ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [447] -- Donald Trump, Loser

[ Posted Friday, July 28th, 2017 – 17:17 PDT ]

It was just another week in Trumpland, folks. By that we mean more scandalous behavior and bumbling incompetence packed into one single week than most White House administrations show during an entire term of office. The week really began with the news last Friday that Sean Spicer had decided to quit, upon hearing that Anthony "The Mooch" Scaramucci was to be his new boss. The week ended (the news is breaking even as we write this) that Trump is sacking his chief of staff, Reince Priebus. During the week, Trump also tried his darndest to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to quit in frustration, while rumors appeared that Rex Tillerson is planning his "Rexit" as well. For good measure, Mooch fired an underling of his, and then just threatened to fire his entire department if he couldn't figure out who was doing all the leaking. In other words, it's getting kind of crowded beneath the Trump bus, as more and more people are casually thrown under it (and as the wheels begin to come off entirely). Just another wacky week at the Trump White House, in other words. Maybe Reince got tired of all the winning?

In normal times, any one of these would be a major news story for weeks (if not months), but in the crisis-an-hour Trump White House, it was just about par for the course. Consider: because of everything else that was going on, the amazing fact that Trump's son and son-in-law had to testify before congressional committees on possible collusion with a foreign power barely even made a blip in the news.

Of course, even all of the above was minor news this week, because of what Congress was busy doing (and not doing). Donald Trump finally got a major piece of legislation passed through his Republican Congress. It was even a wildly bipartisan bill, which passed with near-unanimous majorities in both the House (419-3) and the Senate (98-2). Unfortunately for Trump, the bill is a serious slap in his face because while it increases sanctions on North Korea, Iran, and Russia, it also strips the president of the power to determine when to ease those sanctions. In the clearest terms, Congress is saying, with one very loud voice: "Mr. President, we just do not trust you with Russia." Trump is apparently unclear on how the veto works, or (to be charitable) perhaps his new spokesman The Mooch is the one who didn't crack a U.S. Civics 101 book. Mooch said Trump is considering vetoing the bill in order to get a better deal from Congress. But there are already more than enough votes to overturn such a veto. Instead of just quietly signing it and hoping nobody notices, if Trump vetoes it he would publicly suffer yet another embarrassing legislative defeat. A lose-lose situation, in other words.

Even Congress wresting powers away from Trump in a checks-and-balances struggle, though, wasn't the main news from Capitol Hill. The biggest news was the Republican "repeal and replace Obamacare" effort -- seven years in the making -- crashing and burning spectacularly in the Senate, over the course of the entire week. The "Plum Line" blog at the Washington Post summed up this whole fiasco nicely:

Guess what, America: This is what you get when you elect Republicans.

It goes much further than their repugnant and disastrous effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but all the contemporary GOP's pathologies could be seen there: their outright malice toward ordinary people, their indifference to the suffering of their fellow citizens, their blazing incompetence, their contempt for democratic norms, their shameless hypocrisy, their gleeful ignorance about policy, their utter dishonesty and bad faith, their pure cynicism, and their complete inability to perform anything that resembles governing. It was the perfect Republican spectacle.

But we're going to devote the talking points to this epic legislative failure, so we're only going to note it in passing for now. Maybe we could fit it all in a tweet? How about:

Trump's score for the week in Senate: lose-lose. Power stripped away, and repeal Obamacare bills go down in flames. So sad! #Loser

That was kind of fun, and we've got a lot more peripheral news to get to, so we're just going to deliver it all in 140 characters or less.

Ready? Here's the week in Trumpland that was:

Mooch hurls F-bombs at NYer reporter, then complains when he's quoted. Funniest tweet pointing this out from @pkcapitol:

So if he thought he wasn't on record, then he was on background/off record. Talking about internal WH feuds. Which would be ... leaking?

Mooch also accuses Steve Bannon of being able to perform (as the genteel folks at CBS News put it) "self-fellatio." #Winning!

GOP's skinny repeal failure came 52 years to the day after Medicare and Medicaid passed the Senate. Embarrassing!

Trump tries leaning on GOP senators, and they leaned right back.

Murkowski threatened by Interior Dept. head, boneheaded move since she chairs committee overseeing Interior. #Whoops!

Judiciary Cmte Chair Grassley says his calendar is too full to confirm anyone else for AG, if Trump fires Sessions. #FairWarning

Ben Sasse, also on JudCmte: "If you're thinking of making a recess appointment to push out the attorney general, forget about it."

Also from Sasse: "The presidency isn't a bull, and this country isn't a china shop." #Ouch

Lindsey Graham announces bill to prevent Trump from firing Bob Mueller. #DoubleOuch

McCain, other Republicans, push back hard on Trump's hastily-tweeted policy to ban transgendered people from serving.

This culture war is going to backfire on Trump in a big way. America has moved on, Trump has not.

Trump now less popular than he was on election day in 47 states. #MAGA!

Rick Perry was punked by caller who wanted to talk about pig manure. #Priceless! #Oops!

Trump speaks to Boy Scout Jamboree, Boy Scout leader immediately apologizes for subjecting children to such a spectacle.

And, finally, a suggestion, so we can continue using this same joke over and over again:

Maybe Reince Priebus can get communications job with GOP Natl Committee? His name without vowels used to perfectly fit his job: RNC PR BS

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We are going to add an Honorable Mention to the collective winners of the MIDOTW award we handed out three weeks ago -- all the people who took the time to protest the Senate bill. The protests were effective, and they were absolutely necessary. The GOP tried to sneak something by in the middle of the night, and they might have actually been successful in doing so; but the consequences of killing Obamacare were there for all of them to see, for weeks on end. The protesters did not go quietly into that good night, and for this everyone else is indebted to them. Standing up and being heard worked, so each and every protester and each and every person who called their senator to express disapproval deserves our thanks and a big round of applause. Well done!

But this week we're going to instead give the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award to Chuck Schumer. Schumer is proving his worth as the leader of the Senate Democrats. There was not a single defection among his caucus, on any of the important votes. That's a stunning level of solidarity, for Democrats. In more normal times, Republicans might have been able to peel off a few conservative Democratic votes, from states where Democratic senators are vulnerable (of which there will be many, in 2018). But this time around, none budged.

Of course, Schumer isn't solely responsible for this amazing display of unity among his caucus, but as head of the party in the Senate, he deserves a goodly amount of the credit. His speech after the failure of the skinny bill was dignified (he avoided spiking the football and doing an end-zone dance, for the most part). Rather than gloating, he urged Republicans to heed McCain's lofty words about regular order and return the Senate to a working condition.

If even one Democrat had crossed the aisle, we'd still be dealing with all the repeal-and-replace nonsense. The vote was that close, so it is all the more remarkable that no Democrat ever wavered. So, to Chuck Schumer for doing a masterful job of keeping his caucus together as a rock-solid voting bloc, we hereby award him this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

For the second week in a row, we felt no Democrat rose (or sank) to the level of being worthy of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. There was a congressional aide who worked for Democrats (most recently Debbie Wasserman Schultz) who was arrested at an airport on charges of fraud, just before boarding a flight to Pakistan, but it's hard to see any congressional staffer (no matter how disappointing) rising to the level of what is supposed to be a national award.

As always, feel free to suggest candidates for the MDDOTW down in the comments, but for now we're (once again) putting it back on the shelf until next week.

Democrats had a good week last week. Mostly this was nothing more than standing back and watching while Republicans and Donald Trump had a very bad week, to be completely honest. Even so, we didn't notice anyone being particularly disappointing during the week.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 447 (7/28/17)

If there weren't such a maelstrom of incompetence swirling from Capitol Hill to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then we would be devoting this week's talking points to the new agenda Democrats rolled out this Monday -- "A Better Deal." We did examine the new platform at length earlier this week, so if you'd like to read our take on it, feel free.

Instead, we've got to devote all our talking points this week to the death of "repeal and replace." Unlike Chuck Schumer, we simply have no compunctions about happily dancing around on its grave. Give us a football, and we'll gleefully spike it. Victories like this really shouldn't happen when the Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House, but so far the GOP seems determined to prove they can't legislate their way out of a paper bag. Choose your own metaphor -- Keystone Kops, gang who couldn't shoot straight, circular firing squad, do-nothing Congress, can't-do Congress, herding cats -- there are certainly plenty of fitting ones to choose from.

Once again: victories like this rarely happen for a minority party. So you've got to enjoy them to the fullest when they come along.

 

1
   Seriously?

The most insane thing about the skinny repeal bill was the process it went through, of course.

"The Republican leadership tried to sell its skinny repeal bill using language that harkens back to the infamous quote from Vietnam: 'We had to destroy the village in order to save it.' Only this time, it was: 'We have to pass the bill in order to kill the bill.' I can't ever remember a Senate bill going through such an insane process, personally. It was a bill nobody wanted to see become law, and in fact failed in part because Paul Ryan wouldn't swear a blood oath that it wouldn't become law. So why pass it in the first place, if it's that bad? This bill to redesign one-sixth of the American economy was eight pages long, and the text of it was not released to anyone until two hours before the scheduled vote. That's pretty breathtaking contempt Mitch McConnell showed the Senate, folks. Over and over again, Republicans prove that their best campaign slogan should really be: 'Government doesn't work -- elect us and we'll prove it!'"

 

2
   McCain punked everyone

John McCain traveled back to Washington to have some fun, this week.

"While others have nothing but lofty praise for John McCain, I think everyone's missing the fact that he essentially punked everyone in sight -- his leadership, his party, the president, and the media. He played a game of 'Will he or won't he?' all week long, and in the end appeared as the savior of Obamacare. But when you examine it in detail, it wasn't exactly a profile in courage. If he had just stayed home and recuperated, the outcome would have been exactly the same -- the death of repeal-and-replace -- but it would have happened days earlier, as the vote on the motion to proceed would have failed. McCain finally got his political revenge on Trump, who had welcomed him back to Washington with open arms, tweeting: 'So great that John McCain is coming back to vote. Brave - American hero! Thank you John.' McCain played his cards close to the vest to the very end, and when he voted 'no' he guaranteed his continued appearances on the very same television shows he had decried ("loudmouths!") earlier in the week. By keeping everyone guessing, McCain cast himself as the deciding vote. But, again, if he had just stayed home and not voted we would have gotten the same result days earlier. McCain played the media, McConnell, and Donald Trump like a fiddle."

 

3
   Credit where credit is due

If not McCain, then who?

"The real credit for defeating the disastrous skinny repeal bill goes first and foremost to the Democrats who held firm against all the GOP nonsense. But on the other side of the aisle, the credit should mostly go to the two women -- Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski -- who never wavered in their opposition. They consistently voted against everything Mitch McConnell was trying to do, all week long. They took principled stands, and they did not weasel out on them when it came time to vote. No other Republican can make the same claim, John McCain included. So if the press wants to lionize the profiles in courage from this whole trainwreck, they should be inviting Collins and Murkowski on the Sunday shows. Because they're the real reason repeal-and-replace failed."

 

4
   Spineless creatures in DC swamp

A reader suggested this article's title a few weeks ago, and we've been holding it back for just the right moment.

"I hope everyone noticed how many Republicans spoke out against the Senate bills but then went ahead and voted for them anyway. In a related item, Science Daily recently ran an article titled: 'Spineless Creature Studied In D.C. Swamp.' The summary to this article begins, quote: Its name is Stygobromus hayi, the Hay's Spring amphipod. It is spineless. It lacks vision. It is an opportunistic feeder, consuming whatever resources are available -- perhaps including the remains of its own kind. That is where its similarities to some of Washington, D.C.'s more notorious megafauna end. Unquote. This study should now include Republican megafauna such as Dean Heller, who bravely took a stand against the bills... until he caved and voted yes. Spineless creatures such as Rob Portman and Shelley Moore Capito, who both took a stand against gutting funding for the opioid crisis... until they shrugged their shoulders and voted for a bill without such extra funding. When you start turning over rocks in the D.C. swamp, it's amazing how many spineless creatures scurry out, isn't it?"

 

5
   A real profile in cowardice

Speaking of Republicans who talked the talk but didn't walk the walk, there was one prominent standout.

"The worst by far was Lindsey Graham, though. Graham, with three other Republican senators at his side, held one of the most bizarre press conferences ever this week, to explain why he was a 'no' vote on skinny repeal. Here are just a few quotes from Graham, describing the skinny repeal bill:

  • The skinny bill doesn't work for any [U.S.] state.
  • I'm not going to vote for a bill that is terrible policy and horrible politics just because we have to get something done.
  • I'm a no because I'm not going to vote for a pig in a poke.
  • The skinny bill as a replacement for Obamacare is a fraud.
  • I'd rather get out of the way and let [Obamacare] collapse than have a half-assed approach where it is now our [i.e., the GOP's] problem. So we're not going to do that with our vote.
  • I am not going to vote for a piece of legislation that I believe is not a replacement, that politically would be the dumbest thing in history.

Strong words, eh? Especially that 'politically would be the dumbest thing in history' line. But then, in the end, Graham voted for the bill anyway -- the same bill he called 'terrible policy and horrible politics' only hours earlier. So if you're looking for a real profile in cowardice, Graham easily won that title, hands down."

 

6
   Mitch is so sad

Poor Mitch. Let's all have a pity party for Mitch....

"Mitch McConnell tried to jam through a piece of legislation that he was busily assuring his membership would never actually become law, which he introduced a bare two hours before the scheduled vote. Remember when McConnell (and a whole lot of other Republicans) would regularly work themselves into a frenzy if Democrats voted on a bill that hadn't been publicly released 72 hours before the vote? Remember when McConnell used to use the line 'read the bill' to taunt Democrats? Yeah, those were the days. So it's pretty hard to feel sorry for Mitch while watching his concession speech after the final vote. He tried to lay all the blame on Democrats, even when he couldn't corral his own caucus into voting for his Dumpster fire of a bill. So sad, Mitch! Cry me a river!"

 

7
   More popular than ever!

The most ironic thing to come of this entire farce.

"John McCain did get one thing right -- Republicans have achieved something that has eluded Democrats (most notably Barack Obama) for seven years now. Since the GOP began their march towards repeal-and-replace at the start of this year, Obamacare has gotten more and more popular as people have been educated about just exactly what taking it away would mean. In fact, Obamacare is now more popular than ever. The changes in public opinion have been dramatic, ever since the Republican Congress started trying to repeal it in earnest this January. So I guess that's the silver lining to this entire circular firing squad. It's not clear whether Republicans have realized that the only thing they accomplished was to boost the popularity of the law they were trying to dismantle, but I'm hopeful enough of them will come to this realization to allow some bipartisan fixes to the law to pass Congress soon."

