ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [446] -- Pardon Me?

[ Posted Friday, July 21st, 2017 – 15:51 PDT ]

We awoke to the breaking news that spinmeister Sean Spicer is out, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders is in as White House press secretary. Trump finally found a communications director as well, Anthony "Mooch" Scaramucci, whose main qualification for the job seems to be his world-class standing in the Olympic event entitled "kissing Trump's ass." We personally lost count, during his debut press conference, of how many times he used the phrase "I love Donald Trump" or some variation thereof. Trump, according to Mooch, is a demigod who strides the Earth and can do no wrong, ever, on anything.

Of course, our first reaction to hearing all this news was the same as millions of Americans: "What?!? We're not going to get Melissa McCarthy as Spicey anymore on Saturday Night Live? Who will play Mooch? Who could possibly play such a shameless brown-noser? Maybe... oh, I dunno... Jimmy Fallon?"

Heh.

But of course, there was bigger news from Trump, even during a day with so many other distractions. It has been reported that Trump is considering (or at least getting legal advice on) the possibility of using presidential power to pardon not only his staff and his family members, but also himself. This was apparently prompted when Trump "told aides he was especially disturbed after learning Mueller would be able to access several years of his tax returns." Because Robert Mueller doesn't even have to ask Trump for his returns, all he has to do is subpoena them from the I.R.S. Or perhaps Trump got worried when he heard that all three of his people in the now-infamous meeting -- Donald Trump Junior, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort -- have been invited to testify before Congress next week. Maybe that's what prompted Trump to start exploring his pardon powers. All in all, we have to sum it up as: another week in Trumpland, another impending constitutional crisis.

Could Trump get away with such a breathtakingly brazen move as handing pardons out like candy? Well, as to everyone else, the answer is "probably." He could indeed proactively issue pardons to everyone on his team, and there is absolutely nothing anyone could do about it. Doing so might even achieve one of Trump's biggest goals, because it might just shut down large portions of Bob Mueller's investigation. Why assemble the facts when the target already has a pardon? But Trump may not be able to pardon himself -- it's never been done before, and there is a limitation on the pardon power that says it cannot be used in cases of impeachment. But for everyone else, if Trump did take this route, it would effectively end a lot of legal problems in the White House.

Speaking of legal problems in the White House, Trump didn't just shake up his communications office, he also shook up his legal team in a big way this week, with his personal New York lawyer departing and a guy named Ty Cobb coming in to help (you just can't make this stuff up). Oh, and part of the Trump White House is now essentially suing another part of the Trump White House. In any normal time, this would be huge news, but these days, such a bizarre story is no more than a footnote, really.

Just a quick reminder -- we're only six months in, as of this week. Within six months, the president is not only mired down in a growing scandal, but he's considering pardoning himself. It's been a pretty stunning six months, and we're only one-eighth of the way through his term. If he completes it, that is.

CNN took the opportunity to tally Trump's score, tweeting: "In 6 months, Pres. Trump has tweeted 991 times, spent 40 days at Trump golf properties and passed 0 pieces of major legislation." The Washington Post used a different scale, to tally Trump's 830 lies (so far) since he took office -- roughly five per day.

Meanwhile, Time magazine ran a cover with Donald Trump Junior, with the caption: "Red Handed." A couple of Democrats amusingly made some good use of this, on the House floor. People went with a cover which proclaimed: "The Trump Family: Secrets And Lies."

The Trump White House keeps chugging along in its attempts to seize control of the messaging, with (once again) a spectacular failure to follow through. They announced this would be "Made In America" week, but then committed two acts of gross political malpractice during the same week. First, they announced -- at the start of Made In America week, mind you -- that Trump was approving an extra 15,000 visas for immigrant workers. This jaw-dropping act of political suicide was then followed up, later in the week, with the news that Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort had applied for 70 visas to hire foreign workers. This is in addition to the 23 foreign workers the Trump winery applied for, earlier. By one count, Trump organizations have applied for 370 of these visas since Trump entered politics in 2015. So, to Trump supporters, the message is: "Trump, Inc. doesn't have to move your job to another country, we can bring foreigners right here in America to take those jobs away!"

Seriously, you just cannot make this stuff up, folks. Trump already was teed up to get some heat on Made In America week, since it is almost impossible to find anything sold under the Trump brand that isn't made in a sweatshop in China or some other low-wage country. Photos circulated showing all the "Made in China" labels on Trump products early in the week, to prove this. So it was always "do as I say, not as I do" for Made In America week, but then Trump had to rub everyone's noses in the fact that his businesses don't care about American jobs in the least, by announcing 15,000 new "guest worker" visas and then applying for 70 of those visas during the same week. It's almost like they're testing the gullibility of core Trump supporters, or something.

Speaking of testing the gullibility of Trump supporters, the Republican "repeal and replace Obamacare" efforts crashed and burned this week as well. The week began with Trump inviting seven GOP senators to dinner, even though most of them were solid "yes" votes who needed no convincing or arm-twisting. Right as the dinner ended, two more GOP senators announced they would be voting "no," bringing the total to four, or enough to sink the bill.

Trump then went on a tweetstorm, endorsing three separate positions (keep working on repeal/replace, just do repeal, or just stand back and let Obamacare fail) within a single day. Mitch McConnell reacted by announcing the Senate would vote on a clean repeal bill, but within hours three GOP women senators announced they would vote "no" on this measure, because (as one of them put it): "I didn't come to Washington to hurt people."

By the end of the week, confusion reigned, and nobody had any idea of even what they'd be voting on next week. This led to a quote which Democrats will certainly take note of:

John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican, on whether senators should know what the plan is on health care before voting to bring it to the floor next week: "That's a luxury we don't have." (The comment struck some observers as reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi's 2010 comment on Obamacare, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it," for which she was pilloried on the right.)

In the midst of all this, Republican vote-counting was derailed by John McCain's emergency surgery and subsequent announcement he has brain cancer. Nobody knows how long McCain will be out to deal with his medical problems. Now, perhaps out of politeness or a sense of "it's too soon," few have bothered to point out what this means right now for Mitch McConnell. Because if McCain's absence is extended for even the next few weeks, it means that McConnell can now only afford to lose one vote rather than two. With McCain sidelined, McConnell only has 51 active votes in his caucus, meaning the loss of two would put him at only 49 -- which is not enough to win. As we said, perhaps this is not being pointed out for politeness' sake, but sooner or later people are going to have to cope with this math.

Speaking of math, the C.B.O. dropped some new numbers, which were as bad as and much worse than the previous numbers. The 2.0 version of McConnell's bill will mean exactly the same amount of people -- 22 million -- will lose health insurance as the 1.0 version. And the clean repeal would leave an even-more-breathtaking 32 million without insurance. So the Senate gets to choose next week on dumping 22 million or 32 million off their health insurance. So much winning!

Paul Ryan, meanwhile, while everyone's been distracted, has been trying to hustle through his own Scrooge-like budget bills which would slash spending on just about everything in sight except the Pentagon. But his full-court press is already running into trouble:

Republican leaders announced Tuesday that they plan to bring a package of 2018 spending bills to a vote next week. It would probably be the last item passed in the chamber before members depart for a five-week summer recess.

But in the latest instance in which the House GOP has flinched from the basic responsibilities of governing, that package is set to include only four of the 12 yearly appropriations bills.

Linda T. Sánchez, from the House Democratic Caucus leadership, taunted her GOP colleagues: "They hold the majority; they insist on this go-it-alone approach, and when they go it alone, they can't produce anything. They're incapable of governing, doing basic things to keep the lights on for the country, and it shows that they're very fractured."

Finally, a few "strange things Trump said this week" notes. We'll try to keep it short, although that Trump New York Times interview certainly provided a target-rich environment. While most of the news focused on how Trump attacked his own attorney general, assistant attorney general, acting F.B.I. director, former F.B.I. director and (of course) the special counsel, what caught our eye was Trump's several bizarre offhand comments during this interview. These ranged from bragging that while in Paris, "the bottom of the Eiffel Tower looked like they could have never had a bigger celebration ever in the history of the Eiffel Tower" to his wish that the U.S. would hold big military parades right down Pennsylvania Avenue in his honor. That's pretty much par for Trump's course, though.

Trump uttered stranger things as well, asserting that Hillary Clinton was "strongly opposed to sanctions on Russia" (which is just flat-out not true), and that for some reason everyone in Baltimore is to be considered suspect because "there are very few Republicans in Baltimore."

But Trump truly veered off into the incomprehensible on two separate occasions during the interview. The first was on the history of Napoleon and Russia. After muffing a basic fact (Napoleon III designed Paris, not Napoleon himself), Trump seemed to show a three-year-old's understanding of the phrase "Cold War." Or something. It's kind of hard to tell, really:

[Napoleon's] one problem is he didn't go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death. How many times has Russia been saved by the weather? [garbled] [crosstalk/unintelligible] Same thing happened to Hitler. Not for that reason, though. Hitler wanted to consolidate. He was all set to walk in. But he wanted to consolidate, and it went and dropped to 35 degrees below zero, and that was the end of that army. But the Russians have great fighters in the cold. They use the cold to their advantage. I mean, they've won five wars where the armies that went against them froze to death.

OK... got it. Napoleon could have beaten Russia, but "that night" he instead went to... um... soccer practice? What the heck are Napoleon's "extracurricular activities"? So "they froze to death." End of story. They could have just replaced the whole paragraph in the transcript with that "[garbled] [crosstalk/unintelligible]," really.

Trump displayed a similar degree of sophistication when explaining how a young person gets health insurance in America (or something... again, it's hard to tell exactly what he's trying to say here):

So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you're 21 years old, you start working and you're paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you're 70, you get a nice plan. Here's something where you walk up and say, "I want my insurance." It's a very tough deal, but it is something that we're doing a good job of.

Right. Sure. There are 21-year-olds out there who are "paying $12 a year" for health insurance. Maybe on Planet Trump, which only exists between his ears. Or something. Again, it's really hard to tell.

The last item from the Trump interview worth noting wasn't some bizarre assertion, though, it was more in the manner of blurting out, when the cop asks you for your license and registration: "You really don't have to look in my trunk, officer." Trump, when asked if Mueller "was looking at your finances and your family finances, unrelated to Russia -- is that a red line?" answered back:

I would say yeah. I would say yes. By the way, I would say, I don't -- I don't -- I mean, it's possible there's a condo or something, so, you know, I sell a lot of condo units, and somebody from Russia buys a condo, who knows? I don't make money from Russia.

Nope, Officer Mueller, nothing to see in that trunk, so there's really no reason at all to open it up and look.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have two Honorable Mention awards to hand out this week, both of whom addressed the Democratic position on the healthcare issue.

Joe Biden penned a rather good defense of Obamacare, as he also took the Republicans to task for the meanness of their efforts to kick tens of millions of Americans off their health insurance. His article is well worth a read.

And Bernie Sanders did exactly what we've been prodding Democrats to do this week, which is to leap into the breach right after the spectacular failure of the Republican efforts to destroy Obamacare. Bernie appeared on the PBS NewsHour and not only decried the GOP plans, but immediately pivoted to what Democrats should do next. He began by inviting Trump to live up to his campaign promise and work with Democrats to lower prescription drug prices by allowing the federal government to bargain for bulk discounts. Trump indeed used to be for this, so perhaps Bernie's reaching out could bear fruit, who knows? Sanders then went on to list exactly what could fix the problems with Obamacare, such as creating a stronger reinsurance program to get insurers back into the marketplaces and stabilize things, as well as (our personal favorite) bringing back the public option, so that everyone would have a choice, no matter what county they lived in. Sanders even realistically finished by admitting that his own single-payer Medicare-For-All bill "will not be passed" by the current Republican Congress.

Bernie is exactly right, and we heartily encourage everyone to watch the whole segment. We would also heartily encourage all Democrats in Congress to start using Bernie's talking points immediately to position the Democratic Party as the one with answers to the problems, even while avoiding partisan poison pills that Republicans could not accept. It's understandable that Democrats have not offered up their ideas until now (since they didn't want to muddy the waters while the Republicans were failing so spectacularly on their own), but that time should now be over. Democrats need to step up to the plate and offer bipartisan solutions that could pass -- and Bernie not only just did so, he absolutely knocked it out of the park.

Coincidentally, we saw a poll this week with possible Democratic challengers to Donald Trump in 2020, and the Democrat with the best chance of beating Trump like a drum was Joe Biden. Second was Bernie Sanders.

But we have to take a longer view, and instead give the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award to California Governor Jerry Brown. This week, Brown got a landmark bill passed through his statehouse which will extend California's "cap and trade" program for another decade, all the way to 2030. In the absolute absence of leadership on the national level on climate change, Brown has elevated California to a leadership position not only in the rest of the country but also on the world stage.

Some are complaining that Brown had to make too many concessions on the bill, to entice a few Republicans to vote for it (to get a supermajority in the statehouse, for complicated reasons). But such things can always be revised and refined later. Brown got the bill across the finish line, and by doing so sent a strong message that California is taking climate change seriously.

For showing such strong leadership on the issue, and for stepping up while the federal government abandons the field, Jerry Brown is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. He's nearing the end of his historic fourth term in office, and if term limits didn't exist, he would easily win a fifth term. That's real leadership.

[Congratulate California Governor Jerry Brown on his official contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

In the spirit of the Democratic response to John McCain's medical news, we are not going to award anyone the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. Democrats are doing a fantastic job of sticking together in both the Senate and the House, and it was really hard for any Democrat to even break through the absolute deluge of bad news from Trump and the Republicans this week. The only time they really did so was in reaction to McCain, when all Democrats had nothing but respectful and encouraging words for McCain and his fight with cancer.

We're always open to suggestions in the comments, but we didn't notice any disappointing Democrats in the political world this week, so we're officially putting the MDDOTW back on the shelf until next week.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 446 (7/21/17)

This week, we celebrate Trump's first six months with an overview of how his term's been going, so far. Three of these come from serious Republicans (well, now we'd have to amend that to "two Republicans and an Independent"), we should point out. Because we certainly won't stand in the way of his own party savaging his record.

So, how was Trump's first six months? Well, it depends on who you ask.

 

1
   On the bright side...

The Daily Beast had to use a pretty serious curve to grade Trump with even a deluded sense of optimism. I mean, hey, he hasn't blown up the entire planet yet, right?

He hasn't passed any legislation -- and his first six months have been drama-filled and controversial. But despite the hand-wringing and worry his tenure has spawned among the chattering classes, the world hasn't ended. That might sound like the "soft bigotry of low expectations." But in this day and age, I'll take it.

 

2
   Shep channels Howard Beale

Over at Fox News (of all places), Shepard Smith has apparently reached his breaking point. On the Russia scandal and all the storylines coming out of the White House, Shep had the following to say to fellow Fox host Chris Wallace:

If there's nothing there -- and that's what they tell us, they tell us there's nothing to this and nothing came of it, there's a nothingburger, it wasn't even memorable, didn't write it down, didn't tell you about it, because it wasn't anything so I didn't even remember it -- with a Russian interpreter in the room at Trump Tower? If all of that, why all these lies? Why is it lie after lie after lie? If you clean, come on clean, you know? My grandmother used to say when first we practice to -- Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. The deception, Chris, is mind-boggling. And there are still people who are out there who believe we're making it up. And one day they're gonna realize we're not and look around and go: "Where are we, and why are we getting told all these lies?"

 

3
   Scarborough leaves in disgust

Joe Scarborough has had enough of not just Donald Trump, but of the entire party. He announced on late-night television that he's changing his voter registration to "Independent." He explained why in an opinion piece that did not mince words:

I did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left its senses. The political movement that once stood athwart history resisting bloated government and military adventurism has been reduced to an amalgam of talk-radio resentments. President Trump's Republicans have devolved into a party without a cause, dominated by a leader hopelessly ill-informed about the basics of conservatism, U.S. history and the Constitution.

