! :D

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By 'your central position' I meant the part of the spectrum you posted from L1 to R1 that was labeled 'Complete Party Agnosticism so that your graph would be 3-dimensional as opposed to 2-dimensional ...

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Nayway, I really hope Chris takes a close look at the spectrums we use to align ourselves and, more importantly, assess the political vision and leadership of those who aspire to lead ...

    With an emphasis on the past-future orientation as opposed to the tired, old left-right political spectrum.

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Nayway? Time for a nap ... :)

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... or something.

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    hehehehehe

    :D

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It may be an aboriginal word ...

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    The BIGGEST detriment to patriotic happiness was the creation of political Partys

    That's why I refuse to be a part of one...

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Aren't most Americans card-carrying independents, nowadays?

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do Americans have to be registered as a D, R, or I before they can vote?

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    .... in a general presidential election, I mean.

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    Aren't most Americans card-carrying independents, nowadays?

    I think like 30%-40% identify as Independent.. That number is going up..

    Do Americans have to be registered as a D, R, or I before they can vote?

    Yes.. Well, the have to register... They can register D, R or whatever Party (I think) or they can choose to register as NO Party... NPA No Political Affiliation..

    It varies by state..

    .... in a general presidential election, I mean.

    Again, varied by state, but some states don't allow people to vote in primaries they are not registered as..

    If you are an NPA, you can't vote in Dem or GOP primaries...

  97. [97] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    47

    Interesting historical revisionism.
    Why would you want to do that, I wonder?

    "Couldn't have been that 'long before' as most folks found out about Russia's meddling at about the same time."

    Uh, no.
    Hillary trotted out the WikiLeaks/Russia crap narrative at the end of the Democratic primaries in order to distract from the damning content about Dems rigging the primaries, corruption by corporate interests and craven politics in the emails WikiLeaks released... long before the Russia/Trump narrative was used to attempt to shift the blame away from the real reasons she lost the general election.
    Do you need links, or was that reminder of the recent past sufficient to jog your memory?

    "And support for the current Russian regime by the left today"

    Nice fantasy world you live in.
    Unlike neoliberals, the left is perfectly capable of criticizing Putin and Trump and Obama and Hillary and McCain and the FSB and the CIA, etc.

    Our criticism of Hillary and Obama doesn't become invalid when Putin and Trump mimic us, nor does it make us supporters of Putin or Trump when that happens. Your logical fallacy is what is truly sad.

    It's simply adherence to facts by the left, uninfluenced by the reckless and rampant neo-McCarthyism that has infected neoliberals trying to unjustly maintain their dominance of the Democratic party while boosting the military contracts from which their donors reap massive profits at the expense of Americans.
    Three cheers for rigging elections and misallocation of taxpayer dollars!!!

    "They've financially raped their country, shut down all opposition"

    Setting aside the obvious projection about what right wing corporatist Dems and Republicans have done in America (see Wall Street fraud impoverishing tens of millions of Americans or corporate health care profiting off the sick, and the police state crushing Occupy, the peaceful protestors fighting pipelines, and whistleblowers, etc.), neoliberals are also responsible for financially raping Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed.

    In fact, it was their massive looting that resulted in the election of Putin.
    And the hatred of Putin by Dems and Repubs alike originated when he put an end to that looting in order to put the interests of Russia first.
    How dare he adopt neoliberal "ethics"!!!

    Of course, in order to maintain the false narrative about the left, you also have to ignore that it is the left and organizations we founded that are responsible for documenting and condemning Putin on human rights violations, the targeting of journalists, corruption, the targeting of the LGBT community, etc.
    Or, do you think that because neoliberals appropriated those causes to advance their agenda they deserve all the credit?
    Be honest.

    "Yet, there's Jill Stein, liberal darling, meeting with Putin. It seems everyone except the left these days understands that the Russians are in the 'Right wing' camp these days"

    More of the false narrative... the left can walk and chew gum at the same time, but see above for the logical fallacy bit and the factual reality... and, BTW, Hillary and Obama met with Putin too.
    Boo!

    How's the Red Scare stuff working out for you?
    Has it won any elections for you yet?
    Are you winning back working class voters?

    A

  98. [98] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    I'm guessing most of you didn't follow the link I provided last week about this, so here's a long excerpt from a WSWS.org article.

    -
    -

    "The media blackout of Seymour Hersh’s exposé on US missile strike against Syria

    3 July 2017

    A full week has passed since the publication by a major German newspaper of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s thoroughgoing debunking of the false claim of a Syrian government chemical weapons attack on April 4. The supposed atrocity by the regime of Bashar al-Assad was used to justify the April 6 US cruise missile strike on the al-Shayat air base. At least nine civilians, including four children, died when 59 Tomahawk missiles rained down on the base in western Syria.