-- 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

 

200 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [447] -- Donald Trump, Loser”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    There is something deeply satisfying about the ACA surviving over and over, separate from the sheer necessity of it. The fact that one of Obama's biggest efforts is withstanding everything 45 and the amazingly rancid GOP can throw at it is especially sweet.

    They'll probably keep trying but it just looks like spite and sour grapes and dishonest irresponsibility and reckless callousness.

    Maybe taking months of work and several committees and open debate and amendments and all that result in a sturdy product. Imperfect in scope, but nevertheless, something to build on. (Public option, public option!) At the time Repubs did all they could to stop it, and while they were invited to contribute every step of the way they mostly just offered poison pill amendments. They didn't WANT to do anything to help people get healthcare and they still don't. But the ACA, imperfect as it was, changed the dynamic and try as they did, the GOP couldn't turn the dynamic back.

    But the GOP is nothing if not zombie-like so we'll see what their next gambit is. But, if nothing else, they're going to have to work like demons, sweat like wrestlers, and endure a lot of pressure from the public to succeed. Maybe they will, but at least it won't be easy and there will be prices.

    But maybe some of them will rediscover some vestiges of decency and refuse to keep trying to do something so stunningly damaging.

    Per John Harwood on Twitter 45 wants to decouple himself from the GOP. That will be even more satisfying. If he can accomplish a genuine split in the party, deplorables with him and the remains not-with-him, wow.

    Proceed, 45. Please proceed!

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Breaking news:

    Trump to sign Russia sanctions bill.

    Guess someone explained how the veto works...

    Heh.

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Paula -

    Oh, man, that would be sweet.

    Trump already refers to congressional Republicans as "them" or "they" all the time. He never includes them in any sort of "we" or "us". So mentally, he's already conceptually there.

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Paula wrote:

    [3] Chris: Yep! I can't begin to imagine how 45 thinks it would be a good idea but hopefully he won't figure that out until its too late.

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    The Ex Secretary of Homeland Security now White House Chief of Staff talks about Trump last week at Aspen Security Forum. Oops.

    https://youtu.be/q92WzKAmoWA?t=28m45s

    :)

  6. [6] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I was amused that Paul Ryan chose to recite the lyrics of 'The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald'...Gordon Lightfoot, being a Canadian institution, not unlike universal healthcare, also blamed American November laissez faire for a disaster that could have been otherwise avoided.
    LL&P.

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: McCain cast himself as the deciding vote. But, again, if he had just stayed home and not voted we would have gotten the same result days earlier. McCain played the media, McConnell, and Donald Trump like a fiddle."

    But CW... remember that this was "American Heroes Week" so McCain probably decided to make good use of all five business days of it versus simply one. If he just stayed home, he wouldn't have gotten to spectacularly drop one of those "centipede" shoes directly on Trump's head. John Sidney McCain III gives new meaning to the term "shoe bomber."

    I have a feeling that the tag team of McCain-Graham is not exactly finished dropping "centipede" shoe bombs on Trump just yet.

    GUNNER
    SABOT SHOE
    FIRE

    :)

  8. [8] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CW: While thanking the many healthcare protesters in our own country for turning up the heat on Senators to defeat the UnCare bill, it should be noted that people-power was also instrumental in Poland, where tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets and essentially forced their strong-man President Andrzej Duda to veto a bill that would have ended Poland's independent judiciary.

    The clear message to the authoritarians of the world: "Even you still rule by consent of the governed".

    A truly heartening thought to take away from a week so fraught with danger and weirdness, eh?

  9. [9] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I wonder if McCain chose to come back and vote as one last hoorah just in case he isn't able to come back after the break. It's the stuff legends are remembered for, even if it was 95% dramatic effect and 5% substance. Standing up to the corrupt president that insulted him and other POW's and his own party in order to save millions of people from losing their health insurance...all the makings of a great hero's story! It is brilliant branding on his part, especially if he gets a talented writer to pen his biography who can buff out all the rough edges.

  10. [10] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    This wasn't reported on very much, but I thought it deserved attention... From Adele M. Stan at The American Prospect:


    On Tuesday evening, at a campaign-style rally in Youngstown, Ohio, President Donald Trump treated his audience to a bit of snuff porn involving high-school age girls and some bad hombres.

    After painting all the people currently under deportation orders as drug-importing gang members, the president described their purported crimes. “So they'll take a young, beautiful girl, 16, 15—and others—and they slice them and dice them with a knife because they want them to go through excruciating pain before any die,” Trump said. “And these are the animals that we've been protecting for so long.”

    A more perfect encapsulation of the proclivities of the president’s poisonous psyche could not be imagined by even the likes of Quentin Tarantino. It’s all there, the racism, the dehumanization of immigrants, and a sexualized violence involving bleeding women—or, in this case, girls.

    Money cannot buy class, that is for sure!

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    “So they'll take a young, beautiful girl, 16, 15—and others—and they slice them and dice them with a knife because they want them to go through excruciating pain before any die,” Trump said. “And these are the animals that we've been protecting for so long.”

    And the fact that it is factually accurate doesn't bother you at all???

    Ya see, this is EXACTLY the problem with ya'all..

    President Trump describes a HORRIBLE scene that actually HAPPENS and do ya'all recoil in horror that it's a factually accurate scenario, courtesy of the Democrat Party??

    No... You attack President Trump because he MENTIONS the factually accurate incident...

    Democrat "logic".. :^/

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    McCain, other Republicans, push back hard on Trump's hastily-tweeted policy to ban transgendered people from serving.

    This culture war is going to backfire on Trump in a big way.

    Despite *ALL* the facts to the contrary.. :D

    President Trump just PROVED beyond any doubt that the Democrats pivot to economic/middle class issues is pure hooey...

    The military *AND* patriotic Americans are firmly in President Trump's corner on this particular issue..

    But John McCain is dead on balls accurate in his claim that those who meet the standards should be allowed to serve....

    Dead on ballz accurate...

    HIS problem and YA'ALL'S problem is the FACT that, as a group, transgendered Americans do NOT meet the standards as I have proven beyond ANY doubt....

    In war if it comes down to kill or be killed, and you hesitate, you're dead. It's a simple as that. It's not a fucking video game.

    War is no place for people who are mentally, emotionally, or physically confused or in turmoil. You have your shit together, or you don't.
    -J.R. Salzman

    And if you DON'T have your shit together, you don't get to serve in the US Military..

    And, as a group, transgendered Americans do NOT have their shit together...

    Therefore, they cannot serve...

    I can't make it any simpler than that...

    If there are any here in Weigantia who have served, has seen combat and wants to debate the issue???

    Ya know where to find me.. :D

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Breaking news:

    Trump to sign Russia sanctions bill.

    Kiss the JCPOA goodbye!!! :D

  14. [14] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And, as a group, transgendered Americans do NOT have their shit together...

    Sez who? Presumably these individuals made it through training, instruction and field exercises to get where they're at. Many have already served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Some have honors. You can't just assume that they don't have their shit together. Lotsa straight guys and gals dropped out along that same road.

    This is an American strength. Our twin values of individualism and freedom makes every American infinitely customizable. So we have biker disco florists. A good team needs a variety of skills, a good country needs a variety of people. At least that's the American way of doing things.

    Or just think Star Trek. Are we going to go out and choose our friends in the universe based on their sexual preferences? Should we care if Vulcan men like lacy underwear? Have you even seen what an Orion girl has under her tail?

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Sez who?

    Science..

    Over half of trans people (53%) ages 18 to 25 have reported experiencing current serious psychological distress. That compares to 10% in the nation overall...

    40% of trans people have attempted suicide in their lives. That compares to less than 5% of the general population..

    48% of trans people have seriously thought about killing themselves in the past year. 4% of the U.S. population has seriously thought the same...

    A full 82% of trans people have thought about killing themselves at some point in their lives..

    29% of trans have used illegal drugs or non prescribed drugs in the past month.. Normal US population for that is almost 3 times as less.. 10% . .

    The presence of HIV or AIDS is also much MUCH higher amongst the trans group than the general population..

    And THIS is the group that should be considered for military duty???

    Yea.. If you want the military of Venezuela... :^/

    The high rate of suicides and suicidal thoughts alone are sufficient to disqualify ANYONE from military service..

    Or just think Star Trek. Are we going to go out and choose our friends in the universe based on their sexual preferences?

    It has nothing to do with sexual preference and everything to do with mental issues. I don't want to share a foxhole with someone who contemplates suicide...

    As I said, it takes someone who has served and has seen combat to understand..

    That leaves you out..

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    If yer going to dispute the facts in comment #15, please be clear whether you are disputing the accuracy of the stats or you're disputing that the stats are disqualifying for service in the United States Military....

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    If you are going to dispute the validity of the statistics, be prepared to have facts and statistics to support your claims. If ya don't, yer a lying troll!! :D hehehehe

    If you are going to dispute the claim that the stats are disqualifying.... Don't even bother.. :D

    This is a debate you simply cannot win...

    LB might have a chance... But that's about it...

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:
  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Standing up to the corrupt president that insulted him and other POW's...

    What insult was that??

    When President Trump said that getting captured doesn't make one a hero???

    How is that not factually accurate??

    I mean, it's not as if he accused the United States military of genocide and war crimes.

    That's what Dumbocrats do...

    I'm just sayin'...

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    Why Trump has an opportunity in Kelly

    (CNN)In retired Marine General John F. Kelly, the President just got himself a no-kidding, bona fide, straight-shooting, full-tilt leader as a chief of staff.

    Here's hoping Mr. Trump knows how to use him.
    Because if he taps into General Kelly's inherent qualities, the President could actually come out on the far side of these first six tumultuous months looking pretty good. Well, better than that, actually. He could come out with a plan to achieve a heckuva lot in his next six months ... and longer.

    He could make a full-court press for an infrastructure bill, make some progress on tax reform.
    He could get his hands around a strategy for Afghanistan and maybe even sharpen the effort against ISIS in Syria.
    He might finally find a road ahead with Russia, and he will certainly find in General Kelly a man who will contribute meaningfully to the very complex challenges North Korea poses.
    And here's another item worth mentioning: with Kelly at the helm, the President might finally get his house in order.
    He'll be able to do all these things with General Kelly and more, because Kelly is a leader. A natural leader. It's not even something I think he thinks about much. He just does it ... wouldn't know how not to lead, quite frankly.

    And Kelly is a believer, too. People closer to the general than I am tell me he is unabashedly committed to President Trump's agenda, if not also President Trump the man. He has worked assiduously at the Department of Homeland Security to execute Mr. Trump's immigration and border objectives, and he believes in his heart that Mr. Trump has exactly the right vision for the country.

    There will be a lot of things the President has to worry about in coming months. General Kelly's personal loyalty does not appear to be one of them.
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/28/opinions/trump-needs-to-use-kelly-kirby-opinion/index.html

    Tell me again how everyone who believes in President Trump and supports President Trump unequivocally is in the wrong and nothing but a kool-aid drinker??

    I see to have forgotten what you said, what with all the FACTS to the contrary.. :D

  21. [21] 
    Paula wrote:

    Evidently, over the last 24 hours Priebus has been the picture of obsequious loyalty to 45. He's either a masochist, OR, he's in trouble.

    Priebus is known for his fundraising prowess. You have to wonder if the RNC hasn't been dipping into that Russian cash too. I think Priebus' job in the WH was to try to protect the RNC, and some of the top Repubs. It'll be fun if 45 outs them. But then 45 has his own problems with his money-laundering. Did the two lines ever intersect, or did they separately break break the law?

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Priebus is known for his fundraising prowess. You have to wonder if the RNC hasn't been dipping into that Russian cash too. I think Priebus' job in the WH was to try to protect the RNC, and some of the top Repubs. It'll be fun if 45 outs them. But then 45 has his own problems with his money-laundering. Did the two lines ever intersect, or did they separately break break the law?

    Can you PROVE any of this??

    No you cannot..

    "If you make a claim and cannot back it up, you are a lying troll"

    Hay, don't blame me. I don't make the rules.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Paula wrote:

    45 always does outrageous things to deflect attention. Bill Browder's testimony was quietly explosive as he explained how Putin's operatives entangle people. 45 went into hyperdrive this week -- and Priebus went along, allowing himself to be "fired" and then doing the media rounds to support 45.

    They want the attention as far away from the Russia probe as they can manage.

    Fortunately, Mueller was able to move right along in his investigations while attention was elsewhere.

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    Hay, don't blame me. I don't make the rules.. :D

    I just play by them.. :D

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    45 always does outrageous things to deflect attention. Bill Browder's testimony was quietly explosive as he explained how Putin's operatives entangle people.

    Cite??

    45 went into hyperdrive this week -- and Priebus went along, allowing himself to be "fired" and then doing the media rounds to support 45.

    hehehehe You have a rich fantasy life, Paula.. :D

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    Don't tell me, let me guess..

    President Trump is head of the Illuminati, having bumped off Leonard Nimoy for real.. :D

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all are as ridiculous as those Right Wing nuts who said Obama was a Muslim sleeper terrorist.. :D

  28. [28] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The Boy Scout leadership has apologized for Trump's Jamboree remarks. Not good enough. What the hell did you expect?

    What is the Scout Motto: Be Prepared. Scout leadership issued the invite. They had every reason to suspect Trump would go off script. They did not cut his mic. They were not prepared. Top Scout Master has to go. Lesson to the troops. Accountability.
    Buck stops here.

    I've tried to contact Boy Scout leadership about this. Their National lines are dead. At the moment BS stands for both Boy Scouts and Bull Excrement . Apology not accepted. Top guy has to take the hit.

  29. [29] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Girl Scouts get involved. Toss your cookies on Trump...and save a few to hurl at your brother organization for dereliction of duty.

  30. [30] 
    Paula wrote:

    [28} TheStig: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/07/25/how-trumps-speech-to-the-boy-scouts-could-put-atts-ceo-in-a-tricky-spot/?utm_term=.7ed0f612d0ec

    It starts:

    AT&T chief executive Randall Stephenson is hardly the first corporate leader who has also been national president of the Boy Scouts of America. Current Secretary of State and former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson held the role from 2010 to 2012. The CEO of Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Rick Cronk, did so in the mid-2000s.

    But Stephenson is almost certainly the first to find himself in that role while the president of the United States made a political speech at a Boy Scout event at a time when his company faces a Justice Department antitrust review. AT&T is awaiting word on its proposed $85 billion takeover of Time Warner — putting Stephenson in a potentially difficult scenario as many parents and former Boy Scouts have called for an apology about Trump's speech.

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    PORTLAND, Ore. -- A man accused of breaking into a 65-year-old woman's home, sexually assaulting her and stealing her car was arrested after allegedly assaulting another woman and running from police.

    Sergio Jose Martinez, 31, was caught July 24 after officers chased him through a neighborhood.

