ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [448] -- Rogue Elephants!

[ Posted Friday, August 4th, 2017 – 17:39 PDT ]

As time goes by, more and more elephants in Washington seem to be going rogue. By this, we mean that resistance to Donald Trump is growing... within the Republican Party. Just last week, three GOP senators (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and John McCain) denied Trump his sought-after "repeal and replace Obamacare" bill. Senator David Perdue from Georgia summed it up as: "We had three chairmen who went rogue on the Republican caucus and cost us this vote." Since then, other elephants have been going rogue at an increasing rate.

Before the week even began, Congress had passed with a near-unanimous vote (419-3 in the House, 98-2 in the Senate) the first piece of major legislation since Trump became president. It strips power away from Trump, though, so it's not exactly something he's going to be bragging about. While levying further sanctions on Russia, North Korea, and Iran, it also restricts Trump's ability to remove any sanctions from Russia -- a clear message from almost every Republican in Congress that Trump simply cannot be trusted to handle foreign policy when it comes to Russia. That's a pretty big slap in Trump's face, but Trump had to sign it -- or see his first veto overwhelmingly overturned by Congress. Trump didn't hold a camera-ready signing ceremony, and put out two petulant signing statements. Congressional Republicans immediately pushed back on the position Trump took in his signing statements. All around, not what Trump really wanted his first big bill-signing to be.

Trump tried to browbeat (browtweet?) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell into wasting even more time on the failed healthcare bill push, and McConnell politely ignored him and said the Senate was moving on to other things. Chuck Schumer reported that no fewer than ten Republicans had indicated to him that they'd be willing to work on a bipartisan effort to mend (rather than end) Obamacare, and over in the House a group of 43 members from both parties put forth a plan to do precisely that. So it looks like "repeal and replace" is dead, and the rogues are already working with Democrats on a sane alternative.

At the end of the week, the Senate began their August vacation, but before doing so unanimously consented that the break wouldn't technically be a "recess," and that the Senate would be gaveled into session every three days (and then immediately gaveled back out of session). This is to prevent Trump from using his recess appointment power to get rid of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and replace him without Senate confirmation. The chair of the committee that would have to vet any Sessions replacement issued a statement that he would not be scheduling any such hearings for the remainder of the year -- another clear shot across Trump's bow. Again -- not a single senator objected to staying in pro forma session during the August break, which sends a pretty clear message to the White House.

Before they left town, though, two bills were introduced in the Senate, both with bipartisan authors. Senators Thom Tillis and Chris Coons introduced one of these, and Lindsey Graham teamed up with Cory Booker to introduce the other. They vary slightly, but both bills would achieve the same purpose -- restricting Trump's ability to fire Special Prosecutor Bob Mueller, and putting a three-judge panel in control of deciding if there is any sufficient cause to fire Mueller. As with the sanctions bill, this is another big restriction of Trump's powers as president, as a direct result of Republicans deciding he cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

During all of this, several more damaging leaks emerged from the White House, signaling that newly-installed Chief of Staff John Kelly, an ex-Marine four-star general, has not successfully halted the unauthorized flow of information from the White House to the media. A whole flurry of leaks appeared which were designed to make National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster look bad. As well as a blow-by-blow account appearing in the press of Donald Trump on Air Force One, dictating his son Junior's response to the Russia collusion meeting. So the infighting continues apace, even with General Kelly at the helm.

The most jaw-dropping leaks of the week, of course, were the three transcripts that were made public. The first was published by Politico, of a Wall Street Journal interview with Trump which had taken place earlier in the week. The other two were transcripts of two calls Trump made just after being sworn in to office, to the heads of state of Mexico and Australia, which appeared in the Washington Post. All three of these transcripts show -- once again -- that Trump is not really any sort of "deal-maker" and only really excels at whining about how put-upon he perpetually is. As previously reported (and as previously denied by the White House), the Mexican call showed that Trump's dream of "making Mexico pay for the wall" is nothing short of a fantasy he conned his supporters into believing, and Trump got downright petulant with the Australian leader, who could not be talked into reneging on an agreement made with President Obama just so Trump could score some political points with his base. Trump, in both cases, tries his hand at bulldozing the other leader into doing what he wants, but he fails spectacularly both times. So much for being the king of the dealmakers, in other words. King of the whiny brats might be closer to the truth. While the Wall Street Journal transcript was leaked from journalists to journalists, the transcripts of the two phone calls had to have come from a high-ranking Republican in the White House who went rogue.

Even with this stampede of rogue elephants, one Republican stood out as the "roguest of the rogue." Because it seemed you couldn't turn a television to the news this week without seeing an interview with Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, who is plugging his new book. He wrote the book as a clarion call to conservatives to, essentially, break with Donald Trump and the whole Trumpist movement. He was happy to tell anyone who asked precisely why he thought Trump was so dangerous to the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Our guess is we'll see him again on the Sunday morning shows this weekend.

Let's see, what else has been going on this week? The White House tried to stay on message this week, with even Trump reportedly bending over backwards to make a good impression on his new chief of staff. The only problem was that the message seemed to be "Xenophobia Week" all week long. Trump announced his support for a Senate bill (that likely has no chance of passing) which would slash America's legal immigration by half. So much for all that talk of "we love immigrants, but only when they're legal," eh?

Not content with whipping his base up against immigrants, Jeff Sessions announced that the Justice Department would be using civil rights resources to attack the scourge of colleges discriminating against white people. Sessions continues his dedication to taking America back to the '50s again -- the 1850s, that is.

In international news, Russia kicked out more than 700 U.S. diplomats in response to the sanctions bill, and Donald Trump still has yet to even address the issue. Nary a peep was tweeted, in other words. Not even when Vladimir Putin taunted Trump with his own tweet, ridiculing Trump for letting Congress strip power from him and calling it "humiliating."