    Since the German daily Die Welt published Hersh’s article, titled “Trump’s Red Line,” on June 25, its contents have been subjected to a total blackout by the major newspapers and broadcast and cable news networks in the United States.

    Hersh’s account makes clear that, not only was there no objective evidence to back up Washington’s charges of a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government on the town of Khan Sheikhoun, the fact that there was no such attack was known to the US military and intelligence apparatus even before the cruise missile strike was ordered.

    “The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives,” Hersh wrote. “Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all US, allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.”

    Basing himself on sources within the US intelligence apparatus who spoke on condition of anonymity, as well as access to “transcripts of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4,” Hersh establishes that a Syrian government plane dropped a conventional 500-pound bomb, not a chemical weapon, on the site of the meeting, which included “representatives of Ahrar al-Sham and the al-Qaida-affiliated group formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra.”

    The target was a cinder block building that served as a “command and control center” for the so-called “rebels,” who used its basement to store “rockets, weapons and ammunition,” as well as chlorine, fertilizers and insecticides, Hersh reports.

    “A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the US military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground,” he continues.

    “Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely,” a senior adviser to US intelligence told Hersh. “Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: ‘We have a problem and let’s look into it.’ He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria.”

    The newsworthiness and political import of Hersh’s piece was underscored just one day after its publication by an ominous and unsubstantiated statement issued by the White House. Washington, it claimed, had “identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children.” If Syrian President Assad “conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons,” the White House statement continued, “he and his military will pay a heavy price.”

    This was followed by an even more sweeping threat from the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, who added: “The goal is at this point not just to send Assad a message, but to send Russia and Iran a message… That if this happens again, we are putting you on notice.”

    Thus, any allegation of a chemical weapons attack in Syria could serve as justification for the US to go to war against Iran and a nuclear-armed Russia. The US media dutifully reported the White House claims of an imminent chemical weapons attack as unquestionably true.

    One could be forgiven for thinking that in the context of a war threat that could drag the American people and all of humanity into a nuclear conflagration, extensive and convincing evidence that the entire premise for this threat was a pack of lies would at the very least be acknowledged and subjected to a critical examination by the major media.

    To believe this, however, one would have to be unfamiliar with the modus operandi of what passes for the “Fourth Estate” in the United States over the past quarter-century of interrupted US wars of aggression. Again and again, the US media has parroted the phony “human rights” pretexts for wars from Yugoslavia, to Iraq, Libya and Syria, all waged in pursuit of US imperialist geostrategic interests. Led by the New York Times, in the run-up to the criminal US invasion of Iraq in 2003 the American media not only repeated the Bush administration’s lies about “weapons of mass destruction,” but helped embellish them. They are fully complicit in war crimes that have claimed over a million lives."

    -
    -

    Just imagine a world where Democrats seized the political opportunity that has been handed to them by Trump launching an act of war based on false pretenses.
    Hard to picture?
    Think back to Iraq.

    A

  99. [99] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    49

    "You sound like a DV victim defending their abuser! Your opinion that Chavez BASHED opponents with accurate statements instead of lies ignores the fact that he BASHED his opponents! That is exactly what Trump does!"

    If bashing political opponents makes everybody like Trump and turns the country into a banana republic, every politician everywhere is like Trump and every country is a banana republic.

    You and Krauthammer are obviously mistaken.

    Trump is unique for different, disgusting reasons which are nothing like Chavez... or most politicians who criticize their opponents.

    And just FYI, the origin of the term banana republic refers to countries whose governments were installed and controlled by US fruit corporations.
    Again, not remotely similar to Chavez who was elected in a free and fair election by a large majority.

    A

  100. [100] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    50

    "I agree. Chavez's moral authority deteriorated, even though he was definitely promoted as a cartoon dictator by some parts of the press"

    Chavez was elected, reelected and remains respected by a majority of Venezuelans years after his death.
    "Moral authority" is an interesting choice of words for a politician who regained his authority after the failed US backed coup that violated the whole concept of moral authority.

    Just for comparison, a recent poll shows that 80% of Venezuelans oppose the violent tactics of the US backed right wing protestors trying to undemocratically topple Maduro from power.

    In any case, thank you for providing some context for how public opinion about Chavez was shaped.
    I find it interesting how effective such smear campaigns in the media can be. Otherwise sensible people will support regime change efforts that violate stated American values about democracy because of their effectiveness.

    A

  101. [101] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Liz

    I came across this article on TRNN... not a video.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/662-nicole-hill-angele-alook-ian-hussey/3209--indigenous-people-and-resource-extraction

    It covers some positive aspects of new agreements in Alberta between First Nations and the new NDP government, so it's not as gloomy as previous links.