    According to court documents filed in March 2017, Martinez has a history of illegal entry into the United States. He has been a transient in the Portland area for more than a year and has been deported 20 times.

    Martinez has at least five probation violations for re-entering the United States. His most recent removal was in November 2016, according to the March court documents.

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged an immigration detainer against Martinez, asking authorities to notify them before releasing Martinez to allow ICE to take him into custody. The Department of Homeland Security said a detainer was requested for Martinez in December 2016, but he was released into the community and authorities did not notify ICE.

    Earlier this year, Multnomah County leaders and Sheriff Mike Reese wrote a letter to the community saying, "The Sheriff's Office does not hold people in county jails on ICE detainers or conduct any immigration enforcement actions."

    Apparently, Oregon leaders care more for political correctness and the Democrat Party agenda than they do for their own citizens...

    The Democrat Party.. The Party of rapists and scumbags... :^/

  32. [32] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    I think you may be just a bit too hard on Senator McCain. I don't think the issue was as near run as the final tally would indicate. I strongly suspect a few other Rep. Senators were leaning No, but were more vulnerable than McCain. McCain took the body blow and left the others under cover for their next election. McCain was the good soldier...and it was good showboating for McCain, which he likes do.

    McCain is a complex guy. I've said it before, but don't remind repeating it: Shakespeare could have written a great history play based on McCain's complicated life story.

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

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

    According to the facts, about 10 millions Americans are enrolled in TrainWreckCare...

    If TrainWreckCare is repealed, according to Democrats, 24 million Americans are going to die..

    So... wha??? Are Democrats going to randomly shoot 14 million Americans???

    Considering the recent past, it wouldn't surprise me... :^/

  34. [34] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    delayed response to comment 192 from FTP 446

    "Rather, in the abscence of hard evidence"

    Congratulations.
    You finally admitted the obvious.
    That assertions are not hard evidence.

    "the left provided their ready-made answer: it's obviously a neoliberal corporatist plot engineered in advance by secretly non-progressive democrats."

    Those Democrats are hardly "secretly non-progressive"... they are openly corporatist, the "plot" was not engineered in advance" but rather trotted out in response to and to distract from the content of the leaks which completely confirmed what the left had been saying about the corporatist Dems and Hillary, and then that response was repurposed to distract from the actual reasons Dems got trounced in 1000 elections... only one of which MAY have been slightly influenced by Russian meddling (what's the excuse for other 999?)... and it has indeed allowed corporatist Dems to retain the leadership of the party despite their track record of massive failure.
    What happened? What was the response? What was the effect?
    The answers to those questions all lead to the conclusion that you are embracing the failed establishment narrative at the expense of the truth about why Dems lost at all levels of government.

    "And when have far left policies won votes 'at all levels'?"

    Dems regained control of Congress by promoting progressive policies, and in 2008 Obama's campaign embraced the progressive policies that you are now pathetically condemning as "far left".
    His failure to fight for them once elected doesn't change the historical record of how he built a winning coalition that motivated enthusiasm and turnout.

    "I feel fairly good about the prospect of Democrats regaining the seats they've lost, and then some, in 2018 and 2020."

    Given the circumstances, "fairly good" speaks volumes.
    Any gains in the House in 2018 will likely be the result of Dem candidates who fully embrace the progressive agenda, and despite the mealy mouthed messaging from the party.
    Gains in the Senate remain unlikely, and Dems will probably lose 3-5 more seats.
    2020 remains up in the air, and hopefully some lessons from 2016 and 2018 will finally sink in and new leadership will be chosen.

    "FDR Democrats? Nice attempt at branding, but no."

    Yes actually.
    And it's not an attempt, it's what we've been saying all along... the party abandoned the policies that voters want.
    The New Deal was about economics.
    The Better Deal is too.
    Coincidence?
    Nope.
    Will messaging be enough coming from integrity challenged Wall Street coddling corporatists?
    I doubt it.
    But people often forget or ignore that it wasn't just policies to help the working class, it was also effective regulation of Big Money interests implemented by FDR which created a 30 year stretch without any financial crises that hurt the working class.
    It was the dismantling of that effective regulation by neoliberal Democrats collaborating with Republicans in addition to their attacks on unions and the safety net and shifting the tax burden from the rich and corporations onto the working class which caused the inequality, instability and lack of opportunities that has resulted.

    The Better Deal only addresses a fraction of those causes, and doesn't even do that very well.

    A

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    The Better Deal only addresses a fraction of those causes, and doesn't even do that very well.

    Not to mention it was dropped after a day or so, so that Democrats could jump on the identity politics and basically tell Trump voters that they can go frak themselves..

    Basically, the winner of the the House in 2018 is going to be the Party who fraks up the least.. In that regard in the here and now, there is no clear front runner..

    Both Partys are royally scrooing the pooch...

  36. [36] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Ya'all are as ridiculous as those Right Wing nuts who said Obama was a Muslim sleeper terrorist.. :D

    We are like Trump?

  37. [37] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Thanks for the responses in comments 6, 7, 8 from Democrats Offer Up A Better Deal

    "I'd give their efforts today about a B. Maybe a B+."

    I was thinking a C-. Maybe a D+... but my job descriptions is different than yours.

    "others would be better spokesfolk, but give it time. I saw Tom Perez on PBS NewsHour, and he did a pretty good job with it, have to say"

    Ughhhh. Not who I had in mind.

    "I agree with the "forward-looking" aspect of the antitrust stuff. Thought the same thing myself -- what are you guys going to do about the crap people have to put up with NOW from megacorps??"

    A major flaw, without a doubt.
    "I got a right to be hostile... my people are being persecuted".
    Voters care about being screwed right now.
    Those vague promises about reducing the harmful effects of future mergers is so weak.

    "For now, Medicare getting cheaper drugs is worth the effort (and do-able)."

    Like Single Payer or the public option, I don't think negotiating cheaper prices for drugs in Medicare is do-able given the history of how it was enacted and the makeup of Congress.

    More importantly, I keep seeing some here dwelling on what is do-able as a restraint on what Dems should be campaigning for when that is a flawed premise.

    Women's suffrage wasn't doable when people started campaigning for it, the policies in the New Deal weren't do-able when people started campaigning for them, civil rights legislation wasn't do-able when people started campaigning for it, environmental legislation wasn't do-able when people started campaigning for it, medical marijuana and recreational wasn't do-able when people started campaigning for it, lgbt rights and gay marriage wasn't do-able...

    ... political campaigns should not be limited by what is currently achievable, but rather strive for what can be in the future with an adherence to principles.

    Single Payer should be the rallying cry for Dems even though it most certainly won't be achievable in 2018.
    Not only may it help Dems win and make it more achievable, it also forms the basis of an opening position from which to bargain on the other issues if compromise legislation enters the realm of the possible.

    Some here have argued that it's dishonest to campaign on issues you can't deliver, but that is only true if that is explicitly stated.
    Vote for us in 2018 and we will fight to advance Single Payer is completely different than vote for us in 2018 and we will implement Single Payer.

    There's no reason Single Payer can't be a major campaign issue for Dems.
    And looking at the polling that shows the majority already supports it, it is plainly achievable with strong victories in 2018 and 2020.

    "I do think offering positive solutions for rural areas can bear fruit for Dems, since Trump's promises are so quickly going to be revealed as nothing short of smoke and flim-flam."

    You were responding to my opinion of the tax credits for businesses hiring, and I still think that as long as mega-corporations can claim those credits, it just amounts to a giveaway to Big Money and won't convince voters to support Dems.
    The Green New Deal would be a much better approach to wooing rural voters by creating good jobs where they live.

    Thanks to both you and Kick for providing Schumer's text on a $15 minimum wage.

    "He just kind of mentions it in passing, as "Dems already support this", in other words..."

    Weak.
    Many Dems haven't been supportive at all, and his failure to highlight what a major advance it would be is pathetic.
    It's an issue that would rally huge numbers of activists and voters, and "mentioning it in passing" is not indicative of someone who forcefully supports it... nor someone who can be trusted to fight for it.

    "To whomever complained about BDS last Friday"
    "These bills are a travesty, I fully agree."

    Yeah, well, it looks like you and I are in agreement, but neither of our comments generated a single response from the community here.
    That's depressing.

    A

  38. [38] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michael,
    [11]
    And the fact that it is factually accurate doesn't bother you at all???

    Ya see, this is EXACTLY the problem with ya'all..

    Where is the proof that this happened? Haven't read about any teens in this country being tortured to death by gangs recently, have you?

    [15]

    The high rate of suicides and suicidal thoughts alone are sufficient to disqualify ANYONE from military service..

    According to the Veterans Affairs Office, roughly 20 veterans commit suicide every day.

    By your own standards, no cis gender males would qualify for military service. You want to attack all trans people for those who have had suicidal thoughts.

    If you are going to dispute the validity of the statistics, be prepared to have facts and statistics to support your claims. If ya don't, yer a lying troll!! :D hehehehe

    If you are going to dispute the claim that the stats are disqualifying.... Don't even bother.. :D

    Seeing how you don't post where these stats come from, they disqualify themselves.

    Then you toss in this little gem...

    The presence of HIV or AIDS is also much MUCH higher amongst the trans group than the general population..

    What shocks me the most about your bigotry is that it is aimed at trans-members of the military that are serving our country with honor. Has the military stopped requiring medical and psychological evaluations prior to a person serving in our military?
    So you tossed this tidbit out why?

    If being HIV positive is a disqualifying medical condition, then what does it have to do with why HIV negative trans- members of the military don't deserve to serve?

    Bigots gonna hate, you have made that crystal clear!

  39. [39] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Not much to say about this weeks column.

    Schumer holding Senate Dems together to stop a bill supported by 16% of Americans doesn't seem all that commendable.
    I suppose some of them may have been ignorant about the negative effects it would have on the country and their careers, but paying attention is supposed to be in their job descriptions.

    So, Schumer making sure other Dems didn't shoot themselves in the foot is a pretty low bar for an award.

    The Governor of Connecticut deserved the disappointing award... and I helpfully provided the info...

    He gave billions in subsidies and tax cuts to the rich and corporations, discovered that it leaves the budget billions short, and then demanded that state workers accept pay and benefit cuts to pay for the shortfall... sure seems disappointing to me.
    That's failed neoliberal economics in a nutshell.

    There was also a report that Google has altered its search algorithms to put progressive and leftist websites way down (as in ten pages back that sane people never reach) in the search results in their collaboration with the NYT and WaPo to fight fake news.

    If effectively censoring the left is part of how the establishment responds to the fake news brouhaha, you have to wonder.
    I don't recall any of them supporting Trump.
    Not a single one.
    Wasn't that supposedly what fake news was all about?
    Are they using the fake news excuse to punish dissenters who had nothing to do with it?

    There's nothing like limiting the discussion to topics and viewpoints acceptable to the corrupt status quo to strengthen our democracy.

    I didn't see a single example of fake news or factually inaccurate reporting offered about any of the leftist websites which have been targeted to justify the actions Google has taken... but who needs proof? Right Democrats?

    Google abandoning its motto to serve the establishment so blatantly seems worthy of at least an honorable mention.

    Did you make the cut CW?
    Some sites have seen dramatic reductions in traffic originating from Google searches.
    Kind of a bad precedent too... what will be the next criteria for limiting access?
    BDS?
    Anti-war? Another war based on lies seems to be in the planning stage... and the NYT and WaPo were the primary sources for fake news leading up to Iraq. Funny how they were involved in deciding to target alternative news outlets who weren't spewing propaganda.

    A

  40. [40] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula - 30

    Thanks for the gist of it. All the more reason to get rid of the current BS chief....although if past is prolog they'll just pick another plutocrat to replace him. How about somebody with an actual interest in the out of doors.?

  41. [41] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Al,

    If effectively censoring the left is part of how the establishment responds to the fake news brouhaha, you have to wonder.
    I don't recall any of them supporting Trump.
    Not a single one.
    Wasn't that supposedly what fake news was all about?

    The Left cannot produce fake news??? That sounds a lot like when an African American claims that they cannot be racist; only whites are racists. Just because a site didn't support Trump doesn't mean it wasn't churning out factually incorrect stories.

    There were plenty of Left-leaning sites that published questionable articles written by Hillary-haters, and just as many others attacking everything Bernie! It doesn't matter if it comes from the Left or the Right, lies are lies.

    What I hate about the article I read from Indybay.org regarding this claim is that sites claiming to not have as much traffic from searches assume that they deserve being at the top of the list in random searches.

    Take the World Socialist Web Site for example.

    According to Google’s webmaster tools service, the number of searches resulting in users seeing content from the World Socialist Web Site (that is, a WSWS article appeared in a Google search) fell from 467,890 a day to 138,275 over the past three months. The average position of articles in searches, meanwhile, fell from 15.9 to 37.2 over the same period.

    That was from a search using only the term "socialist". While they did not show up until around 16th, other socialist sites were at the top of my search results. However, if my search used "World Socialist ", the WSWS site was at the top of my search results.

    Who searches using just one word to define their search? Someone who doesn't want to find any specific site. If people are looking for a specific site, they will find it quite easily still.

    Belly-aching that your political website doesn't have the traffic now that it did a months ago while we were in the midst of post-election protests and rallies really doesn't carry much weight, IMHO.

  42. [42] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    And if you DON'T have your shit together, you don't get to serve in the US Military..

    And, as a group, transgendered Americans do NOT have their shit together...

    Therefore, they cannot serve...

    I can't make it any simpler than that...

    I agree with the first statement, in theory: And if you DON'T have your shit together, you don't get to serve in the US Military..

    That doesn't mean some potential messes don't slip through, but for the most part I think that statement is true.

    But your second statement is wrong, and you prove it is wrong by your third statement:

    Trans- people currently do serve, and they have been serving without any issues for a while now. Many have finally been able to be open about being trans, but for years they were willing to keep how they viewed their true selves a secret in order to serve their country.

    They have served honorably in all branches of the military of our country, but you would dishonor their service with your bigotry. You are arguing a group that has already demonstrated that they can be valued members of our military shouldn't be given the chance based on prejudices. The FACT is that they can serve because they have shown that they "have their shit together" with their service! Seal Team Six had a trans-member, and I am pretty sure that they had their "shit together" far more than you did when you served.

  43. [43] 
    altohone wrote:

    CW

    BTW, regarding the new sanctions bill, it would seem that some mention of the fact that the EU has promised to retaliate for the sanctions harming numerous European companies and EU economies, and the attempt to force the bloc to rely on more expensive LNG from the US rather than Russian gas deserves some mention.

    When sanctions hurt our allies and they strongly object, and nobody in Congress even mentions it, it is very odd indeed.

    The possibility of the sanctions derailing the nuclear deal with Iran and destroying one of Obama's main achievements (and helping Trump fulfill a major campaign promise), with the nearly unanimous support of Democrats no less, also deserves some discussion.
    Is that considered resistance?