The State Department, meanwhile, seems to be giving up on promoting democracy around the world, which has been a core U.S. foreign policy goal for at least the last 70 years or so.

And we'll end with two amusing notes. The reactions to the firing of Anthony "The Mooch" Scaramucci were widespread and highly amusing, although his 10-day tenure in the job was actually not the shortest of all time. Ronald Reagan had a communications director for only six days, because he had to hastily resign after it was revealed that he had participated in the Hitler Youth movement in Germany. The Mooch beat that by four whole days! But the funniest comment we read came from Dana Milbank at the Washington Post, who pointed out: "He wasn't officially supposed to start until Aug. 15, so his tenure, technically, was minus 16 days." Heh.

But the funniest tweet of the week came from Time editor Ryan Teague Beckwith, who reacted to the news that Special Counsel Bob Mueller had convened a grand jury in Washington to help with his investigation into Russia, collusion, and Trump's financial empire, by tweeting: "technically, it's not a grand jury but the grandest jury, the best you've ever seen, really nothing like it." OK, now that's funny!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Before we get to this week's awards, there are two things worth mentioning that we'll be keeping an eye on for the next month or so. First, Senator Bernie Sanders revealed his August break plans:

Sen. Bernie Sanders is ramping up his campaign for single-payer health care, starting with digital ads that ask voters to endorse his planned "Medicare for All" legislation ahead of the Senate's August recess. The six-figure buy, paid for by Sanders's 2018 Senate reelection campaign, will direct readers to his website, where they can sign on to his bill.

That will tee up legislation that Sanders (I-Vt.) has promised, then delayed, since March -- a version of single-payer health care that, he hopes, will avoid some of the pitfalls that have made previous bills politically untenable.

"We're tweaking the final points of the bill, and we're figuring out how we can mount a national campaign to bring people together."

Good news for everyone who wants to see single-payer on the table for discussion, in other words. White papers and bullet-point lists are fine and good, but drafting an actual bill is a much more serious effort, and should be applauded.

Secondly, in the wake of the success of the resistance to the GOP healthcare bills, a group has formed to fight the upcoming Republican effort to massively cut taxes for the wealthy and big business:

The goals of Not One Penny (as in, "not one penny in tax cuts for the rich") are laid out in a pledge on the campaign website. "The last thing we need is for the tax code to be even more rigged in favor of millionaires, billionaires, and corporate insiders," write organizers. "Even more tax breaks for the super rich will undermine our commitment to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and make it impossible to invest in the middle class."

That's a catchy name, we have to admit, and we wish them success in their endeavors. Check out their website if you're interested in what they're trying to accomplish.

We have two Honorable Mention awards to hand out, to Senators Cory Booker and Chris Coons. Both joined with a Republican counterpart to draft bills to remove the power to fire Bob Mueller from Donald Trump. It remains to be seen whether either of these bills will pass, but their mere existence sends a pretty powerful message to Trump: "Don't even think of firing Mueller -- you don't want to go there."

Senator Booker really deserves two Honorable Mention awards this week, because of another important bill he introduced:

On Wednesday, a bill in Congress will be introduced to legalize marijuana on the national level -- ending the decades long prohibition. The Marijuana Justice Act proposed by Sen. Cory Booker D-N.J. aims to, "retroactively expunge people who have been convicted of use and possession of marijuana," "[create] incentive[s] for states to change their laws, which will stop them from enforcing the law in an unjust manner," and "[give] communities devastated by marijuana laws will be able to apply for reinvestment funds, to help pay for community centers, public libraries, youth centers, and other infrastructure and social needs."

But the winners of this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week are the House Democrats who joined with Republicans to form the "Problem Solvers' Caucus" (another catchy name), a group of 43 representatives who had been meeting for three weeks, in anticipation of the Senate effort failing. They thus had a plan ready to go to stabilize the individual insurance market, which they unveiled Monday, after the weekend dust from the Senate failure had settled.

We have to say, that's pretty impressive. We have no idea how good their plan will be, but the fact that they were ready to go, right out of the gate, is pretty admirable. Just when Congress looked its most dysfunctional, they plonked a solid bipartisan plan on the table. That's incredibly good timing. Since Republicans alone weren't able to get anything passed, they were ready with a Plan B, crafted with Democratic support.

Now, some Democrats won't like the compromises contained within the plan. After all, "centrist" isn't a very popular term in either party, right now. But we don't see this as some sort of setback in the effort to fully reform the healthcare industry (as Bernie Sanders is attempting), this is instead merely a temporary fix which would solve a short-term problem in a timely manner. With the current makeup of Congress, it would be close to impossible for Democrats to pass Bernie's bill, in other words. The push for "Medicare for all" will have to bear fruit in getting more Democrats elected before it has the slightest chance of being seriously considered by either house -- it's much more of a long-term effort. So approving of a short-term fix isn't the same thing as betraying this long-term effort, at least not to us.

Obviously, this might not be the perfect bill and it might not solve every problem, but the Problem Solvers showed -- just when it was needed most -- that Democrats and Republicans can actually work together to try to fix what is broken when the problems are imminent. That is a positive sign, folks.

For the entire August break, Democrats will be able to point to this effort to show voters that Congress is actually capable of moving beyond partisan bickering and actually trying to address problems which actually exist in the real world. We have no idea what the chances of their effort will be in the end, but we have to salute them for making that effort, and for being ready to unveil it at a very crucial moment. Well done!

So every House Democrat in the Problem Solvers' Caucus is hereby awarded a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Your timing was impeccable, and hopefully this caucus will stick together to help with other intractable issues where Republicans can't even agree among themselves what to do (of which there will be many, for the rest of this year at least).