 

4
   A big, beautiful Russian Alaska?

Michael Gerson, former Dubya speechwriter, had some harsher words, after Trump announced the end of a C.I.A. program to aid rebels in Syria:

But once again, President Trump -- after extended personal contact with Vladimir Putin and the complete surrender to Russian interests in Syria -- acts precisely as though he has been bought and sold by a strategic rival. The ignoble cutoff of aid to American proxies means that "Putin won in Syria," as an administration official was quoted by the Post. Concessions without reciprocation, made against the better judgment of foreign policy advisers, smack more of payoff than outreach. If this is what Trump's version of "winning" looks like, what might further victory entail? The re-creation of the Warsaw Pact? The reversion of Alaska to Russian control?

 

5
   Rabid base shrinks to one-fourth of America

Democrats should take the opportunity to point out how well Trump is doing in the polls, of course.

"An ABC/Washington Post poll this week showed Trump with only a dismal 36 percent job approval rating, and a whopping 58 percent disapproval. By contrast, George W. Bush and Barack Obama held the flipside of Trump's numbers, as both rated a 59 percent approval rating six months in. The breakdowns of Trump's numbers get even more brutal. While 58 percent disapprove of the job Trump's doing, 48 percent strongly disapprove -- a number that neither Obama nor Bill Clinton ever saw during their terms. George W. Bush did reach this ignoble mark, but only in his second term in office. Of the 36 percent who approve of the president, only 25 percent strongly approve. This means Trump's strong base of support has shrunk to only one-in-four Americans."

 

6
   Best ever!

We all know how Trump loves superlatives, especially in reference to himself.

"Donald Trump has set a new record in his first six months in office. While he keeps falsely claiming he's gotten more done than any other president (he hasn't), he has bested every other president in one particular regard, stretching all the way back to Harry Truman. As the website FiveThirtyEight.com put it: 'Barring a sudden turnaround this week, Trump will conclude his first six months in office as the most unpopular president, at that point in his first term, since modern polling began.' So Trump can claim 'lowest ratings ever!' if he wants to brag about his presidency, compared to history."

 

7
   Trump brings us all together

Trump has achieved one notable thing. His most fervent supporters and his biggest detractors do agree on one idea. Kind of. From an article on Trump's dismal polling comes this wry note:

The country may seem hopelessly divided, but the people who strongly approve and disapprove of Trump have something in common: When asked what they love or hate most about the president, 12 percent of strong approvers and 14 percent of strong disapprovers volunteered "everything."

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

216 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [446] -- Pardon Me?”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Technical Note:

    I haven't been able to post these at Democratic Underground for a while, since they had problems with their formatting (no blockquotes available).

    They have now (mostly) fixed the problem, so these columns will run weekly, every Friday, on DU. Just wanted to let any DU readers here know this...

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Cap and trade isn't actually reducing emissions in CA, as Republican plans tend to fail, so the award for Jerry Brown is a bit misguided.

    On this quote about Syria from the talking points-
    "and the complete surrender to Russian interests in Syria"
    Trump ending US support for al Qaida affiliated "rebels" is good for US interests... and that may well be the first positive thing Trump has done.
    Obama's proxy regime change war was a disaster for the US and Syria... and the European countries inundated with refugees. Obama never should have initiated the program.
    You aren't exactly endorsing the outrage of the neocon and neoliberal interventionists, but highlighting the quote as something to use against Trump is misguided. The proxy regime change war helped both al Qaida and ISIS grow, and aiding our enemies is supposed to be a bad thing.

    That said, I have little faith that Trump won't redirect those resources to even more harmful policies, and it is also highly doubtful he will pressure our "allies" Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Israel and the Gulf monarchies to end their support for the "rebels", so the positive effects will likely be limited.

    And, just in case you missed it, I had some choice words for you in a response to your previous column, and to your responses to one of my comments.
    I won't repeat myself, but I think you're off the mark in your bit about Bernie and other issues.

    A

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The End is near.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thank God.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Btw, there is nothing misguided about the MIDOTW award being handed to Jerry Brown, nothing whatsoever.

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    5

    Totally agree. :)

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Kick! How about a JB/JB ticket??

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    But we have to take a longer view, and instead give the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award to California Governor Jerry Brown. This week, Brown got a landmark bill passed through his statehouse which will extend California's "cap and trade" program for another decade, all the way to 2030. In the absolute absence of leadership on the national level on climate change, Brown has elevated California to a leadership position not only in the rest of the country but also on the world stage.

    And WHAT impact will that have on the planet's climate??

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

    It's PR... Meaningless...

    Just like the Left's overall adherence to the LUDICROUS fantasy that humans can, somehow, control the planet's climate...

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    The End is near.

    Trump Is Toast prediction #8967... :D

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump has achieved one notable thing. His most fervent supporters and his biggest detractors do agree on one idea. Kind of. From an article on Trump's dismal polling comes this wry note:

    Dismal Polling??

    Was that the same polling that said there was a 98% chance that President Trump would never happen???

    Once again, it's cute that ya'all STILL put faith in "polling".. :D

    "An ABC/Washington Post poll

    'Nuff said.. :D

  11. [11] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, two things, and I want you to listen to the second as much as you listen to the first CW.

    1. This is your funniest column in as long as I've read you, and I read you every day and have done so for a couple of years or more.

    2. "Sanders even realistically finished by admitting that his own single-payer Medicare-For-All bill "will not be passed" by the current Republican Congress."

    - Isn't this the political realism that the "centrists" have been whacked over the head with since Hillary won the nomination?

    You're frying me here!

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    You doxed yourself, you ignorant moron.

    dox
    däks/Submit
    verbinformal
    search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

    A person can't DOX themselves...

    So WHO is the "ignorant moron"?? :D

    Looks like it's YOU, ya ignorant moron... :D

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Speaking of that Cap & Trade fantasy BS...

    Did you do your homework???

    It's OK... I was correct and you were wrong..

    I won't make you say.. :D

    "I know what you're going to say - You don't have to. We've had our differences. I said some things I didn't mean; you said some things you didn't mean, but you're happy I stuck with the case. And if you've gained a certain respect for me over the last three weeks... well, of course, I'm happy about that. But we don't have to make a whole big deal outta that - you like me? I won't make you say it."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    'Barring a sudden turnaround this week, Trump will conclude his first six months in office as the most unpopular president, at that point in his first term, since modern polling began.'

    And ya know what's HILARIOUS!?? :D

    The Democrat Party?? MORE unpopular than President Trump...

    The Republican Party?? MORE unpopular than President Trump...

    Congress??? MORE unpopular than President Trump...

    The media?? MORE unpopular than President Trump...

    NOT-45??? MORE unpopular than President Trump...

    So... if ya'all want to go JUST by popularity, shallow though that may be..

    President Trump is MORE popular than anyone else!!! :D

    I wake up every morning, happy in the knowledge that President Trump is STILL ya'all's President... :D

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump finally found a communications director as well, Anthony "Mooch" Scaramucci,

    OK Who here has Queen's BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY stuck in their heads now??? :D

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    The Losing Team
    HOW THE DEMOCRATS FELL FOR TRUMP’S TRAP
    In politics, it is terrible for a party to be defined by what it stands against rather than what is stands for.

    These messages provide a pretty clear picture of how the Democrats want to be perceived by the world and what they prefer to talk about with their voters, donors, and assorted camp followers. Not surprisingly, Obamacare repeal is the largest topic (especially on social media), followed not too far behind by a suite of issues that coalesce around the Trump follies—Russia, the firing of James Comey, the appointment of an independent counsel, and various other malfeasances too numerous to catalogue fully here. Then there is voting rights and gerrymandering; the Paris Climate Change Agreement; the many perceived shortcomings of Betsy DeVos, Wall Street reform, the federal budget, and protection of poverty programs, tax cuts for the wealthy, LGBTQ rights, Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights. I could go on for quite a bit. Even the prospect of a new conservative-inspired Constitutional Convention generates several alarmed e-mails and tweets.

    All this is to be expected. What is most intriguing, however, is what the Democrats are not talking about: the economy. If jobs are mentioned at all in their manifold messaging operations, it is often generally as a derivative of a different topic, such as the charge that Trumpcare will lead to the loss of health-care-related occupations in rural hospitals. All in all, it is a stunning omission. Economic concerns almost always top the list of the most important issues facing voters; economic problems have, for instance, topped the monthly Gallup issues poll this entire year, with the exception of June when dissatisfaction with government and poor leadership briefly took the crown.
    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/how-the-democrats-fell-for-trumps-trap

    Ken Stern nails it.. And in Vanity Fair, no less...

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Hey, Kick! How about a JB/JB ticket??

    They can even use each other's monogrammed towels!! :D heh

  18. [18] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    5

    Jerry Brown is a Big Money, pro-fracking, pro-oil, anti-Single Payer corporate Democrat.

    With Brown's support, a pharmaceutical lobbyist was just made chair of the CA Democratic party using state super-delegates to overturn the will of the majority of elected party delegates... the same person who fought against and stopped passage of a referendum to reduce drug prices.

    But he continued Ahnohld's plan and doesn't kick puppies, so I can see why you like him.

    A

  19. [19] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    As for suggestions for the Most Disappointing award, how about the 14 Dem senators and 63 Dem representatives who support criminalizing BDS?

    "Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison."

    https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/

    Apparently, the authors of the bill, AIPAC, hid the legal consequences using references to prior laws so that the true nature wasn't apparent just from reading the text of the bill.

    The bill was introduced in March, but just came to the attention of many due to a letter from the ACLU opposing passage due to the criminalization of constitutionally protected speech.

    Funny what slips through the cracks when all the attention is focused elsewhere... cough... Russia... cough.

    A

  20. [20] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    delayed response

    Drug-sniffing dogs are incredibly inaccurate, yet unbelievably legal

    http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/2572167/drug-sniffing-police-dogs-inaccurate-reflect-racial-bias/

    It's not the dogs, but their handlers that pose the problems... so don't take it personally.
    I'm sure your dog was superior.

    Pretty stunning numbers in there though... not unlike much of the junk science behind forensics.
    The courts (and the DOJ) are likewise behind the times clinging to mythology rather than the facts.

    A

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Drug-sniffing dogs are incredibly inaccurate, yet unbelievably legal

    Ahhhhh So now, DOGS are "racist"????

    Kinda kills JL's theory that racism stems from power.. :D

    You can believe some liberal rags or you can believe people who have actually had experience with and as K9s....

    For example, myself... USAF 81172-A

    18th SPS, Kadena AB, Okinawa

    The downside to being K-9 in an overseas posting is you hump a LOT of perimeters...

    But, I bet I know who yer gonna go with... The liberal rags that say what you want to hear.. :D

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    We love it when my son comes home from his Alaska fishing job...

    http://theworleys.net/temp/salmon.jpg

    80lbs of fresh salmon... :D

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    So... if ya'all want to go JUST by popularity, shallow though that may be..

    President Trump is MORE popular than anyone else!!! :D

    In other words, if popularity is the litmus test ya'all want to use....

    President Trump is kicking EVERYONE's ass!!!! :D

    How hilarious is THAT!!!??? :D

    Let the back-pedaling begin!! :D

  24. [24] 
    taramaster wrote:

    My thoughts
    Trumps pardon pickle

    - The President's pardon power is only limited to the federal level.
    - Pardoning before justice implies guilt
    - Pardoning will not stop Special Counsel
    - Pardon invalidates 5th amendment privilege. This means testimony can be compelled.
    - Self-pardoning can be challenged once he leaves office
    - State level criminal liability remains e.g., New York
    - There will be a fire storm if Special Counsel is fired (e.g., Nixon)

  25. [25] 
    taramaster wrote:

    My thoughts
    Trumps pardon pickle

    - The President's pardon power is only limited to the federal level.
    - Pardoning before justice implies guilt
    - Pardoning will not stop Special Counsel
    - Pardon invalidates 5th amendment privilege. This means testimony can be compelled.
    - Self-pardoning can be challenged once he leaves office
    - State level criminal liability remains e.g., New York
    - There will be a fire storm if Special Counsel is fired (e.g., Nixon)

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    Taramaster,

    - Pardoning before justice implies guilt

    You see, now that's funny.. Because when there was talk of Obama pardoning Clinton, people around here said the exact opposite.. :D

    - Pardoning will not stop Special Counsel

    Perhaps not.. But it makes any investigation superfluous..

    - Pardon invalidates 5th amendment privilege. This means testimony can be compelled.

    Cite????

    - Self-pardoning can be challenged once he leaves office

    Factually inaccurate.. If that were factual, then ANY pardon could be challenged once the Pardon'er leaves office..

    - There will be a fire storm if Special Counsel is fired (e.g., Nixon)

    There is a firestorm already, regardless of whether or not President Trump orders the firing of Mueller..

    "So a little girl who thought she was going to die was screaming hysterically. When she saw your arm, she screamed some more. Big deal.."
    -CYBORG, Martin Caidin

    Oh....

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

    :D

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Chris Christie just did something he says will save lives in N.J.
    http://www.nj.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2017/07/nj_bans_sale_of_tobacco_to_anyone_under_21.html

    Good move, Christie.....

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    There is a firestorm already, regardless of whether or not President Trump orders the firing of Mueller..

    I am also constrained to point out that there was a "firestorm" when President Trump fired Comey, even though Democrats had been clamoring and demaning EXACTLY that since the election...

    Expecting rational responses from Democrats is simply not logical....

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    my big question is whether Scaramucci can do the fandango

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    my big question is whether Scaramucci can do the fandango

    Heh...

    Good... So it WASN'T just me.... :D

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yes, raising the minimum age for tobacco sale is a good thing. and after closing all of new jersey's public beaches to everyone but himself for july 4, christie's numbers have nowhere to go but up.

    JL

  32. [32] 
    altohone wrote:

    21

    Your personal experience doesn't outweigh the results of controlled testing.

    And, the article was clear that the dogs pick up cues from their handlers... so you blaming the dogs is called getting it wrong.

    Was there a big drug smuggling problem into the base on Okinawa?

    A

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    Was there a big drug smuggling problem into the base on Okinawa?

    You would be amazed.. :D

  34. [34] 
    altohone wrote:

    33

    I'd be amazed if there wasn't.

    A

  35. [35] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Speaking of the longest war in US history which gets ignored

    Afghanistan: 16 police killed in friendly-fire air strike.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40685367

    Rough day for police, as somewhere between 10 and 35 were also killed in an attack by the Taliban in the northeast.
    Hard to say if that second bit of news would have been reported if not for the first incident, since it was tucked into the report about the US bombing. The BBC making sure we remember why it's necessary for this war to continue despite the horrors we are causing.

    Fortunately, our experts say that victory is near due to the 4000 more US troops deployed recently.

    On the positive side, if you ignore the necessity for them being there and why they had no presence in the city for so long, Doctors Without Borders just opened a clinic in Kunduz... their first since the "accidental" war crime attack on their hospital there by the US a few years ago.

    Endless wars and all the joys they bring.

    A

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    We awoke to the breaking news that spinmeister Sean Spicer is out, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders is in as White House press secretary. Trump finally found a communications director as well, Anthony "Mooch" Scaramucci, whose main qualification for the job seems to be his world-class standing in the Olympic event entitled "kissing Trump's ass." We personally lost count, during his debut press conference, of how many times he used the phrase "I love Donald Trump" or some variation thereof. Trump, according to Mooch, is a demigod who strides the Earth and can do no wrong, ever, on anything.

    OF course, ya'all LOVED Scaramucci when he was a top fund-raiser for Odumbo in 2008, right??? Back when "Mooch" was saying "I LOVE BARACK OBAMA" or some variation thereof.. When Mooch was saying that OBAMA was a demigod who strides the Earth and can do no wrong, ever, ya'all LOVED it.... Right?? :D

  37. [37] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "my big question is whether Scaramucci can do the fandango

    Heh...