    All the members gung ho for economic war in violation of the agreement, which increases the likelihood of direct military confrontation, seems rather shortsighted.

    It almost seems like you would support the Democratic party rallying behind Trump for another illegal regime change war, and will use possible Russian meddling as an excuse that pushes us in that direction.

    Iran hasn't attacked us.
    Iran is abiding by the nuclear agreement.
    And Iran is fighting the terrorist groups who have attacked us.

    Is there some nuance in your position you are willing to share?

    A

  44. [44] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    41

    "There were plenty of Left-leaning sites that published questionable articles written by Hillary-haters, and just as many others attacking everything Bernie! It doesn't matter if it comes from the Left or the Right, lies are lies."

    We are talking about journalism, not opinion pieces, and your idea of "questionable" is different than factually inaccurate. Wikileaks, one of the sites being affected, has never been shown to have published a single document that was not verifiably authentic.
    You didn't offer even a single example of factually inaccurate reporting from AlterNet, Counterpunch, WSWS or any of the other sites affected either... and you really need to do that if you're going to accuse them of publishing lies.
    You saying it doesn't make it a fact.

    As for "left-leaning sites" attacking Bernie, I am well aware of the majority of anti-Bernie articles from the left, and they too were factual.
    I was a Bernie supporter, but articles about his dismissal of activists for Palestinian rights, his vote for the wars in Libya and Serbia, his support for defense contractors making parts of the F35 in Vermont, his vote for the deregulation of derivatives... all of them were factual as well.
    It sucks that Bernie wasn't perfect, and a lot of people on the left wouldn't support Bernie because of those things, but many of us accepted him as the best choice anyway.
    And our awareness of the truth also just made the "purity' arguments from the Hillary campaign look stupid.

    On the other hand, articles from the NYT and WaPo were in fact filled with lies about Bernie... and they are aiding Google's effort... hardly unbiased sources of ethical journalism, AND with a massive built in conflict of interest as searches are now showing more results from them, which benefits them financially.

    "What I hate about the article I read from Indybay.org regarding this claim is that sites claiming to not have as much traffic from searches assume that they deserve being at the top of the list in random searches."

    I haven't read the article from Indybay, but you are (hopefully unintentionally) misrepresenting the issue.
    The issue is dramatically reduced traffic due to the change by Google.
    Searches using words or topics used to yield better results for the alternative news sites, not "at the top of the list".

    "Belly-aching that your political website doesn't have the traffic now that it did a months ago while we were in the midst of post-election protests and rallies really doesn't carry much weight, IMHO"

    OK, that makes me think you are intentionally misrepresenting the issue.

    The only major difference between three months ago and this month is the change that Google implemented.
    Trying to pretend that such a massive drop in traffic is due to the fact that the election was 9 months ago compared to 6 months ago, or because of protests and rallies which are ongoing is really unsubstantiated spin.
    Dropping from "467,890 a day to 138,275 over the past three months" and trying to pin it on people losing interest in an election or protests?
    You can't make that claim without backing it up.

    We aren't in the realm where opinion will suffice.

    You are defending censorship by a company that is supposed to be neutral, and in support of the mainstream media which has a tarnished record, and you haven't offered any factual substantiation.

    A

  45. [45] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW and gang

    Here's an interview about Trump meeting with Hariri from Lebanon at the WH, making a statement about Hezbollah seemingly unaware that Hariri is in a power sharing agreement with Hezbollah, and that Hezbollah just won a victory over al Qaida in defense of Lebanon, and unaware that his statement actually may harm Hariri politically.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19652:Trump-Blasts-Hezbollah-as-it-Ousts-al-Qaeda

    The interview is a little rough in sound quality at first, but gets better quickly.

    A

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Trump knows nothing of relevance to his new job.

    Not surprisingly.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wikileaks, one of the sites being affected, has never been shown to have published a single document that was not verifiably authentic.

    That, of course, misses the point.

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Until you can address the FACTS that I have laid out, you have no argument to make..

    You claim that trans have served honorably, but you have no facts to support that.

    We don't know if there has been any issues or not.. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..

    But the facts are clear.. As a group, trans have major issues with drug abuse, suicide and suicidal thoughts and medical issues..

    This is well-documented..

    It's not a question of bigotry.. Fairness, bigotry and discrimination have absolutely NO BEARING when it comes to the United States Military...

    ANY group that has the stats of drug abuse, suicide and suicidal thoughts and medical issues is unfit to serve in the United States Military..

    If you want to call that bigotry, that's fine.. But when it comes the fitness, quality and readiness of our US Military, bigotry is not only desirable, it is demanded...

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Where is the proof that this happened? Haven't read about any teens in this country being tortured to death by gangs recently, have you?

    Yer kidding, right??

    Several suspected gang members were arrested in New York this morning on federal charges, including the brutal murders of three teenagers in Long Island last year, authorities said.

    "The murders, particularly of these two girls, young ladies, were particularly heinous," Robert Capers, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said at a news conference today. "They were beaten to death in the street with machetes and bats over seemingly nothing and left in the streets or in the backyard of a house to die. These were terribly heinous crimes."
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/suspected-ms-13-gang-members-arrested-connection-long/story?id=45855542

    According to the Veterans Affairs Office, roughly 20 veterans commit suicide every day.

    Yes.. Veterans suffering from PTSD with accompanying suicidal thoughts would be ineligible to re-enlist in the US Military.

    What's your point??

    By your own standards, no cis gender males would qualify for military service. You want to attack all trans people for those who have had suicidal thoughts.

    No, I want to insure we have the best fighting force we can have.. And that means excluding certain groups that could be detrimental to the mission..

    Seeing how you don't post where these stats come from, they disqualify themselves.

    Another gem I can repost to counter every argument ya'all make.. :D

    http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/USTS-Full-Report-FINAL.PDF

    What you don't get, what ALL of you don't get is that the US Military doesn't exist to make trans people feel good about themselves..

    Social empowerment **IS NOT** a mission of the United States Military..

    Bigots gonna hate, you have made that crystal clear!

    No matter how many times you tell the lie that it's about bigotry, it still won't make the FACTS go away...

    As a group, trans Americans are not fit to serve in the United States Military...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Where is the proof that this happened? Haven't read about any teens in this country being tortured to death by gangs recently, have you?

    Yer kidding, right??

    Several suspected gang members were arrested in New York this morning on federal charges, including the brutal murders of three teenagers in Long Island last year, authorities said.

    "The murders, particularly of these two girls, young ladies, were particularly heinous," Robert Capers, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said at a news conference today. "They were beaten to death in the street with machetes and bats over seemingly nothing and left in the streets or in the backyard of a house to die. These were terribly heinous crimes."
    abcnews.go.com/US/suspected-ms-13-gang-members-arrested-connection-long/story?id=45855542

    According to the Veterans Affairs Office, roughly 20 veterans commit suicide every day.

    Yes.. Veterans suffering from PTSD with accompanying suicidal thoughts would be ineligible to re-enlist in the US Military.

    What's your point??

    By your own standards, no cis gender males would qualify for military service. You want to attack all trans people for those who have had suicidal thoughts.

    No, I want to insure we have the best fighting force we can have.. And that means excluding certain groups that could be detrimental to the mission..

    Seeing how you don't post where these stats come from, they disqualify themselves.

    Another gem I can repost to counter every argument ya'all make.. :D

    http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/USTS-Full-Report-FINAL.PDF

    What you don't get, what ALL of you don't get is that the US Military doesn't exist to make trans people feel good about themselves..

    Social empowerment **IS NOT** a mission of the United States Military..

    Bigots gonna hate, you have made that crystal clear!

    No matter how many times you tell the lie that it's about bigotry, it still won't make the FACTS go away...

    As a group, trans Americans are not fit to serve in the United States Military...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    Social empowerment **IS NOT** a mission of the United States Military..

    This is fact...

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    We are like Trump?

    That's what the facts clearly show... :D

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    Where is the proof that this happened? Haven't read about any teens in this country being tortured to death by gangs recently, have you?

    Yer kidding, right??

    You really need to expand your reading horizons beyond WaPoop, HuffPoop and DailyShit.... :D

    Seeing how you don't post where these stats come from, they disqualify themselves.

    Another gem I can repost to counter every argument ya'all make.. :D

    I actually like this one better because it doesn't require any hateful bigoted name-calling. :D

    Instead of commenting "Cite??", I can post "Seeing how you don't post where these stats come from, they disqualify themselves." every time ya'all post BS and try to pass it off as fact.. :D

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    By your own standards, no cis gender males would qualify for military service. You want to attack all trans people for those who have had suicidal thoughts.

    And you want to give the entire group a pass because of a few that allegedly never had any problems in the military..

    Again, what's your point???

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Wikileaks, one of the sites being affected, has never been shown to have published a single document that was not verifiably authentic.

    That, of course, misses the point.

    I thought *FACTS* were ALWAYS the point???

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    You are arguing a group that has already demonstrated that they can be valued members of our military shouldn't be given the chance based on prejudices.

    Consider the "group" of Americans convicted of violent felonies...

    That "group" would be disqualified from serving in the US Armed Forces...

    This is prudent, logical and rational, as I am sure everyone here would agree..

    Yet, it could also be accurately described as "bigotry", "discrimination" and "unfair"...

    Further, the mere fact that some members of that "group" have hid their membership in that "group" and have had successful careers in the US Military in *NO WAY* diminishes the logic and rationale of denying members of that "group" enlistment in the US Military...

    There is no concept of "bigotry" or "discrimination" or "fair" when it comes to enlistment in the United States Military..

    The is only ONE priority... The mission and how best to accomplish it..

    *ANY* group where 82% of it's members have suicidal thoughts SHOULD be banned from enlistment in the United States Military..

    ***ANY*** group...

    *ANY* group where there is such rampant drug use SHOULD be banned from the United States Military..

    ***ANY*** group...

    Bigotry has nothing to do with it...

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:
  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    Just like Obama wanted to "Police Academy"-ify the nation's police departments.....

    Ya'all want to "Police Academy"-ify the United States Military..

    Which is GREAT...

    IF you want a military on par with Venezuela or Somalia...

    But patriotic Americans don't want that... And I question the patriotism of ANY American that DOES want that...

  59. [59] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    What you don't get, what ALL of you don't get is that the US Military doesn't exist to make trans people feel good about themselves..

    Social empowerment **IS NOT** a mission of the United States Military..

    Who the hell suggested that trans people were only being allowed to serve to help boost their self-esteem??? Oh yeah, that was YOU!

    And you want to give the entire group a pass because of a few that allegedly never had any problems in the military..

    Again, what's your point???

    Way to twist the truth into your bullshit-bigotry! I never suggested or even hinted that I felt that trans individuals who do not meet the military's standards for enlistment should still be allowed to serve. I am saying that you are openly discriminating against individuals who have every right to serve their country and you do this based on your lumping every trans person into one group.

    It is odd that you believe that our military is incapable of performing standard psyche exams to weed out those that shouldn't be allowed to serve because they don't meet military standards.

    You are the one claiming that all trans individuals should be viewed as suicidal, HIV positive drug addicts that are ONLY seeking to serve in the military because it will make them feel better about themselves.

    That is why I keep saying that your comments are those of a bigot... Because they are! Trust me, I would love to stop having to point these things out to you, but that is going to be up to you as to when that happens!

    Tell me again how you know more about who should be allowed to serve than the our military leaders do? Your whole argument is that transgender individuals cannot handle serving in our military because of the stigmas and hardships associated with a person being trans. But you don't offer any proof that those already serving are failing.

    Your refusal to view the evidence that is out there showing that trans individuals are able to serve honorably in favor of making unsupported assumptions based in rhetoric for why trans people would fail if they were allowed to serve -- ignoring the sacrifices made by them in the service of our country and acting like they have never been allowed to serve -- is BIGOTRY!

    Your arguments are similar to those made in the past that claimed allowing blacks, women, Muslims, and gays to serve would surely result in the complete and utter destruction of all branches of our military! Surprise! Somehow our military still survives despite the narrow minded, insecure, fear-mongering.

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Who the hell suggested that trans people were only being allowed to serve to help boost their self-esteem??? Oh yeah, that was YOU!

    So, you agree with me that the "feelings" of trans people do NOT enter into the picture whatsoever...

    Way to twist the truth into your bullshit-bigotry! I never suggested or even hinted that I felt that trans individuals who do not meet the military's standards for enlistment should still be allowed to serve. I am saying that you are openly discriminating against individuals who have every right to serve their country and you do this based on your lumping every trans person into one group.

    See my Violent Felons Group example..

    Your arguments are similar to those made in the past that claimed allowing blacks, women, Muslims, and gays to serve would surely result in the complete and utter destruction of all branches of our military!

    82% of Blacks, women, muslim OR gays do not contemplate suicide...

    That alone is sufficient to bar *ANY* group from service in the US military..

    I provided you with FACTS to support the stats I posted.

    Do you have ANYTHING to refute those facts??

    No, you do not...

    Tell me again how you know more about who should be allowed to serve than the our military leaders do?

    You mean the military leaders that fully support the trans ban???

    Your ENTIRE argument is based in emotion..

    "OH MY GODS, THINK OF THE TRANNIES!!!!!"

    *ANY* military person who supports allowing trans Americans into the US Military is stating a POLITICALLY CORRECT position that has little to do with reality..

    Knowing that 82% of trans have contemplated suicide, ANY military member would be thinking, "Is this the mission that he/she/whatever decides to end it all??"

    It's not bigotry if one is consistent and not singling out a specific group...

    *ANY* group where 82% of it contemplates suicide is a group that should be banned from serving in the US Military..

    THAT is a fact that you simply cannot refute because you have absolutely NO knowledge of the military to back it up...

    As I said above.. Near as I can tell, LB is the only one here who can even HOPE to debate this issue logically and rationally w/o relying on emotion.. And even then unless he's seen combat, he would still be at a disadvantage... No offense, LB....

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    That is why I keep saying that your comments are those of a bigot... Because they are!

    That's your opinion, but it's an opinion devoid of facts or reality..

    I would be making the EXACT same argument against a group of violent felons, a group of hare kirshnas, a group of mormon priests or a group of 25 year olds...

    *ANY* group where 82% of it's members have contemplated suicide should be barred from US Military service..

    How, EXACTLY is that bigotry??

    And, even if it WERE the kind of bigotry you intimate it to be, so what!???

    We're talking about the men and women who defend our nation... I know ya'all want to Police Academy-ify our military but that just AIN'T going to happen..

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    Your refusal to view the evidence that is out there showing that trans individuals are able to serve honorably in favor of making unsupported assumptions based in rhetoric for why trans people would fail if they were allowed to serve -- ignoring the sacrifices made by them in the service of our country and acting like they have never been allowed to serve -- is BIGOTRY!