[There are simply too many Democrats in the Problem Solvers' Caucus to list individually, but you can use their Facebook page to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one's pretty easy this week, although it could be argued that awarding it breaks our own criteria for such awards. But we're ignoring such petty distractions and handing the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to West Virginia Governor Jim Justice, who just announced (at a Trump rally, no less) that he's changing his registration and becoming a Republican.

The technicality, of course, is that he's now a Republican so how can he qualify for a Democratic award? But we're ruling that since he was a Democrat for most of the past week, he's still eligible.

Now, this party poaching isn't as surprising as it might first appear. After all, Justice was a Republican up until 2015, so it's not like he had previously made a lifelong commitment to the Democrats. West Virginia has shifted from being reliably Democratic (with lots of Union members voting) to being a Republican stronghold over the past few decades, so it really isn't all that shocking.

Even so, his switch means that Republicans now control a historic amount of governorships across the country, and the bad news for Democrats doesn't even end there. As of now, there are 26 states where the GOP controls the governor's mansion and both chambers of the statehouse. The corresponding number for Democrats is six. That's beyond disappointing, really.

Which is why our choice was pretty obvious. For leaving the party and crossing the aisle, ex-Democrat Jim Justice of West Virginia is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact West Virginia Governor Jim Justice on his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 448 (8/4/17)

We have to start off with a program note today, because this column will not be appearing next week. We'll be off to the annual Netroots Nation conference of progressive bloggers, and so will be unable to devote the time to putting together a Friday column. This column will return in two weeks' time, on August 18. After all, if Congress and Donald Trump can scarper off on vacation, why can't we have a little time off, too?

There's no overarching theme to this week's talking points. As always, use them responsibly, and we'll see you back here in two weeks!

 

1
   Some justice

This first one is pure schadenfreude, we'll cheerfully admit.

"Did you see that ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio was convicted this week of contempt of court? I guess there's still some justice left in the universe. No word yet on whether he'll have to serve his sentence in an open-air jail in 100-plus-degree heat, as he forced so many prisoners to do. Or, for that matter, whether he'll get a pink jail outfit to wear. Because that would really be the most appropriate sentence."

 

2
   Punked!

This one is pretty funny, we have to admit.

"Seems that a bunch of White House staffers got punked via email over the past few weeks, including the outgoing Anthony 'The Mooch' Scaramucci. But the most shocking revelation was that the guy supposedly in charge of cybersecurity voluntarily offered up his private email address in response to getting punked. Boy, that really fills you with confidence that the White House is cybersecure, eh?"

 

3
   Et tu, Rasmussen?

Trump's favorite poll had some bad news for him this week.

"Donald Trump loves to cite numbers from Rasmussen whenever he talks about his polling. This is because Rasmussen regularly reports numbers tilted heavily towards Republicans, at least when compared with every other poll in existence. So it must have been somewhat of a blow this week when Rasmussen reported that Trump's job approval rating had sunk to a dismal 38 percent. Remember -- Rasmussen's numbers are normally at least five points above the consensus of other pollsters, so this is really bad news for Trump. As Trump might put it: Sad!"

 

4
   Scouts' honor

Trump just can't help himself, it appears.

"In that stunning Wall Street Journal interview transcript, Trump just could not resist the urge to reach around and give himself a big pat on the back. He said that, after he gave a wildly inappropriate speech to the Boy Scouts, the head of the Boy Scouts called him up to tell him it was the 'best speech ever given' to the Boy Scouts. Only, as it turned out, this call never actually happened. You have to wonder at this casual disregard for the truth from our president -- I mean, is he just lying? Or is he actually hearing voices in his head which do not exist? This has now happened too many times to ignore, when you think about it."

 

5
   Sarah would be proud

Seriously, read the transcripts for yourself (Wall Street Journal interview or the two phone calls).

"Donald Trump, to his supporters, is a financial genius and the best dealmaker who ever trod the Earth. But I would challenge anyone who thinks 'Of course he's smart, he's rich, isn't he?' to read one of the three transcripts which were made public this week. Trump's rambling responses are nothing more than word salad, for the most part. They are downright Sarah-Palinesque, really. Trump's narcissism is on full display, and his obsession with certain topics is undeniable. In the phone calls to the Mexican and Australian leaders, he attempts some dealmaking and utterly fails. In both cases, he shows a basic lack of understanding of the other man's political position, which isn't all that surprising since the only thing Trump cares about is his own political position. This is crystal clear in the transcripts, and it's almost painful to read how both world leaders have to explain that their jobs in no way have anything to do with 'making Donald Trump look good.' Trump doesn't even attempt to strike any kind of deal -- he just tries to strongarm the other guy into saying or doing something that would help Trump. Neither one budges an inch, needless to say. Trump a genius dealmaker? Read those transcripts and then tell me that, and I'll laugh in your face."

 

6
   Well, that makes me feel better

Never fear, Trump has the situation in hand.

"Donald Trump, at a recent cabinet meeting, answered a question about what he was going to do about the crisis with North Korea. Here is his full, unedited answer: 'We'll handle North Korea. We're going to be able to handle North -- there will be -- it will be handled. We handle everything.' Oh, thank you for that, Mister President. I feel so much more confident now, knowing that you'll 'handle' North Korea... somehow."

 

7
   Fore!

It's not just Congress that is fleeing D.C. for the rest of the summer.

"Donald Trump will be taking a 17-day vacation for the next few weeks. I guess he hasn't been getting in enough golf, or something. I remember when Trump used to loudly complain about President Obama taking vacations or golfing, but so far he's been on the links far more than Obama ever was. In fact, Newsweek pointed this out on their cover this week: 'SIX months in office, 40 days at golf clubs, ZERO pieces of major legislation.' The big title on the cover? 'LAZY BOY -- Donald Trump is bored and tired. Imagine how bad he'd feel if he did any work.' Ouch. That's gotta hurt."