    Good info if you have a few minutes to check it out.

    A

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    94

    Do Americans have to be registered as a D, R, or I before they can vote?

    .... in a general presidential election, I mean.

    Different states, different rules for sure.

    In Texas, you just register to vote as a person; there are no formal Party designations whatsoever and never have been. When it's time to vote in the primaries, you simply choose to vote in one or the other. In general elections, you just vote.

    I have friends in office at multiple levels who have been entrenched in their positions for decades so I vote for some Democrats and some Republicans... moderates on both sides of the aisle.

    A lot of the Democratic politicians in Texas flipped to Republican without changing their beliefs all that much... just simply changed their rhetoric. I expect some of them will be flipping back by 2025 after the coming census. Politicians can be such opportunists, and we're witnessing yet another historical political realignment, IMO. :)

  103. [103] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al [97]: Setting aside the obvious projection about what right wing corporatist Dems and Republicans have done in America

    Setting aside the obvious attempt to divert the subject to turf you're more comfortable on..

    neoliberals are also responsible for financially raping Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed.
    In fact, it was their massive looting that resulted in the election of Putin.

    Oh, it wasn't all as dramatic as that. Putin was Yeltsin's Vice President. He'd been Mayor of Moscow, and was trusted by the 'deep state', but was considered a 'modernist' by many on the left.

    The 'rape of russia' has been blamed on the fact that, after the fall of the Soviets, the Bush administration sent in a bunch of free market extremists to help Yeltsin set up his government. Russian markets were already corrupt under Soviet rule, the lack of serious controls made that worse. The real financial 'rape' of the country came later, when, rather than have oligarchs oppose him politically, Putin nationalized and then 'gifted' control of whole industries to friendly oligarchs who wouldn't oppose him. Over time, Putin has re-instituted government control over the press, and run Russia more and more like a crime syndicate.

    And the hatred of Putin by Dems and Repubs alike originated when he put an end to that looting in order to put the interests of Russia first.

    If anything, Russia is now in a golden age of being looted from within by Putin and his oligarchic friends. As a result, the former mayor of Moscow is now considered by many to be, in terms of personal wealth, the world's richest human.

    Both Dems and Pubs have tried to start a dialogue with Putin in the past. Bush called him Puty-Pu, I swear. That netted the invasion of Georgia.

    Obama famously tried to establish a 'reset' of Russian-American relations, which initially met with some success: outdated nuclear stockpiles were mutually reduced dramatically.

    But Putin's bold annexation of Crimea, and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine essentially poisoned the well of goodwill in the Obama Administration, and served to validate the worst fears of many conservatives. That, and all that's come since (including provocative moves by Russian military in the Baltic) is the reason that Putin is now distrusted by most of Washington.

    Putin's looks-worse-every-day meddling in the US election is only the icing on the cake for most of us, actually.

  104. [104] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    103

    Revisionism by omission.

    The referendum in Crimea that led to the annexation by Russia was the DIRECT result of the US backed coup in Ukraine.

    When you omit the context, it's dishonest.

    Sort of like pretending that "free market extremists" aren't neoliberals by another name... or maybe pretending like crony capitalism using fraud and corruption to rig markets has anything to do with free markets or capitalism.

    But I do love how you blame Bush for the actions of Obama's and Hillary's largest donors... and ignore the reality that not one word of condemnation was issued when our guys were stealing billions... but when Putin does it, it's unforgivably evil.
    And can you believe that those stupid Russians still support him overwhelmingly?

    Of course, Russia's "provocative moves in the Baltic" are also wholly unrelated to eastward expansion of NATO in violation of promises made, the economic warfare we've "justifiably" taken due to the reaction our coup in Ukraine caused and other excuses, the massive military buildup we've undertaken on their border, the installation of missile defense systems that threaten to allow a first strike capability, etc.
    No, let's pretend the context doesn't matter... Putin is evil and dangerous and we're saintly creatures eager to spread joy and prosperity.

    As for changing the subject, you're dreaming.
    It's the same subject, and the same people were involved screwing over Americans and Russians for profit.
    The same people you're trying to absolve.

    A

  105. [105] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    15

    Ya'all gotta ask yerselves one question..

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/30/fake-news-associated-press-engulfed-in-cnn-level-scandal-as-it-covers-up-invention-of-imaginary-pruitt-meeting/

    And that question is: How firmly planted up one's ass does their head have to be in order to believe the utter bull stench that passes for "news" at Breitbart?

    If President Trump is so bad, why does the Left Wing media have to make shit up to attack the President over??