    Good... So it WASN'T just me.... :D"

    My question would be has Scaramucci met Mozart??? Seriously though, now I have "Bohemian Rhapsody" from "Queen" stuck in my head too.

    Also, I have to love the fact that, from all the reports, the First Lady of Japan "pretended" not to be able to speak English, in order to avoid speaking to Trump. HEH!

  38. [38] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Having been a Democrat most of his voting life, Trump should be the 'default' recipient of the 'Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week'. It was strangely touching, that in deference to McCain's plight, the award once again went un-gifted. I merely offer up a default candidate for future consideration.
    LL&P

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Having been a Democrat most of his voting life, Trump

    All the Democrats LOVED Donald Trump and his money when when Trump had a '-D' after his name...

    should be the 'default' recipient of the 'Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week'.

    And yet, NO ONE here can point to a comment against President Trump when he WAS a Democrat....

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

    heh

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    Don't mind me.. I just find that hilarious how opinions about people so radically change when people go from being a -D to being a -R and versie vicie...

    Just like Scaramucci...

    I find that funny... :D

    "I just find that really funny..... But ya'all ain't laughin'..."
    -Will Smith, MEN IN BLACK

    :D

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages
    -Democrat 2018 Slogan

    Better Ingredients. Better Pizza - Papa John's
    -Papa Johns Slogan

    BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  43. [43] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    michale [13] I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    And yes, I too thought of Bohemian Rhapsody immediately.

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M [41] Are you laughing at Papa John's slogan?

    Its owner is a Trump supporter, you know.

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CW,

    Trump's comment that looking into his financial affairs is 'crossing a line' also reminded me of "no reason to look in the trunk".

    It also reminded me that Putin has been willing to become his deadliest when it comes to financial affairs - it is well to note that the Magnitsky affair began with a look into Russian finances.

    In Trump's case, the cover up is being actively aided an abetted by a Republican caucus that refuses to demand to see Trump's tax returns. What are they afraid of? I can guess.

  46. [46] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    really delayed response to comments 34, 36 from At Least We're Not the Other Guys... and beyond.

    Claiming ignorance of facts you well know is by definition insincere.

    Continuing to deny the reason why you were doing it is likewise insincere.

    And then following it up by claiming to be sincere is just dishonest.

    I have come to expect better of you, but sometimes I'm not sure why.
    Anyway, I forgive you.

    -
    -

    If you're ready to move on, the indications are that the Iran Nuclear Deal will be abandoned by Trump in about 85 days.
    The intentional leaks from the WH were that he only reluctantly recertified Iran as being in compliance due to issues completely unrelated to the nuclear deal, slapped new sanctions on Iran in violation of the deal to try to get Iran to withdraw first, and is itching for confrontation that will allow him to justify a full scale war.

    The NYT published a ridiculous anti-Iran article full of falsehoods and historical revisionism about the lead up and results from the War in Iraq, and Iran's motivations for actions thereafter (including a couple of things CW repeated for whatever reason), and it seems that the corporate media is preparing to replicate the collusion in selling an illegal war based on lies just like in Iraq, but this time against the much larger, better armed country Iran... and that Trump is likely to have nearly unanimous support from Dems in Congress if he goes down that path.

    As a supporter of the nuclear deal, a deal which has achieved its objectives fully through diplomacy rather than war, I was curious about your take on these events that would not only destroy one of Obama and Biden's major achievements, but also possibly lead to the unjustifiable destruction of another country in the Middle East which has never attacked us and has no ability to attack us... and which will have predictable costs and consequences, all bad.

    Have you been following these events?
    What do you think about them?
    Are your reliable sources continuing to be reliable, or have you noticed them engaging in the same "failures" the media experienced leading up to the war in Iraq?

    A

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I support the JCPOA and my sources are inherently reliable.

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    michale [13] I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/07/19/jeff-sessions-brings-back-highway-robbery/#comment-105741

    Of course you don't... :D

    M [41] Are you laughing at Papa John's slogan?

    I am laughing at the desperation and totally non-creativity of the Dumbocrat Party.. :D

    In Trump's case, the cover up is being actively aided an abetted by a Republican caucus that refuses to demand to see Trump's tax returns. What are they afraid of? I can guess.

    Why didn't Odumbo release his school records. What was he afraid of???

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    but also possibly lead to the unjustifiable destruction of another country in the Middle East

    The destruction of the Number One state sponsor of terrorism??

    How is that "unjustifiable"???

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    ISIS broken, but leader slipped away due to leak, says key general

    “We have absolutely dismantled his network,” Gen. Tony Thomas, speaking of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, said at the Aspen Security Forum. “I mean everyone who worked for him initially is dead or gone. Everybody who stepped to the plate the next time [is] dead or gone. Down through a network where we have killed, in a conservative estimate, 60,000 to 70,000 of his followers, his army.”

    “That was a very good lead. Unfortunately, it was leaked in a prominent national newspaper about a week later and that lead went dead,” Thomas said. “The challenge we have [is] in terms of where and how our tactics and procedures are discussed openly. There's a great need to inform the American public about what we're up to. There's also great need to recognize things that will absolutely undercut our ability to do our job.”

    Thomas appeared to be referring to a New York Times report in June 2015 that detailed how American intelligence agencies had “extracted valuable information.”
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/21/isis-broken-but-leader-slipped-away-due-to-leak-says-key-general.html

    Great job, Dumbocrats... :^/

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    and after closing all of new jersey's public beaches to everyone but himself for july 4,

    Which do you object to??

    The MAKE IT HURT attitude???

    Or the hypocrisy of not abiding by his own closures??

  52. [52] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    altohone [20]

    Sorry, but just because the dog alerts and there aren't drugs found does not mean that the dogs failed to do their job. Dogs alert only when the scent of narcotics are present.
    The articles misrepresents how successful dogs are at searches by assuming that drugs had to be found in order for the dog to be accurate in its alerting. The article failed to say whether there was any drug paraphernalia present in cases where no drugs were found. They fail to report whether drugs had been confirmed to have been in vehicles that dogs alerted on but none was found at the time of the search. Both are considered to be a good hit by the K9. Again, the stats in the article are misleading when you realize what constitutes a "successful alert" is more than just drugs being present.

    Dogs don't judge a person by their appearance. They aren't bigoted in their alerts.

    The handler only can give cues as to where drugs are located if they know ahead of time where the drugs are hidden. That is why in training sessions, handlers will have someone else hide the drugs to prevent them from unwittingly giving cues to the dog. They cannot give cues in the field since they have no idea of what they are encountering on each call.

    The courts love dog searches because they are the only method of searching that doesn't invade your privacy, they only expose the scent of contraband. It allows for the police to search your bags for contraband without actually opening them up. Everytime a dog does a search, it is logged -- whether that search is done as training exercises or actual field work -- everything is recorded for the court's approval.

    Sorry, but the article was extremely misleading with its omission of information regarding the calls the dogs hit on. I'll trust a dog to be honest before I do a human everytime!

  53. [53] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    altohone

    Your personal experience doesn't outweigh the results of controlled testing.

    And, the article was clear that the dogs pick up cues from their handlers... so you blaming the dogs is called getting it wrong.

    Where were any controlled testing results offered in the article? No where! The author took tidbits from multiple other articles to draw their conclusion, and obviously without bothering to recheck any of the data for accuracy.

  54. [54] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I believe the 2016 US Election is going to go down as one of the most successful covert operations ever. The Russians basically Ukrained the United States, and they didn't even have to use any "Little Green Men" to pull it off...unless you count electronic trolls as Little Green Men - both the domestic variety and the foreign species doing piece work from places like Macedonia.

    Putin saw the fault line in the American Political Gem and hit it with a hammer. We've been shattered...but Putin isn't through with us. He's going to take down his stooge/dupe Trump too, and once again, he's going to do it with the skillful release of leaks. Putin is going to rub American noses with a detailed blue print of how he danced all over Trump and The Trump Organization. He doesn't care if Trump is or is not removed from office. The primary Russian objective was to sow massive political discord in the United States, and that mission has been brilliantly accomplished. If Trump pardons himself and ends up as President for Life of the World's biggest Banana Republic, Putin will be simply delighted....because Putin will be riding him like a shirtless cowboy.

    This is a much bigger (and more humiliating) geopolitical defeat than Pearl Harbor ever was. The US more than recovered from that debacle in 4 years. The United States can't engineer an industrial come-back like we did in WWII. I'm not saying the US can't recover and prosper, but fixing ripped social/political fabric is a lot harder than building ships, tanks and planes. Some very basic flaws and ambiguities in our Constitutional have been exposed. It's not clear to me that Checks and Balances still exist in our Executive-Legislative-Judicial form of government. Our Constitution is a bit ossified. When was the last time we passed an amendment? The principle of "one man, one vote" is certainly a fiction. Always has been. Like Russia, we are bit of an oligarchy. Russia had serfs, we had slaves....

    These are truly times to test our National Soul. Victory is by no means assured - or even defined for that matter.

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    I believe the 2016 US Election is going to go down as one of the most successful covert operations ever.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru the day... :D

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    Putin saw the fault line in the American Political Gem and hit it with a hammer. We've been shattered...

    OR.......

    Or NOT-45 was the worst possible candidate at the worst possible time...

    What's more factually believable???

    Like I said.. Whatever you have to tell yerself to make it thru yer day....

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    The primary Russian objective was to sow massive political discord in the United States, and that mission has been brilliantly accomplished.

    Aided and abetted by the Dumbocrat Party..

    Glad you are finally recognizing what "useful idiots" the Dumbocrats have become....

  58. [58] 
    altohone wrote:

    49

    The laws of war which the US is bound by and helped write are clear.

    A legal justification is required for the US to attack another country, and factually inaccurate claims from the State Department do not suffice.

    Iran has not attacked us and has no ability to attack us. Under the laws we are bound by, there is no legal justification for us to attack them.

    The 2001 AUMF on which all of our military actions in the Global War on Terror are legally based specifically cites al Qaida and al Qaida affiliated groups.

    Iran does not support al Qaida, has no affiliation with al Qaida and is actively fighting against al Qaida.

    In every legal sense, launching a war against Iran would be unjustifiable.

    A

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Re. Joe Biden's defense of Obamacare

    Senator Biden and the Democrats are going to have to seriously up their respective games if this is what passes for messaging on healthcare insurance.

    I have to say that Biden's 'defense of Obamacare' was quite a disappointing read. I always expect more from him and he usually delivers. Not so in this piece.

    He spends an inordinate amount of space detailing how fundamentally flawed is the Republican bill to repeal and replace the ACA. He says Obamacare isn't perfect but, it's better than what the Republicans are proposing. No kidding. Tell us something we don't already know, Senator!

    He failed to acknowledge the problematic areas of Obamacare and, more importantly, what needs to be done to fix them and improve Obamacare.

    Biden goes on to assert that "more must be done to address the [opioid addiction] crisis, not less" but, offers nothing - specifically or in general - about how that might be done.

    He pronounces that the McConnell bill can't be fixed because it denies that all Americans have a right to health care but, he doesn't spell out what that right means.

    In conclusion, Biden advocates for having a debate on the issue and then leaves out every single cogent Democratic debating point on this issue, thereby squandering an opportunity to persuade.

    America needs to get real about healthcare insurance and I'm sorry to say that Biden's piece did nothing to move the debate in that direction.

  60. [60] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    53

    The scientific testing which forms the basis of the article is referenced in the other articles and is available for you to read and is easily found.

    "I'll trust a dog to be honest before I do a human everytime"

    I fully agree with you there.
    As noted in the article, cues from handlers can be both conscious and unconscious, and unfortunately, humans do not come close to being anywhere near as honest and trustworthy as dogs. Nor are humans capable of controlling unconscious behaviors that reveal our biases.

    "The handler only can give cues as to where drugs are located if they know ahead of time where the drugs are hidden."

    You are misrepresenting the issues raised in the article.

    Dogs taking cues from handlers created the false alerts when drugs weren't present in the testing where no residue was even present.
    Dogs taking cues from handlers create false alerts which are then used to conduct illegal searches.

    The dogs are not the problem.

    A

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Re. Senator Sanders' PBS NewsHour appearance

    Senator Biden and Democrats and enlightened, future-oriented Republicans should take their cues from Senator Sanders with respect to the defense of Obamacare and the path forward on reforming healthcare insurance - in the immediate, short and longer terms.

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Re: Jerry Brown and Up-wing Leadership

    For showing such strong leadership on the issue, and for stepping up while the federal government abandons the field, Jerry Brown is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. He's nearing the end of his historic fourth term in office, and if term limits didn't exist, he would easily win a fifth term. That's real leadership.

    Excellent summation, Chris and, something that just can't be mentioned enough!

  63. [63] 
    altohone wrote:

    TS
    54

    "Like Russia, we are bit of an oligarchy."

    I would call that an understatement.

    I disagree that Putin is responsible for the discord that the political and economic corruption in both major parties has caused though. Nor is he responsible for the discord within just the Democratic party.

    It remains possible, though currently unproven, that the Russian government was involved in efforts to help make the massive political and economic corruption in our country apparent to many Americans, but that is rather different than causing it.

    A

  64. [64] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    59

    Yup.

    61

    Yup.

    62

    Nope.
    Getting a watered down version of a Republicans legislation extended can only be considered "leadership" relative to what Trump is doing.
    A very low bar.

    A

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al, you need to familiarize yourself with what is happening in California with respect to climate change.

  66. [66] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    65

    Your presumption of ignorance is both false and offensive.

    If you want to debate the issues, rather than stoop to such tactics, I'm game.

    A

  67. [67] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW and anyone interested in election meddling

    Here's an interview with an expert who has studied the issue and compiled a database that I think both sides in the debate will embrace-

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19569:Historian%3A-If-Russia-Meddled%2C-It-Was-%27Average%27

    And it's rather entertaining too.

    The history is 80 to 5, not counting coups or direct military interventions.

    A

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    altohone wrote the following, in reference to Governor Brown's leadership:
    altohone,

    Getting a watered down version of a Republicans legislation extended can only be considered "leadership" relative to what Trump is doing. A very low bar.

    I am not making assumptions about what you don't know about Jerry Brown's leadership but rather I base my assessment regarding your need to better understand what has been happening in California with respect to combating climate change on your misguided assertion above.

    Enlightened Republicans and Democrats have been working together over the course of many years to advance effective policy to mitigate climate change. California and Jerry Brown are not only leading America on this issue but the state and its governor have taken on a serious global leadership role on protecting the environment through commonsense future-oriented policies and enlightened vision.

    There is nothing "low bar" about these efforts, domestically and internationally.

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    Iran does not support al Qaida, has no affiliation with al Qaida and is actively fighting against al Qaida.

    In every legal sense, launching a war against Iran would be unjustifiable.

    Yes, yes yes... Officially blaa blaa blaaa blaaa...

    But I also know for a fact that this world would be a better place without terrorists and the Number 1 State Sponsor of terrorism in it..

    So, yes.. yer right, blaa blaa blaaa blaaa blaaa...

    But I still would have no problem decimating Iranian leadership...

    None whatsoever...

    As noted in the article, cues from handlers can be both conscious and unconscious, and unfortunately, humans do not come close to being anywhere near as honest and trustworthy as dogs.

    You are assuming that there ARE cues...

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    The dog cues the handler... Not the other way around..

    Which you would know if you actually talked with people with practical experience as opposed to taking the words of people with an ideological agenda..

  70. [70] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    68

    Your "assessment" is as wrong as your assumption.

    CA was my home when this legislation passed.
    The extension of this watered down legislation is the topic raised by CW and praised by you.

    "Enlightened Republicans and Democrats have been working together over the course of many years to advance effective policy to mitigate climate change."

    Well, plenty of independents and Greens were involved, and there were probably more non-voters involved than "enlightened Republicans".
    But more importantly, it wasn't the elected in either major party who laid the groundwork, as they mostly needed to be strongly pressured to act before they finally did so.
    And it is the effectiveness of the policy under discussion which is where the valid criticism comes into play.