-- 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

 

140 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [448] -- Rogue Elephants!”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Jon Chait's piece about Blotus' talk with Australian PM is funny/damning (reposting from prev thread). Blotus literally cannot grasp what Turnbull is saying -- it's not rocket science either -- try reading it aloud using a DT voice -- SNL could use it verbatim.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/australias-pm-slowly-realizes-trump-is-a-complete-idiot.html

    That this stuff is getting out: NO ONE respects him. It looks like people may be trying to use him, benefit from him or cover up for him, but no one dealing with him thinks he's fit to serve. And of course, he isn't.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:
  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Just to indulge in some self-back-patting myself...

    I was particularly proud of "browtweet" and would encourage everyone to help make it go viral. I think it's a perfect description of Trump's Twitter feed... he doesn't browbeat, he browtweets!

    Heh.

    :-)

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Paula wrote:

    "browtweet" -- Pass that around at Netroots nation!

  5. [5] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    ' Not even when Vladimir Putin taunted Trump with his own tweet, ridiculing Trump for letting Congress strip power from him and calling it "humiliating.'
    It was even more humiliating, I believe it was Dmitry Medvedev who was dispatched to Tweet the Kremlin's aghast at Trump's display of emasculation at the hands of congress.

  6. [6] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [5] JTCanuck: It was worse than that - Medvedev called Trump weak! Coming from one of the weakest Russian leaders in recent memory, that's gotta hurt.

  7. [7] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CW: I agree, the turnabout in establishment Republican opinion is the Lead story for this week.

    Of course, the Health Care vote was the watershed for many of them. Somewhere out on the shores of Kentucky's lake Cumberland, Mich McConnell is on his porch yelling at the owls: "I'll tell ya who! McCain, that's who! And that raging moron Trump, that's who!"

    He had a tough week.

    I too noticed the Problem Solver's Caucus when it got into the news this week. Finally, a congressional caucus that actually wants to accomplish something. Let's hope it isn't attacked and eaten by its fellow legislators, like the injured alien on the Rock Planet in Galaxy Quest.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whine, Whine, Whine....

    Would ya'all like some cheese to go with yer whine???

    Jeeeze, ya'all STILL munching on crow and sour grapes??

    Get OVER it already...

    President Trump is YOUR president...

    Ya'all LOST...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's a thought.. Instead of talking down President Trump all the time, why not tout the Democrat Party's accomplishment..

    I mean, you could crow about the time that the Democrats won that special election in GA...

    Oh.. Wait.. They lost..

    Or you can talk up that awesome new slogan BETTER PIZZA that will PROVE that the Democrats are serious about winning over Trump supporters....

    Oh... That won't work because it's already been discarded...

    OH!! How about the time that Democrats.... oh no... they didn't do anything good there either..

    Well, shucky darn... The Democrats haven't done carp since the election...

    No WONDER ya'all don't have anything good to say about the Democrat Party.....

    Carry on.... :D

  10. [10] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al [post #47 from the previous thread]

    You and I agree generally, but differ of course on some of the details. My point in that and related posts was that, because the Iran Deal wasn't just between us and Iran, even if Trump was to pull the US out of the deal, it wouldn't necessarily result in the collapse of the deal between Iran and all of the other countries involved. After all, although Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement, that treaty continues to be observed by all of the other signatories, i.e., all of the rest of the world except for us and Panama.

    But here we are six months into the Trump administration, and he hasn't pulled the plug yet on the Iran deal although he's had the power to from his first day. I'm sure that anyone advising this administration who isn't a right-wing ideologue (there are still some of those) is telling Kushner or McMaster to slow Trump down, or stop him from withdrawing from the deal altogether. It's still in our favor to stick with it.

    [Democrats] supported the sanctions; will they support Trump if he trots out his previewed excuses (terror, Hezbollah, missiles) to end the deal?

    The sanctions in the bill that Trump signed are narrowly targeted, and mostly symbolic, from what I've read. I can't imagine Democrats believing another word that comes out of Trump's mouth on anything that isn't backed up by irrefutable evidence, much less some flimsy excuse to launch a major war. Particularly after the stunt Bush pulled to get us into Iraq. Twice shy, and all that.

    100 years?

    I was thinking roughly: since WWI, although that might be going back too far, or not far enough. "Instigating the coup of their democratically elected, western oriented leader in 1953 and installing a brutal dictator" is certainly a major part of it. "Partying with the Shah while he brutally subjugates his countrymen" is another. We can be real assholes, sometimes.

    But be reasonable: 'direct covert action' (i.e., introducing a computer virus to shut down Iranian centrifuges) was likely what brought the Iranians, finally, to the bargaining table So there's that.

    And there's no credible evidence that we deliberately shot down that Iranian civilian airline. Sure we've had our moments, but we're not ALL complete assholes, and an awful lot of folks would have had to sign off on an action like that.
    I don't see it happening.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can government deny Americans one of our most important rights, specifically protected by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, unless we can prove that we really, really need and deserve it? Thankfully, a federal appeals court has ruled in favor of our rights and against government overreach.

    The 2-1 decision Monday came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The court issued a permanent injunction stopping the local Washington, D.C., government from denying people the right to carry concealed handguns in the nation’s capital unless they could convince local officials they had a special and compelling need to protect themselves.

    Though this ruling only affects Washington, D.C., it might have national consequences.
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/27/huge-week-for-guns-federal-circuit-court-has-done-what-supreme-court-would-not.html

    See!? There is some good news ya'all could crow about...

  12. [12] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Can government deny Americans one of our most important rights, specifically protected by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, unless we can prove that we really, really need and deserve it?

    Good question to put to Sessions when he starts issuing subpoenas to reporters.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good question to put to Sessions when he starts issuing subpoenas to reporters.

    That's strange..

