ChrisWeigant.com

Giving Thanks For Republican Incompetence

[ Posted Tuesday, July 18th, 2017 – 16:56 UTC ]

Well, that was quick. In less than 24 hours, Mitch McConnell's "repeal and replace Obamacare" bill went down in flames, and then his hastily-constructed Plan C -- the "repeal and delay" idea -- also went down in flames, in spectacular fashion. Without an obvious Plan D on the horizon, this most likely means that the GOP push to repeal Obama's signature legislation is now completely dead in the water, hopefully from now all the way until after the 2018 midterm elections. The finger-pointing among Republicans has already begun, and will likely continue throughout the August congressional break. The real culprit here, though, is nothing short of Republican incompetence. They can spin it all they want, but they're still going to look like the gang who couldn't shoot straight to a significant portion of their own base.

If Republicans had had their act together, then President Trump would have signed a repeal and replace bill months ago. There's plenty of incompetence to spread around here, starting with the man at the top. Trump overpromised on a multitude of subjects while campaigning, but none so more than healthcare. He swore up and down that he and he alone knew exactly what to do. He would present his magic plan to Congress, Republicans would joyfully pass it, and everyone's lives would get immeasurably better in the blink of an eye. He promised health insurance for everyone, at a cheaper price, with better results and happier consumers. He vowed not to touch Medicare and Medicaid (and Social Security, to boot). He would make everyone happy and healthy with his grand plan.

That, of course, didn't happen. Trump had no plan. He didn't even have the bare bones of a plan. He lied to the voters, plain and simple. The most revealing statement he's made so far was to admit, a few months back, that healthcare reform was "complicated" -- who knew? This was an admission that he had no idea what to do about it, and indeed never had.

That might have been forgivable if Trump had then dug into the subject and made the deals necessary to get something through Congress. If he had spent a lot of time boning up on the issues and getting advice from various advisors about the pros and cons of all the ideas, then he could have actually fulfilled the cardboard image he has always portrayed himself to be: the king of the dealmakers. But, alas, Trump couldn't be bothered. He couldn't even be bothered after the fact -- he held a victory celebration over the House passing their bill, and then within weeks was calling it too "mean." When GOP senators met with Trump, they were astonished that he had absolutely no idea and no curiosity about any of the details of the bill they were working on. The White House wasn't weighing in on this side of any argument or the other side, Trump just flat-out did not even know what the basic arguments were about. He just wanted a win -- he wanted a piece of paper on his desk that he could sign, and he did not care in the slightest what was written on it. In real estate terms, it was as if Trump tried to cut a deal on a property while not even knowing what ZIP code it was in, not knowing what the building even looked like, and without any understanding of its marketplace value. Con men selling Florida swampland would have been more legitimate dealmakers than Trump, in this regard.

Trump's last-minute effort to reach out and pull the bill over the finish line in the Senate was the final proof of his absolute incompetence. He invited seven GOP senators to dinner last night. None of them were even on the fence. They were all solid "yes" votes. He spent his valuable time trying to convince people who did not need convincing. Right as the dinner ended, two other Republican senators simultaneously tweeted they would vote "no." Trump was caught totally unprepared. He's now trying to spin it all as some sort of victory (no, really), because he didn't lose more than four votes. Even this is completely divorced from reality, since the C.B.O. score hadn't been published, which likely would have been the trigger for more Republicans to announce they were voting against the bill. Trump is also -- bizarrely -- trying to blame Democrats, not even understanding at this late date that Republicans only needed 50 GOP votes to pass the bill.

Of course, Trump isn't the only Republican who is about to get a boatload of blame. Mitch McConnell has been spoken of in the past few weeks as some sort of legislative genius on par with Lyndon B. Johnson in the Senate. This, obviously, just isn't true. What, after all, has Mitch accomplished during the crucial first six months of the Trump administration? He changed the rules and got a Supreme Court justice confirmed. That's pretty much it. So where, exactly, is all the genius?

McConnell tried a maneuver more fitting to the House, and it spectacularly backfired on him. He tried to jam a bill down the throat of his own caucus, and they refused to be bullied. Strikingly, one of the two "no" votes that doomed the bill came from Jerry Moran, who usually supports the GOP Senate leadership. His big complaint was with the process itself. This is nothing short of open rebellion against McConnell trying such heavyhanded tactics ever again. In the House, the speaker can manhandle his own membership, but this just doesn't work well in the Senate, much to Mitch's dismay.

The real blame for this legislative fiasco lies at the heart of the Republican Party, though. They had more than seven years to come up with their own "more conservative" plan, get the entire party behind it, and promote it as a better alternative. They utterly failed to do so, perhaps because doing so was impossible due to Obamacare's conservative origins (see: Romneycare, the Heritage Foundation). They spent all their time instead on passing meaningless "veto bait" bills to completely repeal Obamacare. They didn't have to worry about what to replace it with, because doing so would have meant making hard political choices and then defending those choices to the voters. Why bother, when the bill's just going to be vetoed anyway? And then, by their own admission, Republicans just never expected Trump to win. They thought they'd have another four years of meaningless grandstanding instead of having to actually come up with their own ideas and formulate their own plan.

This led to the creation of a piece of legislation that no Republican could adequately champion when talking to their voters. Approval for the bills hit record lows, sometimes falling below 20 percent. All of a sudden it wasn't just some partisan game with grand gestures, what Republicans were doing would have immediate and critical effects on millions of voters. Who weren't exactly shy about voicing their displeasure. The realization of how disastrous these effects would be caused some Republicans to rethink their support, plain and simple. Getting re-elected without repealing Obamacare might be a tough sell to the Republican base, but getting re-elected after destroying the healthcare industry wholesale probably would have been impossible for many.

So we should all be very thankful for the rampant Republican incompetence. It is rather surprising, because Republicans (at least, when they're the "out" party) have a proven track record of being very loyal and regularly voting as a solid bloc. But being the party in control of both houses of Congress and the White House means actually having to govern. When your votes have real-world effects rather than just a meaningless move in the grand political game, it does tend to focus your attention in new ways.

What is the most astonishing result of Mitch McConnell's spectacular failure is hearing Republicans admit that there are many parts of Obamacare worth preserving. And that the next step should now be what it really should have been from the beginning: sitting down in a good-faith effort with Democrats to solve the actual problems which do exist, rather than solving "problems" which do not (such as massive tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy, for instance). When all else fails, in other words, maybe it's time to read the instructions. In this case, that would mean the Senate holding hearings where interested parties (doctors' groups, hospitals, insurance companies, patients, etc.) can be heard. It would mean avoiding deal-breaking language and ideas (such as "repeal Obamacare"). It would mean making an honest effort to better the lives of actual constituents, rather than concentrating so fiercely on partisanship and ideology.

The chances of success for such an effort are, at this point, unknowable. If Republicans get too caught up in the blame game, then they'll become politically paralyzed. If they decide to do nothing but point the finger of shame at each other, then no consensus will be possible among them on all sorts of issues. Even if the Senate (where there are some sane Republicans left) were to hammer out a bipartisan agreement on healthcare reform with Democrats, it's tough to predict the chances that the House would even hold a vote on it. So the future's still uncertain, but at this point it does look like Republican incompetence has saved them from going down the most destructive of paths. For that, at least, we can all now be thankful.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

162 Comments on “Giving Thanks For Republican Incompetence”

  1. [1] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I like the cut of your rhetorical jib on this one, CW, and agree completely.

    The next step, however, is to NOT excoriate Democrats who agree to work with Republicans on an alternative, but such a deal would be tricky: the ACA, to state the obvious, is already a compromise.

    But its defenders in the political center understand its flaws: as it is, it needs a fresh revenue stream, and a better way to spread the pool of the insured. Costs can be controlled only if some form of minimum National Health Insurance Standard is adopted by all the states. That'll be a heavy lift all by itself.

    The alternative will be an enticing distraction: to concentrate instead on winning back the House and Senate for democrats, and then attempting to force through a Universal Health Care law over the objections of Republicans of every stripe.