    That said, bringing up other positive efforts made in CA (some of which I was actively involved in) to support your false claim is called moving the goalposts in order to make a straw man argument, but I remain willing to talk about all of the above.

    A

  71. [71] 
    altohone wrote:

    69

    "So, yes.. yer right"

    I know, but thanks for showing some integrity.

    "But I still would have no problem decimating Iranian leadership..."

    That didn't last long.
    Everybody here probably knows you support war crimes including torture, and illegal wars of aggression are at the top of the list of war crimes, but pretending that only Iranian leadership would be affected is rather weak.
    I thought you had enough personal experience to know better than to blurt out such ignorance.

    -
    -

    "You are assuming that there ARE cues"
    "The dog cues the handler... Not the other way around.."

    No, the research is clear.
    Read it.

    A

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And it is the effectiveness of the policy under discussion which is where the valid criticism comes into play.

    Are you saying that the cap and trade program and Governor Brown's success in extending it to 2030 is not an effective policy and an important part of California's climate program?

    Brown received the MIDOTW award on Friday because of the leadership he demonstrated in extending a very important part of California's climate program which had become threatened by efforts to undermine it.

    By mustering enough Republican votes to compensate for some soft Democratic support, Brown has ensured the longevity of the cap and trade program and removed any uncertainty about its validity.

    This is how governing is supposed to work - implementation of effective policy through the art of compromise.

    And, that, my friend is leadership.

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    That didn't last long.
    Everybody here probably knows you support war crimes including torture, and illegal wars of aggression are at the top of the list of war crimes, but pretending that only Iranian leadership would be affected is rather weak.
    I thought you had enough personal experience to know better than to blurt out such ignorance.

    I have absolutely no problem taking out the leadership of the Number 1 State Sponsor of terrorism..

    I further have absolutely no problem with your namby-pamby cowardly characterization of my no problem..

    Pre-emptive self-defense/defense of others is recognized the world over...

    I get it.. Yer a coward.. You are one of those PEACE AT ANY COST slave...

    Misery loves company.. Yer gonna have to wallow in your misery all by yer lonesome..

    No, the research is clear.
    Read it.

    I don't have to "read" it.. I have been there and done that.. I have TRAINED for it..

    You THINK you know what you know because you read it somewhere..

    *I* know what I know because I have been there and done that..

    Come talk to me when you have something beyond "Oh, I read it on the Internet so it MUST be true!!"

    :^/

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    Are you saying that the cap and trade program and Governor Brown's success in extending it to 2030 is not an effective policy and an important part of California's climate program?

    It wont' make a BIT of relevant difference in the global temperature of the planet..

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    7

    Hey, Kick! How about a JB/JB ticket??

    Now THAT is a ticket I could actually support... with the caveat that JB is top of the ticket while JB is running mate. :)

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Precisely!

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It wont' make a BIT of relevant difference in the global temperature of the planet..

    Not by itself, obviously.

    But, the key word in this discussion, Michale, is LEADERSHIP - at the local, national and planetary level, you know.

  78. [78] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Hey, Kick! How about a JB/JB ticket??

    You'd get the dyslexic gay vote for sure!

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Seriously, a JB/JB ticket would work more as a co-presidency with the determination of who would be president and vice president a mere formality, legally speaking.

    But, for all intents and purposes, you would have two seasoned politicians who know what the hell they're doing and who would bring the knowledge and competence of insiders along side the youthful spirit of up-wing outsiders with visions for progressive change and the courage to carry them out.

    You talk about dream tickets ... man, this pair would erase all of the horror stories and nightmares of both of the 2016 campaigns.

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    12

    dox
    däks/Submit
    verbinformal
    search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

    A person can't DOX themselves...

    Are you so ignorant that you actually think you can't publish private or identifying information about yourself on the Internet? Is there any limit to the depths of your stupidity? It appears there is NOT! It's really, really hard to believe you were a law enforcement officer. *LOL*

    Looks like it's YOU, ya ignorant moron... :D

    So not only are you moron enough to dox yourself, you're also laughably ignorant enough to call attention to your own challenged mental deficiencies. It's good that you point out what a "special kind of stupid" you actually are. :)

    I can't stop laughing how you got played and how you won't stop whining about it... the gift that just keeps on giving. Please keep whining about it and keep it alive. It would be a shame if you ever stopped calling attention to how easily conned you are and how easily spoon-fed and suckered. *LOL* :)

  81. [81] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The scientific testing which forms the basis of the article is referenced in the other articles and is available for you to read and is easily found.

    I did read them, did you? As I pointed out in my earlier post, the numbers listed by the authors do not represent an honest view of the calls -- it only uses one of like ten factors that have to be taken into consideration to determine whether the dog properly alerted to the presence of the scent of narcotics.

    A Rubbermaid container that held 16 ounces of pot will trigger an alert a year after the pot was removed because dogs can still detect the odor of pot.

    Dogs taking cues from handlers created the false alerts when drugs weren't present in the testing where no residue was even present.
    Dogs taking cues from handlers create false alerts which are then used to conduct illegal searches.

    The only possible way to know that no residue is present is in controlled tests -- never in the field! The police are well aware that handlers can give off cues that some dogs will alert on in an attempt to please their handlers. This is why they are constantly changing up the environments that they test their K9's. Literally every search a dog does has to be documented and dogs that starts giving false alerts will be retired unless the handler can determine what is causing the false alerts.

    Before Diesel and Devon were commissioned as a team, they went through over 480 hours of rigorous training. Not all handlers pass (rarely is the dog the issue as they are thoroughly screened prior to being placed with a potential handlers). They were then required to do 4 hours of weekly training exercises on top of their work schedule of 36 hours/week. Dogs that falsely alert get found out very quickly, in part because it is so rare that when it happens it is a big deal!

    Every warrant that is sought will have the dog's training numbers included so that the courts can determine whether the dog fits the criteria to be an "expert". These authors either did not bother to educate themselves on the subject matter they were reporting on, or they chose to mislead the public with their reporting. Neither is acceptable.

  82. [82] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    You talk about dream tickets ... man, this pair would erase all of the horror stories and nightmares of both of the 2016 campaigns.

    I agree with you 110%! Honestly, California governors are probably the only people other than Vice Presidents that can be considered to have the work experience that qualifies them to handle the presidency. Not that others shouldn't be considered, but CA's economy and population are just so huge that being the governor of it might as well be considered a "junior varsity presidency".

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

    And, Jerry Brown has already taken on a global leadership role that I'm guessing will intensify after his fourth term as governor.

    Ah, well ... we can dream ... :)

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If Jerry Brown runs for president, do think I'll be able to convince him to run another small contribution campaign like the 100 dollar campaign he ran in the 80s or late 70s ?
    After all, if at first you don't succeed.....

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well he did win a gubernatorial campaign running against a candidate who ran the highest spending non-presidential campaign in the history of the world.

    So, he proved that good governance trumps any sum of money an opposing candidate can through at him.

    And, he does have a reputation for frugality ...

    I'd say you'd have a very good chance of convincing him of any worthwhile endeavour with respect to campaign financing schemes.

    In fact, I think it would be well worth your while to begin those efforts with the governor now.

  86. [86] 
    altohone wrote:

    73

    Yup.
    The former LEO who supports the worst crimes on the planet.

    Irony and hypocrisy rolled up into a ball of criminality.

    Learn something-

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/09-30-46.asp

    The Nuremberg Trial proceedings.

    A

  87. [87] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    72

    Did you read the criticism of Schwarzenegger's cap and trade legislation when it was being passed?

    Have you read the criticism of the watered down version of Schwarzenegger's legislation that Jerry Brown FOLLOWED it up with?

    Are you aware of the other approaches that could have been pursued that would be more effective?

    A

  88. [88] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz, Russ,

    Jerry Brown is 79, Joe Biden is 74. By the way, Bernie is only 75. Donal Trump is just 71, and Hillary is the baby of that group at 69.

    Elizabeth Warren is a year younger than that at 68, Al Franken is still younger at 66, but older than Sherrod Brown, who's 64.

    Oft-mentioned Amy Klobuchar is a comparative youngster at 57, and up-and-coming Kamala Harris is 52, but seasoned and popular Kirsten Gillebrand is only 50. Former superhero Corey Booker is just 48, and rising star Chris Murphy is only 43, the youngest member of the Senate until Joe Cotton arrived, and 31 years younger than Biden.

    Outside government, Barney Frank is 77, Al Gore is almost a decade younger at 69. Bill Gates is just 61.

    On the other side, Trump is 71, but Mike Pence is a relatively youthful 58. John Kasich is 65. But Koch fav Scott Walker is only 49, and Ted Cruz is only 46, same age as Marco Rubio. On the outside, Bill O'Reilly is 67, Sean Hannity is just 55 (a decade older than his nemesis, Rachel Maddow, who's a mere 44). Libertarian Billionaire Marc Cuban is only 58.

    So apparently if you want to feel young, follow politics.

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    altohone,

    Are you aware of how the political process works and why compromise is essential, especially with respect to complicated pieces of legislation, such as any cap and trade scheme?

    Purity tests in politics is the surest way to avoid achieving any worthwhile goal, you know.

    I gave up expecting to receive everything I wanted when I wanted it a very, very, very long time ago. :)

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Are you age-obsessed?

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    and Hillary is the baby of that group at 69.

    In more ways than one.

    :-)

    Sorry, I couldn't resist. I tried but, I'm just not that strong.

  92. [92] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    81

    Dogs are awesome and have amazing abilities.

    The problem is the people who are not as amazing as Devon. There are too many.

    See above for a perfect example... and we all know there are plenty like him who trash the rule of law despite their training.

    A

  93. [93] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So how does that stack up against the world?

    Putin is 64, Angela Merkel is 63. Theresa May is a bit younger than that at 60, Canada's Justin Trudeau is far younger at 45, and France's Emmanuel Macron is only 39.

    China's Premiere Li Keqiang is 62, same age as Australia's PM Malcolm Turnbull and Japan's Shinz? Abe. Korea's new president Moon Jae-in is a bit older at 64, but his North Korean counterpart, Kim Jong-un, is just 33 years old.

    The New King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, is 81 years old, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is 68, as is Israel's PM Netanyahu. Turkey's Erdogan is 63, Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is 62. Bashar al-Assad of Syria is only 51.

    India's retiring, but not-yet-replaced President, Pranab Mukherjee is 81. Pope Francis is just a year younger at 80 (his predecessor, Benedict, now 90, still lives). Raul Castro, by the way, is 86.

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    73

    I get it.. Yer a coward.. You are one of those PEACE AT ANY COST slave...

    We get it... you're a LIAR. You are one of those LIE ALL THE TIME halfwits enslaved by your sciolism.

    I don't have to "read" it.. I have been there and done that.. I have TRAINED for it..

    You THINK you know what you know because you read it somewhere..

    Let me give you a hint: When you spend an inordinate amount of time making up LIES about other posters as a substitute for debate... well, I know it never crossed your tiny little mind, but it takes a "special kind of stupid" to think that the people you make up LIES about are going to believe any of the nonsense you post about yourself when you've actually thoroughly convinced as well as conditioned others NOT to believe your bullshit.

    *I* know what I know because I have been there and done that..

    Come talk to me when you have something beyond "Oh, I read it on the Internet so it MUST be true!!"

    And you're posting this on the Internet, and it's being read off the Internet "so it MUST be true," right? You didn't think that one through either, did you? <--Rhetorical questions. *LOL* :)

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Age is no guarantee of efficiency."

    "And, youth is no guarantee of innovation."

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What movie is that conversation from?

  97. [97] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    89

    "Purity tests in politics is the surest way to avoid achieving any worthwhile goal, you know"

    Wrong.
    In this case, doing the bidding of the fossil fuel interests and pretending it's the best that can be achieved is the surest way.

    Almost as good as Schwarzenegger is all that is possible... what a great bumper sticker!
    He's Democratic VP material alright.

    A

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Being cynical to a fault is not a great way to journey through this life.

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    95, 96

    "Age is no guarantee of efficiency."

    "And, youth is no guarantee of innovation."

    What movie is that conversation from?

    Q: I'll hazard I can do more damage on my laptop sitting in my pajamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field.

    007: So why do you need me?

    Q: Every now and then a trigger has to be pulled.

    007: Or not pulled... it's hard to know which in your pajamas... Q.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ9H31z7OqM

    Skyfall

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very nice.

  101. [101] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    altohone,

    See above for a perfect example... and we all know there are plenty like him who trash the rule of law despite their training.

    But your article wasn't focused on those that choose to violate their oaths and our trust, it was bundling all K9 officers and their handlers together and claiming that THEY are the problem! You fail to acknowledge that the articles chose to state that if dogs alerted to the scent of drugs but no drugs were seized by the police, it was not considered a good alert -- completely ignoring that it could mean that only residue was found or that the quantity was not enough to arrest for which is considered a "good alert". The author took very specific facts from the articles written by other people without putting those facts in the proper context in which they should be viewed. This is a common problem with the press, in general, when it comes to reporting on police matters.

    I agree with your statement that not all officers are as amazing as Devon (and really do appreciate you for saying it!), but most are great people who do take their job seriously and truly wish to serve their communities. This article was just too misleading and biased for it to have been unintentionally written that way.

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, here is the story as I understand it:

    1. Congress passes a veto proof bill with both sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea, and restrictions on 45's power over sanctions.

    2. The White House came up with a story: "45 demanded changes to the bill which were made so 45 was supportive of the bill" which Sarah H. trotted out for the press.

    3. The "mooch" got giddy over his new role and booked himself on to the Sunday programs to show how important he now is, but wasn't briefed on what was going on - even though his office did know (see (2) above.

    4. The "mooch" tweeted out an oopsie.

    5. 45 undid everything because the story was too complex for him to understand and pissed and moaned that he was let down by Repuvlicans who should be protecting him.

    OK, tell me why this isn't the worst clown show in the history of the U.S. Presidency.

  103. [103] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    neilm,

    Yeah, I thought it was ODD that Trump would complain that the Republicans weren't "protecting" him just after they announced their plan for sanctions against Russia. Protecting him from Putin releasing his Ukraine-for-urine video, perhaps?

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    So "the mooch" is a Harvard educated former Wall St guy.

    Drain that swamp!

    I love that he is threatening to fire his whole department if the leaks don't stop. Doesn't he realize that the only benefit most staffers get from working in 45's White House is to show off that they are inside the cray-cray machine and how messed up it is?

    If he takes away the only reason to do the job, who would want it anyway?

    Maybe he can turn things around after his threatening start by buying them a mini-fridge from all the regular American's whose 401(k)s he has helped destroy.

  105. [105] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [21] - For example, myself... USAF 81172-A

    Is that what, back in the day, used to be called an AF Specialty Classification? I had one of those. It had four characters, though, so I didn't really do anything that interesting.

    [38] - Trump should be the 'default' recipient of the 'Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week'.

    I'm sorry, but I think that's pretty funny.

    [54] - I believe the 2016 US Election is going to go down as one of the most successful covert operations ever.

    Except they didn't get away with it, at least in the one-dimensional checkers sense. I still say they're playing too loud, but that's beside my point.

    I'm afraid I'm too tired to make my point coherently, which also could very well mean it's wrong. But it revolves around the implications, if any, of this spat between CIA Director Pompeo and RT and Sputnik.

    I'm deliberately linking to the following comment; in case your browser doesn't point to it, it's the one that begins "If you imagine that the CIA is the enemy..."

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-23/five-weird-conspiracy-theories-cia-director-mike-pompeo#comment-9935808

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    But, the key word in this discussion, Michale, is LEADERSHIP - at the local, national and planetary level, you know.

    Did you know that if the US stayed in the Paris Accords and the Paris Accords worked *EXACTLY* as planned, it would only have less than a TWO DEGREE effect on the global temp over a century...