    No one here had any problem when it was Odumbo's DOJ who attacked and subpoenaed and surveilled reporters..

    "Gee!! I wonder why that is!!!"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (9)-
    "The Democrats haven't done carp since the election..."
    I guess you're just not paying attention.
    Did you miss the part where CW informs citizens about Not One Penny and says he will keep an eye the progress of this group?
    Just because the article he referenced has more "substance" than the website and the "idea" is nothing more than superficial nonsense to make people feel good by signing a petition to keep them from bothering to actually do something productive doesn't mean that the Democrats haven't done crap.
    Unfortunately, useless crap like Not One Penny is all the Democrats HAVE done since BEFORE the election- which is why they lost.
    But the real losers are the American people when the best the Democrats can offer is useless crap.
    How does a stupid idea like Not One Penny get mentioned right off the bat with a link to their "website" while One Demand/Voucher Vendetta gets ignored since 2015 when I started commenting here?
    Could it be that where the idea comes from and the lack of substance is more important than an idea with actual substance? (That is of course a question for CW, but I figured I'd ask you instead because you might actually answer the question and I am trying not to antagonize CW on the off chance he is considering finally stepping up to the plate by publishing a Guest Column on One Demand next week.)

  15. [15] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    personally i think refusing tax cuts for the mega-wealthy is an excellent idea. it's a pretty modest ambition, but it will be tough to accomplish any non-rightwing proposal given the current government. if your goal is not to antagonize our host, my advice would be to avoid referring to his interest in an idea as useless crap. your idea is interesting, but you're not going to build support for it by tearing down other ideas that currently have more support.

    JL

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats fear Russia probe blowback
    'We need to talk about what people think about when they wake up in the morning, and it’s not Russia,' said one strategist.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/05/democrats-trump-russia-blowback-241346

    Who would have POSSIBLY thought that the Dumbocrats are shooting themselves in the foot by being all TRUMP!!! RUSSIA!!! TRUMP!!! RUSSIA!!! TRUMP!!! RUSSIA!!! TRUMP!!! RUSSIA!!! all the time...

    I think it was me!!! :D

    "Who was it that said 'Those Who Can't Do... Fight'... Oh.. I think it was me!!!"
    -Judy Robinson, LOST IN SPACE

    :D

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    nah, it's those who can't do, teach. and those who can't teach, teach gym. but i digress.

    the trouble with trump and russia is that on the one hand the russia issue really is quite serious, but on the other hand its connection to donald is not so simple. because the press and donald himself have so conflated the issues of russian electioneering and donald's campaign, the public has lost the plot.

    JL

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    the trouble with trump and russia is that on the one hand the russia issue really is quite serious,

    It really isn't..

    You know why??

    Because Russia hasn't done ANYTHING in 2016 that they didn't do in 2012 and 2008 etc etc etc..

    The **ONLY** reason Democrats are hysterically up in arms about it is because they lost what they THOUGHT was a sure thing...

    because the press and donald himself have so conflated the issues of russian electioneering and donald's campaign, the public has lost the plot.

    No... The public doesn't CARE.....

    *ONLY* Democrats care..

    And they only care because they lost....

    Given the EXACT same "facts" but with a NOT-45 win, do you think ANYONE on the Left would be giving a damn???

    Of course not...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    nah, it's those who can't do, teach. and those who can't teach, teach gym. but i digress.

    Speaking of teaching...

    I imagine we haven't seen ya around so much because this is yer busy time??? :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:
  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NYpoet-
    I was referring to the idea as crap.
    And while the you catch more flies with honey argument is sound in principle, it hasn't worked yet. So even though I said I did not want to antagonize CW it seemed worth a try to try something different.
    After all, saying one thing and doing just the opposite seems to work for Trump and the Democrats.
    And pointing out legitimate flaws in useless crap such as Not One Penny to contrast it to an idea that I believe in is the whole point of commenting.
    Yet you look at it as tearing down other ideas.
    It reminds me of a few months ago when someone here sarcastically thanked all the people that stayed home or voted for Stein for electing Trump.
    That comment received some huzzahs from other commenters.
    When I thanked the original commenter for giving us Clinton instead of Bernie I was chided for bringing up the past election by the same people that gave the huzzahs to the original commenter.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberals.... :^/

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

    "You can't fix stoopid"
    -Ron White

    :D

  23. [23] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Don [21]: It reminds me of a few months ago when someone here sarcastically thanked all the people that stayed home or voted for Stein for electing Trump.
    That comment received some huzzahs from other commenters.
    When I thanked the original commenter for giving us Clinton instead of Bernie I was chided for bringing up the past election by the same people that gave the huzzahs to the original commenter.

    Still confused by that? It's because you apparently missed the point: as has become painfully obvious since then, the villain of the piece was Trump, not Hillary.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Still confused by that? It's because you apparently missed the point: as has become painfully obvious since then, the villain of the piece was Trump, not Hillary.

    There was a very VERY large faction that thought NOT-45 was the bigger villain...

    Obviously... :D

    You just can't handle that NOT-45 was thoroughly DEVASTATED by President Trump...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the left succeeds in its effort to remove President Trump from office or renders him virtually powerless, America’s working class – the “Eddies and Ediths” – will revolt, warned author and nationally syndicated talk-radio host Michael Savage.

    Referring to a 1939 novel, Savage told his listeners Friday that “The Day of the Locust” will come and people will “resort to mob violence” when they “are finally aware of the fact that they’ve been tricked by their society, and that no matter how hard they work as middle class people” they are denied.
    http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/michael-savage-taking-down-trump-would-provoke-civil-war/#bDDyO02htsmXq1V6.99

    The Establishment nullifies the election at their own peril...

  26. [26] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Because Russia hasn't done ANYTHING in 2016 that they didn't do in 2012 and 2008 etc etc etc..