    The problem with that is, a) waiting for the midterms, during which insurers and GOP will be trying actively to crash Obamacare, and b) if the midterms come and go and democrats can't crack the great Trumpian Wall of Ignorance, Tone-deafness, Tortured logic, and Revisionism (TWITTR), we'd find ourselves back in the same place, but without, perhaps, the popularity that Obamacare (and Medicare) currently enjoy as a baseline for negotiation.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Nobody knew that it would come to this.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Trump overpromised on a multitude of subjects while campaigning, but none so more than healthcare.

    Healthcare and that "wall" for which they're breaking ground down south of me now that Mexico has graciously agreed to pay for it.... oh, wait! ;)

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Just a quick question...

    Did anyone else see the Bernie Sanders interview on PBS NewsHour tonight?

    See

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/07/17/is-resisting-trump-enough/#comment-105424

    for more, from yesterday's column comments.

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    It's somehow gratifying to sit back and watch the universe reestablish just a tiny bit of its balance.

    Mitch's Boys' Club kept "no girls allowed" during the drafting, even after it was directly pointed out. No men were needed to ground the last balloon as soon as the news day got rolling.

    Maddow opening tonight contained the beautiful metaphor, "Clown Car of previously undisclosed Russians."
    The guy disclosed tonight I will paraphrase in the voice of Boris B: "Comrade Natasha, I am having idea. Add famous money laundering suspect to meeting with useful idiots."

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-5

    Watched it. By George I think, Bernie gets it. Especially the 2.5 X cost of American medicine compared to the rest of the Developed Nations. It's not just prescriptions that drive up the costs of US health care. Way too many middlemen "managing" US health care.

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LeaningBlue -

    As long as they don't haul out the Hush-A-Boom.

    Heh.

    Moose and squirrel win once again!

    :-)

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig -

    I was most impressed by the delivery -- the order, especially. Bernie started out with something "Trump himself ran on" (Medicare bargaining for cheaper drug prices) to find "common ground," moving on to the public option, and then at the end admitting that while he was for single-payer "the bill will never pass in this Congress." All around, an excellent presentation of the high points of what should be on the Dem's want-list.

    We'll see who else starts talking using these same bullet points in the next week or so. With the GOP side in complete disarray, it is time for the Dems to step up and match Bernie's well-laid-out plan for moving forward. Maybe even sane Republicans will start getting on board...

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    To James T Canuck -

    OK, I owe you a big apology, because your two attempts at commenting got stuck in my filter for far too long.

    For everyone else, they have now been freed. Here is the first:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/07/06/at-least-were-not-the-other-guys-really/#comment-104730

    and here is the second:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/07/14/ftp445/#comment-105344

    Before I get to a few responses, here's my stock welcome:

    Welcome to the site! Your first comment was held (for far too long, and your SECOND one too, which just isn't supposed to happen) for moderation. From now on, however, you should be able to see your comments post instantly. Just don't post more than one link per comment, as multilink comments are held automatically to cut down on comment spam.

    Now, more specifically, first: I love your login name. It should even get a laugh out of our resident curmudgeon, because he too loves Star Trek.

    Secondly, we love folks from Canuckistan around here. Just ask Elizabeth Miller, one of our favorite commenters! :-)

    As for the Dem schism, I tend to agree. Behind the scenes, Dems are working on unity and coming out with a strong message for the 2018 midterms. They should be rolling it out in the next few weeks, so we'll see what they come up with...

    In any case, please accept my personal apology for the LONG delay in posting your first comments. Hopefully from now on, you won't have to deal with such delays ever again.

    And, once again, welcome to the site!

    :-)

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hi JTC!

    When is it going to dawn on the Republican base that there are no new plans coming from the Republicans? All they have is trickle down and death panels/taxes.

    So this is the point where the Democrats have some new ideas and talent bubbling up. This is the perfect time for somebody new from the progressive side to describe a new shining castle on the hill.

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hint: just in case you missed it, it is time for something "new".

  13. [13] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    it is time for something "new"

    So, you're thinking hero, but not Joan of AARP.

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Now, more specifically, first: I love your login name. It should even get a laugh out of our resident curmudgeon, because he too loves Star Trek.

    heh....

    Love of Trek can forgive a LOT of sins... :D

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    James T...

    First off.

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    The 'Centipede of scandal' has a few more Croks to drop, let's hope they can't all be amateurishly dismissed to satisfy Trump's ever shrinking base.

    I am sincerely curious..

    Do you have any cites to support the claim that President Trump's base is "ever shrinking"??

    I mean that because I am a voracious reader and I have yet to come across a relevant and factual article that provides real facts that indicate President Trump's support is "shrinking"...

    All of what I read in that regard is nothing but wishful thinking in that regard..

    So, I am curious if yer reading something I missed...

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    As for the Dem schism, I tend to agree. Behind the scenes, Dems are working on unity and coming out with a strong message for the 2018 midterms. They should be rolling it out in the next few weeks, so we'll see what they come up with...

    We already saw what they came up with..

    VOTE FOR US BECAUSE HAVE YOU SEEN THE OTHER GUYS!!

    :D

    Let's face reality here..

    The Democrat's message consists of nothing but TRUMP!! RUSSIA!! TRUMP!! RUSSIA!! TRUMP!! RUSSIA!!

    And now that the Dims don't have the healthcare debacle to kick around anymore, you can expect even MORE TRUMP!! RUSSIA!! TRUMP!! RUSSIA!! TRUMP!! RUSSIA!!...

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    So this is the point where the Democrats have some new ideas and talent bubbling up.

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Thanks for the laugh, Neil.. I had one of the worst days yesterday and this cheered me up immeasurably.. :D

    "You ain't got nobody left, Taylor! You're old Mother Hubbard and only Vaughn's in the cupboard!!!"
    -Randy Quaid, MAJOR LEAGUE II

    :D

    Let's see the Dumbocrat Party roll out old NOT-45!! Yea.... THAT's the ticket for the Party to win!!!! :D

    Oh wait.. You mean "fresh blood" like Kamala Harris???

    Guess who is advising Harris' campaign??

    NOT-45!!!!!!!

    Like I said.. Great laughs.. :D Thanx

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    ICE chief praises Trump, plans to send more agents to sanctuary cities
    http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/342580-ice-director-trump-has-taken-the-handcuffs-off-law-enforcement

    President Trump...

    Making America Great Again......

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    ICE, ICE BABY!!! :D

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    As far as the dismal showing by the GOP in the TrainWreckCare repeal, there IS a silver lining..

    When TrainWreckCare implodes, as it is sure to do, it will be owned solely, completely and unequivocally by Odumbo and the Dumbocrats...

    When hundreds of millions of Americans lose their insurance because of the greed and short-sightedness of Odumbo and the Dumbocrat Party, THAT will do more to destroy Odumbo's legacy than ANYTHING President Trump could accomplish..

    Odumbo and the Dumbocrat OWN the debacle that is TrainWreckCare.... AND it's massive destabilizing implosion and aftermath.....

  21. [21] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Odumbo and the Dumbocrat OWN the debacle that is TrainWreckCare...

    The ACA is presently more popular than Trump.

    But you guys wanted to run the government, and now you have it, lock, stock and barrel. You have the entire congress, the executive and the courts. If ANYTHING tanks at this point, it's on Trump and the Republicans. na na na na na

    We would have had it fixed (and improved) by now.

  22. [22] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ICE, ICE BABY!

    More like, "Under Pressure". heh.

  23. [23] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Guess who is advising Harris' campaign?

    Campaign for what? She just got elected.

  24. [24] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [15] Do you have any cites to support the claim that President Trump's base is "ever shrinking"?

    I do, I do -

    Trump approval/disapproval rating:

    Jan 28, '17 - Approve 44.3% Disapprove 44.2%

    Jul 18, '17 - Approve 40.3% Disapprove 55.0%

    Looks like shrinking support to me.