    And yet, Trump is the biggest liar in the news... bar NONE, but you NEVER mention ALL his lies. Such a Party bigot to march in goosestep to Trump's populist Dictator routine. *LOL* :)

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    If bashing political opponents makes everybody like Trump and turns the country into a banana republic, every politician everywhere is like Trump and every country is a banana republic.

    I know, right??

    It's just like their view of the First..

    "Bashing is for me, but not for thee"

    :^/

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    And yet, Trump is the biggest liar in the news... bar NONE, but you NEVER mention ALL his lies.

    Deflect much?? We're talking about the Media's lies..

    Do you have anything to address that? Of course you don't.. :D

    Hence, my point is proven...

    I'll ask the question again. Maybe your comprehension can.... KICK in.. Get it?? Your name is KICK and I said "kick in".. Get it?? :D

    If Donald Trump is so bad, why does the Left Wingery and the Left's MSM have to LIE about him??

    Why not just stick with FACTS???

    I'll answer for you because I know your Party bigotry won't allow you to see the facts..

    The Left Wingery and the Left's MSM *CAN'T* stick with the facts about President Trump because the FACTS are that he ain't all that bad... President Trump has done some really great things that PATRIOTIC Americans love and that just burns the Left Wingery up to no end..

    So, the Left and the media has to make shit up, because they can't STAND the FACT that PATRIOTIC Americans LOVE President Trump...

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T. Kirk, STAR TREK IV, The Voyage Home

    :D

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    And that question is: How firmly planted up one's ass does their head have to be in order to believe the utter bull stench that passes for "news" at Breitbart?

    You want to field this one too, in addition to Balthy's???

    :D

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    Why the generation after millennials will vote Republican
    http://nypost.com/2017/07/01/why-the-next-generation-after-millennials-will-vote-republican/

    Democrats better come to term with the fact that they are going to be the minority Party in perpetuity.... :D

  110. [110] 
    michale wrote:

    ore of the false narrative... the left can walk and chew gum at the same time, but see above for the logical fallacy bit and the factual reality... and, BTW, Hillary and Obama met with Putin too.
    Boo!

    How's the Red Scare stuff working out for you?
    Has it won any elections for you yet?
    Are you winning back working class voters?

    Heh Now THAT was funny....

    Of course the Left isn't winning back any working class voters..

    The Democrat Party is STILL enamored with what bathrooms people use.. They don't gots no time for any stinkin' working class Americans!

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    Bush called him Puty-Pu, I swear.

    Cite???

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    interpretation of ruling
    Published July 04, 2017 Fox News

    NOW PLAYING
    Victory for Trump as parts of travel ban go into effect
    The Trump administration opposed to opening the door to grandparents from six Muslim-majority nations Monday, saying that the government’s interpretation of the scaled-down travel ban is based on immigration law.

    The Supreme Court ruled last week that parts of Trump’s executive order that banned people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days can go into effect despite blocks from the lower courts. The Supreme Court said the ban cannot apply to anyone with a “bona fide relationship with a U.S. citizen or U.S. entity.

    The White House clarified the Supreme Court’s wording of “bona fide relationship,” saying it manse close family members only: parents, spouses, siblings and children. Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins would still be banned from entering the U.S.

    The Justice Department argued in a court filing Monday that the government’s definition “hews closely to the categorical determinations articulated by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act," Reuters reported.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/04/trump-travel-ban-white-house-defends-interpretation-ruling.html

    I don't agree with the definition by the Trump Administration..

    But it has the law on it's side...

    A MAJOR win for President Trump, getting his TRAVEL BAN in place...

    Just like I said it would be.. :D

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    "In Chicago, the Trains Actually Run on Time."
    -Rahm 'Mussolini' Emanuel

    :D

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    "Listen, you crazy, lunatic, 70-year-old man-baby, stop it. You are now the president of United States, the commander-in-chief and you need to stop acting like a mean girl because we just won't take it."

    TRANSLATION:

    Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaa

    We want to be free to bully you and attack you in the most vile and disgusting ways and it really hurts our feelings when you fight back and call us on our childish and immature behavior!!!

    Waaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaa

    Please Mr President Trump.. Please call us a waaaaaaamulance

    The Left Wingery sets the rules and then gets all pissy and indignant and whiny when President Trump body slams them to the ground using those same rules...

    Gods, sometimes the hypocrisy of the Left is out and out nauseating....

  115. [115] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Easy one first:

    Michale [111]: You never heard that one? Wikipedia has an entire page devoted to nicknames Dubya gave to folks.

    They list Putin as "Pootie-Poot", but it sounded like 'Puty-Pu' to me.

  116. [116] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M: [110]: Of course the Left isn't winning back any working class voters..