    That's just utter nonsense. The Russians have always done malicious shit, but I don't recall them having multiple meetings with McCain staff (top advisor Steve Schmidt, for instance, has said he never even saw, much less met with any Russians during that campaign).

    Nor do I recall the Russians hacking into private servers and dumping the contents onto Wikileaks during the 2012 election.

    Nice try though - reminiscent of the "other Presidents were just as evil" defense proffered by Nixon supporters in '73.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Russians have always done malicious shit, but I don't recall them having multiple meetings with McCain staff (top advisor Steve Schmidt, for instance, has said he never even saw, much less met with any Russians during that campaign).

    Of course you don't "remember"..

    Ted Kennedy Made Secret Overtures to Russia to Prevent Ronald Reagan’s Re-Election
    http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/14/ted-kennedy-made-secret-overtures-to-russia-to-prevent-ronald-reagans-re-election/

    As I have shown, your memory is somewhat faulty when it comes to Democrats..

    Nor do I recall the Russians hacking into private servers and dumping the contents onto Wikileaks during the 2012 election.

    And there is NO FACTUAL evidence that the Russians did it in 2016...

    Face reality...

    Russians didn't do or attempt to do anything in 2016 that they haven't done or attempted to do in the past..

    The *ONLY* difference now, the *ONLY* reason why ya'all hysterically care now is because you had a shitty candidate and she had her ass handed to her..

    That's it...

  28. [28] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If the left succeeds in its effort to remove President Trump from office or renders him virtually powerless, America’s working class – the “Eddies and Ediths” – will revolt, warned author and nationally syndicated talk-radio host Michael Savage.

    Oh, sure. The Right is always darkly implying that rioting in the streets will ensue if they don't get their way. It's sort of their calling card to hint at 'second amendment solutions'.

    Sure Eddie and Edith Bitterman would be sore that their favorite moron was finally caught cheating his way into the White House, but honestly, for most of them this is spectator sport, and not really worth missing an episode of Hawaii Five-O.

    The few miscreants who actually heed Savage's advice would soon find themselves posing for mug shots.

    Your 'revolution' will not be televised, because it will consist mostly of a bunch of old sputtering bigots shaking their fists impotently at the sky.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, sure. The Right is always darkly implying that rioting in the streets will ensue if they don't get their way.

    It's not a question of "getting their way"...

    It's a question of nullifying a free, fair and legal election..

    Your 'revolution' will not be televised, because it will consist mostly of a bunch of old sputtering bigots shaking their fists impotently at the sky.

    Funny how you had the EXACT same attitude to the possibility of a President Trump..

    Do you REALLY want to be wrong.... AGAIN???

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ted Kennedy Made Secret Overtures to Russia to Prevent Ronald Reagan’s Re-Election

    Do you honestly think that you can sway opinion with a thirty year old story promulgated by 'a Reagan biographer' and sourced to the cold-war KGB?

    Here's another quote from that article for ya:

    “Personally, I don’t think Trump has the ideological and historical background to understand what he’s dealing with in a Russian president who has spent 16 years in the KGB.”

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    Does anybody have a list of the members of congress who are part of the "Problem Solvers"?

    Thanks in advance.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you honestly think that you can sway opinion with a thirty year old story promulgated by 'a Reagan biographer' and sourced to the cold-war KGB?

    I am not talking about anything but the ATTEMPT...

    Which is exactly what you are talking about..

    Face reality..

    This is nothing new..

    And the *ONLY* reason it bothers you now is because you lost...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    And remember...

    Just 4 short years BEFORE the election, Putin and Russia were ya'all's bestest buds....

    Ya'all actually RIDICULED Romney because he called the geopolitical situation dead on ballz accurate...

    Like I said..

    The *ONLY* reason ya'all are so hysterical about Putin and Russia is because ya'all LOST..

    No other conclusion fits all the facts...

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    California speaker recall effort reflects Democratic tension
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article165647857.html

    Blue on Blue Civil War :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, sure. The Right is always darkly implying that rioting in the streets will ensue if they don't get their way.

    It's not a question of "getting their way"...

    It's a question of nullifying a free, fair and legal election..

    Put another way..

    How would the hysterical Left Wing feel if NOT-45 won the election and then was forced out because of something from WhiteWater..

    Ya'all would lose yer frakin' minds...

    And, Hodgkinson proved that Democrats WILL react violently and try to kill people they politically disagree with..

    So, please... Don't play the holier-than-thou card... You have no foundation...

    "General, I've seen your own file... Please..."
    -Dr Elizabeth Weir, STARGATE ATLANTIS

    :D

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Just 4 short years BEFORE the election, Putin and Russia were ya'all's bestest buds..

    You just don't understand a thing about global geopolitics, do you? In 2012, Obama had not yet signed the Magnitsky Act, Russia had not yet invaded Ukraine, seized Crimea, or intervened in the Syrian war. Putin and Obama had not yet had that stare-down. Most importantly, Russia had not yet picked sides in the 2016 election, save that Putin very publicly blamed Hillary for inciting protests following his last election (absurd as that sounds, it's one of the reasons given for Putin's later behavior in the Dossier).

    So a lot of water has passed under that bridge, time to put that saw to rest. Do you also want to discuss some of the things that Trump said back then? How about further back, when he was 'grabby'?

    Sure Romney said Russia was scary. He also said that our military should counteract that with more swords and horses.

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    How would the hysterical Left Wing feel if NOT-45 won the election and then was forced out because of something from WhiteWater..

    I dunno. I know that Republicans tried that and failed miserably in the '90's.

    Here's one: How would Democrats feel if they thought that the Republican Candidate had conspired to receive billions of dollars worth of assistance from the Russians? Not rally bucks, but sophisticated cyberwarfare and psy-ops operations that operate on the same playing field as the NSA.