    Source: your favorite - RCP

  25. [25] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Although the implosion of TrumpCare has exposed the insincerity of the GOP's Repeal ObamaCare Charade except in the eyes of low info Trumpthugs, they do get at least one little consolation. They get to scapegoat three female senators. It's a risky game with such a slim majority, but I don't think they'll be able to resist.

  26. [26] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    of course, the Orange One thinks he's going to blame his administrative incompetence on the Dems. When the Trumpthugs start losing their Medicaid, I don't think even they will be dopey enough to blame Obama.

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Campaign for what? She just got elected.

    She is mulling a 2020 White House run..

    And is taking advice from the NOT-45 campaign!!

    Which is great.. If Harris wants to LOSE....

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    [15] Do you have any cites to support the claim that President Trump's base is "ever shrinking"?

    I do, I do -

    Trump approval/disapproval rating:

    Jan 28, '17 - Approve 44.3% Disapprove 44.2%

    Jul 18, '17 - Approve 40.3% Disapprove 55.0%

    Looks like shrinking support to me.

    Source: your favorite - RCP

    James T said Trump's *BASE* is shrinking... NOT his overall approval rating..

    As usual, you can't address the point, so you make up an argument and address THAT..

    "Okay, press conference 101. You wanna look smart? Answer their question with your own question, and then answer that question. Like this: 'Excuse me, Officer Hopps. What can you tell us about the case?' 'Well, was this a tough case? Yes, yes it was.' You see?
    -Nick Wilde, ZOOTOPIA

    SOMEONE has been watching too much ZOOTOPIA... :D

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    More like, "Under Pressure". heh.

    Kudos to the song reference.. :D And a very good song it is.. :D

    But it's clear that President Trump is keeping his promise as far as illegal immigrants go...

    Which burns ya'all up to no end! :D

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    The ACA is presently more popular than Trump.

    And if yer happy to JUST be better than Trump??

    Well, then I am happy for you. :D

    We would have had it fixed (and improved) by now.

    Dumbocrats had YEARS to "fix" and "improve" TrainWreckCare...

    But they refused to even admit that it had any problems..

    'sides, YOUR OWN WORDS state unequivocally that TrainWreckCare is a crappy piece of legislation..

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump approval/disapproval rating:

    Jan 28, '17 - Approve 44.3% Disapprove 44.2%

    Jul 18, '17 - Approve 40.3% Disapprove 55.0%

    Looks like shrinking support to me.

    But, since you bring it up, let's discuss it..

    What does this "shrinking support" mean, in your opinion??

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    Giving Thanks For Republican Incompetence

    If ONLY the Democrats had a message better then "Have You Seen The Other Guys!!??" or "TRUMP!! RUSSIA!! TRUMP!! RUSSIA!! TRUMP!! RUSSIA!!" to exploit the incompetence of the GOP.... :D

    But alas, they do not.. :D

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    We would have had it fixed (and improved) by now.

    Further, the Dumbocrats would have to work WITH the GOP and President Trump to fix TrainWreckCare..

    The Dumbocrats have stated unequivocally that they will NOT with President Trump on ANYTHING...

    So, please.. Don't feed me the Party bigotry bullshit that the Dumbocrats would have fixed TrainWreckCare by now..

    You and I both know yer completely and utterly wrong on that...

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    JFC,

    of course, the Orange One thinks he's going to blame his administrative incompetence on the Dems.

    Why not??

    Odumbo, the Dumbocrats (and ya'all, incidentally) made careers of blaming Odumbo incompetence on the GOP....

    It's called 'politics', sunshine.. Maybe ya have heard of it, eh? :D

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    What does this "shrinking support" mean, in your opinion?

    What does it look like to anyone? Just going by the "disapproval" numbers, it looks like he's mostly alienated the fence-sitters, i.e., those who weren't entirely in his camp, but were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, probably independents and undecideds. Of those who did support him, he's lost his entire margin of victory. And all these polls were taken BEFORE the healthcare bill imploded.

    I'll give you this: he's been holding on to that little nugget of deplorables who have been with him since he first said illegals were 'mostly rapists'. But he could sodomize a six year old while reading the Koran aloud and they'd still stick with him.

    The folks he's got left to lose besides those are exactly the crowd likely to be most upset about this latest debacle in congress, i.e., Republicans who are still rooting for the "team".

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    Of those who did support him, he's lost his entire margin of victory.

    Actually, that is not factually accurate..

    I'll give you this: he's been holding on to that little nugget of deplorables who have been with him since he first said illegals were 'mostly rapists'.

    You DO realize that Dumbocrats will need those "deplorable" voters in 2018..

    You STILL haven't learned the lesson that insulting voters is NOT the way to get their votes...

    But my point is this..

    NOT-45's approval rating has shrunk LOWER than Trump's... :D

    And she would STILL lose the election if it were held today...

    Kinda burns ya up inside, don't it!? :D hehehehehe

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ya'all. . .made careers of blaming Odumbo incompetence on the GOP..

    The difference being -

    1. Obama, by this point, had moved several major bills through Congress, even winning some victories over the objection of his own party (for instance, the bank bailout).

    2. Obama had far more credibility - he didn't begin his term by claiming that he'd had bigger crowds at his inauguration than he did (then again, he didn't have to).

    3. Obama listened to experts, took advice, acted judiciously and carefully. Even people who disliked his politics didn't expect him to do something completely crazy or buffoonish at any moment.

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    The difference being -

    Those are distinctions, not differences..

    And they are all your OPINIONS.. The opinions of a Dumbocrat Party zealot and, as such, aren't worth much..

    The FACT is that Odumbo and the Dumbocrats (and ya'all) blamed Odumbo's incompetence on the GOP..

    Nothing of what you posted in rebuttal changes argues or disputes that one simple FACT...

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    that is not factually accurate..

    It's actually an understatement. As I posted yesterday, Trump's margin in WI, MI & PA was roughly 107,000 votes, or 0.09% of the total votes cast. So far he's lost better than 3% of the folks who voted for him, and a boatload of independents.

    You STILL haven't learned the lesson that insulting voters is NOT the way to get their votes.

    Good thing, then, that I haven't insulted anyone who would vote for us anyway.

    NOT-45's approval rating has shrunk LOWER than Trump's

    And if that were either relevant or true, I'd be worried. Fact is, that campaign is long over. Sorry.

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    It's actually an understatement. As I posted yesterday, Trump's margin in WI, MI & PA was roughly 107,000 votes, or 0.09% of the total votes cast. So far he's lost better than 3% of the folks who voted for him, and a boatload of independents.

    And yet, subsequent polls show that NOT-45 would STILL not only lose the election, but also the Vanity Vote.. :D

    Good thing, then, that I haven't insulted anyone who would vote for us anyway.

    Ahhhhh So, frak them if they don't support yer ideology...

    THAT is *EXACTLY* why Dumbocrats can't win elections...

    And if that were either relevant or true, I'd be worried. Fact is, that campaign is long over. Sorry.

    It IS factual... And it's perfectly relevant as NOT-45 is still the face of the Dumbocrat Party.. :D

    Sorry.

    "I know"
    -Princess Leia

    :D

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The FACT is that...ya'all...blamed...the GOP

    Truth is, the GOP made that extremely easy to do..

    Remember the inauguration day meeting of GOP leaders in which a policy of obstruction was agreed to? When that leaked out, they didn't even try to deny it.

    In fact, shortly thereafter, McConnell publicly said that his 'goal' was to quote "make Obama a one term president" unquote.

    Remember the 400+ bills passed by Pelosi's House that McConnell refused to bring to the floor of the Senate? That included an infrastructure bill that Obama submitted every year of his presidency.

    Remember when Republicans voted against their own bills after Obama supported them? That happened several times, most hilariously when McConnell ended up voting against a bill he had written himself.

    Remember the unnecessary government shutdown caused by Republicans, and the subsequent lowering of the US debt rating caused by that action? Democrats didn't cause that face-plant, and even warned against it.

    Remember the entire year that McConnell held out the Supreme Court nomination?

    If Democrats blamed Republicans for those, you can't blame them. Obstruction on that scale is hard to ignore.