    Democrats have plenty of working class voters within their ranks (see Popular vote, winning of).

    Of course, many of ours are the type who go in to work before the sun rises, and return home after the sun sets, have a very hard time with restrictive voting hours and locations, and certainly don't have the time to Occupy anything, or to deck out expensive pick-up trucks with traitorous, bigot-bait flags and gun racks (they usually take the bus).

    They certainly aren't as whiney as Trump voters, generally, and would never be inclined to define 'middle class' as 'people making $250k per year'.

    This is clearly evident in the demographics (easily found anywhere) of the folks who vote Democratic: Single Moms, Blacks, Hispanics, etc...

  117. [117] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al [104]: When you omit the context, it's dishonest.

    It certainly is, especially when propaganda is inserted in its place.

    The referendum in Crimea that led to the annexation by Russia was the DIRECT result of the US backed coup in Ukraine.

    Sure, a referendum held at the point of a Russian gun. The annexation had already occurred.

    As for the Ukrainian regime change, you can thank the Euromaiden protests, not American meddling, for that. The US didn't put millions of Ukrainian citizens into the squares of the cities. They did that all by themselves, to protest the tyranny of Yanukovych and his government. The American in that mix was Yanukovych's ace political consultant, Paul Manafort.

    As a proud member of the American left, you should be with those brave souls who stood in the streets and asked for justice, rather than with the thug with the gold-guilded bathtub.

    Thug leaders with gold-guilded bathtubs like other thug leaders with gold-guilded bathtubs, sure as night follows day. (see/i>: Trump Doctrine - heh)

    You don't really want to be associated with that crowd, do'ya?

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar [115-117]

    Very nice!

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... especially the part about taking the bus with which I can certainly relate. :)

  120. [120] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al [104](cont.): Sort of like pretending that "free market extremists" aren't neoliberals by another name... or maybe pretending like crony capitalism using fraud and corruption to rig markets has anything to do with free markets or capitalism.

    Well, you know all the code words, but the gist is so unspecific, you might as well have called it all 'yucky'.

    BTW, the 'free market' never existed, except perhaps in Adam Smith's head, and then only briefly, before he launched into a thesis itemizing ways that markets could be manipulated by governments and banks over 200 years ago.

    Governments have the most influence on markets, followed probably by banks, and then by disasters (floods, droughts, and the like) both natural and man-made. After that, the markets are influenced by a myriad of competing interests and factors including other markets, and rouge computer programs. And it's absurdly easy these days to disrupt markets. People forget how close we came to a melt-down in 2008 (and some conveniently forget).

  121. [121] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Words of wisdom, indeed.

  122. [122] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz [118-119]]: Why, thank you! I get so tired of privileged white guys on both sides telling folks who just want to get off their feet for a few minutes that they represent the 'real' workers of the world.

    Reality is minimum wage, minimum health, minimum safety, minimum time, minimum help.

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, wait a second!

    Are you telling me that Al is a guy!?

    Now, I'm really confused.

    Does he sound like a guy to you?

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    Democrats have plenty of working class voters within their ranks (see Popular vote, winning of).

    That WASN'T working class voters..

    That was Identity Politics voters SOLELY from ONE SINGLE STATE...

    This is clearly evident in the demographics (easily found anywhere) of the folks who vote Democratic: Single Moms, Blacks, Hispanics, etc...

    Exactly..

    Identity Politics voters..

    But Democrats are going to CONTINUE to lose if you ONLY count on those voters..

    Why the generation after millennials will vote Republican
    http://nypost.com/2017/07/01/why-the-next-generation-after-millennials-will-vote-republican/

  125. [125] 
    michale wrote:

    Reality is minimum wage, minimum health, minimum safety, minimum time, minimum help.

    And those who make a living at that, never have to worry about actually making it on their own...

    In other words, Democrat voters are those who can't survive on their own...

    Sad...

  126. [126] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Way to go selling your fellow Americans short on Independence Day, no less.

    THAT is sad ...

  127. [127] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Does he sound like a guy to you?

    I don't know, it's a disembodied set of words. It could be a collective, writing under the pen name 'Altohone'. It doesn't matter. She/he/it has come under the influence of folks who say they're leftists, but are making excuses for a demonstrably nationalist/right wing regime hostile to every progressive tenet down to 'don't eat with your mouth open'. Take this gem, for example:

    eastward expansion of NATO in violation of promises made, the economic warfare we've "justifiably" taken due to the reaction our coup in Ukraine caused...the massive military buildup we've undertaken on their border, the installation of missile defense systems that threaten to allow a first strike capability, etc.

    which reads like an answer to the Jeopardy clue: "What pretexts might Putin use to invade yet another neighboring country?"