    Of course, to achieve that "stunning" and "miraculous" result, all we have to do is decimate the world economy...

    Yea.. GREAT plan... :^/

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Are you so ignorant that you actually think you can't publish private or identifying information about yourself on the Internet? Is there any limit to the depths of your stupidity? It appears there is NOT! It's really, really hard to believe you were a law enforcement officer. *LOL*

    Are you so MORONIC and ignorant that you can't read the full definition???

    search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

    What "malicious intent" would I have??

    Face the facts, Veronica..

    You found out some personal information about me. You used that to hire one of those FIND OUT ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE companies to learn somethings about my past.. You were GIDDY with excitement.

    "NOW I can be the hero!! I can rid Weigantia of Michale forever!!! THIS will shut him up!! He won't want me to reveal ANY of this!!!"
    -Veronica

    So you tried to extort me into silence..

    And I laughed in your face...

    And you were humiliated and tucked yer tail between yer legs and went off to some corner to lick your wounds...

    This is the fact of what occurred and everyone here can attest to that fact...

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    This is a common problem with the press, in general, when it comes to reporting on police matters.

    A-frakin'-men to THAT!!!

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    So "the mooch" is a Harvard educated former Wall St guy.

    Who was an Obama guy in 2008...

    Every Dumbocrat LOVED Mooch then... :^/

  110. [110] 
    michale wrote:

    LB,

    Is that what, back in the day, used to be called an AF Specialty Classification? I had one of those. It had four characters, though, so I didn't really do anything that interesting.

    702?? :D

    Except they didn't get away with it, at least in the one-dimensional checkers sense. I still say they're playing too loud, but that's beside my point.

    No.. I think that is EXACTLY the point...

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    So....

    What ya'all think of KID ROCK FOR SENATE?? :D

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    The Democrats Unveiled a New Slogan and It's Infuriatingly Stupid

    Oh no.

    In the midst of a reeling Republican presidential administration that may or may not be imploding in spectacular fashion even as you read this sentence, the Democrats have rolled out their slogan for the 2018 midterm congressional elections. My friends, the fight for the soul of this country is in the hands of people who came up with... this:

    Jeff Stein ? @JStein_Vox
    I shouldve corrected this immediately; I've deleted original tweet. Full slogan is "A Better Deal: Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages"

    Congratulations to those of you who reflexively whispered "...Papa John's" before burying your head in your arms and sobbing quietly.
    http://www.gq.com/story/democrats-2018-slogan-very-bad

    Ya'all lap up this new Dumbocrat slogan like good little Party drones...

    But the fact is, from a marketing standpoint, it's dismal.. It doesn't make you want to vote Dumbocrat, it makes you want to order a pizza!!

    By all means, continue... It will give me some great laughs and commenting fodder in the aftermath of the Great Dumbocrat Party Shellacking of 2018.... :D

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    I agree with you 110%! Honestly, California governors are probably the only people other than Vice Presidents that can be considered to have the work experience that qualifies them to handle the presidency. Not that others shouldn't be considered, but CA's economy and population are just so huge that being the governor of it might as well be considered a "junior varsity presidency".

    Here's what I don't get about California...

    California is owned lock stock and barrel by a Democrat SUPER MAJORITY....

    Where is the Single Payer???

    Where is the "cure" for Global Warming??

    Where is the Dumbocrat Socialist Utopia???

    California should be the Dumbocrat Paradise ya'all claim CAN happen..

    But yet it's a shithole of gun and gang violence, high taxes, homelessness and a failing infrastructure...

    California is a laboratory of total and complete DUMBOCRAT RULE...

    So, where is the paradise?? Where is the Utopia???

    Or MAYBE... Just maybe...

    It's as I say it is.. That Dumbocrat Policies sound great on paper and in theory...

    But when put into practice?? When the rubber hits the road???

    THEY SIMPLY DO NOT WORK....

    California, Detroit, Chicago...

    All are PERFECT examples of how Dumbocrat Policies DO NOT WORK....

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    From 1996 through 2015 global temperatures remained essentially flat, despite predictions of a rise by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Forecasts of rising sea levels have also failed to match reality. Melting Arctic sea ice does not increase liquid volume. Melting ice from land masses does increase global sea levels. About 90 percent of the world’s glacial ice is on Antarctica which shows no net decrease in ice cover. In a Kafkaesque setting, the entire world’s economy and standard of living is being threatened by a technically challenged political elite in a global hustle using IPCC models, which are grossly flawed.
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-op-0721-global-warming-hoax-20170719-story.html

    EVERY Human Caused Global Warming prediction the Left Wingery has touted has turned out to be WRONG..

    WRONG...

    WRONG....

    WRONG....

    Not a SINGLE correct prediction or accurate model...

    NOT A SINGLE ONE...

    And yet, with ALL this failure, ya'all STILL believe the BS....

    Now THAT is loyalty.... :D

    It's like people today who STILL believe that the earth is flat or that smoking is great for you...

    It takes a religious-esque sort of faith to believe that humans can actually control the planet's climate despite all the scientific FACTS to the contrary.....

    Balthasar,

    Did you perform that experiment??? Are you ready to concede that you were wrong and I was right??

    No??

    Didna think so... :D

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    The IPCC refutes any scientific findings that suggest that global warming is not exclusively due to increased CO2 production from the burning of fossil fuels. In reality, 99.98 percent of the total energy contribution to the earth’s climate originates from the sun. Solar irradiation is not constant but varies slightly in repeating cycles, which bring about significant climate change. Sunspots are an indication of solar activity and the strength of the sun’s magnetic field, which forms a protective shield against the bombardment of cosmic rays streaming in from space. The weaker the field, the more cosmic rays that can reach earth. Cosmic rays influence cloud formation and are the most consistent factor in identifying the sun’s current effect on climate. During the last two decades, sunspot activity has drastically diminished, and the earth may now be at the beginning of the next solar hibernation cycle — i.e. less energy from the sun, more cosmic rays and global cooling.

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    By conventional standards, Mr. Scaramucci is unqualified for the position. By Trump’s standards, his resume is unmatched. Two months ago, Mr. Scaramucci was the subject of a CNN report that the network was not only forced to retract but which became so discounted that three journalists were let go. To Mr. Trump, there could be no finer set of credentials – a consigliere with kills to his credit.

    The Scaramucci era will offer none of Mr. Spicer’s failed pretense. It is only a matter of time until Mr. Mueller is fired and this drama enters its third act – which promises more twists, betrayals and indignity. Don’t be shocked that Mr. Trump has hired a new communications director without professional experience. No one with professional experience would be willing to do the job that’s coming.
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/with-scaramucci-trump-is-going-to-war-with-the-media-with-the-truth-with-america/article35776537/

    "No country has ever been saved by 'good' men. Because 'good' men will not go to the lengths that will be necessary."
    -Horace Wapole

    or, if you prefer the updated version...

    "You don't fight a junkyard dog with ASPCA rules. You take the leash off your bigger and meaner dog."
    -Senator, THE SIEGE

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:

    And, apropos of absolutely nothing but that she's so darn cute!! :D

    http://tinyurl.com/ya9qgnay

    :D

  118. [118] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    It wasn't my "designation," it was that of the right-wing rag you posted, and you naturally believe it because it fits your worldview.

    Actually you are lying.. Big shock..

    https://spectator.org/run-kamala-run/

    No where in the posted article did the author use the designation "loose woman"..

    That was YOUR designation, ya moron...

    It's so easy to prove what an ignorant liar you really are, Veronica... :D

  119. [119] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    You can stop ALL of this at any time... Just say the word...

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    “A recent study from Lund University in Sweden shows that the biggest way to reduce climate change is to have fewer children”
    -NPR

    “Climate change deniers, by way of example, are older. It’s generational. We’re just going to have to wait for those people to ‘age out,’ as they say.”
    -Bill Nye

    So, let me see if I understand this..

    Dumbocrats are telling people to quit having babies and for those older Americans who actually LOOK at the REAL science to hurry up and die...

    Yea... Ya'all got a REAL winner of a religion there, eh? :^/

    Why don't Dumbocrats just advocate the Final Solution and be done with it??

    Kill everyone who doesn't agree with the Dumbocrat Party....

    Problem solved.. :^/

  121. [121] 
    michale wrote:

    Speaking of planetary science..

    Anyone planning on taking a trip on 21 Aug?? :D

    I was thinking of carting the family off to Mt Pleasant, SC for the view...

    But here where we live, we're going to get a .9 magnitude of the full effect.. Seemed silly to drive 10 hours for a .1 magnitude change...

    So, looking forward to it... Anyone else??? :D

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    107

    Are you so MORONIC and ignorant that you can't read the full definition???

    search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

    You didn't need to post the thing twice, idiot. Are you so damn stupid that you don't know the meaning of "typically" is "in most cases, usually." Usually means NOT always... so "typically with malicious intent" rules out no one.

    What "malicious intent" would I have??

    "Typically" with "malicious intent," moron; it isn't defined as "always with malicious intent." Damn, you're stupid. When you're not LYING, you're busy making shit up. :)

    Face the facts, Veronica..

    Which coming from you "typically" means LIES are going to follow.

    You found out some personal information about me. You used that to hire one of those FIND OUT ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE companies to learn somethings about my past.. You were GIDDY with excitement.

    Oh, sick... giddy? You've got to be kidding. That's hysterical. You are a vivid LIAR. I can't reveal why your made up bullshit is so ridiculous... just know that you're making a fool of yourself to suggest that I hired a rinky-dink company when I'd have no need to do that whatsoever. *LOL*

    Here are the facts:
    * You've posted your name, your wife's name, and several times have posted personal information about yourself through your links... because you've doxed yourself and put your personal shit on this board. If you don't believe me, see above on this page where you've doxed your name AGAIN and your son's profession... I am sure with no "malicious intent"... so NOT your "typical" dox.

    * I took the information YOU supplied.
    * I made a phone call.

    "NOW I can be the hero!! I can rid Weigantia of Michale forever!!! THIS will shut him up!! He won't want me to reveal ANY of this!!!"
    -Veronica

    Bullshit and more of your LIES. Months later I decided to yank your chain when you were in an argument with another poster. Before I did anything, though, I sent an email to Neil on 02/16/2017, the contents reading:

    Neil, apologies for emailing you without your permission, but I figured I'd better let you know that the information you posted about yourself and Michale is still up for all the world to see.

    You might want to find out if you can have that taken down somehow or get CW to take it down. Michale also quoted it so it's in two or three comment boxes that will each need to be removed.

    It's at this link:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/12/08/governing-irrationally/#comment-90276

    Just trying to help you and him out. :)

    While I had NO intentions of posting a damn thing, and keep in mind you've already posted your own personal information fairly regularly, I did have EVERY intention of watching you freak out about it. So I then yanked your chain and watched you dance like a trained monkey... an easily conned Trumpanzee. :)

    It was a lot of fun at the time, and it's turned out to be the gift that keeps on giving because you're so ignorant that you didn't realize you were being conned and still whining about it to this day. It's a common trait of Trump supporters, you are are so easily conned because you don't generally think anything through.

  123. [123] 
    Kick wrote:

    It wasn't even the first time I conned you. I posted Donald Trump's words verbatim as my own, and then you threw out your credentials, your personal information, and then asked for mine. Then I posted more Trump, and you had no idea. Elizabeth knew exactly what I was doing, but NOT you... oh, no... you let me know how stupid you thought I was when I spoke Trump's words VERBATIM. *LOL* Good times!

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/08/23/will-2016-be-a-nader-year-or-a-perot-year/#comment-83063

    Face it, goober. You've been punked more than once by me on this board. It's so funny to watch you fall for it like a rube... or an easily conned Trump LOVER... hook, line, and sinker! It is particularly gratifying that you keep whining over and over and won't stop; the gift that keeps on giving because you're so easily conned. *LOL* :)

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    Veronica,

    While I had NO intentions of posting a damn thing,

    It would serve you well to keep in mind that a commenter on this board knows exactly who you are and can keep you honest when you decide to get all up on your high horse... I know you know what I'm talking about...
    -Veronica
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/15/too-little-from-congress-too-much-from-trump/#comment-94665

    You had EVERY INTENT to post what you had on me.. Your own words make that very clear..

    So, who is lying Veronica?? I have your own words stating the threat... I have others here who acknowledged that it WAS a threat...

    You tried to extort me into changing my posting habits.. Even other Weigantians said that it was a threat...

    But what you DIDN'T count on is that I would laugh in your face and tell you to take your threats and shove them up your ass... :D

    Yer my little bitch now.... :D

    You are way WAY out-classed here.. :D

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    Anyhoo, I found out what I suspected... that you're definitely a harmless lying blowhard who has ZERO moral foundation to preach to anybody else. *LOL* :)

    So you tried to extort me into silence..

    Bullshit. I never once asked you to stop posting. Why would I do that when I wanted to watch you freak out? You should review it and cut the LIES. I said:

    It would serve you well to keep in mind that a commenter on this board knows exactly who you are and can keep you honest when you decide to get all up on your high horse... I know you know what I'm talking about... and I've got nothing but pity for you. :)

    Then I posted again to Neil telling him to take down your personal information... exactly as I had done in my original email that same day. If I had wanted to, I could have posted the link online and told him, but then it would have called attention to it and I had no intention of doing that. Think, McFly, think!

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/15/too-little-from-congress-too-much-from-trump/#comment-94702

    Just yanked your chain and told you somebody out there knew who you were... and then watched you whine.

    And I laughed in your face...

    No, you freaked out and are still freaking out to this day. You got so mad you posted a long, long list of names. *LOL* Good times!

    And you were humiliated and tucked yer tail between yer legs and went off to some corner to lick your wounds...

    Nice try, idiot. You're still whining, and I'm still laughing. Please never stop whining about it and showing how butt hurt you were.

    This is the fact of what occurred and everyone here can attest to that fact...

    I can actually link to it. You whined for weeks until you posted a long list of mean names because you were so butt hurt. *LOL* You apologized for posting it too. While I laughed my ass off. The gift that keeps on giving. Never stop whining... m'kay!

    And still to this day it has NEVER ONCE OCCURRED TO YOU that no one need post your personal information because you're doing it to yourself... including your LIES, of course. *LOL* :)

  126. [126] 
    michale wrote:

    I can actually link to it.

    BBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I already did, ya moron!!!

    Jesus, yer so dense...

  127. [127] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    And still to this day it has NEVER ONCE OCCURRED TO YOU that no one need post your personal information because you're doing it to yourself...

    And yet, you "made a phone call" IE you paid one of those companies that digs up dirt on people..

    Why would you make "a phone call" if there was no need to post my information??

    Why would you try to extort me into silence if you had no intent of posting anything??

    You have been caught in so many lies, Veronica no one believes ya about anything..

    But keep on coming, my little bitch.. Keep posting your lies and your bullshit..

    I got all day... :D

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    118

    Actually you are lying.. Big shock..

    https://spectator.org/run-kamala-run/

    No where in the posted article did the author use the designation "loose woman"..

    I did not say I was quoting the article, you uneducated dolt, merely pointed out that the right-wing rag was characterizing her that way and NOT me.

    Through all of these comments, you've said nothing about the FACT that there is no one the Democrats could run that would be a bigger whore than Donald Trump.

    It's so easy to prove what an ignorant liar you really are, Veronica... :D

    Knock yourself out, moron... talk about

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    118

    Actually you are lying.. Big shock..

    https://spectator.org/run-kamala-run/

    No where in the posted article did the author use the designation "loose woman"..

    I did not say I was quoting the article, you uneducated dolt, merely pointed out that the right-wing rag was characterizing her that way and NOT me.

    Through all of these comments, you've said nothing about the FACT that there is no one the Democrats could run that would be a bigger whore than Donald Trump.