    No. It's a calm rational and logical assessment that a couple of exceptions does not mitigate the validity of the rule..

    Further, you continue to ASSUME that those trans that DO serve in the military are serving honorably and not causing any problems...

    Do you have *ANY* facts to support your claim??

    No you do not..

    And the fact that you DON'T have any facts to support your claim, totally invalidates your claim..

    Your rule, not mine..

    You can argue until the cows come home, but you are handicapped by TWO facts..

    1. You have no supporting facts to support your claim..

    2. You have no practical experience, expertise or training that would support you can speak with any authority..

    I, on the other hand, DO have supporting facts and am the acknowledged Weigantian authority on military matters..

    If trans Americans, as a group, can bring down their suicide and drug use stats to a level more in keeping with the general population, then they should be allowed to serve....

    Until that happens, barring them from military service is logical, rational and in the best interests of the United States..

    It's really THAT simple...

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    It is odd that you believe that our military is incapable of performing standard psyche exams to weed out those that shouldn't be allowed to serve because they don't meet military standards.

    OK..Now we're getting somewhere..

    Within the military, every restriction, every ban has a waiver process..

    So, what we do is this.

    We put a ban on tran Americans enlisting in the United States military..

    For those trans who DO want to serve, they can apply for a waiver and make their case why they should be given a waiver... Make their case as to why an exception should be made for them...

    Would you go for that???

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    I am guessing you WON'T go for this because it doesn't allow the Left Wingery to impose their agenda on everyone else..

    Which, at it's base, is what this is all about....

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    “any effort to go after Mueller could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency unless Mueller did something wrong.”
    -Lindsay Graham

    Mueller DID do something wrong..

    Ergo, firing Mueller is not only acceptable, it's imperative...

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:
  67. [67] 
    TheStig wrote:

    New Ben & Jerry flavor: Very Scary Moochie:

    Persimmon, absinthe and tic tacs for crunch. No cone, no cup, served "in ya face mudda fukka." Short shelf life, limited time only.

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    The Left cannot produce fake news??? That sounds a lot like when an African American claims that they cannot be racist; only whites are racists.

    Newsflash for you.. Several Weigantians have stated EXACTLY that..

    That racism derives from "power" and since black people don't have any power, they CAN'T be racist...

    I know, I know.. It's ridiculous...

    Did you read about the Florida State Attorney who accused a Trooper of pulling her over because she was black??

    Turns out the trooper was ALSO black and he pulled her over because the tint on her windows was too dark to see inside..

    So it must have been telepathic racism.. :^/

    What will liberals come up with next??

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M [67]: When did we decide that it was going to be 'bigotry week' here at Weigentia? Oh, that's right, this all comes from a Trump tweet.

    Another completely unnecessary distraction.

    I, for one, won't be played this way, and I won't be one of Trump's toy soldiers. I'm setting down my green plastic gun and getting out of the sandbox.

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    M [67]: When did we decide that it was going to be 'bigotry week' here at Weigentia? Oh, that's right, this all comes from a Trump tweet.

    Call it bigotry all you want..

    But FACTS are facts.. And you have NO facts to support the hysterical BIGOTRY accusation..

    I, for one, won't be played this way,

    Too late.. You DID just get played.. :D

    I'm setting down my green plastic gun and getting out of the sandbox.

    That's what lusers usually do.. :D

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    ANY group that has 82% suicide contemplation is not fit for military service..

    Where is the bigotry???

    Answer: Nowhere...

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    M [67]: When did we decide that it was going to be 'bigotry week' here at Weigentia?

    When did you decide to cite STIG's comment and blame his bigotry on me??

    [67] TheStig wrote:
    New Ben & Jerry flavor: Very Scary Moochie:

    Persimmon, absinthe and tic tacs for crunch. No cone, no cup, served "in ya face mudda fukka." Short shelf life, limited time only.

    Quit being lazy and quote the frakin' relevant portion!!

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Another completely unnecessary distraction.

    WHich didn't stop ya'all with that Coffevee bullshit..

    Trump farts and ya'all get hysterical...

    "Ya wouldn't START none, there wouldn't BE none..."
    -Will Smith, INDEPENDENCE DAY

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    When did we decide that it was going to be 'bigotry week' here at Weigentia?

    I am also constrained to point out that, what with all of ya'all's expressed hatred towards and attacks on Republicans and Trump supporters....

    EVERY week is "Bigotry Week" around here....

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    EVERY week is "Bigotry Week" around here....

    And, that is why I have long since begun to really hate this place.

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    And, that is why I have long since begun to really hate this place.

    Awwwwww.. "Hate" is such a strong word.....

    :D

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    It would be nice if people (myself included) could be calm and rational and not wallow in hysterical hate...

    But, we have the blog we have, not the blog we wish we had...

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It is time for Americans with even a shred of human decency to call for the resignation or impeachment of President Trump.

    The time has long gone for simply calling him a loser or the euphemistic agent of chaos. Unless, of course, Americans are fine with their country slipping into irrelevancy.

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Trump is either good for the country or bad for the country.

    Time to take a stand, one way or the other ...

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This isn't funny, anymore, in other words.

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, we have the blog we have, not the blog we wish we had...

    I copied that because, number one ... it's worth repeating. And, number two, it's an awfully defeatist attitude which, I would say, used to be un-American ...

  82. [82] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Balthazar, Liz

    The bigotry is just Trollfoolery, and I personally feel there is simply no good no reason to read it, respond to it, or be offended by it. At a certain point, enough is enough. I block the bigotry channel with Tampermonkey. It is not a character flaw to do that. You have the absolute right not to waste your time responding malicious idiocy....you are judge jury and executioner in that matter. If the Troll is offended he can block you. You should be so lucky! :)

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    The bigotry is just Trollfoolery, and I personally feel there is simply no good no reason to read it, respond to it, or be offended by it.

    TRANSLATION: Liberals CAN'T be bigoted...

    :^/

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    TS

    Quit trying to ignore me and ignore me..

    :D

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    It is time for Americans with even a shred of human decency to call for the resignation or impeachment of President Trump.

    Nullify a legal, fair and free election???

    On what grounds???

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    The bigotry is just Trollfoolery, and I personally feel there is simply no good reason to read it, respond to it, or be offended by it.

    You make a good point.

    But, trollfoolery or something more insidious, it is making the comments section of this blog increasingly tedious and repulsive. And, THAT is what concerns me.

  87. [87] 
    michale wrote:

    The time has long gone for simply calling him a loser or the euphemistic agent of chaos. Unless, of course, Americans are fine with their country slipping into irrelevancy.

    America is fine with you thinking that America is slipping into irrelevancy... :D

    This isn't funny, anymore, in other words.

    Left Wingers trying to nullify a free, fair and legal election was NEVER funny...

    It's always been just sad...

    Ya'all made such a big HUGE deal about Trump not honoring the results of the election..

    Come to find out that it's YA'ALL who refuse to honor the results of the election..

    Howz THAT for irony.. :D

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    On the grounds that Trump doesn't know how to do his job.

    I know you would agree that incompetence is grounds enough for dismissal.

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This isn't about honouring the results of an election, Michale. Trump won, as fair and square as any American presidential election can be.

    This is about removing from office someone who is clearly not qualified or otherwise fit for the job.

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    America is fine with you thinking that America is slipping into irrelevancy... :D

    Well, Michale, that, in a nutshell, is why America is in such rapid decline.

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    On the grounds that Trump doesn't know how to do his job.

    I know you would agree that incompetence is grounds enough for dismissal.

    No, it is not...

    Because WHO decides????

    Put another way.. Republicans were in total agreement that Obama was incompetent.. Would you be OK if they nullified the 2008 election based on this??

    Of course not..

    Ya'all's problem is that you simply CAN'T see the other side of the issue...

    Yer right and that's that...

    Well, Michale, that, in a nutshell, is why America is in such rapid decline.

    That's your opinion and I have OODLES of facts that show you are wrong...

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    This is about removing from office someone who is clearly not qualified or otherwise fit for the job.

    Obama was "clearly not qualified or otherwise fit for the job"...

    Would you have supported his removal??

    Of course not..

    This isn't about honouring the results of an election, Michale.

    That is *EXACTLY* what it is about..

    Say you get your way and Trump is removed and Pence becomes President..

    And then PENCE does things ya'all don't like..

    What then?? Remove Pence???

    Do you HONESTLY believe that is how things should go??

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obama wasn't incompetent and neither was his White House nor the rest of his administration.

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Pence would be a step or two up from Trump and, if he proves to be just as incompetent, I would hope that he would lose should he decide to run for re-election in 2020.

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, when did you become a fan of sheer incompetence?

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    Anyone who is advocating removing President Trump from office is advocating an illegal coup....

    Now, if YA'ALL want to go on record for that, be my guest..

    But I can GUARANTEE ya'all that you WON'T like where that roads leads..

    It's the golden rule...

    Whoever has the guns makes the rules...

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale, when did you become a fan of sheer incompetence?

    I am not..

    I am just a bigger fan AGAINST illegal coups...

    Obama wasn't incompetent and neither was his White House nor the rest of his administration

    In YOUR opinion..

    GOP felt different..

    And their opinion then is JUST as valid as your opinion now..

    Pence would be a step or two up from Trump and, if he proves to be just as incompetent,

    You say that NOW... But when President Pence does something you don't like, you call it incompetence and then you want HIM removed...

    Then what??

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    "Will no one rid me of this troublesome President"
    -Weigantians

    Ya'all are traveling down a very dangerous road...

    And I can guarantee ya'all won't like where it ends..

    The military is behind President Trump.. Law Enforcement is behind President Trump..

    Where ya'all gonna turn??

    Ghostbusters???

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And their opinion then is JUST as valid as your opinion now..

    That's where you go astray, Michale.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You say that NOW... But when President Pence does something you don't like, you call it incompetence and then you want HIM removed...

    You are confusing two concepts. Which, sadly, is so very par for the course here.

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm done with this thread, by the way.

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    Pence would be a step or two up from Trump and, if he proves to be just as incompetent, I would hope that he would lose should he decide to run for re-election in 2020.

    So, you are OK with incompetence until 2020, as long as it's not Trump...

    It's a moot point.. You can't remove a President and nullify a free, fair and legal election just because opposing Party members and Anti-Trumpers *THINK* the President is incompetent...

  103. [103] 
    michale wrote:

    That's where you go astray, Michale.

    Again, that's an opinion not reflective of reality..

    It comes from thinking that only the LEFT's opinion matters and the Right's don't matter at all..

    That is where YOU go astray...

    You are confusing two concepts. Which, sadly, is so very par for the course here.

    It's the exact same concept..

    Trump does something you don't like so you want him removed..

    Pence comes in and what's to stop you from wanting HIM removed when HE does something you don't like??

    Answer: Nothing...

    Tens of millions of Americans WANT Trump as President..

    You HAVE to accept that or it is you who becomes irrelevant..

    I'm done with this thread, by the way.

    That's another way to go...

  104. [104] 
    michale wrote:

    755 US diplomats must leave Russia: Putin
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/755-us-diplomats-must-leave-russia-putin-181315699.html

    Welcome to Cold War 2.0...

    Courtesy of the Democrat Party...

    Who woulda thunked that the DEMOCRAT Party would be the war-monger Party...

  105. [105] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Politico: "Mulvaney said that 'yes, it's official White House policy that the Senate shouldn't hold a vote on another issue — not even an imminent crisis like raising the debt ceiling— until the Senate votes again on health care."

    Doesn't Article II give the Excecutive the authority to demand the Legislature suspend other business until they accomplish what the President wants?

    Hmm. Just checked, and I'm right. It doesn't.

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all's problem is that you are judging President Trump by the litmus test of a generic run o' the mill REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT President..

    President Trump simply CANNOT be put into that mold so ya'all freak and advocate "ultimate" solutions and such hysterical garbage like that...

    For those of us who live OUTSIDE the Dem/GOP box, President Trump is doing an awesome job..

    And OUR opinions are as valid as ya'all's..

    Actually, OUR opinions are even MORE valid because..

    WE WON...

    Ya'all lost..

    It's time to accept that...

    If ya can't, then by all means.. Continue to advocate coups and removals and all sorts of hysterical violence.. Hodgkison tried that and look how well THAT worked out for him..

    Trump is President...

    That is the beginning and the end of ANY discussion...

    Whine, bitch, moan, throw tantrums and advocate coups and illegal activities all you want..

    But the end result is the same..

    TRUMP is the President of the United States..

    That's the reality...

    Deal with it...

    Legally....

    If you advocate illegal and criminal action??

    Then ya'all will have to accept the consequences...

    It's THAT simple...

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    Deal with it...

    Legally....

    And removing a POTUS simply because you THINK he is incompetent is as illegal as it gets....

  108. [108] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [97] And I can guarantee ya'all won't like where it ends..
    The military is behind President Trump.. Law Enforcement is behind President Trump..
    Where ya'all gonna turn??

    You're scaring me here. Even if those statements are fact, your implication is neither the position of a patriot, nor, in particular, of a conservative.

    Nobody here is talking about a "soft coup" or whatever the echo chamber calls. They're either talking about a president they see as increasingly unstable, or a situation in which a president violated federal laws or, even worse, his oath. There's ample reason, even just among the public discoveries, to suspect either or both, and to hold those opinions.

    A "just the facts, ma'm" defense doesn't work against that. You don't think Pence fantasy football isn't a big topic in Georgetown, among partisans of all stripes, including Trumpers?

    Are you implying that if people hold to those opinions and suspicions, such will be handled by force, because the military and the police will do Trump's bidding?

    Are you implying that if Trump is removed from office, on the basis of facts which arose from counter-intel and criminal financial investigations, that he would be kept in power by those forces?

    If you are, either one is CREEPy.

  109. [109] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I seems you clarified from the time I read your comments I then referenced in the last comment. I had an intervening call that went on. And on.

    I'm not now pissed off as I was, but I gotta say, this country, in truth, is way too close to splitting apart. Partisan rhetoric close to the line is not cool anymore, on either side.

  110. [110] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    WARNING: unredacted language ahead

    CW wrote: Mooch also accuses Steve Bannon of being able to perform (as the genteel folks at CBS News put it) "self-fellatio." #Winning!

    But I found the actual accusation that Mooch was leveling against Bannon to be far more interesting. Quoting the original Ryan Lizza article:

    Scaramucci also told me that, unlike other senior officials, he had no interest in media attention. “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.”

    My question is, what exactly is the Mooch accusing Bannon of 'building' over in his White House office? What has Bannon been up to that leads the Mooch to characterize it that way? Is this where the rumours of Trump 'going rogue' from the GOP are coming from?