    The fact is, as long as Putin doesn't move against those countries, nothing NATO is doing should 'threaten' him at all. As far as the sanctions go, he could end that tomorrow by simply removing Russians from Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Go home, get a hobby.

    If it isn't a dude, then it's certainly the words of some white ideologue who has managed to go completely up his own ass.

  128. [128] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In other words, Democrat voters are those who can't survive on their own...

    How very Christian of you. Tell me, in your jungle scenario how well do the sick, the lame, the elderly and the handicapped do? How about the afflicted, the addicted, the victimized and the oppressed? Any love, there, my brother?

    Why not make a tour of nursing homes, mental health facilities and orphanages and tell them all that Medicaid is for pussies? Oh, that's right, the GOP is about to do exactly that.

  129. [129] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    117

    Your revisionism and denials about our coup in Ukraine and military aggression is so very establishment of you.
    You sound like the NYT, Lindsey Graham, McCain and Hillary all wrapped into a bundle of interventionist joy.

    Hard to believe you criticize the left for condemning yet another US backed coup all while climbing into bed with Ukrainian neo-Nazis and absolving yourself and the politicians you defend from all responsibility for the death and destruction you've caused.

    Once again you demonstrate the inability to distinguish right and wrong from right and left.
    The violation of our democratic principles is wrong, even when the victim of our actions is a bad guy.
    Only supporting democracy when the "right" people win is not supporting democracy at all.

    120

    Your pathetically inaccurate lecture on markets (which is used to dodge an admission about the reality of neoliberal Dems and "free market" Repubs being identical, and their predatory looting in Russia) is a far from informative denial of reality.

    Banksters just rigged every market from housing to Libor and got caught doing it, so your little propaganda bit of revisionism is truly sad.
    Like a good wingnut Republican, you put government first in line for blame too.

    Of course, corrupt Democrats collaborating with corrupt Republicans to eliminate Glass-Steagall, appointing industry insiders to "regulate" the markets, and then bailing them out with trillions of dollars when they crashed the economy in a massive orgy of fraud does make the government an enabler, but since our government only suffered losses and didn't reap any of the ill-gotten gains, the banksters still deserve top billing.

    122

    Wow, another lecture from the defender of Wall Street coddling corporatist Democrats who collaborate with Republicans to dismantle the New Deal, offshore jobs, attack unions, suppress wages and voters, lock up minorities, and wage unnecessary, illegal wars!!!

    The holier than thou hypocrisy inherent in attacking someone on the left who actually fights for the poor, powerless, and working class, and is part of the working class, is astounding.
    Not that such shamelessness isn't expected from neoliberal ideologues.

    127

    See above you reality denying, right wing corporatist warmonger. I love it when you become unhinged and have to lie through your teeth in order to maintain a façade of superiority.
    So like Hillary.
    And I bet you think that's a compliment.

    A

  130. [130] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    123

    Way to climb into the gutter.

    A

  131. [131] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm sorry, Al ...

  132. [132] 
    michale wrote:

    How very Christian of you.

    Since I am not a christian, I don't understand why you would think I am..

    As usual, you twist my words to make them say something they are not so you can shoot down an argument I didn't make..

    It's a habit with you..

  133. [133] 
    michale wrote:

    The fact is, as long as Putin doesn't move against those countries, nothing NATO is doing should 'threaten' him at all.

    Please PLEASE tell me you are not really THAT naive...

  134. [134] 
    michale wrote:

    Way to go selling your fellow Americans short on Independence Day, no less.

    THAT is sad ...

    That's not what I was doing..

    I was talking about what you and I discussed previously..

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/04/food-stamp-rolls-plummet-in-states-that-restore-work-requirements.html

  135. [135] 
    michale wrote:

    Violence leaves about 60 shot, 8 of them dead, for July 4th weekend
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-july-fourth-weekend-violence-roundup-met-20170704-story.html

    But!! But!!! But!!!

    How can there be GUN violence in Chicago when Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country!!!???

  136. [136] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [18] Don Harris -

    But if they really controlled our votes then Hillary would have won over 90% of the primary vote and she would have been running against Jeb Bush.

    What the fuck are you talking about? Who is this "they" you are referring to?

    Since I have no idea what you're on about and I said sweet FA about "big money" in politics you are hopelessly wrong in everything you wrote!

    Try educating yourself by researching the #unhackthevote crowd-sourced project and Kris Kobach. Then maybe you'll have some handle on the real problems and actually be able to discuss it intelligently.

  137. [137] 
    michale wrote:

    MS,

    Someone pee in your cheerios this morning?? :D

  138. [138] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  139. [139] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    107

    Deflect much?? We're talking about the Media's lies..