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    Truth is, the GOP made that extremely easy to do..

    No, that's YOUR 'truth'..

    AND it's also irrelevant...

    It's like saying that the girl made raping her "easy to do" because she wore a short skirt and low-cut top..

    Remember the inauguration day meeting of GOP leaders in which a policy of obstruction was agreed to? When that leaked out, they didn't even try to deny it.

    How is that any different than what the Dumbocrats did and said???

    If Democrats blamed Republicans for those, you can't blame them. Obstruction on that scale is hard to ignore.

    And yet, that is EXACTLY what you do when the Dumbocrats do it...

    Blatant Party Slavery based hypocrisy...

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    Blatant Party Slavery based hypocrisy...

    Blatant Party Zealot based hypocrisy...

    My bust...

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    it's perfectly relevant as NOT-45 is still the face of the Dumbocrat Party.

    On Fox news, maybe. Nowhere else. Believe me, I'm a democrat: I'd know.

    I'm not even sure that she's still the face of the Clinton Foundation anymore.

    You're still addicted to Clinton-bashing, aren't you? Don't be ashamed, addiction can be hard to quit. Perhaps some counseling would help.

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    On Fox news, maybe. Nowhere else. Believe me, I'm a democrat: I'd know.

    And, as a ... Democrat... you have every reason to DENY that NOT-45 is the face of the Dumbocrat Party..

    You're still addicted to Clinton-bashing, aren't you? Don't be ashamed, addiction can be hard to quit. Perhaps some counseling would help.

    That's funny coming from the guy who suffers an extreme hysterical case of PTDS... :D

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    Remember the inauguration day meeting of GOP leaders in which a policy of obstruction was agreed to? When that leaked out, they didn't even try to deny it.

    I can't believe you would be stoopid enough to trot out that talking point, considering how the Dumbocrats are guilty of much MUCH worse obstruction...

    I don't believe that the GOP celebrated a shooter that tried to assassinate Dumbocrats.. I don't believe the GOP celebrated a play where Odumbo was brutally assassinated.. I don't believe that the GOP called for a nullification of an election less than 24 hours after the election ended..

    That is the WORST talking point you can trot out, considering the blood on the hands of Dumbocrats..

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And, as a ... Democrat... you have every reason to DENY that NOT-45 is the face of the Dumbocrat Party.

    You're confusing me with some other Weigantians - we're not as alike as you make us out to be, of course. I liked Hillary. She was smart, she was strong, and most importantly, she knew what and whom she was talking about, unlike the great orange child who won the election.

    And I don't view her loss to Trump as reason to dislike her either, since in five states that delivered the election to Trump, the vote margin was less than 2%. Moreover, as we learn more every day about Russian efforts to influence the election, including cyber attacks, bot attacks, targeted disinformation, and extensive hacking that included actually changing voter registrations in Illinois, I become less certain that one of those hundreds of shoes that keep dropping won't involve more serious intrusion than we'd previously suspected.

    So, no, I won't blame the victim for the crime. And I won't accept that this election wasn't tainted until I see complete transparency from Trump, who continues to obfuscate, deny, and withhold information - as no less than the Wall Street Journal said in an editorial yesterday.

    People can think what they like about Hillary. There's more than a little bit of misogyny in the continued denigration of the steel lady since the election ended, however, as Huffpo pointed out today.

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    You're confusing me with some other Weigantians - we're not as alike as you make us out to be, of course. I liked Hillary. She was smart, she was strong, and most importantly, she knew what and whom she was talking about, unlike the great orange child who won the election.

    Yep, you are like most other Weigantians.. :D

    People can think what they like about Hillary. There's more than a little bit of misogyny in the continued denigration of the steel lady since the election ended, however, as Huffpo pointed out today.

    Yea... And Inforwars has a lot of good information too!! :D

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    So, no, I won't blame the victim for the crime. And I won't accept that this election wasn't tainted until I see complete transparency from Trump, who continues to obfuscate, deny, and withhold information -

    You didn't have a SINGLE problem with this when it was NOT-45 who was continuing to "obfuscate, deny, and withhold information."

    How come???

    Ahhh Yes... Party zealotry....

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I can't believe you would be stoopid enough to trot out that talking point, considering how the Dumbocrats are guilty of much MUCH worse obstruction..

    What obstruction? Trump hasn't given us anything to obstruct. You don't describe any actual obstruction, but you've described all sorts of unrelated things you'd like to pin on "Democrats":

    * A shooting incident that had nothing at all to do with Democrats

    * A play that had nothing to do with Democrats, and was identical to plays that were performed in the past with an actor made up to look like Obama.

    * I never even heard of the 'nullification' remark you refer to. Who said that? Was it a spokesperson for the Democratic party?

    * "Blood on the hands" is another way of saying, "I'm out of legitimate things to accuse you of."
    And coming in defense of a party that's joined itself at the hip with racists, skinheads, nazis, klan grand dragons, ultra-nationalists and Russian mobsters is particularly ironic.

  51. [51] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But it's clear that President Trump is keeping his promise as far as illegal immigrants go...

    Disagree. He promised to have "heart" and only get rid of the "bad hombres." Instead ice is picking on those families who cooperate and show up to their check-ins.

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You didn't have a SINGLE problem with this when it was NOT-45 who was continuing to "obfuscate, deny, and withhold information.

    So you're not denying that Trump is continuing to "obfuscate, deny, and withhold information".

    Makes him look guilty as hell too, doesn't it?

    Why doesn't he (and all of his advisors) just come clean? Open the books, provide the tax returns. If he has nothing to hide, he has no reason to fear sunlight. The Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch's paper, said that yesterday.

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    What obstruction?

    I honestly don't know how to address such blatant and obvious delusion...

    * A shooting incident that had nothing at all to do with Democrats

    Again, utterly delusional...

    And coming in defense of a party that's joined itself at the hip with racists, skinheads, nazis, klan grand dragons, ultra-nationalists and Russian mobsters is particularly ironic.

    Except it was the DUMBOCRAT PARTY who STARTED the Party of racists, skinheads and grand dragons..

    And it's NOT-45 who was joined at the hip to Russian ultra-nationalists and Russian mobsters...

    These are the FACTS whether you want to face them or not..

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Mass indiscriminate deportation does a lot more harm than good.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/fabiola-santiago/article141352993.html

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    So you're not denying that Trump is continuing to "obfuscate, deny, and withhold information".

    So your not denying that NOT-45 did the exact same thing??

    Makes him look guilty as hell too, doesn't it?

    Yes it does.. Unlike YOU, I can admit that..

    You CONTINUE to defend NOT-45...

    Why doesn't he (and all of his advisors) just come clean?

    Where was this COME CLEAN advice from you when CW was advocating it for NOT-45???

    Once again, blatant hypocrisy destroys ANY shred of credibility you might have...

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    Mass indiscriminate deportation does a lot more harm than good.

    Yea, I respect your opinion...

    But having experienced the LEO side of things I know it's a wrong opinion..

    Irregardless of these facts, the point is, President Trump is keeping his campaign promise in this regard...

    And THAT is undeniably factual...

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Once again, blatant hypocrisy destroys ANY shred of credibility you might have...

    And once again, your deflection betrays your desperate attempt to paint lipstick on this pig. Give up. It's a pig.

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    * A shooting incident that had nothing at all to do with Democrats

    And yet, when there was a shooting that had the MOST tenuous connection to the GOP (a connection that turned out to be 1000% bullshit and phony as everything is coming from Dumbocrats) ya'all couldn't STOP screaming hysterically about the GOP causing the Giffords shooting..

    Like I said, if you weren't so blatantly hypocritical about things, you MIGHT have some shred of credibility...

    But, as things stand, you have none....

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    Rosie O'Donnell sparks outrage with Trump-killing game
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/19/rosie-odonnell-trump-cliff-game/490223001/

    Ahh yes.. The peaceful and tolerant Dumbocrats... :^/

    Like I said..

    Not a SHRED of credibility...

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    And once again, your deflection betrays your desperate attempt to paint lipstick on this pig. Give up. It's a pig.