    But Scaramucci isn't a party loyalist, he's a recent convert - he was endorsing Clinton as late as 2015. No wonder Priebus was wary of him. Moreover, his only previous experience in media was as a talking head on financial shows, and as co-host of a resurrected "Wall Street Week". Hardly the credentials one would apply to the job of 'liason to the world press', but it strongly suggests that a major factor in his hire was that Trump had liked him on TV.

    Will he butt heads with Bannon? I predict he will. He's richer than Bannon, and less ideological. Trump, on the other hand, has no loyalty to anyone other than himself and his family. Neither man can be sure that Trump won't turn on him without notice.

    So who needs 'GOT' when we have this going on every day? Intrigue indeed!

  111. [111] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Yes, the use of "CREEP" above was a pun using the acronym for Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President.

    That brought back memories of Senator Ervin plucking apart Halderman as the money was followed flowing to the campaign. Here's a video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNsnvzFf40U

    It's nine minutes of Senate testimony, recorded by C-Span. It shows simple bumbling country lawyer Sam's finger as he reads from the Constitution. At 8:50 on the video is one of his legendary questions. He preambled how he unfortunately hadn't been born yesterday, been around political organizations for a long time, and never had seen one that was a eleemosynary organization. Then he asks Halderman if he thought that the Committee to Re-Elect was one.

  112. [112] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Ah, that exchange is about 8:30 on the video. Hell, take ten minutes while you're eating a snack and watch the whole thing.

    Gotta turn up the volume though. That was pre-digital-era original, degrading film recording.

    Crank up the woofers.

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    LB,

    Nobody here is talking about a "soft coup"

    That's exactly what people are talking..

    Removing a sitting POTUS simply because they think he is incompetent..

    You're scaring me here. Even if those statements are fact, your implication is neither the position of a patriot, nor, in particular, of a conservative.

    That's because I am NOT a conservative...

    But I AM a patriot. And if people are advocating the illegal removal of a sitting POTUS, then I am simply warning the likely consequence of that attempt..

    Are you implying that if people hold to those opinions and suspicions, such will be handled by force, because the military and the police will do Trump's bidding?

    No, I am stating that if people take ACTIONS based on those opinions and suspicions as it appears they want to do, that the police and military will back the legally, fairly and legitimately elected President Of The United States... This is factual...

    HAVING those opinions is no big deal.. ARTICULATING those opinions is also no big deal..

    Advocating illegal action based on those opinions *IS* a big deal....

    And the response would ALSO be a big deal..

    That's all I am saying..

    Are you implying that if Trump is removed from office, on the basis of facts which arose from counter-intel and criminal financial investigations, that he would be kept in power by those forces?

    I am saying if it is attempted that Trump be removed from office illegally, then those forces will act to preserve the legal, legitimate and fairly elected President Of The United States...

    If the Left doesn't advocate illegally removing President Trump, then there is nothing to fear...

    But trying to remove the President JUST BECAUSE they *think* he is incompetent??

    THAT is illegal..

    Just as it would have been illegal if the GOP attempted to remove Obama because they felt that Obama was incompetent..

    Imagine the bloodshed if THAT would have happened, eh?? :^/

    I seems you clarified from the time I read your comments I then referenced in the last comment.

    I sometimes take a few comments to crystallize my thoughts. :D Sorry about that.

    I guess I could have forgone all of the afore, then.. I hope my above clarification was actually MORE clarifying... :D

    I'm not now pissed off as I was,

    That's good because you are one of the very FEW (2) people I would HATE to piss off.. :D

    but I gotta say, this country, in truth, is way too close to splitting apart. Partisan rhetoric close to the line is not cool anymore, on either side.

    We passed THAT line a long time ago and I can pinpoint to you EXACTLY when it happened..

    It was when Democrats accused the GOP of being terrorists, SOLELY because of a partisan difference of opinion..

    Once that point was reached, there was no going back..

    That point was escalated when Hodgkison went on a GOP Hunt bender and there were many Left Wingers, including some Weigantians, who felt that the attack was "deserved"....

    Considering the total and complete HYSTERIA of the Left & Right Anti-Trumpers??

    It's going to get worse before it gets better..

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    For the record.. I don't think Liz, personally, was advocating a coup... She was just venting in frustration...

    But the fact is, THAT kind of rhetoric is catching hold and where it leads is no where nice..

    Put another way..

    If I were to pose the question.......

    "Do you support the removal of President Trump by any means necessary?"

    ... I am willing to wager that, if I got HONEST answers, there would be at LEAST a half dozen who would say....

    "Yes sir. Drop that fucker! Twice!!"
    -Gene Hackman, CRIMSON TIDE

    Keep in mind that this election there were MANY on the Left advocating impeachment *AND* assassination even before President Trump was sworn in...

  115. [115] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    109 - Will he butt heads with Bannon?

    I was actually thinking of Scaramucci when thinking back to Halderman. They both, as the pundits are saying now of the former, were windows to their president's "id." BTW, Krauthammer had "tweets are the window to Trump's id" a month ago. Halderman was also the Chief of Staff, and also the High Executioner.

    I would guess that Bannon's philosophy doesn't mean all that much to the President right now. This other guy is cut from the same cloth as many of the guys who were loyal to the President back when he was the Boss.

    Loyalty matters. So does the gut feeling telling you if someone is capable of loyalty as you understand the term.

  116. [116] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz-85

    "trollfoolery or something more insidious, it is making the comments section of this blog increasingly tedious and repulsive.

    I agree. However, I don't think repetitive debate or denunciation of trolls and their sophistry makes the comments environment any better. In fact, I think it probably makes it worse. Trolls live for the sake of argument and sophistry. Don't feed their need.

    I can tell you that the most rudimentary blocking cuts the number of lines in the comments section by about 50%, more or less, on any given day. Reading the comments is a breeze.

    Blocking is not a perfect solution, but for me at least, it really improves the comments section.

  117. [117] 
    michael wrote:

    Blocking is not a perfect solution, but for me at least, it really improves the comments section.

    Of course..

    Self-delusion ALWAYS improves EVERYTHING..

    To the person who is deluding themselves...

    Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nyaaa Nyaaaa Nyaaaa I'm not listening to you" always improves things..

    When yer 6 years old... :D

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blocking is not a perfect solution, but for me at least, it really improves the comments section.

    Of course..

    Self-delusion ALWAYS improves EVERYTHING..

    To the person who is deluding themselves...

    Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nyaaa Nyaaaa Nyaaaa I'm not listening to you" always improves things..

    When yer 6 years old...

  119. [119] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I would guess that Bannon's philosophy doesn't mean all that much to the President right now.

    Exactly Scaramucci's point. But Bannon is protected by the Mercers because his being there advances the larger cause to which Bob Mercer has donated millions, including lending out his data mining firm, Cambridge Analytica, to both Nigel Farage (for Brexit) and the Trump campaign. His daughter Rebekah was on Trump's Transition Executive Committee. My guess is that Bannon isn't going anywhere, soon.

    This other guy is cut from the same cloth as many of the guys who were loyal to the President back when he was the Boss.

    Sorta. He's from Long Island, but he's no wise guy - he's got a Harvard Law Degree, and is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum. He is the vice chair of the Kennedy Center Corporate Fund Board and a trustee of the United States Olympic & Paralympic Foundation. Prior to taking the White House job, Scaramucci was named senior vice president and chief strategy officer for the U.S. Export-Import Bank. He was also still under consideration for a post as ambassador to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Do you really think his goal is to be Trump's Press Secretary?

    So right now, Mooch is cleaning up Trump's messaging mess, and trying to flatter and channel Trump in the process, but my guess is that his ultimate goal is to be President of the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, I swear to god.

  120. [120] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    *ANY* group where 82% of it's members have suicidal thoughts SHOULD be banned from enlistment in the United States Military..

    You want to tell me exactly where in the survey this stat can be found? Also, how many service members do you think believe that if they have suicidal thoughts they cannot tell anyone because of this attitude you are so proudly stating as being FACTUAL???

    Page 10 lists under Psychological Distress and Attempted Suicide

    • Thirty-nine percent (39%) of respondents experienced serious psychological distress in the month before completing the survey (based on the Kessler 6 Psychological Distress Scale), compared with only 5% of the U.S. population.
    • Forty percent (40%) have attempted suicide in their lifetime, nearly nine times the rate in the U.S. population (4.6%).
    • Seven percent (7%) attempted suicide in the past year—nearly twelve times the rate in the U.S. population (0.6%).

    Let me guess, you read the stats about trans- suicide in some article bashing trans people that linked the full survey as its source, but you never actually read the survey, is that it?

    Because if you had read the full report you might have noticed the acknowledgement of the authors that this survey is to be used to understand many of the issues facing the trans community, but that their findings are not meant to be used AGAINST members of the trans community!!! This is a survey, NOT scientifically/clinically verified findings that would stand up in court!

    Further, you continue to ASSUME that those trans that DO serve in the military are serving honorably and not causing any problems...

    Do you have *ANY* facts to support your claim??

    Yes, I do. The fact that we have approximately 12,000 - 15,000 active trans military personnel and up to 150,000 reservists that identify as trans is all the proof I need. It is up to you to prove that they are problems for the military.

    See my Violent Felons Group example..

    Yeah, that example would justify me referring to you simply as BIGOT from now on. Your false equivalency that being trans is somehow the same as someone who chooses to commit a felony crime is repulsive!

    That you fail to recognize this and your insistence on using it to defend multiple positions in your argument only makes it worse. Blaming them for being who they are simply because you do not understand it nor seem to care just reaffirms that you are a bigot where trans- people are concerned.

    Here is the part that truly disgusts me the most:

    It is the belief that those that have considered suicide should not be allowed to serve that is causing thousands of military personnel who are suffering from suicidal thoughts from seeking help! Congrats!

    The military has finally come to recognize this as a huge problem that they are working hard to currently address, which I would think someone who posts:

    I, on the other hand, DO have supporting facts and am the acknowledged Weigantian authority on military matters..

    ...would know.

  121. [121] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [118] - My guess is that Bannon isn't going anywhere, soon.

    Absolutely agree, for the reasons you cite, and more.
    On the other side, I didn't mean to suggest that Scaramucci was a made or even connected guy.

    He's a salesman. Way beyond the character played by Alex Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross. (Watch by putting watch?v=Q4PE2hSqVnk in a search engine; be advised it's Scaramucci-level profanity. Street level profanity. The way salesmen talk.) Way beyond that, a nine zero closer, selling funds of funds; he's at the top of the pyramid. We'll see if he's at the top of two pyramids if his deal actually closes.

    He's very smart, and has good, powerful friends, pre-dating and still reaching far beyond the favor of the President.

    My guess is that Scaramucci isn't going anywhere, soon, either.

  122. [122] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    47

    The censorship is being justified using the fake news argument.

    If Wikileaks isn't producing ANY fake news, the censorship is completely unjustified.

    A

  123. [123] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    41

    So, I'm trying to reconcile the "it isn't happening, but if it is, they deserve it" attitude about censorship of left leaning websites with your, I must say, excellent defense of trans folks in the military.

    The "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist..." speech by Niemoeller comes to mind in both cases... but only seems to matter to you in one of them.

    I don't understand.
    If unjustifiable persecution is wrong...

    A

  124. [124] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    LB [119] Gotta love Mamet.

    You're absolutely right about the Mooch. He's got an annual convention in Vegas that he's turned into Comic-con for hedge fund managers:

    https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/skybridge-comes-out-a-winner-in-las-vegas/

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    You want to tell me exactly where in the survey this stat can be found?

    I posted the PDF...

    Yes, I do. The fact that we have approximately 12,000 - 15,000 active trans military personnel and up to 150,000 reservists that identify as trans is all the proof I need. It is up to you to prove that they are problems for the military.

    No, it's not.. YOU made the claim that they have served honorably and with distinction...

    Your ENTIRE argument rest on this claim..

    You made the claim. You back it up...

    Yeah, that example would justify me referring to you simply as BIGOT from now on. Your false equivalency that being trans is somehow the same as someone who chooses to commit a felony crime is repulsive!

    It's not a false equivalency because it works for ANY group...

    That's what you don't get..

    ANY GROUP that has an 82% suicide contemplation rate is NOT eligible for service in the US Military..

    How can it be bigotry if it applies to ANY group??

    It's the EPITOME of fairness...

    It is the belief that those that have considered suicide should not be allowed to serve that is causing thousands of military personnel who are suffering from suicidal thoughts from seeking help! Congrats!

    Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the current discussion of whether or not trans Americans are fit to serve in the US Military...

    Let's finish this discussion, THEN we can move on to this other discussion...

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not a false equivalency because it works for ANY group...

    That's what you don't get..

    ANY GROUP that has an 82% suicide contemplation rate is NOT eligible for service in the US Military..

    How can it be bigotry if it applies to ANY group??

    It's the EPITOME of fairness...

    If you don't like the Violent Felons group, apply it to a different group..

    Blue Eyed Left Handed group.. If THAT group has an 82% suicide contemplation rate, then THAT group would be banned from service in the US Military..

    Weigantian Group. If Weigantians have an 82% suicide contemplation rate, then THAT group should be banned from military service..

    How can it be bigotry if I am applying the SAME standard to ANY group???

    Answer: It can't.. You're just getting your ass kicked on this debate so you lash out with childish name-calling and immature personal attacks..

    It's the Way Of The Weigantian... unfortunately...

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump is becoming a president without a party.

    From the start of his unconventional campaign two years ago, Trump has been more of a populist than a Republican, from his combative style to his protectionist stance on trade. His ability to reach voters drawn by his personal appeal rather than his party affiliation has been a source of political strength and possibility in a nation where allegiance to both Republicans and Democrats has eroded.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/07/30/analysis-can-president-without-party-govern/523535001/

    This is EXACTLY why ya'all are CONSTANTLY wrong about things Trump..

    Ya'all try to put him in the box of a conventional DEM/GOP POTUS and he simply DOES NOT fit...

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's the Way Of The Weigantian... unfortunately...

    Notable Exceptions Noted...

  129. [129] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Al,
    I never said that it was OK for Google to unjustly persecute these sites, my point was that they have yet to show that any persecution has taken place at all -- justly or unjustly.

    My point was that the websites complaints are based on their placement in the returns for searches made using only one word (either "socialism" or "socialist"). WSWS complained that many of their users don't bookmark their page, but use google search to get them to the site and they blamed their placement in search returns for the drop in traffic to their site. If their users enter a two word search or choose "WSWS" as their search term, the website shows up on the top of the return page. So I have a hard time accepting that Google is out to get them.

    Could it be that the drop in traffic is the result of people just not liking what they are offering? Of course not, because that never happens.