    Do you have anything to address that? Of course you don't.. :D

    For starters, the sentence directly above the one you quoted. You know, the one you whined like a toddler to JL asking him to "field" it.

    I'll ask the question again. Maybe your comprehension can.... KICK in.. Get it?? Your name is KICK and I said "kick in".. Get it?? :D

    Is this what passes for comedy for uneducated goobers?

    If Donald Trump is so bad, why does the Left Wingery and the Left's MSM have to LIE about him??

    You're posting links to Breitbart while at the same time whining about "fake news." Get it? Now that's COMEDY!

    The Left Wingery and the Left's MSM *CAN'T* stick with the facts about President Trump because the FACTS are that he ain't all that bad... President Trump has done some really great things that PATRIOTIC Americans love and that just burns the Left Wingery up to no end..

    PATRIOTIC Americans don't spend an inordinate amount of time whining about people and the free press exercising their First Amendment rights granted under the United States Constitution. Real men and real patriots don't whine about itty bitty words; Trump whines about the press and calls them the "enemy of the people" in the exact manner as He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, and the Party drones and bigots follow suit as if marching in goosestep... so ignorant and so lacking in self-awareness that it never crosses their tiny and disease-addled "minds" that they're whining about a basic freedom of Americans and the American free press. The attacks on our free press are a strategy, and you are a TOOL.

    "Simple logic"

    I have agreed many times that your logic is NOTHING if NOT simple. *LOL* :)

  140. [140] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    132

    Since I am not a christian, I don't understand why you would think I am..

    If my memory serves me well, and I can assure that it usually does; he probably thinks you're a Christian because you've stated as much on this board. Other posters here aren't afflicted with your inability at reading comprehension and actually can retain things they've read and have continuity of thought instead of every day being a new day wherein they repeat the same spit they said yesterday as if it's new and exciting when it's the same lame utter tired crap from before... whereas YOU can't even seem to remember your own BS from even yesterday, right? Y were told as a child you were a Protestant, which you relayed to your childhood friend who wasn't pleased to hear it. You then went on to claim you were tolerant of all religions.

    So now you insist you're not a Christian and can't understand why a poster would think you were... so one of these has to be true:
    (1) You were lying then.
    (2) You are lying now.
    (3) You stopped believing in Christ.
    (4) You're ignorant of the fact that a Protestant is a Christian.

    I don't really even give a spit which one it is, but could you at least try to keep your own bullshit straight and stop accusing others of making things up when they aren't?

  141. [141] 
    michale wrote:

    If my memory serves me well, and I can assure that it usually does; he probably thinks you're a Christian because you've stated as much on this board.

    Now look who is lying...

    I have NEVER stated I was a christian.. I have gone to GREAT lengths to state that I am not a christian or religious in the least...

    I DID make one off the cuff comment about an interaction when I was 10 yrs old or some such about my family being Protestant...

    But I don't think you will find ANYONE here to support your claim that I am a christian...

    Quit lying... If the facts are so damning, you wouldn't have to make up shit..

  142. [142] 
    michale wrote:

    For starters, the sentence directly above the one you quoted. You know, the one you whined like a toddler to JL asking him to "field" it.

    In other words, you have nothing to address of the original point..

    Got it.. :D

    You're posting links to Breitbart while at the same time whining about "fake news." Get it? Now that's COMEDY!

    And that is an ad hominem bigus dorkus attack (I get that right, JL?? :D )that proves you have NO FACTS to support your argument..

    Real men and real patriots don't whine about itty bitty words;

    And yet, *THAT* is what the entirety of the Left Wingery, including everyone here, has been doing for the last year or more...

    So I guess that means ya'all are "real patriots"...

    Your words not mine, sweethart.. :D

    I have agreed many times that your logic is NOTHING if NOT simple. *LOL* :)

    Yea, I know.. it probably *IS* a bit too complex for you...

    I'll try and dumb things down for ya... :D

  143. [143] 
    michale wrote:

    Grrrrr...

    So I guess that means ya'all are "real patriots"...

    So I guess that means ya'all AREN'T "real patriots"...

    I hate it when that happens...

  144. [144] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    141

    Now look who is lying...

    It appears to be YOU.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/24/ftp429/#comment-97452

    He asked me what religion I was. I had no idea, but I had heard my step mom say something about Protestant, so I said "Protestant". I guess he was Catholic and this was at the height of the "Troubles" with the IRA or something because he got all quiet and said that he simply can't "respect" my religion so we probably shouldn't be friends...

    I just looked at him like he had just grown a 3rd eye or something and said, "whatever"...

    If that had been MY child, he would have gotten a VERY stern lecture on tolerance and respect....