    TRANSLATION: I have no logical or rational response to your comment...

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    Instead ice is picking on those families who cooperate and show up to their check-ins.

    Officials: At least 12 alleged MS-13 members arrested
    http://longisland.news12.com/story/35921051/official-at-least-a-dozen-arrested-in-ms-13-gang-killings

    Oh yes...

    OH PLEASE PRESIDENT TRUMP!! DON'T BREAK UP FAMILIES!!!!!!!

    :^/

    Ya know, when someone robs a bank and gets caught their "families are broke up" when the criminal goes to jail...

    Why should criminal immigrants be afforded any special privilege???

    If ya don't want yer family broke up???

    "QUIT BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!!!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR, LIAR

    :D

  62. [62] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    General comment on hypocrisy not directed at any particular person.

    Kumar: So you like smoking weed, but you put other people in jail for it?
    GWBush: DUH.
    Kumar: Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
    GWB: Let me ask you something Kumar, Do you like giving hand jobs?
    Kumar: No, sir.
    GWB: Do like getting hand jobs?
    Kumar: Yes!
    GWB: Well than you're a hypocritizer, too.
    -Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanmo Bay

    There is also another quote shortly after that that we should all keep in mind a little more often:

    GWB: You don't have to believe in your government to be a good American- you just have to believe in your country.

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    GWB: You don't have to believe in your government to be a good American- you just have to believe in your country.

    That's very true..

    Yet, Dumbocrats EPITOMIZE...

    "GOD DAMN AMERICA!!"
    -Reverend Wright...

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    For the record, I don't smoke weed, don't LIKE smoking weed therefore I have NO PROBLEMs throwing people in jail for smoking weed... :D

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    I have NO PROBLEMs throwing people in jail for smoking weed... :D

    Present company excepted, of course. :D

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    RACHEL MADDOW SPOTTED IN ALABAMA!!!!
    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/07/atypical_form_of_mad_cow_disea.html

    Oh.. My mistake..

    MAD COW was spotted in Alabama...

    Silly me... :D

  67. [67] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Michale may have hit on an issue that could help the Democrats and increase commenters here.
    Put people in jail for smoking weed unless they are commenters here. :D
    The downside would be setting a precedent that laws be based on what Michale likes which would result in denying other citizens the right to decide for themselves what they like.

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale may have hit on an issue that could help the Democrats and increase commenters here.
    Put people in jail for smoking weed unless they are commenters here. :D

    I like it!!!

    Weigantia can be a SANCTUARY LAND!!!!!!

    hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

    I sure could use some fresh meat, that much is certain.. :D

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The point is not just that families are being divided, it's that law enforcement is heartlessly going after people who are clearly NOT bad hombres, thereby breaking the president's campaign promises.

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    The point is not just that families are being divided, it's that law enforcement is heartlessly going after people who are clearly NOT bad hombres, thereby breaking the president's campaign promises.

    If I recall correctly, the "I have a heart" 'promise' was made after President Trump was elected and, therefore, was NOT a campaign promise..

    Irregardless of that, if Trump made two diametrically opposed promises, logic dictates that he stick with the promise that is more Law & Order which was the over-all theme of Candidate Trump's campaign...

    As opposed to the promise that is more ideologically pleasing to you...

    it's that law enforcement is heartlessly going after people who are clearly NOT bad hombres,

    They are criminals.. As such, they have no one to blame but themselves...

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    As I said, I am more than willing to grant exceptions to those who are actively making a sincere effort to become legal... I would hope the administration would do the same..

    And I am not talking about just showing up for a check-in and then ignoring the issue for a year until the next check-in...

    I am talking about actively doing or paying what is necessary to become a legal American or immigrant...

    Ya can't be bothered with that??

    Then get the frak out....

    It's that simple....

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    How does a cop, who is sitting in the passenger seat of the cop car, shoot out the driver's window, past his partner who was sitting in the driver's seat, and kill a woman who called 911 to report a possible sexual assault?

    How does that happen?

    Who is being hired these days to be a cop?

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    How does a cop, who is sitting in the passenger seat of the cop car, shoot out the driver's window, past his partner who was sitting in the driver's seat, and kill a woman who called 911 to report a possible sexual assault?

    I don't know.. I wasn't there..

    The FACTS will come out..

    Why don't we wait for them before we pass judgement..

    Who is being hired these days to be a cop?

    Ahhhhh Apparently you don't need no facts to pass judgement...

    :^/

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    But how can you go against the cop!??

    He is a black Somali-American!!???

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    Apparently, identity politics doesn't trump anti-cop....

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS

    Supreme Court allows Trump travel ban enforcement, but says it must allow broader exemptions for relatives.

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday once again compromised on President Trump’s travel ban, saying the government may enforce tightened restrictions on refugees for now but also must allow into the country more travelers from six mostly Muslim countries who have family members already here.

    The short order from the court means that the administration must continue to accept those with grandparents, aunts and uncles and other relatives in the United States. The Trump administration had set a stricter interpretation of who could be allowed in under a Supreme Court decision issued last month.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-allows-trump-travel-ban-enforcement-but-says-it-must-allow-broader-exemptions-for-relatives/2017/07/19/6945e01e-6bf8-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.7ec18372144b

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    See!!?? You CAN cite your claims!!!!

    Congrats... :D

    I am glad I was able to convince you to cite your claims...

    Good girl, Veronica....

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    How does a cop, who is sitting in the passenger seat of the cop car, shoot out the driver's window, past his partner who was sitting in the driver's seat, and kill a woman who called 911 to report a possible sexual assault?

    And, for the record, the woman wasn't reporting a sexual assault.. She was reporting a prowler...

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    saying the government may enforce tightened restrictions on refugees for now

    And the refugees are the bigger concern...

    Congrats to the Trump Administration for ANOTHER SCOTUS win....

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This cop needs to go to jail.

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who the hell cares WHAT she was reporting ... she was reporting ...

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... and now she is dead.

  83. [83] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    On Trump's base support -

    Both claims made above are accurate, up to a point.

    Trump's base has not deserted him, but support has weakened.

    Trump has lost any Dem and most Indy support, which is why his numbers are 40 percent overall (or worse).

    But among Republicans, his support is only down from something like 84% to 82%. So it seems to be holding, so far. Again, let's see what happens now that repeal-and-??? is now dead.

    But also, the fervor of that support has lessened. When you look into the divide between "strongly support" and "kinda support", Trump's strong numbers have been dropping. This shows movement away from strong support, but this hasn't translated yet into his base totally giving up on him.

    So, like I said, both sides are kinda right, up to a point. Trump still holds onto his base support, but they're weakening in that support.

    At least, that's what I've seen in the polls.

    -CW

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    This cop needs to go to jail.

    Based on what???

    Com'on Liz... This baseless and factless hysteria is completely and unequivocally atypical of you..

    Let's wait til the FACTS come in before we line this cop up against the wall and shoot him, eh??

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't think he should be shot, just locked up so he can't harm anyone else.

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    But among Republicans, his support is only down from something like 84% to 82%. So it seems to be holding, so far. Again, let's see what happens now that repeal-and-??? is now dead.

    But President Trump's support is NOT necessarily Republican support..

    THAT's a point ya'all have made time and time again...

    You simply cannot gauge Trump support via normal Democrat/Republican lines...

  87. [87] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't think he should be shot, just locked up so he can't harm anyone else.

    Again..

    BASED ON WHAT!??

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He shot her because he heard a loud bang.

    Un-fricken-believable!

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Based on all that we know about this, so far...

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    He shot her because he heard a loud bang.

    Un-fricken-believable!

    Is it???

    A cop responds to a prowler call and hears what sounds like a gunshot and returns fire..

    How, EXACTLY, is that "Un-fricken-believable"....

    I would dare say that YOU might do the EXACT same thing given the circumstances...

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's a good thing that his partner didn't suddenly jerk forward after hearing that loud bang.

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    I am not saying your wrong..

    I am simply saying you are reacting emotionally without all the facts...