    It's so easy to prove what an ignorant liar you really are, Veronica... :D

    Knock yourself out, moron... talk about

  130. [130] 
    Kick wrote:

    Knock yourself out, moron... talk about other posters instead of political issues. You're proving my point, you uneducated goober. :)

  131. [131] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria

    I did not say I was quoting the article, you uneducated dolt, merely pointed out that the right-wing rag was characterizing her that way and NOT me.

    In other words, it was YOUR designation... YOUR characterization not the article's or the author's...

    Which is what I said..

    You lied, Veronica.. AGAIN...

    Through all of these comments, you've said nothing about the FACT that there is no one the Democrats could run that would be a bigger whore than Donald Trump.

    Because it has NOTHING with the discussions of your lies, your threats, your extortions...

    It's nothing but a lame deflection in a pathetically desperate attempt to obfuscate the fact that I am kicking yer whiny bitch ass to hell and back.. :D

    BBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  132. [132] 
    michale wrote:

    Knock yourself out, moron... talk about other posters instead of political issues.

    You mean, like YOU have been doing for months now... MORON.. :D

    BBBAWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  133. [133] 
    michale wrote:

    Veronica,

    talk about other posters instead of political issues.

    I have offered to end this on several occasions.. But you just can't shut up and stop telling your lies...

    So all of this is on you....

    Just walk away, quit the personal attacks and name-calling and it will all end..

    It's that simple...

    But you can't do it..

  134. [134] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz [90] Are you age-obsessed?

    No, but it's an inescapable fact that you two were suggesting that the two oldest people on that list were your favorites for the number 1 & 2 spots on the Democratic ticket.

    Listen, I was a Jerry Brown supporter the first time he ran, in 1976, but he lost me over the course of his next two presidential bids.

    And then he did a remarkable thing: he went back to California and re-made himself, re-starting his political career as a Mayor, then as the state's Attorney General, then finally as the Governor once again. His reincarnation as a pragmatic progressive has raised some shackles on the left (as altohone's posts amply demonstrate), but even the purists can't dispute that he's brought California a long way from the days when Gray Davis could be replaced by a former bodybuilder, and enacted a boatload of progressive legislation that will lead the country for a decade to come.

    All that said, there are other talents waiting in the wings to make their marks on history. They're younger, hungrier, and ready to make their mark on the next iteration of America. Beating the Republicans AND the Russians in 2020 will require stamina, quick wit, and political agility, and while those older and venerated men have demonstrated those qualities in the past, neither could successfully run that gauntlet even when they were in their prime.

    It's time that a new generation has a shot at making their marks on history. Time for America to look forward, not back. "Make America Great Again" was an exceptional slogan, encapsulating in only four words an overt dig at Obama, recognition of Republicans' unhappiness with the direction that the country had taken both culturally and economically, Trump's own grandiosity, and the faux-nostalgia Republicans have always had for a past that never quite actually existed.

    "Better skills, better jobs, better pay" beats whatever inane slogan it was that Hillary had to repeat for a year, but Democrats have to 'up' their game for 2018 and beyond, and fashion a message that not only promises better, but also sells their whole worldview, and looks to the future, not to the past.

  135. [135] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    but Democrats have to 'up' their game for 2018 and beyond, and fashion a message that not only promises better, but also sells their whole worldview, and looks to the future, not to the past.

    I find myself in a strange strange place of actually AGREEING with you.. :D

    But let me ask you and get an honest opinion..

    Is there ANYTHING that Democrats have done to date that would prove that they are ready to take your advice??

    I mean, com'on.. PIZZA slogans!!????

    While better than "Have You Seen The Other Guys!!??" not by much....

  136. [136] 
    michale wrote:

    Time for America to look forward, not back. "Make America Great Again" was an exceptional slogan,

    Why yes... Yes it was...

    AND still is...

    Do Dumbocrats have ANYTHING to compare to that!???

    Nope.. Not even close...

  137. [137] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Not yet, but Have you seen the other guys!!? isn't too bad for the present, given this administration's complete ineptitude on so many fronts. I mean, it's soo true.

  138. [138] 
    michale wrote:

    Not yet, but Have you seen the other guys!!? isn't too bad for the present, given this administration's complete ineptitude on so many fronts. I mean, it's soo true.

    So....

    You're perfectly OK with Dumbocrats using the LOWEST BAR they could POSSIBLY imagine as a comparison to themselves..

    I mean, honestly... What's next!??

    "DUMBOCRATS!!! At Least We're Not Child Molesters!!"

    And YOU wonder why Dumbocrats can't win elections!! :D heh

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    isn't too bad for the present, given this administration's complete ineptitude on so many fronts.

    You mean, like fixing the SCOTUS?? That front??

    You mean, like fixing Odumbo's screw-up of the economy?? That front??

    You mean, like curtailing illegal immigration?? That front??

    You mean, like sending the stock market to new heights?? That front??

    You mean, like making patriotic Americans PROUD to be Americans again?? That front??

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/24/texas-lieutenant-governor-blames-truck-deaths-on-sanctuary-cities-that-enable-human-smugglers.html

    Sanctuary Cities cause more death and misery in their war against the American people and the rule of law.... :^/

  141. [141] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    124

    It would serve you well to keep in mind that a commenter on this board knows exactly who you are and can keep you honest when you decide to get all up on your high horse... I know you know what I'm talking about...
    -Veronica

    You had EVERY INTENT to post what you had on me.. Your own words make that very clear..

    No, you brainless moron... you're simply proving my point. I sent an email to Neil to have your information removed and then and only then did I yank your chain about it. You insisting to this day that I was going to post your shit while I had it taken down only proves how absolutely gullible and easily conned you were. And you continuing to whine about it to this day proves you're butt hurt. *LOL* :)

    So, who is lying Veronica?? I have your own words stating the threat... I have others here who acknowledged that it WAS a threat...

    You LIE every day and twist people's words on the Internet. It's how you get your jollies. No one has to post your personal information because you're doing it for them. Duh! You can't even use your brain to figure out that someone... besides YOU... who was going to post your information wouldn't first make sure it got removed... pretty damn stupid... while you continue to dox your family and post your personal information and need no help in that department.

    You tried to extort me into changing my posting habits.. Even other Weigantians said that it was a threat...

    Help me, JL, help me. There you go again whining for others to help you. Here's a big HINT. If you're really concerned about somebody posting your personal information on the Internet, why don't you do yourself a favor and STOP posting your personal information on the Internet while insisting that someone else was going to do what you had already done multiple times and continue to do to this day. *LOL*

    But what you DIDN'T count on is that I would laugh in your face and tell you to take your threats and shove them up your ass... :D

    What I DID count on is that you'd LIE and whine and accuse me of posting your information when I never did and never would, and I purposely took steps to actually have your information REMOVED. Meanwhile, YOU posted your own information multiple times and continue to do so without stopping, up to and including on this very page. You and your wife and your family are victims of your own posts... nobody else's.

    Yer my little bitch now.... :D

    Oh, you're trying to extort me and everyone here knows it! Oh, woe is me. I think I will whine and cry about it over and over ad nauseam and bring it up and whine some more. Quick... where is the link to that long list of names you called me in anger... so indicative of how you were laughing at that time. /sarcasm off

    You might be deluding yourself, but you're fooling no one else.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/10/ftp428/#comment-96597

    Review your bullshit at the link above and realize you're actually NOT fooling anyone else. Please keep bringing this up once a month or so and whining about it regularly. It's so much proof that you laughed. /sarcasm off

    You are way WAY out-classed here.. :D

    I don't think you quite understand the meaning of the word "outclassed." You should really CRACK A BOOK and learn SOMETHING. You should start with learning elementary level paragraph writing versus posting a long list of sentences like a moron would do. :)

  142. [142] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    You sure spend an awful lot of commenting space trying to justify the unjustifiable..

    You researched 20 years into my past, threatened to use it if I didn't change my posting habits and then got slapped down big time when I laughed in your face..

    These are the FACTS of the issue...

    :D

    Yer my bitch... :D

    That is ALL there is to this..

  143. [143] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    131

    In other words, it was YOUR designation... YOUR characterization not the article's or the author's...

    Which is what I said..

    You're a word twisting moron, and it's pathetic how proud you are of your ignorant bullshit. No, idiot, the author of the article did characterize Kamala Harris as a whore; I did NOT.

    AND STILL there is NO ONE the Democrats could run who would be a bigger WHORE than Donald Trump or a bigger traitor to America. :)

    BBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And THERE it is. You know you are getting to snowflake when he starts posting this bullshit. He's a loser, and you always know when he's losing because he starts posting that.

    My work here is done. :)

  144. [144] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "You mean, like fixing Odumbo's screw-up of the economy?? That front??"

    And WHAT EXACTLY have they fixed??? NOTHING as far as I can tell. The economy continues EXACTLY the way it did under Obama, despite anything the Republicans have or have not done.

    They haven't passed ANY legislation. And Trump only halted some regulations that made it easier for companies to pollute and took away protections from workers. That's ALL.

    Hardly a ringing endorsement for a booming economy. Which is still chugging along at around 2 percent growth despite anything Trump has done.

  145. [145] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria....

    You're a word twisting moron, and it's pathetic how proud you are of your ignorant bullshit. No, idiot, the author of the article did characterize Kamala Harris as a whore; I did NOT.

    Make up your mind.. You said "loose woman" before.. NOW you are saying "whore"...

    And the funny thing is.. BOTH those designations are *YOUR* designations, not the author's!!! :D

    And THERE it is. You know you are getting to snowflake when he starts posting this bullshit. He's a loser, and you always know when he's losing because he starts posting that.

    My work here is done. :)

    Yea, you keep SAYING "yer done" and yet you keep coming back with MORE lies and MORE bullshit.. :D

    See ya back here real soon, my bitch.. :D

  146. [146] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "You mean, like fixing the SCOTUS?? That front??"

    Also, how EXACTLY did they FIX the Supreme Court??? Again all that happened was that Obama was denied an appointment that was rightfully his to make. And Scalia was replaced with someone from exactly the same mold, which ended up changing NOTHING where the SCOTUS is concerned.

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    And WHAT EXACTLY have they fixed??? NOTHING as far as I can tell. The economy continues EXACTLY the way it did under Obama, despite anything the Republicans have or have not done.

    American confidence is up.. American pride is up...

    Patriotic Americans are no longer ashamed of their country... Ashamed of their President..

    That's the facts whether you want to see it or not..

    It just CHAPS yer ass that you wake up every morning and President Trump is STILL your president!! :D

  148. [148] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    132

    You mean, like YOU have been doing for months now... MORON.. :D

    I know you are, but what am I? You been doing this for decades and bragging about it. :)

    BBBAWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    There he blows again. ^^^ Loser admits he's lost... there's his sign! :)

  149. [149] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (85)-
    Would it surprise you to learn that I have sent Gov. Brown information on One Demand/ Voucher Vendetta/ the Hundred Dollar Party ?
    If he does decide to run I will try again.
    If at first you don't succeed....

  150. [150] 
    michale wrote:

    Don,

    Would it surprise you to learn that I have sent Gov. Brown information on One Demand/ Voucher Vendetta/ the Hundred Dollar Party ?
    If he does decide to run I will try again.
    If at first you don't succeed....

    That's what I like about you...

    You persevere against overwhelming antagonism...

    Reminds me of someone else I know.. :D

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    I know you are, but what am I? You been doing this for decades and bragging about it. :)

    You said you were done, my little bitch and yet here you are... :D

    No wonder everyone knows you are a liar... :D

  152. [152] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    142

    You sure spend an awful lot of commenting space trying to justify the unjustifiable..

    You sure spend an awful lot of commenting space by use of single sentences versus paragraphs. If you had a decent education, you could save a whole lot of space by writing in paragraphs. :)

    Oh, also, you spend a lot of time posting your own personal shit on the Internet while whining about others doing it who never did and never would, and that makes YOU a special kind of stupid.

    You researched 20 years into my past, threatened to use it if I didn't change my posting habits and then got slapped down big time when I laughed in your face..

    I did ZERO research. I did make a phone call. You can't even seem to keep your own bullshit straight. You posted a list of names in anger, and you weren't laughing, you were butt hurt and whining, and you're still not laughing... YOU'RE whining about it once a month as if on cue. *LOL* :)

    These are the FACTS of the issue...

    Note to Michale: Stupid people make lousy LIARS because they can't even keep their own bullshit straight. *LOL* :)

    Yer my bitch... :D

    You're your own bitch, and you should really stop doxing your family and posting your personal information on the Internet; it's the surest way on the Internet to prove to everyone that you're an ignorant fool. :)

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    I did ZERO research. I did make a phone call.

    But why make a phone call??

    Because you were tired of getting your ass kicked all around this forum so you figured you would get some "dirt" on me and threaten to release it if I didn't toe your line..

    Then I slapped ya down like the little bitch you are and you went whining and crying into the corner to lick your wounds..

    These are the facts... :D

    Live with it, my little bitch.. :D

    Didn't you say you were done??

    Got caught in another lie, eh Veronica.. :D

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  154. [154] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    133

    I have offered to end this on several occasions.. But you just can't shut up and stop telling your lies...

    So all of this is on you....

    Nobody here believes the bullshit above. You've had several truces with several people... myself included. You apologize for being a "prick of late" and this lasts a day or two, and then you're right back hijacking posts and doing your standard operational bullshit; you know this... In fact, everyone knows this... SSDD.
    __________________

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/08/the-curious-incident-during-comeys-testimony/#comment-102291

    But, I completely understand why you would think I would.. I have been quite the prick of late and I render my utmost apologies for that...

    I would like to say that it won't happen again, but knowing me as I do, I am sure it will.. :D
    __________________

    Just walk away, quit the personal attacks and name-calling and it will all end..

    You are deluding no one but yourself... AGAIN. You don't know what a truce is; you always break them with your standard bullshit. :)

    But you can't do it..

    Your projection is nothing if not totally PREDICTABLE. :)

    The FACT is, I'm actually on my way out the door because I have a meeting in 15-ish minutes. So I'm out anyway by no choice of my own. I'll pop in later if I can. Try to remember what a prick you know you can be and how you never actually keep your truces... and even YOU know you're not going to keep them way ahead of time. :)

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    Nobody here believes the bullshit above. You've had several truces with several people... myself included.

    Yes I did..

    And, as usual, YOU broke the truce with your personal attacks and name-calling..

    So, I responded in kind..

    These are the facts..

    The FACT is, I'm actually on my way out the door because I have a meeting in 15-ish minutes.

    In other words, you are "done" here...

    AGAIN...

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You continue to lie... :D

  156. [156] 
    michale wrote:

    The FACT is, I'm actually on my way out the door because I have a meeting in 15-ish minutes.

    No.. The FACT is, you can't address why you researched my past to try and extort me and threaten me into changing my posting habits..

    THAT is why you have a "meeting"... :D

    Caught in another lie...

    :D

  157. [157] 
    michale wrote:

    Veronica,

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/08/the-curious-incident-during-comeys-testimony/#comment-102291

    But, I completely understand why you would think I would.. I have been quite the prick of late and I render my utmost apologies for that...

    I would like to say that it won't happen again, but knowing me as I do, I am sure it will.. :D

    And it did...

    YOU came back with:

    So you concede you're a liar and an idiot.
    -Victoria
    chrisweigant.com/2017/06/21/mcconnells-big-gamble/#comment-103544

    ..... and started everything all over again.. You couldn't even handle no name-calling and no personal attacks for 3 weeks!! You HAD to start everything all over again...

    As I said, and the FACTS bear out..

    I *NEVER* start these things...

    But I *ALWAYS* finish them... :D

    Run along now, my little bitch....

  158. [158] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    153

    But why make a phone call??

    That's classified.

    Because you were tired of getting your ass kicked all around this forum so you figured you would get some "dirt" on me and threaten to release it if I didn't toe your line..

    That's funny. :)

    Then I slapped ya down like the little bitch you are and you went whining and crying into the corner to lick your wounds..