    Here's the other thing that bugs me regarding this whiney article, the sites were still showing up in the search returns; only they were pushed further down in the results list. And the article said that Google analytics showed that the site dropped from something like 14.9 to 35.6 in their placement on the results page for the one word search. Is that truly what you want to label as "censorship"? Because personally, that just seems like someone is looking for someone to blame for why their site isn't doing as well as it has in the past. When I hear the term "Censorship", I associate it with being excluded from the search results, not being on page 5 instead of page 3.

    I realize all big corporations are evil, but this fails to deserve being called an unjust persecution in my opinion.

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because if you had read the full report you might have noticed the acknowledgement of the authors that this survey is to be used to understand many of the issues facing the trans community, but that their findings are not meant to be used AGAINST members of the trans community!!! This is a survey, NOT scientifically/clinically verified findings that would stand up in court!

    So, let me see if I understand what you are saying..

    You are not disputing the FACTS of the survey...

    Your claim is that, because the survey was meant to SUPPORT and help the trans American community, it cannot be used AGAINST the trans American community...

    Is that REALLY your claim!!

    So, in other words, FACTS don't matter one iota... PROCEDURE is paramount...

    Do you comprehend how utterly RIDICULOUS that argument is???

    Do you know what DISCOVERY is?? I mean in the legal/lawsuit context, not in the Star Trek context.. :D

    "Your honor, I gave opposing counsel all those documents and facts in an attempt to HELP my case and opposing counsel is using the facts and documents to HURT my case. This is grossly unfair and improper and I demand opposing counsel be admonished for this illegal and heinous action and taken out and shot!"

    :D

    Com'on Russ. That's one of your LAMEST arguments and THAT says something..

    It doesn't matter what the INTENT of the study was..

    The *ONLY* thing that matters is the facts contained within the report...

    And those facts CLEARLY show that, as a group, trans Americans are unfit to serve in the United States Military..

    The fact that some members of that unfit group have slipped thru the cracks and have allegedly served honorably and with distinction does not negate the validity of the ban...

    A broken analog watch is correct twice a day.. That doesn't mean I am going to take that watch into combat where timing is the difference between life and death for hundreds of soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines..

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    And those facts CLEARLY show that, as a group, trans Americans are unfit to serve in the United States Military..

    Trans Americans is too lengthy to type out..

    In the interests of brevity, can we just use the term Trans Ams?? :D

    heh....

    "I crack myself up.."
    -Goose, TOP GUN

    :D

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Could it be that the drop in traffic is the result of people just not liking what they are offering? Of course not, because that never happens.

    "There is mimicry and there is mockery and THAT was definitely mockery."
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, YESTERDAY'S SON

    :D

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:
  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    These Ohio Voters Made Trump President. They're Still With Him
    http://time.com/4873955/donald-trump-youngstown-ohio-support/?xid=homepage

    You see, that is what ya'all don't get...

    Frak the Democrats, frak the Republicans frak everyone who wants to protect the DC Swamp..

    Patriotic Americans are behind President Trump 1000%.....

    And ya'all will continue to ignore that support, EXACTLY like ya'all did in the run-up to the 2106 election and ya'all will CONTINUE to get ya'all's ass handed to you....

    Ya'all just don't get it... And likely never will...

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, I do. The fact that we have approximately 12,000 - 15,000 active trans military personnel and up to 150,000 reservists that identify as trans is all the proof I need. It is up to you to prove that they are problems for the military.

    No, it's not.. YOU made the claim that they have served honorably and with distinction...

    Your ENTIRE argument rest on this claim..

    You made the claim. You back it up...

    Just to save you some work, it won't matter even if you DO find that one or two or three or five have served honorably and with distinction..

    Because one or two (or three or five) exceptions do not negate the validity of the rule...

    And the rule is that 82% of said group has contemplated suicide...

    And THAT fact unequivocally and w/o ambiguity would disqualify **ANY** group from service in the US military...

    You can't win this argument, Russ...

    Get some military ringer in here to make your case.. :D

  136. [136] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale

    I posted the PDF...

    And I posted what information was listed in the PDF regarding the topic of suicide. So I was correct that you didn't read it. I cannot find anywhere in that PDF where it claims 82% of all trans people have had thoughts of suicide.

    ANY GROUP that has an 82% suicide contemplation rate is NOT eligible for service in the US Military..

    You haven't shown that to be true. Even if 82% of those people surveyed claimed to have contemplated suicide, that doesn't mean that 82% of all trans individuals have contemplated suicide! Your "group" consists only of people that took the survey.

    So there is no reason for me to continue this conversation if you are just creating numbers in your head.

    It wouldn't matter if 100% of those surveyed said they had considered suicide at some point in their lives, because this is a survey. It carries no weight scientifically or legally!

    Your bigotry continues to show.

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I posted what information was listed in the PDF regarding the topic of suicide. So I was correct that you didn't read it. I cannot find anywhere in that PDF where it claims 82% of all trans people have had thoughts of suicide.

    Why should I bother proving you wrong??

    You never concede it.

    You were wrong on the gang murders where innocent girls were hacked to death by gang bangers..

    Did you acknowledge you were wrong???

    No..

    So, tell me.. Why should I bother???

    It wouldn't matter if 100% of those surveyed said they had considered suicide at some point in their lives, because this is a survey. It carries no weight scientifically or legally!

    ONLY because it says what you don't want to hear...

    If this survey said that the percentage of suicide contemplation was LOWER than the national average, you would be touting it to the high heavens as PROOF POSITIVE that TransAms can serve...

    Your bigotry continues to show.

    And your ignorance continues to show..

    How can it be bigotry if it applies to all groups equally???

    Further, how do you explain the fact that, even if it IS bigotry, it's irrelevant to service in the US military...

    Answer: You CAN'T explain it, ergo you just ignore it and hope it goes away.. :D

    Com'on. You know me better than that!! :D

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    More interesting facts about TransAms...

    Over 70% of the group have actually tried to commit suicide more than once...

    Almost 50% of the group have actually tried to commit suicide three times or more...

    And you SERIOUSLY think that TransAms have their shit together enough to serve in the US military!!????

    You must live in a state where marijuana is legal because you are as high as a kite if you believe that, as a group, TransAms are fit to serve in the US military...

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    So I was correct that you didn't read it.

    "No studying... hurrumph..."
    -Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:
  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your bigotry continues to show.

    But it's interesting...

    I have the facts on my side but, because you think I am being a bigot, the facts don't matter..

    JL, you wanna weigh in on this?? :D

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Eight DAZs were established a year ago to keep the costumed creatures literally in line after a series of ugly incidents, including a Spider-Man who wouldn’t let go of a 13-year-old kid until the father paid $10 and a Batman who snatched a $50 bill from an Irish tourist’s wallet.

    The law-enforcement source added that past proposals to license the creatures went nowhere because most of the panhandlers are illegal immigrants and they wouldn’t register anyway. Besides, the administration at City Hall isn’t interested in going after illegals in this capacity, the source said.
    http://nypost.com/2017/07/30/desnudas-have-gone-wild-in-times-square/

    Once again, illegal immigrants flout the law and attack innocent people, including children and a Democrat refuses to do ANYTHING to protect his constituents..

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, I'm trying to reconcile the "it isn't happening, but if it is, they deserve it" attitude about censorship of left leaning websites with your, I must say, excellent defense of trans folks in the military.

    If by "excellent" defense, you mean running away because he can't refute the FACTS..

    Yes..

    He's doing an "excellent" defense of TransAms :D

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I posted what information was listed in the PDF regarding the topic of suicide. So I was correct that you didn't read it. I cannot find anywhere in that PDF where it claims 82% of all trans people have had thoughts of suicide.

    KEY FINDINGS

    Forty percent (40%) of respondents have attempted suicide at some point in their life, compared to 4.6% in the U.S. population.

    Forty-eight percent (48%) of respondents have seriously thought about killing themselves in the past year, compared to 4% of the U.S. population, and 82% have had serious thoughts about killing themselves at some point in their life.

    Nearly one-quarter (24%) of respondents made plans to kill themselves in the past year, compared to 1.1% of the U.S. population.

    Seven percent (7%) of respondents attempted suicide in the past year, compared to 0.6% in the U.S. population.

    More than two-thirds (71%) of respondents who have attempted suicide have done so more than once in their lifetime, with 46% of those who have attempted suicide reporting three or more attempts.
    -PAGE 112
    http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/USTS-Full-Report-FINAL.PDF

    Do you want to concede you were wrong???

    No???

    Didna think so... :D

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    It wouldn't matter if 100% of those surveyed said they had considered suicide at some point in their lives, because this is a survey. It carries no weight scientifically or legally!

    OK, fair enough.. THAT is a logical argument..

    Of course, we both know that if the survey had gone YOUR way, you would be touting it to the high heavens...

    But, let's go with the argument you are making rather than the reality of your thinking.....

    Your right.. This one survey in and of itself is not conclusive...

    So, what needs to happen is this..

    A ban on TransAms needs to be instituted within the United States Military until such time as a comprehensive study can be done that addresses the issue of suicide contemplation amongst TransAms and their fitness to serve in the US Military...

    Said ban would have a waiver program in place where TranAms can submit to closer scrutiny to determine their fitness to serve in the US Military on a case-by-case basis...

    Would you agree with this??

    Of course not.. Because you don't give a rat's ass about the US Military or this country..

    All you want to do is push your Party/Ideological agenda at ANY cost...

    Now, get me someone who has served in the military and has seen combat to debate this issue...

    Debating someone who is completely ignorant of the issue is like dynamiting fish in a barrel..

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, get me someone who has served in the military and has seen combat to debate this issue...

    Debating someone who is completely ignorant of the issue is like dynamiting fish in a barrel..

    "Jesus, you can be such an arrogant prick, ya know that!!"
    -Weigantians

    Hi, I'm Michale. Nice ta meetcha... :D

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump

    U.S. Companies Post Profit Growth Not Seen in Six Years
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-washington-stalls-company-profits-keep-trucking-1501423201

    Making America Great Again...

    Those who claim that President Trump hasn't accomplished anything are just betraying their Party/Ideological zealotry and are ignoring the facts and reality...

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    1,332 counties will only have one health insurer on ObamaCare exchange in 2018
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/31/1332-counties-will-only-have-one-health-insurer-on-obamacare-exchange-in-2018.html

    Yea... TrainWreckCare is *AWESOME*!!! :^/

  149. [149] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Bigot,

    Your entire argument hinged on stats that you claimed came from somewhere in a 20+ page report which you conveniently failed to specify which page it could be found on. The stats are fictional! I posted the section with the stats regarding suicide. Your refusal to acknowledge that the you never bothered to see if the stats you were quoting were actually in the report you claimed they were from demonstrates an intent to deceive.

    As far as I am concerned, you are lying about having ever served as well. I'm done having anything to do with you.

    And the next time a member of our military commits suicide, you be sure to send their widow a note telling them that their loved one shouldn't have been serving in the first place.

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your entire argument hinged on stats that you claimed came from somewhere in a 20+ page report which you conveniently failed to specify which page it could be found on.

    And your counter argument hinged on your claim that I did not read the report and the stats I quoted were wrong or non-existent..

    By your OWN rules, I just proved you are a lying troll...

    :D

    As far as I am concerned, you are lying about having ever served as well. I'm done having anything to do with you.

    RUN AWAY!!! RUN AWAY!!!!! :D

    And the next time a member of our military commits suicide, you be sure to send their widow a note telling them that their loved one shouldn't have been serving in the first place.

    And once again, you get your ass kicked on a debate and make up a totally nonsensical argument to soothe yer bruised and crushed ego...

    I accept your concession, Russ... :D

  151. [151] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    127

    I'm not following.
    You posted the numbers that showed the massive drop in search related visits and the drop in rankings which occurred directly after Google made the changes, and continue to try to claim other reasons, none of which are substantiated, are to blame... "Could it be that the drop in traffic is the result of people just not liking what they are offering?"
    Why are you offering alternate ideas for the results without any evidence, and dismissing the actual evidence... the search change as announced publicly by Google?
    That doesn't make any sense.

    "So I have a hard time accepting that Google is out to get them."

    You detailed the cause and effect yourself.
    The change Google made resulted in the massive drop.

    You didn't post a link to the article you're referencing, and I don't know that website, but here's what the initial article on WSWS itself said-

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/27/goog-j27.html

    Note that the ACLU and Amnesty International were also affected.

    And, while the article refers to searches related to "even just the word socialist", most searches are content related... and most of the journalism on WSWS is about current events, not socialism, so those searches shouldn't be affected... but they are.

    "the sites were still showing up in the search returns; only they were pushed further down in the results list. And the article said that Google analytics showed that the site dropped from something like 14.9 to 35.6 in their placement on the results page for the one word search. Is that truly what you want to label as "censorship"?

    It's not just one word searches, it's affecting all their searches, and if being pushed down in the search returns means fewer people see them, and it results in drastically fewer visits, that is effectively a means of censorship.

    If that was your website, and a change made by Google resulted in a 70% decline in search related visits, wouldn't you call shenanigans?

    If someone said, well, you're still getting 30% of the traffic so it's not censorship, would that make you accept that losing 70% is no big deal?

    I'll post a follow up article in a minute.

    A

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as I am concerned, you are lying about having ever served as well.

    And your ENTIRE assessment is based SOLELY on the *fact* that I just kicked your ass in a military-related debate..

    :D

  153. [153] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Re: 1,332 counties will only have one health insurer on ObamaCare exchange in 2018

    Do ya think the electorate will blame Democrats for this? Not after last week's fiasco. Statements that the Dems "own this" ring hollower than the liberty bell when you control both houses of congress and the executive branch.

    Indeed, Dems oughta wake up every morning and give a small 'thanks' to the hapless GOP for having made Obamacare more popular than ever over the course of the last few months. Bernie bros should give thanks that the 'public option' and single payer are more popular than ever, and that, as a result, some version of either (or both) will likely be included in some future version of America's health care plans. We have Trump/Republican incompetence to thank for that. Hallelujah.

  154. [154] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    149

    Here's the follow up article

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/31/goog-j31.html

    Here are a few excerpts-

    "In a blog post published on April 25, Ben Gomes, Google’s chief search engineer, rolled out the new censorship program in a statement bearing the Orwellian title, “Our latest quality improvements for search.” This statement has been virtually buried by the corporate media. Neither the New York Times nor the Wall Street Journal has reported the statement. The Washington Post limited its coverage of the statement to a single blog post.

    Framed as a mere change to technical procedures, Gomes’s statement legitimizes Internet censorship as a necessary response to “the phenomenon of ‘fake news,’ where content on the web has contributed to the spread of blatantly misleading, low quality, offensive or downright false information.”

    "Significantly, Gomes does not provide any clear definition, let alone concrete examples, of any of these loaded terms (“fake news,” “blatantly misleading,” “low quality, “offensive,” and “down right false information.”)"