    Then you went on to say in a following post that you were tolerant of all religions.

    If you can't see why someone thinks you're a Christian, then you're simply ignorant; a Protestant is a Christian. Try to keep up with your own bullshit and stop calling someone a liar unless you're looking in the mirror.

    I have NEVER stated I was a christian.. I have gone to GREAT lengths to state that I am not a christian or religious in the least...

    Cite?

    I DID make one off the cuff comment about an interaction when I was 10 yrs old or some such about my family being Protestant...

    Using the words "my religion" and explaining how you were tolerant of all religions.

    But I don't think you will find ANYONE here to support your claim that I am a christian...

    I didn't claim you were a Christian; I claimed that Balthy probably thought you were a Christian because you've stated as much on this board. If you will review your post at the link, perhaps you will see why someone thinks you might be. Try to keep up with your own bullshit. People with bad memories and crappy reading comprehension make bad liars.

    Quit lying... If the facts are so damning, you wouldn't have to make up shit..

    That's very good advice for yourself. Read your own bullshit and see how it sounds. Perhaps you'll understand why someone might think you were a Christian. Read my post again where I say I don't really give a spit but merely explaining why someone might think you are one. :p

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    142

    In other words, you have nothing to address of the original point..

    Got it.. :D

    You supplied a link to Breitbart; I wrote about Breitbart. It must be such a stretch for your tiny mind to see the connection between Breitbart and Breitbart. *LOL*

    And that is an ad hominem bigus dorkus attack (I get that right, JL?? :D )that proves you have NO FACTS to support your argument..

    Whining for JL's help again proves my point.

    And yet, *THAT* is what the entirety of the Left Wingery, including everyone here, has been doing for the last year or more...

    No, it's what Trump does constantly. He wants a fawning press who kisses his ass and says nothing but nice things about Trump... kind of like you on this board; he wants to make this country a safe space for Trump where he is DICKtater Don and worshiped. He loves the uneducated because they give that to him.

    So I guess that means ya'all are "real patriots"...

    You finally got something right. You worship the traitor who speaks his talking points straight out of RT while demeaning America on the world stage, and we are the real patriots.

    I'll try and dumb things down for ya... :D

    Now you sound like DICKtater Con talking to the uneducated who love him. Why don't you crack open a dictionary and learn to spell words everyone else learned in the first grade? :)

  146. [146] 
    michale wrote:

    He asked me what religion I was. I had no idea, but I had heard my step mom say something about Protestant, so I said "Protestant".

    What part of "I HAVE NO IDEA" do you not understand??

    Further, that was when I was 10 yrs old or so, a full 40 years ago...

    Kinda a lots happened since then..

    The fact is, I am as agnostic as they come, having STATED such many times in my 10+ years here in Weigantia...

    So, you can look at an off the cuff statement of a 10yr old boy 4 decades ago, or you can look at my many statements of the last 10+ years..

    It's not rocket science, Victoria...

    The rest of your spewage is simply too simpleton and laughable to address.. :D

  147. [147] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    146

    Further, that was when I was 10 yrs old or so, a full 40 years ago...

    That is some really weak spin, although I agree that you do act like a child. The fact is, it was actually a few months ago when you used the words "my religion" and "Protestant" in the same sentence and further went on to explain what a tolerant person you are now toward all different religions.

    Kinda a lots happened since then..

    A busy spring for many. *LOL*

    The fact is, I am as agnostic as they come, having STATED such many times in my 10+ years here in Weigantia...

    I really couldn't care less what you are. You asked why someone would think you were a Christian, and I answered why someone would.

    So, you can look at an off the cuff statement of a 10yr old boy 4 decades ago, or you can look at my many statements of the last 10+ years..

    *LOL* Although I have gone back and read most of CW's many columns and posts from the beginning, watching wet paint dry would be more interesting than reading 10+ years of your monotonous drivel wherein you repeat the same few arguments over and over as if every day is new and no one has ever heard your repetitive spew.

    It's not rocket science, Victoria...

    Although I'll certainly not be reading your "many statements of the last 10+ years," having read some of your recent spew, I know that you characterize your drivel factually when you state that "it's not rocket science." *LOL* :)

    The rest of your spewage is simply too simpleton and laughable to address.. :D

    "Simply too simpleton" about sums up your limited vocabulary and dearth of ideas. It just wouldn't be your monotonous shit unless you used the same word twice in a span of three words. *LOL* Oh, but I do completely understand your predicament; there is literally no good defense for a traitor to America like Benedict Donald who lies, cons, and breaks the law for a living and is quite willing to sell out his country in his quest for wealth and need to feed his insatiable ego. :)

Comments for this article are closed.