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He shot the wrong person!

    He panicked.

    He acted without thinking.

    He needs to be taken off of the streets.

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    Based on all that we know about this, so far...

    OK, so sentence him to life in prison is perfectly acceptable even though all the facts are not in???

    Is THAT what you are saying???

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It appears that police departments are hiring any bloody tom, dick or harry who fills out an application. Something needs to be done about that.

    And, the cops who know how to do their jobs need to buck the tradition and speak up about this utter incompetence.

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    He shot the wrong person!

    Yes.. It happens..

    He panicked.

    He acted without thinking.

    Assumes facts not in evidence...

    He needs to be taken off of the streets.

    Perhaps..

    So, now we have gone from executing the cop to throwing him in jail to house-arrest...

    Would you be satisfied if he just lost his badge???

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    It appears that police departments are hiring any bloody tom, dick or harry who fills out an application.

    You can thank Odumbo and the Dumbocrats for that...

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sentence him to whatever the going rate is for murder or, at the very least, manslaughter.

  99. [99] 
    michale wrote:

    A cop responds to a prowler call and hears what sounds like a gunshot and returns fire..

    How, EXACTLY, is that "Un-fricken-believable"....

    I would dare say that YOU might do the EXACT same thing given the circumstances...

    Do a ride-along with big city cops in the inner city/ghetto...

    At least SEE what they go thru before you pass judgement...

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    Sentence him to whatever the going rate is for murder or, at the very least, manslaughter.

    OK, throw him in jail for murder right now...

    Got it... :^/

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    Got to run and pick up my lovely wife.. Hope we can continue this discussion in about an hour...

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would you be satisfied if he just lost his badge???

    No.

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do a ride-along with big city cops in the inner city/ghetto... At least SEE what they go thru before you pass judgement...

    I don't need to do that to understand what big city/small town cops are facing out there on the streets. It's dangerous out there and they are supposed to be trained to handle these dangers.

    This is quite obviously one example of a cop who wasn't properly trained or a cop upon whom the training was lost. He could have shot his partner for pete's sake!

  104. [104] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [86] But President Trump's support is NOT necessarily Republican support..

    That doesn't help your case at all.

    For instance, Gallup shows that, since his inauguration, Trump's approval among Republicans has dropped from 89% down to 87%

    Not much, considering that they should have been thoroughly embarrassed by him by now.

    But among independents, who do still apparently have a sense of common decency, his approval rating has plummeted from 42% to just 33%.

    And among the small group of Democrats who 'approved' of him on inauguration day, he's also dropped almost by half, from 13% down to 8%.

    So his largest drop in support is among precisely those that, as you say, don't fall along "normal Democrat/Republican lines", and his only consistent support is among those who identify as "Republican".

  105. [105] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    As Larry the Cable guy might say,

    "There's your cite."

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    This is quite obviously one example of a cop who wasn't properly trained or a cop upon whom the training was lost. He could have shot his partner for pete's sake!

    No it's NOT 'obvious' to someone who is looking for FACTS..

    Given the climate that Odumbo and the Dumbocrats have created where cop ambushes are up 42%, the reaction of this officer is, on the face of it, COMPLETELY understandable..

    Why not wait for FACTS before condemning him...???

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    This is EXACTLY what happened with the George Zimmerman shooting and ya'all turned out to be WRONG...

    It's also what happened with the Darren Wilson shooting and, once again, ya'all turned out to be WRONG...

    Why not WAIT for the facts to come out??

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    It appears that police departments are hiring any bloody tom, dick or harry who fills out an application. Something needs to be done about that.

    Something CAN be done about that.

    Vote Democrats out of office...

    You see the movie POLICE ACADEMY...

    "You're Welcome"
    Obama and the Democrat Party

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    It appears that police departments are hiring any bloody tom, dick or harry who fills out an application. Something needs to be done about that.

    Something CAN be done about that.

    Vote Democrats out of office...

    You see the movie POLICE ACADEMY...

    "You're Welcome"
    Obama and the Democrat Party

  110. [110] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Well, looks like we dodged a bullet here. Monday night Tropical Storm Don was named, a weak little low in the middle of the Atlantic. It's gone now, with only one snarky little punch from WaPo yesterday: Tropical Storm Don weakening on approach to Windward Islands, forecast to ‘degenerate’

    As tempting to mainline media metaphor mavens as a Hurricane Don would have been, even that could have been much, much worse.

    The on-deck Pacific storm name is Hillary.

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    Why is it that the Left Wing is so hysterical about a shooting by a cop....

    But when an ILLEGAL immigrant let loose by a Sanctuary City plugs 5 bullets into an innocent woman, the Left doesn't give a rat's ass???

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, I'll wait for the facts to come out.

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    LB

    Well, looks like we dodged a bullet here. Monday night Tropical Storm Don was named, a weak little low in the middle of the Atlantic. It's gone now, with only one snarky little punch from WaPo yesterday: Tropical Storm Don weakening on approach to Windward Islands, forecast to ‘degenerate’

    As tempting to mainline media metaphor mavens as a Hurricane Don would have been, even that could have been much, much worse.

    Yea, we're a little early in the year for big storms..

    Hurricane Floyd in 99 came mid September and Hurricane Matthew last year was early October..

    Of course, I am being geo-centric and talking about hurricanes that hit in our area..

    Both Floyd and Matthew was a HUGE disappointment.. We were promised a Cat 4 and it BARELY was a Cat 1 when it hit our area.. Hell, I don't even get out of bed for anything less than a Cat 2....

    It's funny.. The Global Warming fanatics predicted we would be INUNDATED with CATEGORY 7 super storms about now, due to Global Warming..

    Yet, it's been TWELVE YEARS since we have had a major (CAT 3+) hurricane strike on the US...

    Fear mongerers suck!!! Get all my hopes up and then find out that they are full of scheisse.... :D

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    Okay, I'll wait for the facts to come out.

    Thank you..

    As an officers who puts their lives on the line each and every day so that we will be safe, cops deserve the benefit of EVERY doubt we can afford them..

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    As Larry the Cable guy might say,

    "There's your cite."

    Actually, that would be Bill Engvall and it would be "Here's Your Sign"... :D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBjelRDKHUk

    :D

  116. [116] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Actually, that would be Bill Engvall and it would be "Here's Your Sign"..

    I knew it was one of those guys. At least you got the reference.

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    CBO Estimates

    Estimated increase in the number of people who are uninsured by 32 million in 2026 relative to current law and average premiums estimated to double by 2026.

    https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52939

  118. [118] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    I would guess that the officer who fired the shots will be charged in the shooting death. I read that he is not answering questions related to what happened, which is his right to do, but that is typically done when one is trying not to incriminate themselves.

    It's terrible that it occurred, and hopefully the press won't drop the story if he is charged and found guilty of manslaughter/murder. If he is acquitted, it would be great for the press to explain WHY and HOW that occurs instead of making it just sound like the police are given special treatment by the courts.

    The investigation will hopefully provide us with the answers we seek.

  119. [119] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    But when an ILLEGAL immigrant let loose by a Sanctuary City plugs 5 bullets into an innocent woman, the Left doesn't give a rat's ass???

    (In my most Southern drawl): If you make unsupported accusations about a group of people as if they were factual....you might be a lying troll!

    If the only thing that concerns you about that story is that Liberals will say that illegal immigrants shouldn't be able to buy firearms in this country, causing you to instantly believe that they are coming for your guns....You might be a Republican!

  120. [120] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    This is quite obviously one example of a cop who wasn't properly trained or a cop upon whom the training was lost. He could have shot his partner for pete's sake!

    Or it was an officer that thought they saw something that either was or was not justification for them using deadly force. Or it was an officer checking his firearm who had an accidental discharge. There are far too many possible scenarios to even guess.

    If you don't want to do a ride along, ask your local police department if they offer a citizens academy or have access to a FireArms Training Simulator that you could try. The FATS machines let you play the role of an officer who is confronted with multiple scenarios in which you have to decide when firing your gun is the proper response to what you are facing, It definitely is an eye-opener to how little time an officer usually has to determine whether or not to use deadly force. There are a good number of YouTube videos that show the machines in use.