    I don't "lick my wounds" because I've got really good health insurance... compliments of the United States of America for decades of service.

    Didn't you say you were done??

    I said I had a meeting; it then got postponed, and I'm waiting... and now he's here. I have a meeting with an even bigger LIAR than you.

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    But NOT a bigger loser than you. *LOL* :)

  159. [159] 
    altohone wrote:

    113

    "California, Detroit, Chicago...

    All are PERFECT examples of how Dumbocrat Policies DO NOT WORK...."

    It's their policies alright.
    But it's the policies of neoliberalism that both parties have embraced.
    A failure of right wing corporatism.

    The Dems abandoned the poor and middle class in favor of trickle down economics and deregulation as demanded by their wealthy and corporate donors... just like Republicans.

    And they are continuing these policies in every blue state.
    See below.

    A

  160. [160] 
    michale wrote:

    Veronica,

    Didn't you have a meeting to go to??

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    But why make a phone call??

    That's classified.

    TRANSLATION: I got caught in another lie...

    That's funny. :)

    "It's funny cuz it's true"
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

    I said I had a meeting; it then got postponed

    TRANSLATION: I am your little bitch...

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  161. [161] 
    michale wrote:

    It's their policies alright.
    But it's the policies of neoliberalism that both parties have embraced.
    A failure of right wing corporatism.

    But it's Dumbocrat Policies...

    So we agree.. :D

  162. [162] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW and gang

    More nominees for the most disappointing Dems award.

    Connecticut Democrats, unions impose $1.5 billion in givebacks on state workers
    By John Marion
    24 July 2017

    "On July 18, Connecticut’s State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) announced that its members had approved a concessions contract with Democratic Governor Dannel P. Malloy. SEBAC, an umbrella group for 16 public worker unions, said 85 percent of workers who voted were in favor of wage freezes, and 83 percent voted in favor of higher contributions toward health insurance and retirement.

    State Democrats and union executives, pointing to an estimated $5 billion budget shortfall for the two-year period starting July 1, browbeat the 40,000 state workers into accepting the deal with the threats of mass layoffs. They also held the possible bankruptcy of the City of Hartford over the heads of workers that could result in the gutting of city worker pensions and retiree health benefits as it did in Detroit and other municipal bankruptcies.

    The concessions deal agreed to by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and other unions will rob more than $1.5 billion over two years from state workers. The deal makes false promises that the state won’t lay off workers.

    “Once again, this governor has asked us to step up and we came to the call,” Darnell Ford of SEIU local 1199 told WFSB, adding “we were asked to help and after months of negotiations we have come up with every penny sought.’”

    “This was not easy,” Salvatore Luciano of AFSCME Council 4 said of foisting the deal on union members, “we hoped if we explained it, everyone would pass it.’”

    The SEBAC concessions deal includes:
    • No raises, except in cases of promotion, for fiscal years 2017, 2018, or 2019. A lump-sum payment of $2,000 is promised for fiscal year 2019.

    • Three furlough days in the coming year.

    • An increase of workers’ share of health insurance premiums to 15 percent.

    • An increase in health insurance contributions for workers who retire after October 2.

    • A cap on the Cost of Living Adjustment for pensions of workers retiring after July 1, 2022 and a 30-month period with no COLA for those same retirees.

    • A requirement that disabled retirees apply for Social Security Disability Insurance in order to get them off of Connecticut’s books. Threatened federal attacks on entitlement programs will leave these workers between a rock and a hard place.

    The unions previously agreed to concessions in 2011 in the wake of the Great Recession. Like many states, including neighboring Massachusetts, Connecticut is now seeing declines in tax revenue as workers’ wages stagnate and corporations are handed huge tax cuts.

    CNBC reported this month that actual FY17 revenues were lower than budgeted in 33 US states, and that 23 states made mid-year spending cuts.

    While destroying the livelihoods of state workers, Malloy, the chair of the Democratic Governors Association, has showered top corporations and financial institutions with massive tax cuts and other subsidies. GE and Aetna have kept their tax rates low by moving their corporate headquarters out of state while keeping most of their workforces in state.

    Although the state is home to 19 Fortune 500 companies, in the fiscal year just ended, corporate taxes were only 5.7 percent of total Connecticut revenues; in FY16, the share was even lower, at 4.8 percent. Total corporate taxes in FY17 were approximately $800 million, or less than half what is being taken away from state workers.

    Sales and Use taxes, which are regressive and which the state expanded during the 2011 crisis, brought in about five times as much as corporate taxes in FY17"

    here's the whole article-

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/24/conn-j24.html

    -
    -

    Austerity for the working class, tax cuts and subsidies for the wealthy and corporations has consistently caused economic harm for the majority in America and in every country following our neoliberal class warfare around the world.

    Trickle down economics has a track record of failure... and Democrats need to abandon it... end their three plus decades of catering to the wealthy few at the expense of the many.

    And their supporters need to stop making excuses for their legalized corruption.

    A

  163. [163] 
    michale wrote:

    and Democrats need to abandon it... end their three plus decades of catering to the wealthy few at the expense of the many.

    Here here!!!

    Well said!!!

    But the Dumbocrat Party is more concerned about selling Pizza!!! :D

  164. [164] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    98

    You don't seem to realize that making excuses for failure, and claiming that good policies that are actually effective are impossible to enact is the true cynicism.

    Seeing you actively sell ineffective policies as "leadership" and adopt Hillary type excuses and "purity" bullspit here when you justifiably condemned her failures is truly baffling to me. You also just justifiably criticized Biden and praised Bernie along the very same lines... which just adds to the confusion.

    I know you're a good person... but you seem to have a little Jekyll and Hyde thing going on... some cognitive dissonance... and it seems to be based on wanting to believe that undeserving people are actually worthy of your support... wanting to believe their positive spin on failure.

    Trying to see the good in people is a noble quality.
    Wanting to believe they are actually like you is completely understandable.
    But when a supposedly good Democrat supports a pharma lobbyist to run the CA Democratic party, opposes Single Payer, and then extends an even more polluter friendly cap and trade program, I think it's time to question your assumptions about them.

    I hope you can one day admit that pointing out the reality in our politics and economics as a first step towards fixing the problems is not cynical... and that admitting the problem is necessary.

    Condemning the people fighting for better serves the status quo that is failing us badly.

    A

  165. [165] 
    michale wrote:

    But when a supposedly good Democrat supports a pharma lobbyist to run the CA Democratic party, opposes Single Payer, and then extends an even more polluter friendly cap and trade program, I think it's time to question your assumptions about them.

    The whole cap and trade bullshit is EXACTLY like TrainWreckCare...

    It's SOLD as an end-all get-all progressive good thing, but it, in reality, only gives more money and power to corporate thugs and takes freedoms and money away from the middle-class...

  166. [166] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    101

    "You fail to acknowledge that the articles chose to state that if dogs alerted to the scent of drugs but no drugs were seized by the police, it was not considered a good alert -- completely ignoring that it could mean that only residue was found"

    I wasn't able to find any research or field testing that proves that dogs actually are alerting to the scent or residue of drugs in those alerts.
    You seem to be assuming that is in fact what is happening when there isn't any proof I know of that is what is happening.
    I know you qualified it with "could mean", rather than does mean, and with your experience, I can understand why you would give the benefit of the doubt to the dog rather than fault the handler, but the underlying research suggests it's the latter.

    If you are aware of cases in the field where they tested for residue in a scientifically valid manner in order to prove the dogs were not giving false alerts, please share it with me.

    I also understand you are more sensitive to the way this is presented in the articles, and fully admit that I am less likely to pick up on such things. I think you have a valid point there.

    That said, I think the conclusions in the research remain valid even though the articles failed to convey the issues properly.

    "but most are great people who do take their job seriously and truly wish to serve their communities."

    OK.
    You are probably correct when using the term "most" in that sentence.
    But I also think it's possible for LEO's to fit those criteria, and still not be as professional as Devon.

    I hope you can understand that the reports that suggest that the majority of LEO's in the country supported Trump, and that they are thus likely to hold or at least be more tolerant of a mindset that isn't physically repulsed by the biases Trump exhibits leads me to question your belief.

    I hope you're right, but I have serious doubts.

    And, that funny story I had to tell you a while back was about my one and only experience with a K9 and his handler at an airport... and it included an illegal search, so perhaps I am predisposed to such doubts because of that.

    A

  167. [167] 
    michale wrote:

    You seem to be assuming that is in fact what is happening when there isn't any proof I know of that is what is happening.

    The "proof" is in personal experience...

    I also understand you are more sensitive to the way this is presented in the articles, and fully admit that I am less likely to pick up on such things. I think you have a valid point there.

    Yes.. *WE* do... :D

    I hope you can understand that the reports that suggest that the majority of LEO's in the country supported Trump, and that they are thus likely to hold or at least be more tolerant of a mindset that isn't physically repulsed by the biases Trump exhibits leads me to question your belief.

    So... Because someone supports President Trump, they MUST ALL feel a certain way...

    There's a word for that.. it's called BIGOTRY... :D

    and it included an illegal search, so perhaps I am predisposed to such doubts because of that.

    As YOU define "illegal".... :D THAT is why you are pre-disposed... :D

  168. [168] 
    altohone wrote:

    165

    Yup, but you are omitting or ignoring that there were some positive aspects to the ACA that made things better for some people...

    ... AND that the Dems serving the corporate thugs TOO, doesn't make the Republican approach better.
    Repubs want to give those corporate thugs even more, and hurt most Americans in the process.

    A

  169. [169] 
    altohone wrote:

    167

    You don't understand science if you believe what you wrote.

    And, no, the search was illegal as defined by the law, and the LEO squirmed when I pointed it out.

    A

  170. [170] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kushner's not-under- oath testimony this AM might seem like the very definition of a "Nothing Burger" but the written statement that came in the same sack looks and smells like a classic "Whopper." Since the document was clearly assembled by Trump lawyers, make that "Whopper with Sleaze."

  171. [171] 
    michale wrote:

    Kushner's not-under- oath testimony this AM might seem like the very definition of a "Nothing Burger" but the written statement that came in the same sack looks and smells like a classic "Whopper." Since the document was clearly assembled by Trump lawyers, make that "Whopper with Sleaze."

    And President Trump is *STILL* your President.. :D

    Live with it... :D

  172. [172] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al [164] I hope you can one day admit that pointing out the reality in our politics and economics as a first step towards fixing the problems is not cynical... and that admitting the problem is necessary.

    Sure it is. But the far left apparently have their own curious blind spots which have become relevant in the current debate. For one thing, every criticism of Putin is answered by a chorus of you-tooism, as if the fact that we have had bad actors on our side of the pond should prevent us from ever criticizing any other countries' bad acts. Trump himself did this when an interviewer pointed out the fact that Putin has had political rivals killed. "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers," Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?"

    Well no, but if you want to compare Human Rights records like dicks, we're still the stud in the room.

    Which brings me to my second peeve, the tendency of the left to criticize pragmatic progressives, like Brown and Obama, for supporting incremental progressivism, rather than holding out for complete capitulation by their political opponents.

    All I can think is, did you never play a game that required incremental advancement? Have you never traded down to acquire something of greater long term value?

    Your compatriots are apparently either blissfully unaware of or indulgently immune to the eye-rolling that commences every time you accuse progressives like Brown of being pro-pollution, or Obama of being pro-war, while simultaneously arguing that Putin's invasion of Ukraine was 'anti-democratic' or merely a matter of protecting 'Russia's legitimate interests'.

    Absolutism is never good - whether in politics, business, or even interpersonal relations, staking out a position and sticking to it even after conditions have changed is no virtue, even to the virtuous.

  173. [173] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al [165] Okay, that's better. You're improving incrementally.

  174. [174] 
    michale wrote:

    Al [165] Okay, that's better. You're improving incrementally.

    Well... Except for the fact that comment #165 is MY comment.. :D

  175. [175] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    RE 175: in the next-to-last paragraph, it should read, 'pro-democratic', not 'anti-democratic'.

  176. [176] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Except for the fact that comment #165 is MY comment.. :D

    Whoops. Meant post 168. Sorry, M. Didn't mean to accuse you of improving. ;)

  177. [177] 
    michale wrote:

    Whoops. Meant post 168. Sorry, M. Didn't mean to accuse you of improving. ;)

    I know, right!!?? That's just REALLY low!!!! :D

  178. [178] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    172

    "For one thing, every criticism of Putin is answered by a chorus of you-tooism"

    No, actually.
    We asked to see the evidence of the meddling first, and when none was supplied, we THEN offered some relevant context to attempt to dampen down the rabidity that was distracting from every other issue including the massive failure of Democratic policies in motivating sufficient voter enthusiasm to win at all levels.
    It is naïve to believe known liars without evidence, and prudent to learn from history.

    "the tendency of the left to criticize pragmatic progressives, like Brown and Obama, for supporting incremental progressivism"

    When more is necessary and possible, it is foolish to accept less and make up excuses for it.

    "immune to the eye-rolling that commences every time you accuse progressives like Brown of being pro-pollution, or Obama of being pro-war"

    You are spinning.
    Badly.
    A watered down version of a Republicans plan that is even less effective is in fact allowing more pollution... and it's not "incrementally progressive".
    Only the gullible or complicit would insist otherwise.

    Obama did bomb 7 predominantly Muslim countries, increase military spending dramatically, expand the drone wars, increase the number of foreign military bases, initiate a program to spend a trillion dollars on new nuclear weapons that can never be used, and embrace policies that have led to more military conflicts and will lead to still more.
    That is pro-war, and it's not "incrementally progressive".
    Only the gullible or complicit would insist otherwise.

    I can't help but think you are describing yourself and your collaborators with the "indulgently immune to the eye rolling" stuff which everybody aware of the above has been sending your way.

    The neoliberal attacks on FDR Democrats and the policies we support are spectacularly unimaginative, and we aren't the "far left".

    And I didn't say anything in 168 that I haven't said many times before. If you're going to babble on like that, at least pay attention and get things right.

    A

  179. [179] 
    michale wrote:

    "When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself. So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that."
    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

    HA!!

    Straight from the lips of Chuck Schumer...

    NOT-45 was the reason that NOT-45 lost...

    It's THAT simple.....

  180. [180] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    altohone,

    I hope you can understand that the reports that suggest that the majority of LEO's in the country supported Trump, and that they are thus likely to hold or at least be more tolerant of a mindset that isn't physically repulsed by the biases Trump exhibits leads me to question your beliefs.

    Given your opinion of Hillary Clinton, I would not think that your view of police would change much if it was reported most had voted for her.

    Do you know the biggest reason that the Fraternal Order of Police backed Trump over Hillary? Trump's campaign was the only one to respond to their questionnaire they asked both candidates to answer for them to base their decision on. Seriously, the answers he gave were often horrible, but they were better than being ignored. Clinton's campaign has no one to blame for losing the FOP's support but themselves.

    I am sorry that you had a bad experience with a K-9 unit. It is only natural that how you view that event would effect your view of them. I hope it was a narcotics unit and not a generalist K-9 unit, because those are the biters and that would definitely make for a bad day!

  181. [181] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [154]

    In my mind, the moment after you hit "submit comment" you held out your microphone, dropped it, and walked off stage while the room applauded.

    Loved it!

  182. [182] 
    michale wrote:

    In my mind, the moment after you hit "submit comment" you held out your microphone, dropped it, and walked off stage while the room applauded.

    Loved it!

    Why do you encourage the bitch??

    Do you LIKE things to be a Flame War cesspool around here???

  183. [183] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump tweeted that he wondered why AG Sessions wasn't investigating Clinton for all of her criminal activities. He doesn't want to be the only one to have his crimes investigated, I guess.

    Or is it that he doesn't really want Clinton investigated because he knows she did nothing wrong and it will only make him look worse when he is shown to have broken the law?

    But here is the weirdest thing about that post: if he truly wanted her investigated, then all he would need to do was order it done. He need only instruct them to investigate her. Does he still not know what his job is?