    "Gomes revealed that Google has recruited some 10,000 “evaluators” to judge the “quality” of various web domains. The company has “evaluators—real people who assess the quality of Google’s search results—give us feedback on our experiments.”"

    -
    -

    Got that?
    A "technical change" using input from people they chose (not a technical change), using criteria they won't share, and without giving any examples to substantiate their claims.

    And, again, the whole fake news outrage was not about content from left leaning sites.
    It was about fabrications disseminated by right wing sites and spread through social media supposedly affecting the election.

    It's a bait and switch to hurt left leaning sites who reported factually accurate stories that were perhaps politically harmful to the establishment... but not fake news.

    A

  155. [155] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And your ENTIRE assessment is based SOLELY on the *fact* that I just kicked your ass in a military-related debate..

    Enjoy your pyrrhic victory, M, because that's all it is. The pentagon has made clear that they're not about to riff out 15,000 honorably serving forces, and there's neither time nor interest in the congress to change the law to forbid them from serving, regardless of how much the lunatic wing cries or stomps their feet.

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    Do ya think the electorate will blame Democrats for this?

    Absolutely... :D

    Indeed, Dems oughta wake up every morning and give a small 'thanks' to the hapless GOP for having made Obamacare more popular than ever over

    Cite???

    Enjoy your pyrrhic victory, M, because that's all it is.

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

    The fact is, I kicked Russ' ass on this debate... You can spin that anyways you want to, but.... as you say..

    It's a victory for me..

    The pentagon has made clear that they're not about to riff out 15,000 honorably serving forces,

    Cite???

    You got a bunch of ludicrous claims and, like Russ, absolutely NO FACTS to back them up..

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do ya think the electorate will blame Democrats for this?

    ESPECIALLY when President Trump withholds the illegal subsidies to the Insurance companies... :D

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless, the FACT is I have proven beyond ANY doubt that TransAms are NOT suited to serve in the US Military...

    And you are simply INCAPABLE of finding ANY combat veteran that would disagree with that assessment..

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump,

    Dow hits record high as Wall Street cheers strong earnings season
    Seventy-three percent of the S&P 500 companies that had reported as of Friday had topped estimates on both the top and bottom lines, according to data from FactSet.

    These results have allowed the stock market to keep notching record highs, one strategist says.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/31/us-stocks-earnings-season.html

    Making America Great Again..

    Ya'all simply CANNOT deny the FACTS and REALITY any longer...

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bigot,

    And you have yet to explain exactly how I can be a bigot when I am applying the exact same restriction to *ALL* groups and *ANY* groups..

    This fact completely negates ANY accusations of bigotry..

    You might as well call me "FISH" for all the logic and rationale of the accusation...

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's somewhat ironic..

    In 2005, Florida hit a spate of major hurricanes.. 5 or 6 in the span of a couple months...

    In 2006, Al Gore and the rest of the Global Warming fanatics jumped on the Fear Monger bandwagon and proclaimed that 2005 was going to the "the norm" as far as hurricanes go...

    Now, I just have to laugh my ass off... Because it's been almost **TWELVE YEARS** since a major hurricane has made landfall...

    **TWELVE YEARS**

    This is *EXACTLY* why it is IMPOSSIBLE to take the Global Warming fanatics seriously..

    They have been WRONG about EVERY PREDICTION made....

    With THAT kind of track record, I find it hard to believe how ANYONE with more than 2 brain cells to rub together would buy into the Global Warming con...

    Oh.. And say hello to Tropical Storm Emily... :D

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT06/refresh/AL062017_5day_cone_no_line_and_wind+png/120350_5day_cone_no_line_and_wind.png

    Tropical Storm.. pffftt.. I don't even get out of bed for anything less than a Cat 2....

  162. [162] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Dow hits record high as Wall Street cheers strong earnings season

    Yep. Against this background:

    * failed attempt to repeal ACA

    * no new tax regime of any kind

    * veto-proof bill to limit the powers of the prez

    * virtually no new legislation of any sort

    Seems to me that Wall Street is celebrating Trump's inability to actually govern.

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seems to me that Wall Street is celebrating Trump's inability to actually govern.

    No, yer just displaying yer penchant to concentrate on the bad, spin it like crazy and ignore the good...

    Of course, in response, I do the same thing without the spin..

    Logically, reality is somewhere in the middle..

    President Trump is doing an OK job... :D

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Face the facts, Balthy,

    President Trump is doing A-OK and patriotic Americans are simply tickled pink... :D

    You lost... Get over it...

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

    [155] [the electorate will blame Democrats] when President Trump withholds the illegal subsidies to the Insurance companies...

    Sure. And then they'll blame the Democrats for rainy days, fallen soufflés, ringworm, poor posture, the guy who keeps taking their parking space, clap on/clap off ads, and the sinking of the Titanic.

  167. [167] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    personally i'm thrilled that the obama economic recovery has continued. however, if donald manages not to screw it up by february, i will be the first to give him credit (deserving or not, that's where the buck stops).

    JL

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure. And then they'll blame the Democrats for rainy days, fallen soufflés, ringworm, poor posture, the guy who keeps taking their parking space, clap on/clap off ads, and the sinking of the Titanic.

    Nope.. Just the morons who said that TrainWreckCare was going to be the best thing in the world...

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Face reality, Balthy..

    The albatross that is TrainWreckCare is around the necks of EVERY Democrat in the country..

    And when it implodes and leaves HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of Americans without health insurance right before the 2018 midterms???

    WHO do you think that Americans are going to blame??

    They are going to blame the greedy morons who came up with TrainWreckCare and FORCED it on an unwilling public...

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    however, if donald manages not to screw it up by february,

    Uh... It's July... :D

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    personally i'm thrilled that the obama economic recovery has continued.

    I am also constrained to point out that if NOT-45 had one, this recovery and confidence would *NEVER* have happened..

    So, this recovery belongs to President Trump and it's a *REAL* recovery, not that abysmal faux-recovery that Obama and Biden touted...

  172. [172] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i meant february 2018. the first year of a president's economy is mostly down to his predecessor.

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Scaramucci is gone..

    No more Bohemian Rhapsody jokes. :( Bummer heheheehehehe

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which is a good thing really..

    Now the military guy is fully and completely in charge...

    Perfect!! :D

  175. [175] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No, yer just displaying yer penchant to concentrate on the bad, spin it like crazy and ignore the good. Of course, in response, I do the same thing..

    So let me again mention something GOOD that Trump has done lately: he just signed a bill that limits his (or anyone else's) ability to fire the Special Prosecutor without judicial review. That's good.

    Logically, reality is somewhere in the middle.

    Now you're trying to sweet-talk me, because normally, that would be my mantra. But things haven't been 'normal' for months now. Scandals that would have sunk any other presidency are now third or fourth on the list of 'Hideous, Criminal or Outrageous Things We Can Do Today' at the White House. For this president, reality is somewhere way over there, off the screen.

    Just the morons who said that [the ACA] was going to be the best thing in the world.

    I don't recall anyone saying anything like that. Even today, with the ACA being more popular than ever, the best that can be said about it is that it's better than anything the GOP has proposed (except that it was a Republican idea in the first place). I do recall that the left was so upset that the bill didn't include a public option that they adopted the stupid plan of sitting out the next election, which led to the GOP/Tea Party wave of 2010.

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Think we can get President Trump to step down and appoint General Kelly as President?? :D

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    So let me again mention something GOOD that Trump has done lately: he just signed a bill that limits his (or anyone else's) ability to fire the Special Prosecutor without judicial review. That's good.

    So, you agree that President Trump did good.. Awesome.. :D

    But things haven't been 'normal' for months now.

    Now yer trying to sweet-talk me because I have been saying that since Trump declared his candidacy... :D

    I don't recall anyone saying anything like that.

    Of course you don't recall that.. You *NEVER* recall ANYTHING that puts Dumbocrats in a bad light...

  178. [178] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No more Bohemian Rhapsody jokes. :( Bummer heheheehehehe

    i guess scaramouche couldn't do the fandango after all. perhaps all the thunderbolts and lightning were very very frightening.

    JL

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    i guess scaramouche couldn't do the fandango after all. perhaps all the thunderbolts and lightning were very very frightening.

    hehehehehehehehehehehehehe

    Now THAT was funny!!! :D

  180. [180] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [171] And Scaramucci is gone..

    I guess that telling literally everyone that they could all fuck themselves didn't work out for him.

    If the White House had a communications director, he could be explaining this, but I guess we'll just have to watch Sarah Huckabee-Sanders stammer through another uninformative press call filled with 'I dunno's' instead.

    We'll miss the Mooch.

  181. [181] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    i guess scaramouche couldn't do the fandango after all. perhaps all the thunderbolts and lightning were very very frightening.

    Galileo!

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess that telling literally everyone that they could all fuck themselves didn't work out for him.

    Yea, but it was a breath of fresh air.. :D

    <B"She's a breath of fresh ass.. I mean a breast of fresh air.."
    -Kevin Kline, WILD WILD WEST

    :D

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    i guess scaramouche couldn't do the fandango after all. perhaps all the thunderbolts and lightning were very very frightening.

    Galileo!

    Heh

    :D

  184. [184] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Moochie got the ol' "bum's rush." I'll wager the doorknob really did hit him in the butt on his way out! As a NY Tough Guy he would have preferred something more honorable. East River, at midnight, with cement shoes.

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    i meant february 2018. the first year of a president's economy is mostly down to his predecessor.

    Or, in this case, in SPITE of his predecessor... :D

  186. [186] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [119] - My guess is that Scaramucci isn't going anywhere, soon, either.

    Wrong, but at least spectacularly wrong.

    Not wrong about G.G.R. though. At least one op ed and a New Republic piece. Evidently SNL had it first, with Baldwin playing Blake berating Santa's elves. Morning Joe had a clip today.

  187. [187] 
    TheStig wrote:

    There doesn't seem to be any consensus about what ultimately forced Scaramucci out so abruptly.

    He was just a pawn to force Spicer out?
    His NewYorker interview?
    His still unsold business?
    New Chief O' Staff Kelly?

    I think Kelly's tenure may be brief. Kelly will demand chain of command discipline from Trump. Trump doesn't like discipline....isn't capable of discipline. Trump likes to play staff against each other. There is the nepotism problem. The Tweeting.

    Trump may have shuffled his feet and sworn to be good for the General, but he'll cross a line and Kelly will resign.

  188. [188] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    What I missed with teh Mooch. My model is that events flow in the directions that make Trump -the man- feel happy and at home.

    It looked to me that what happened is Mooch did two things that would have made the President happy. First he took care of letting the faithful know that the Boss had decided to whack Rinsie, but didn't say when. Then he took care of it on an airfield ramp in the rain. Kind of like when Louis whacks the Nazi and he and Bogey stroll off across the airfield ramp in the fog.

    What I missed is a bigger reality. It should have been fresh in my mind. I was chatting with michale the other day about an elite that will not suffer irregularity when given Command over units that need shaping up: Marines.

  189. [189] 
    Paula wrote:

    [187] TheStig: Kelly will be THE test. He probably thinks if anyone can make 45 act like an adult, he, Kelly, can. He will find out one way or the other.

    If Kelly resigns or gets fired I think it will mean a whole lot more than Mooch getting the boot. Everyone thought Mooch was an unpleasant sort of joke. Kelly ain't that. He's unpleasant but far from a joke.

    But things will look good for awhile before they go sour. 45 isn't gonna like being kept on a leash, though, and I don't think he'll tolerate it for long. Plus, his whole modus operandi is to deflect attention from things like the Russia probe by doing horrible and outrageous things and he will be bursting to lash out.

    My wild guess is 3 months, tops, and Kelly will be gone, one way or another.

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    If yer gonna go, go BIG... :D

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    I am glad to see you have adopted the Handy Dandy, Trusty Dusty, Patent Pending Michale Method For When You Are Wrong In Weigantia...

    Own it, Admit it, Laugh at it and Move on..

    If more Weigantians adopted it, things would be a lot less bloody around here...

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    My wild guess is 3 months, tops, and Kelly will be gone, one way or another.

    You KNOW I am going to hold ya to that. :D

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers

    Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.

    Agency officials admit that the problem with instruments recording low temperatures likely happened in several locations throughout Australia, but they refuse to admit to manipulating temperature readings. The BOM located missing logs in Goulburn and the Snow Mountains, both of which are in New South Wales.
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/australia-weather-bureau-caught-tampering-with-climate-numbers/

    Yea... We can trust the hysterical and fanatical Global Warming "scientists".....

    What could go wrong!!?? :^/

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bible Studies at the White House: Who's Inside This Spiritual Awakening?
    http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/july/bible-studies-at-the-white-house-whos-at-the-heart-of-this-spiritual-awakening

    {groan}

    Just what we need in the White House..

    Religion....
    {/sarcasm}

    :^/

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Calexit’ backers confident about latest plan to leave the United States
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article164566542.html

    How AWESOME would it be if California were to succeed to secede!!!

    I, for one, whole-heartedly support California in this!! :D

    NOT-45 could be their President!!! :D

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    With the gay marriage debate there were many on the right who took a “live and let live” philosophy. But we learned it’s not enough for gay marriage to be legalized; activists on the Left also were out to punish anyone who wasn’t totally on board. Religious Americans not interested in participating in gay weddings, like bakers and photographers, had their livelihoods destroyed. Americans aren’t going to make that mistake again. The transgender lobby is out to drastically alter our society, and will lob accusations of bigotry at anyone who shows even the slightest hesitation to endorse their cause.

    Sound familiar???

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    I think Kelly's tenure may be brief.

    I'll quote you on that..

    Can you give me a definitive number?? :D

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am sorry, the military's focus isn't equality, it is to win wars & kill the enemy to be blunt. It is not a democracy. Gender dysphoria (aka Gender Identity Disorder) is classed as a mental disorder. Despite regions of acceptance or reassignment surgery these people continue to have a 41% suicide rate.
    I didn't vote for Trump, but the military (aka taxpayers) should not pay for such surgery or treatment, which can cost $130,000 over multiple surgeries. Worse, at the time of surgery & thereafter, such people experience emotional & instability issues. And the US military is no place for this.

    -US NAVY DOCTOR

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am sorry, the military's focus isn't equality, it is to win wars & kill the enemy to be blunt. It is not a democracy.

    "We're here to preserve democracy. Not to practice it."
    -Gene Hackman, CRIMSON TIDE

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    Doctors have pegged TG surgery at around $150K per individual. Add to that the fact that the military person will be in a dangerous emotional and psychological state of mind during and after the surgeries...

    How ANYONE in their right mind would think that TGs and the US Military would be a good fit is beyond me...

Comments for this article are closed.