    How would the GOP had felt if Obama had been accused of doing that, then began lying about, firing or badmouthing everyone who wanted to look into it. Their heads would explode. Alex Jones would go into full on cardiac attack.

    So spare me the mock indignation.

  38. [38] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/03/u_s_intelligence_reportedly_intercepted_russian_operatives_chatter_about.html

    CNN has learned that investigators became more suspicious when they turned up intercepted communications that U.S. intelligence agencies collected among suspected Russian operatives discussing their efforts to work with Manafort, who served as campaign chairman for three months, to coordinate information that could damage Hillary Clinton's election prospects, the US officials say. The suspected operatives relayed what they claimed were conversations with Manafort, encouraging help from the Russians.

    Drip, drip, drip.

  39. [39] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-host-eric-bolling-suspending-pending-results-of-lewd-text-probe

    No wonder FOX News supports Blotus -- all the men there are sexual predators/deviants.

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthasar (23)-
    Trump may have been the villain of the piece, but the comment was directed at people that didn't vote for Clinton. That is the point that you seem to have missed.
    And I am not at all confused about it. I am perfectly able to comprehend hypocrisy.

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm (31)-
    They haven't been elected yet.
    But there is hope. You can make it possible to elect them by participating in One Demand.

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No... The public doesn't CARE.....

    *ONLY* Democrats care..

    And they only care because they lost....

    respectfully, i completely disagree. obviously congress cares, because they approved sanctions against russia 517-5. the issue is that neither the press nor the administration seems able to acknowledge that the russia issue is serious, because they're so stuck on whether or not the trump campaign was involved. which to be honest is totally beside the point.

    JL

  43. [43] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    the issue is that neither the press nor the administration seems able to acknowledge that the russia issue is serious

    Is it serious? The CIA and other forces of our government have attempted to influence so many elections of so many countries since 1946 that I find this a "I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!" moment of, possibly deserved, comeuppance. I also think the future threat of similar interference from Russia is overstated and dwarfed by this form of interference just becoming part of the human democracy experience regardless of country or rivalry of countries...

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bashi,

    Yes, it is a very serious issue.

    Unless you think Putin's Russian system of government is better or even as good as the American or European version of democracy.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    the issue is that neither the press nor the administration seems able to acknowledge that the russia issue is serious

    Why wasn't it serious all the other times Russia tried to interfere in our elections??

    Because THIS time, President Trump won....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is it serious? The CIA and other forces of our government have attempted to influence so many elections of so many countries since 1946 that I find this a "I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!" moment of, possibly deserved, comeuppance. I also think the future threat of similar interference from Russia is overstated and dwarfed by this form of interference just becoming part of the human democracy experience regardless of country or rivalry of countries...

    Exactly...

    The *ONLY* reason it's serious NOW is because Trump one..

    Ask yourselves one question..

    Would there be this level of hysteria if NOT-45 had won???

    If ya'all are honest, ya'all would concede that we wouldn't be hearing a PEEP about Russian interference..

    We KNOW this to be true because Odumbo SAID as much...

    He had known about Russian interference long before the general public did but he didn't care and chose not to do anything about it BECAUSE HE ASSUMED THAT NOT-45 WOULD WIN..

    The *ONLY* reason we are hearing about Russian interference is because President Trump won..

    No other conclusion fits all the facts..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    No wonder FOX News supports Blotus -- all the men there are sexual predators/deviants.

    Complete, total and unequivocal bigotry...

    Typical....

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-host-eric-bolling-suspending-pending-results-of-lewd-text-probe

    Totally unsubstantiated and the word of a single anonymous source..

    You only believe this bullshit because you WANT to believe it...

    There is not a SINGLE fact to support the claim...

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    TEMPERATURES PLUNGE AFTER AUSTRALIA’S BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY ORDERS FIX
    https://www.thegwpf.com/temperatures-plunge-after-bureau-of-meteorology-orders-fix/

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    When so-called "scientists" stop tweaking and adjusting temps the temps plunge...

    Who could have possibly thunked it!!!??

    :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    So a lot of water has passed under that bridge, time to put that saw to rest.

    That's a very good point, Balthasar.. You are absolutely correct..

    Russia DID do a lot of bad things after Odumbo promised Putin to be "flexible" if Putin gave Odumbo "space" to win the election..

    You are dead on ballz accurate...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you also want to discuss some of the things that Trump said back then? How about further back, when he was 'grabby'?

    Sure... Let's talk about that..

    Do you have ANY facts that it actually happened??

    No, you don't..

    All you have is normal locker-room talk amongst elitist alpha-males...

    Of course, we ALSO have yer guy, Bill Clinton actually raping and sexual assaulting scores of women..

    Do you want to talk about THAT!??

    No, of course not..

    Because it lays bare yer blatant hypocrisy...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russia DID do a lot of bad things after Odumbo promised Putin to be "flexible" if Putin gave Odumbo "space" to win the election..

    Do you want to talk about THAT collusion with Russia??

    Of course you don't... Because it's Odumbo...

    So, please.. Spare me yer hysterical rantings about Russia and collusion and interference..

    The facts clearly show you only care about it because President Trump won...

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    because they're so stuck on whether or not the trump campaign was involved. which to be honest is totally beside the point.

    Exactly...

    The point SHOULD be Russian interference. Period..

    But, as you point out, the Anti-Trumpers are TOTALLY concentrating on Trump's alleged involvement to the exclusion of all else....

    If NOT-45 had won the election, there wouldn't be a peep from Congress over Russian efforts to interfere in the election..

    That is EXACTLY my point..

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    All you have is normal locker-room talk amongst elitist alpha-males...

    I mean, imagine the locker-room talk between yer boy Bubba Clinton and serial pedophile Jeffery Epstein..

    Their bragging consists of who has had sex with the youngest girl..