  121. [121] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    You seem to be under the impression that I, number one, am not a huge supporter of law enforcement officers and, number two, that I don't understand the importance and danger involved in the work they do to keep all of us safe and secure.

    You are mistaken, on both counts, if that's what you think.

    I also understand that officers face any number of scenarios on a daily basis during which they must make split second, life and death decisions about whether or not to discharge their firearms.

    My impression, given the small number of facts that are already publically known, is that the situation involving the woman from Australia is not one of those scenarios.

    The facts of this particular case of an officer involved shooting may prove me wrong and I will certainly adjust my thinking accordingly if that is that is the case.

  122. [122] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    As an officers who puts their lives on the line each and every day so that we will be safe, cops deserve the benefit of EVERY doubt we can afford them..

    I agree. But, I also believe that the public deserve a high degree of competence whenever the use of deadly force is concerned.

  123. [123] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    (In my most Southern drawl): If you make unsupported accusations about a group of people as if they were factual....you might be a lying troll!

    I'll remind Paula of that the next time she does it... :D

    If you don't want to do a ride along, ask your local police department if they offer a citizens academy or have access to a FireArms Training Simulator that you could try. The FATS machines let you play the role of an officer who is confronted with multiple scenarios in which you have to decide when firing your gun is the proper response to what you are facing, It definitely is an eye-opener to how little time an officer usually has to determine whether or not to use deadly force. There are a good number of YouTube videos that show the machines in use.

    I think the use of the FATS machine should be MANDATORY for ANY citizen that wants to criticize LEOs...

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I agree. But, I also believe that the public deserve a high degree of competence whenever the use of deadly force is concerned.

    As I have pointed out, you have to blame Obama and the Democrats for that.

    They have pushed and forced PDs and SOs to lower their hiring standards to make the police forces "more diverse"...

    When you lower standards guess what happens??

    You get lower standards...

  125. [125] 
    michale wrote:

    I knew it was one of those guys. At least you got the reference.

    I did indeed.. :D

  126. [126] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    They have pushed and forced PDs and SOs to lower their hiring standards to make the police forces "more diverse"...

    I was wondering where you were going with that ... I suppose I should have guessed.

    Diversity in police forces is a very good thing. Police forces should be as representative of the community they serve as is humanly possible.

    In other words, increased diversity does not equate with reduced competency, not in individual officers nor in collective police forces - not in any way, shape, or form.

    In still other words, the competency of a law enforcement officer is not directly proportional to the level of pigment in his or her skin. To suggest that it is so is outrageous.

  127. [127] 
    michale wrote:

    Or it was an officer that thought they saw something that either was or was not justification for them using deadly force. Or it was an officer checking his firearm who had an accidental discharge. There are far too many possible scenarios to even guess.

    Yes there are..

    My *guess* based on the facts so far is that, given the climate of cop ambushes these days, Officer Mohammed Noor heard this loud bang and saw something that caused him to think his or his partner's life was in imminent danger..

    As you point out, Officer Noor is not talking and that is unfortunate..

    All things being equal, this indicates (to me, at least) that Noor feels he did something wrong..

    But all things AREN'T equal.. Given today's climate of crucifying the cop first, last and always Noor can hardly be blamed for wanting to remain silent and making sure his ducks are all in a row.....

  128. [128] 
    michale wrote:

    In other words, increased diversity does not equate with reduced competency, not in individual officers nor in collective police forces - not in any way, shape, or form.

    In still other words, the competency of a law enforcement officer is not directly proportional to the level of pigment in his or her skin. To suggest that it is so is outrageous.

    I never said it was....

    But you are missing the point..

    It's the LOWERING OF STANDARDS that lowers the competency of Law Enforcement..

    Not the increased diversity..

  129. [129] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I was wondering where you were going with that ...

    All you had to do was ask.. :D

  130. [130] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    If the only thing that concerns you about that story is that Liberals will say that illegal immigrants shouldn't be able to buy firearms in this country, causing you to instantly believe that they are coming for your guns....You might be a Republican!

    Love the Jeff Foxworthy imitation! :D We're not as different as you would like to think, eh? :D heh

    I guess that makes me NOT a Republican because the only thing that concerns me about that story is that an innocent American lost her life because the Odumbo administration and their kind refused to follow the laws that weren't ideologically acceptable..

    I guess that makes me a human being.. :D

  131. [131] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale

    What is responsible for lowering standards when it comes to hiring police officers.

    You are not being clear in what you are trying to say.

    What did you mean when you said, "They have pushed and forced PDs and SOs to lower their hiring standards to make the police forces "more diverse" ???

  132. [132] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    What is responsible for lowering standards when it comes to hiring police officers.

    You are not being clear in what you are trying to say.

    What did you mean when you said, "They have pushed and forced PDs and SOs to lower their hiring standards to make the police forces "more diverse" ???

    Obama had thousands of PDs and SOs under his thumb thru the use of "Consent Decrees"...

    Obama had told those departments that they need to lower their hiring standards in an effort to make their agencies more diverse..

    It USED to be that a police officer candidate couldn't have a criminal record and their entire life was scrutinized for any indication of incompetence..

    These days, in MANY agencies, you can get hired if you have a felony on your record, as long as it's not a violent felony...

    When you loosen gold standards and take practically all comers, you just HAVE to know that there are going to be a few bad apples...

    So, if you have an issue with the competency of police officers these days, you need look no further than the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party...

    THEY insisted that standards be lowered when hiring police officers..

    And I am sure you would agree that, if you lower standards, you get lower competence...

  133. [133] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Say what you mean, Michale!

  134. [134] 
    michale wrote:

    On another note..

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/19/australian-woman-shot-by-minnesota-police-reported-possible-sexual-assault-911-transcript-shows.html

    Liz, you were right. I was wrong about what was reported..

    My apologies.

  135. [135] 
    michale wrote:

    Say what you mean, Michale!

    I have NEVER had a problem in that regard... :D

  136. [136] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [The Obama administration] insisted that standards be lowered when hiring police officers..

    I don't believe that for a second, Michale.

  137. [137] 
    michale wrote:

    As I said before, you have to consider the circumstances and the climate of the here and now..

    A few weeks ago, a NY cop and mother of 3 was brutally executed in an ambush that was VERY similar to the circumstances of the Australian woman's shooting...

    Officer Noor probably made a mistake but it was an understandable mistake given the climate that has been created...

  138. [138] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What are the similarities in those two cases?

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't believe that for a second, Michale.

    I know you don't.. But it's factually accurate...

    SHOCKING Obama Action..Orders Law Enforcement Agencies to Ignore Standards in Hiring Minorities!

    In a push to hire minority police officers, the Obama administration is asking the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies to forgive drug use, disregard the criminal records of candidates from “underrepresented communities” and lower standards on written and physical exams. It’s part of the administration’s Advancing Diversity in Law Enforcement initiative following a string of officer-involved shootings involving African Americans. Key to the mission is the racial diversification of local law enforcement agencies so that they “better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve.”
    http://democratbusters.com/index.php/2016/11/15/shocking-obama-action-orders-law-enforcement-agencies-ignore-drug-use-hiring-minorities/

    There are additional examples...

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    What are the similarities in those two cases?

    Cops responding to a call... Sitting in their car.. An unknown person fast approaching..

    You let the cops come to you... You don't rush up to police officers, especially when they are responding to a call..

  141. [141] 
    michale wrote:

    You just HAVE to know that "ambush" was upper most in Officer Noor's mind...

    Considering all the facts, Officer Noor's actions appear to be reasonable on their face...

  142. [142] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're kidding, right? This article you cite is just Virgil's opinion. He doesn't even cite the report he is talking about.

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Cops responding to a call... Sitting in their car.. An unknown person fast approaching..

    Actually, the two incidents are not similar and certainly not in the fashion you say, at all!

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/900761/download

    Read the report yourself...