  184. [184] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Why do you encourage the bitch??

    Do you LIKE things to be a Flame War cesspool around here???

    Wow! She has truly gotten to you! Michale, you are the name caller here. You always claim that everyone else starts it, but on multiple occasions where we were supposed to end with the name calling on here, it was you that broke the truce. And you go above and beyond when you do!

    If things truly are a Flame War cesspool around here, then kick would be the lit match; while you, my friend, are the methane-producing-matter that blows up.

  185. [185] 
    michale wrote:

    Wow! She has truly gotten to you! Michale, you are the name caller here.

    ONLY after someone instigates it..

    You always claim that everyone else starts it, but on multiple occasions where we were supposed to end with the name calling on here, it was you that broke the truce.

    I already proved that it was Victoria who broke the truce..

    Do you have ANY facts to support your claim??

    No, you do not...

    If things truly are a Flame War cesspool around here, then kick would be the lit match;

    We completely agree...

    Veronica always starts it...

  186. [186] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    But hay... I am a fair guy..

    If you can find ANY instance where I started the name calling against another Weigantian rather than simply responding to their name-calling........

    "I'm all ears.."
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debate

    :D

  187. [187] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    You agreed with me to end the name bashing of Obama and others and just call them by their names, but went back to it the next day claiming that someone else had started it. The agreement had been with me, not the entire world, but it was what it was.

    If you do not recall it, no worries; i am not gonna spend the afternoon searching for something that isn't going to matter even if found.

  188. [188] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I just read VP Pence's love letter to Trump. It was just as stomach-churning as his sappy speech made at the start of the Cabinet meeting where everyone was required to praise glorious leader!

    It looks like someone is getting a head start on groveling for a pardon! Could it possibly mean that he knows something is about to drop and he just wants to be first in line???

  189. [189] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    TheStig [54],

    Great post! I fear that your conclusions are all going to be bull's eyes. One good thing about Trump winning is that all of those "don't worry, it would never happen"-type Constitutional questions will no longer be ignored. Let's just hope we have a chance to fix the problems.

  190. [190] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    157

    And it did...

    Yes, it did... in the same way as everyone here knows it ends. It was a mere few days later around mid June, you were on a tear regarding the shooting at baseball practice where you reamed out several posters and the entire group here... if not the most asinine I have seen you, pretty darn close.

    You were being your typical "prick" (your term) self and blaming Lefties for starting a "shooting war" and talking the same bullshit you do to this group on a frequent basis about violence between Right and Left:

    [35] ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Congrats, Lefties.. You have your shooting war... I don't think the Left will like where it ends, because many on the Right will shoot back

    I love that you made a threat of violence while berating everyone else for not speaking out against people using threatening language! Seriously, there are no words that could better or more accurately demonstrate the brazen alter of hypocrisy that you worship at than this!

    Calling everyone else out for turning a tragedy into a partisan blame game while doing it yourself; my God that is just so pathetic!

    Very well said by Russ... yet "prick" that you know you are, you still continued your tirade against the entire group... accusing them of encouraging an act of terrorism against the United States.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/14/condemning-terrorism/#comment-102825

    [38] nypoet22 wrote:

    I can always tell when I have ya'all on the ropes, punch drunk and ready to collapse.... :D

    I am the only one commenting... :D

    silence gives assent? not in this lifetime.

    suggesting a response via policy positions on gun control is not even in the same universe as claiming that "A member of the Democrat Party, with the full encouragement of the Left Wingery, has committed an act of terrorism against the United States..."

    if it feels like you're the only one commenting, perhaps it's because your comments are too offensive to merit a response.

    JL

    As I said, and the FACTS bear out..

    I *NEVER* start these things...

    But I *ALWAYS* finish them... :D

    In order to be a good LIAR, you have to have a good memory... YOU DON'T. You had a few good days after you apologized for being a "prick," and then you went on a rant against the entire group for several days with your standard operational bullshit.

    Run along now, my little bitch....

    Oh, no. Your ideological shortcomings are showing again; however, you're so pathetically ignorant that you don't even realize that in the circles I run, being referred to as a "bitch" is a high compliment indeed. It means you're winning while some sorry piece of shit like you is whining and crying on a regular basis because you got to him and made him dance... so much so that he dances on cue and whines on a regular basis about that time you bitch slapped him hard... so hard that he either can't or won't shut up about it because he got butt hurt and can't get over it. Ignorant people are so easy to con... such easy marks... because ignorant fools are so predictable; you simply validate their worldview and they'll believe the dumbest shit. Everyone here knows exactly how you are. You're fooling no one here... not even you:

    I would like to say that it won't happen again, but knowing me as I do, I am sure it will.. :D

    But hay... I am a fair guy..

    If you can find ANY instance where I started the name calling against another Weigantian rather than simply responding to their name-calling........

    See above where you lost your shit for days and insinuated the entire group were condoning terrorism against the United States. It never crossed your tiny mind when it would be a good time to shut your big mouth.

    "I'm all ears.."

    No, you're not "all ears"... you're all mouth without a brain big enough to know when to shut it. *LOL* :)

  191. [191] 
    altohone wrote:

    listen
    180

    As far as the main issues that drive my activism, there really aren't major differences between a corrupt corporatist warmonger like Hillary and your typical Republican.

    But I think you're deceiving yourself about the questionnaire being the main reason the majority of LEO's supported Trump.

    His public embrace of the worst aspects of the culture wars was a rather stark difference that many cheered on.
    And those attitudes remain prevalent though mostly publicly suppressed in a huge segment of our society... from bakers to bankers... and above and below.

    Dogs don't know about political and economic corruption or geopolitics, but they will pick up on cultural biases. Since that was the topic under discussion, I thought it was relevant.

    But anyway, my "bad" experience was with the K9 handler and his buddies who called him in, not with the dog.
    And it was what I consider a funny story. I think you will too. So, whenever you're ready for it...

    A

  192. [192] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al [178] We asked to see the evidence of the meddling first

    So, reports from US intelligence agencies, reports from states of russian intrusion into state voter databases, and many multiple suspicious contacts between the Trump campaign and actual Russian spies, followed by omissions, lies and contradictory statements by those same folks doesn't make you curious enough to even ask some follow-up questions?

    when none was supplied, we THEN offered some relevant context

    Rather, in the abscence of hard evidence, and rather than ask the sorts of questions that would develop hard evidence, the left provided their ready-made answer: it's obviously a neoliberal corporatist plot engineered in advance by secretly non-progressive democrats. What else could it be?

    to dampen down the rabidity that was distracting from every other issue

    i.e., to minimize a story that the far left finds inconvenient.

    Including the massive failure of Democratic policies in motivating sufficient voter enthusiasm to win at all levels.

    And when have far left policies won votes 'at all levels'? In my lifetime. Not polls, but elected seats.

    In fact, compared to leftist candidates who have gotten the Democratic nomination in the past (Walter Mondale or George McGovern, for instance) Democrats did pretty well this year, despite the narrow loss at the top of the ticket. Hillary won the popular vote. In the states that put Trump over the top, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, she lost by just 0.02% - far less than the number of democrats who defected to Jill Stein in an ultimately self-defeating fit of pique. Despite all the hoopla about a 'republican surge', Trump's final vote totals were actually about the same as Romney's.

    Democrats still hold the statehouses in the states with the largest populations, and they pretty much own the east and west coasts. They're down by just three in the Senate, and are within striking distance of taking back the house.

    In fact, save for the fact that Trump is doing nothing to bolster election cyber-security, and is actively encouraging voter suppression efforts, I feel fairly good about the prospect of Democrats regaining the seats they've lost, and then some, in 2018 and 2020.

    The neoliberal attacks on FDR Democrats and the policies we support are spectacularly unimaginative, and we aren't the "far left".

    FDR Democrats? Nice attempt at branding, but no. The politics of America has changed wholesale since the 1930's. You can't begin to compare the politics of my grandfather (who was an actual FDR Democrat) to those of today. That was a time when gangsters ran the unions, and the Church dictated Hollywood movie content. That was a time when racial integration hadn't yet begun, women were second class citizens by law, and child marriage was legal in most states. So no, today's Russia-coddling socialists aren't even comparable to my father's Russia-coddling socialists. Apples and mangos.

  193. [193] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You agreed with me to end the name bashing of Obama and others and just call them by their names, but went back to it the next day claiming that someone else had started it. The agreement had been with me, not the entire world, but it was what it was.

    Cite???

  194. [194] 
    michale wrote:

    My Little Bitch,

    See above where you lost your shit for days and insinuated the entire group were condoning terrorism against the United States.

    How EXACTLY is that name-calling, moron!??

  195. [195] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    If you do not recall it, no worries; i am not gonna spend the afternoon searching for something that isn't going to matter even if found.

    It will matter CONSIDERABLY...

    First of all, it's not really consistent with this issue... I was referring to name-calling each other, not political figures... I have given up hope of ya'all actually acting like adults when it comes to people outside of Weigantia...

    Asking ya'all to lose "Orange Fascist" or "ADD President" or "Benedict Donald" or other such childish and immature name-callings is simply beyond my capability.. :D

    Having said that, I honestly don't recall where I had an agreement with ya'all to stop the name-calling of political leaders and I broke that agreement..

    So, let me put on my Genie hat... :D

    If you can find that instance where I started name-calling Obama et al first, rather than just responding to another Weigantian's name-calling of Trump et al, I will grant you one wish...

  196. [196] 
    michale wrote:

    My Little Bitch,

    Yes, it did...

    NONE of which is name-calling, which is what we are talking about...

    "DDDOOOOYYYYYYYYY"
    -Vanillope Von Schweetz, WRECK-IT RALPH

    You are WAY out-classed here, Victoria..

    Don't you have a meeting to run off to.... :D

  197. [197] 
    michale wrote:

    Among the names being floated as possible Sessions replacements are Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, according to people familiar with the conversations.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-leaves-sessions-twisting-in-the-wind-while-berating-him-publicly/2017/07/24/ce3bf142-708b-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html

    Want to see the entirety of the Left Wingery's heads explode???

    Have President Trump fire AG Sessions, replace him with AG Cruz as a recess appointment and then have AG Cruz fire Mueller...

    Then grab some popcorn and let the head-exploding show begin!!! :D

  198. [198] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-when-trump-fires-mueller/

    This is what ya'all don't get about President Trump..

    Ya'all predict horrible results from certain actions, yet President Trump always comes thru in the end..

    When President Trump fired Comey, ya'all went on a TRUMP IS TOAST bender..

    "THIS will end Trump's presidency" was the common refrain...

    President Trump has absolutely NO REASON to keep Mueller on and EVERY REASON to fire him... And to add sauce for the goose, the LAW is on President Trump's side, as there is a clear and well-defined conflict of interest with Mueller...

    One of our new Jeeps above or afore commented that firing Mueller would bring about President Trump's Armageddon... I told that person how would that be ANY different than ALL of the other previous "Armageddons" that President Trump has faced and came to nothing???

    If every time President Trump farts is a MAJOR political catastrophe in the eyes of Dumbocrats everywhere....????

    Well, you can understand how normal patriotic Americans will just roll their eyes when the Dumbocrats go all hysterical ape-shit crazy over President Trump's latest actions...

    Mueller will be fired... You might as well accept this as fact...

    Now pardon me while I go make up lots and lots of popcorn.. :D

  199. [199] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. :)

  200. [200] 
    michale wrote:

    rump must eventually fire Robert Mueller, a partisan tool carrying water for his Establishment pals as he oversees an utterly corrupt “investigation” where the only person we actually know committed any wrongdoing is his bestest buddy Jim Comey. But Trump can’t just lash out and do it, though it is well within his political and moral right to do so. No, he’s got to do it cleverly, with cunning, in a way that shows the American people exactly why Mueller’s witch hunt is a flaming dumpster fire of conflicts of interest and contempt for the right of normal Americans to have a say in their own governance.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/07/24/trump-needs-to-be-smart-about-how-he-fires-mueller-n2358768

    Yup, yup, yup, yup...

  201. [201] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. :)

    Uh yuk... uh yuk... uh yuk.... :^/

    So yer back to 3rd grade debate tactics..

    Allow me to translate your comment..

    I got caught in a lie again
    -Victoria

    Fact the facts, Veronica

    You have lurched from one lie to the next and now that I have PROVEN it is you who starts all the name calling and Russ has confirmed it...

    NOW yer gonna run away again..

    Well, good.. Maybe Weigantians can have some respite from you intelligence-lacking flame wars...

    Don't let the door hit ya on your fat ass on the way out... :D

  202. [202] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    This is for you and those who swear by the CBO predictions..

    At least ya'all swear by them when they say what ya'all want to hear... :D

    Reps. Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan: The truth behind the CBO
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reps-mark-meadows-and-jim-jordan-the-truth-behind-the-cbo/article/2629287

    I'll sum it up for ya..

    WRONG... WRONG.... WRONG.... IMPRESSIVELY WRONG...

    The CBO has about the same track record of being WRONG that the IPCC has....

    What IS it with you Left Wingers that ya'all always double down on stoopid???

  203. [203] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Michale

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. :)

    It just occurred to me.. This might be your way of insultingly accepting the truce I offer'ed

    I am going to take it that way, that this as your acceptance of the offered truce, and I will now act accordingly...

    I urge you, for the sake of ALL who inhabit this forum..... Don't break it again...

  204. [204] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.. :)

  205. [205] 
    michale wrote:

    My Little Bitch..

    Ahhhh OK... So.. NO truce...

    Apologies, people.. I tried, but obviously Victoria/Veronica prefers a flame war cesspool...

  206. [206] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent... :)

  207. [207] 
    michale wrote:

    Weren't we promised "bombshells" with Kushner's testimony???

    Another lie, courtesy of M.L.B. :D

  208. [208] 
    michale wrote:

    MLB,

    Just last week you were attacking me for saying the same thing over and over...

    Now it's YOU who is doing EXACTLY what you accused me of...

    Which is pretty much what you are all about, Victoria...

  209. [209] 
    michale wrote:

    MLB,

    Your cut-and-paste standard bullshit argument isn't exactly a big secret around here. *LOL* :)

    That's funny coming from someone who is spamming the forum with the exact same bullshit... :D

    Once again, Victoria.. You get slammed to the ground by your better... :D

  210. [210] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent..... :)

  211. [211] 
    michale wrote:

    Speaking of name-calling...

    BIAS ALERT: Daily Beast writer calls Sarah Huckabee Sanders a 'butch queen'
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/24/bias-alert-daily-beast-writer-calls-sarah-huckabee-sanders-butch-queen.html

    So, sexism and misogyny is perfectly acceptable when the Left directs them at Right Wing women..

    Yea.. NO double standards there, eh? :^/

  212. [212] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent._. :)

  213. [213] 
    michale wrote:

    MLB

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent._. :)

    Your cut-and-paste standard bullshit argument isn't exactly a big secret around here. *LOL* :)

  214. [214] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    Your cut-and-paste standard bullshit argument isn't exactly a big secret around here. *LOL* :)

    I couldn't have said it better myself. Oh, right... that's exactly what I did say, and you copied what I said verbatim.

    See how monotonous that can be, and I only did it for a few hours whereas you go on and on... the same old cut-and-paste repetition... complete with the same misspellings... as if they are new and exciting when they're just tedium ad nauseam. :)

  215. [215] 
    michale wrote:

    See how monotonous that can be, and I only did it for a few hours whereas you go on and on... the same old cut-and-paste repetition... complete with the same misspellings... as if they are new and exciting when they're just tedium ad nauseam. :)

    TRANSLATION: You slapped me down big time. That was a stroke of genius using my own words against me and forcing me to argue with myself.. I stand in awe of your superiority... :D

  216. [216] 
    michale wrote:

    "You can't win. I have god on my side!!"
    -Max Von Sydow, NEEDFUL THINGS

    :D

Comments for this article are closed.