    B. Hiring
    Agencies are increasingly adopting a holistic view of what skills and strengths an applicant
    brings to a law enforcement agency, in part by being willing to reevaluate information
    revealed during background checks, including previous drug use.
    Law enforcement is a profession that, for good reason, requires extensive vetting, research,
    and investigation before choosing to hire an officer. Standards undoubtedly have an important role
    to play in the process. But certain barriers – including background investigations that treat all arrests
    and criminal convictions alike regardless of type of offense or how recent the occurrence, or even
    screen out those voluntarily admitting to drug use alone (without any conviction) – can prevent the
    agency from hiring the diverse officers it needs to connect with and serve the entire community.
    Cognizant of this challenge, many agencies have begun to re-evaluate such barriers and more
    holistically evaluate what an applicant can contribute to the agency and the community by also
    considering facts about one’s experience, skills, or record in a broader, comprehensive context.

    The simple fact is that the Obama Administration forced police agencies under their thumb to relax standards for hiring police officers..

    That, coupled with a dearth of recruits, has lead to today's police force being a lot looser in the standards department...

    I know you don't want to hear it but when you complain about the standards of competence of police officers in the here and now, you need only look to the hiring practices to know why this is..

    IF, in fact, it is....

  145. [145] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Democrat Busters!? Give me a freakin' break!

  146. [146] 
    michale wrote:

    Actually, the two incidents are not similar and certainly not in the fashion you say, at all!

    To you, perhaps..

    To a cop on the beat?? To a cop on patrol?? To a cop with decades of experience???

    They are similar enough....

    There is an old adage amongst cops..

    It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

    It's an adage that cops live... and die.. by.

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    Police union boss troubled over talk of relaxing hiring standards

    Fraternal Order of Police President Dean Angelo on Friday expressed serious reservations about the push to relax police hiring standards to attract more black and Hispanic officers.

    At a time when police officers across the nation have “never been this scrutinized,” Angelo said the Chicago Police Department should be looking at raising standards — not lowering them.
    http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/police-union-boss-troubled-over-talk-of-relaxing-hiring-standards/

  148. [148] 
    michale wrote:

    Democrat Busters!? Give me a freakin' break!

    Yea.. I say the EXACT same thing when ya'all post links from WaPoop or HuffPoop....

    But I ALSO posted the actual report and quoted the relevant portion for you... :D

    "www.justice.gov!!!??? Give me a freakin' break!!!"

    :D

  149. [149] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale [144],

    I don't see how that quote from the report indicates anything about hiring standards reducing the level of competency of prospective officers.

    You should know as well as anyone that it is the training officers receive after they are hired and how they respond to that training that determines their competency.

  150. [150] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You don't seem to understand the relevant portion of the report you cite because it in no way says that hiring standards have reduced the competency or professionalism of police officers.

    That is YOUR takeaway and it is wholly misguided.

  151. [151] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The two incidents are not in any material way similar. You are confused, my friend.

  152. [152] 
    michale wrote:

    You don't seem to understand the relevant portion of the report you cite because it in no way says that hiring standards have reduced the competency or professionalism of police officers.

    Would you say that it's logical to conclude that, if one lowers STANDARDS for hiring police officers, that it's likely that one get lower COMPETENCE in the hired police officers...

    The two incidents are not in any material way similar.

    That's your opinion. But it's an opinion borne of complete ignorance in the field..

    I don't mean that as an insult...

    "There is no dishonor in not knowing everything"
    -SubCommander T'al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident

    But to a cop, the incidents are similar enough to be of concerned...

    And any cop or cop-related person will tell you the same thing...

    In the context we're discussing, the differences are small and irrelevant to the incident....

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    I agree. But, I also believe that the public deserve a high degree of competence whenever the use of deadly force is concerned.

    And I agree as well...

    And 99.9% of the time, we get that high degree of competence..

    The problem arises when the general ignorant public (present company excepted and I sincerely mean that) crucifies officers for shootings without all the facts being in...

    Officer Noor made a mistake.. This is obvious...

    But was it a mistake from malice, a mistake from incompetence or an honest mistake that has no bearing on the competence of the officer..

    We DON'T know that yet.. But, as I said, an officer deserves the benefit of any and all doubt...

    Officer Noor shot and killed an innocent person. That is something he is going to have to live with for the rest of his life..

    He shouldn't have to endure being falsely crucified on top of that...

    That's all I am saying...

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    And, if it WAS an instance of incompetence of Officer Noor, one could reasonably speculate that Minneapolis PD may have overlooked indications of lack of competence of Officer Noor, due to his minority status for the purposes of having diversity within the ranks of the Minneapolis PD...

    If so, it's simply another case of Political Correctness going horribly wrong...

    Of course, it's all speculation...

    But if you want to speculate that incompetence was a factor in the shooting, I am (of course) free to speculate how an incompetent officer made it thru training and OJT...

    I also question the wisdom of putting a 2 year rookie in a patrol car with a 1 year jeep.. However, I don't know Minneapolis PD's staffing issues, so I am not in a position to condemn the move..

    I just noted it and was surprised by it..

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why can't you entertain the idea that the training program is the problem?

    Because, that can easily be addressed and improved.

  156. [156] 
    michale wrote:

    Why can't you entertain the idea that the training program is the problem?

    I can easily entertain that idea...

    Because, that can easily be addressed and improved.

    And the VERY first thing to address and improve is to get rid of the lowering of standards and enforcing diversity solely for the sake of diversity...

    If Officer Noor exhibited indications of incompetence during the application and/or training phase, he should NOT have been moved along SOLELY to improve diversity...

    Would you agree with that???

  157. [157] 
    michale wrote:

    Why can't you entertain the idea that the training program is the problem?

    I can easily entertain that idea...

    But I would need FACTS to come to that conclusion..

    We can speculate til the cows come home, as we have been doing...

    But, without FACTS, that is all it is... Speculation...

    It's like masturbation.. Really fun, but ultimately not very productive... :D

  158. [158] 
    michale wrote:

    Not that I would know anything about that.. :D

  159. [159] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If Officer Noor exhibited indications of incompetence during the application and/or training phase, he should NOT have been moved along SOLELY to improve diversity...Would you agree with that???

    I agree wholeheartedly with that.

    If poor training, in general, proves to be operative here, as it may very well be in other places across the US, would you advocate for better training of police officers?

    I am also surprised that there was only about three years worth of experience in that squad car, between the two officers. That can't be standard operating procedure, can it?

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, I was here early this morning because I desperately needed a distraction and I want to thank you for being here - it was a great help, Michale! :)

  161. [161] 
    michale wrote:

    If poor training, in general, proves to be operative here, as it may very well be in other places across the US, would you advocate for better training of police officers?

    Unequivocally and absolutely agree with that...

    All things being equal, there is no such thing as too much training..

    I am also surprised that there was only about three years worth of experience in that squad car, between the two officers. That can't be standard operating procedure, can it?

    It's not.. And that surprised me too.. A 2 Yr rookie and a 1 Yr jeep riding together? That's just BEGGING for trouble..

    But, as I mentioned, I don't know the staffing situation at Minn PD.. Maybe a large number of sergeants were out sick.

    Maybe if Officer Noor were riding with a supervisor instead of a jeep, he would have been calmer and less likely to make such a mistake...

    We just don't know...

    By the way, I was here early this morning because I desperately needed a distraction and I want to thank you for being here - it was a great help, Michale! :)

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

    :D

  162. [162] 
    michale wrote:

    Virginia McDonald's employee refuses to serve uniformed police officer

    A uniformed police officer in Virginia said he was refused service at a local McDonald’s because he was wearing a uniform, Richmond.com reported.

    Scott Naff, an officer for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, reportedly paid for his food in the drive-thru line, but was allegedly refused the food when he got to the window. Naff’s wife, Cathy, told the newspaper that the employee saw the uniform and told her husband: “I ain’t serving no police.”
    http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2017/07/20/virginia-mcdonalds-employee-refuses-to-serve-uniformed-police-officer.html

    :^/

Comments for this article are closed.