    Face reality, sunshine..

    You don't CARE about that kind of locker room talk..

    You just care because it came from Trump...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Confederacy Still Lingers Within The Progressivism That Birthed It
    Progressives are outraged that a new HBO series will depict a modern-day Confederacy. But they have more in common with the Confederacy than they realize.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/03/confederacy-still-lingers-within-progressivism-birthed/

    Yep, yep, yep...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is why I worry we are headed into dangerous and choppy Constitutional waters. We know what the Democrats want to do; get control of the House and on day one start impeachment.

    I happen to think; as you know I opposed the Trump candidacy. I don't think he is very well fit for the presidency. But fitness is not a reason for impeachment, and removal. High crimes are. Here we have a prosecutor looking for high crimes. With Watergate you started with a crime and tried to find out how it happened. Here they are looking for a crime... as of yet I haven't heard of one. Collusion is unseemly but it isn't a crime.

    So you've got a political establishment, mostly Democratic, but there are some Republicans, who would like to see him taken out of office. That would be a catastrophic mistake. It would cause a rupture in the country, where people would say: 'When we people, the ones who have been 'abandoned' elect sombody we like, our guy gets taken out. What happened, I thought we had a stable democracy?'
    -Charles Krauthammer

    Like I said...

    If the Anti-Trumpers are successful in removing Trump, it's NOT going to be pretty....

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like AG Sessions is back on President Trump's good side..

    So ya'all can start attacking AG Sessions... :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:
  59. [59] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-14

    ..."publishing a Guest Column on One Demand"...

    If you can't book business class why not just suck it up a fly economy.

    Write a column, serialize it into chunks, and publish it right here in the comments section. Post it early in the AM so all the chunks come out together for the sake of continuity. Interested readers could easily reconstitute the chunks into a single document by cutting and pasting into a Word document. Problem solved, no permission necessary.
    Just avoid known filter traps.

    Or, you could just provide a link to your website. That seems easier.

  60. [60] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Is Russia interfering in our election process a serious problem?
    Of course it is.
    Is it new?
    Of course it's not.
    Is it being used by both Current Major Parties to galvanize their base and distract people from paying attention to the much more serious problem of the Current Major Parties manipulating our system to prevent citizens from being able to actually have a functioning democracy?
    Look no further than the comments here for the answer to that question and how effective that strategy is. But if you do look further you will mostly find more of the same.

  61. [61] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    Good advice- but been there done that.
    I have posted the website http://www.onedemand.org . And I have already been told I should appreciate that CW basically allows me to post columns here in the comments when I made similar comments in the past- and I do appreciate it.
    But a comment in the comments section here is not seen by as many people as in an actual article that is cross posted on the sites that carry CW's articles. That is most likely where the majority of people see CW's articles, not at this site. And people seem to put more stock in something that is written in an article than from a commenter.
    And even when a commenter or social media gets something started (like the Women's March) it still has to be picked up by the media to move it on to the next level.

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    46

    The *ONLY* reason it's serious NOW is because Trump one..

    Wrong. The investigation into Russia interfering in the US 2016 election began in mid 2016 before the election took place, and regardless of the winner of the election, it would still be a big deal today. If HRC had won, do you seriously think she would ignore it and not take every step that she could in order to keep Russia from meddling into the presidential election of 2020? Duh.

    Ask yourselves one question..

    Would there be this level of hysteria if NOT-45 had won???

    The majority of "hysteria" regarding the issue is coming from Trump's twitter feed and the perpetually grieving right-wing whiners, while the investigation that began in 2016 continues. If anyone actually thinks that HRC winning the election would have changed the investigation by the IC into Russia and the Trump campaign, they're delusional and/or have no critical thinking skills. Hell would hath no fury like a woman attempted to be scorned by Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin... believe me.

    Additionally, the talking point that Russia has interfered in the same way in all our elections including 2012, 2008, etc. is simply right-wing utter nonsense attempting to normalize the 2016 election. You do recognize that the right wing promotes the idea that Russia has interfered the same way in all our elections so it's normal while also promoting the idea that it's all fake news and there's no proof Russia interfered? So which is it? If you find yourself arguing both of these things, then perhaps you've swallowed too much of the Kool-Aid; too much of that orange goop will make you sound ridiculous arguing out of both sides of your "wherever" that Russia always does this but where's your proof they did anything and it's all fake and made up after HRC lost.

    If ya'all are honest, ya'all would concede that we wouldn't be hearing a PEEP about Russian interference..

    We KNOW this to be true because Odumbo SAID as much...

    Cite?

    He had known about Russian interference long before the general public did but he didn't care and chose not to do anything about it BECAUSE HE ASSUMED THAT NOT-45 WOULD WIN..

    Chose not to do anything about it? Wrong. As you already know, the FBI and other intelligence agencies have been investigating the issue since mid 2016. Lawmakers knew months before the election what Russia was doing. You should educate yourself about this issue and how Obama wanted a bipartisan effort to inform the public yet Mitch McConnell insisted that any effort by the Obama administration to inform the public regarding Russia attempting to influence the election would be perceived as partisan and against Trump. It's all over the Internet.

    The *ONLY* reason we are hearing about Russian interference is because President Trump won..

    No other conclusion fits all the facts..

    If you don't think the minute the election was over that President Obama and President-elect Clinton wouldn't be informing the public regarding this issue... just as Obama had dispatched Comey, Monaco, and Johnson to discuss with Congressional leaders to inform the public before the election, then you need to educate yourself. If you think a President Clinton wouldn't be tearing Putin a new one over this and putting sanctions on Russia as Congress rightly has done, then you need to hone your critical thinking skills and step away from the orange goop. :)

  63. [63] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    "working with Democrats on a sane alternative."

    Schumer's proposal to give insurance companies billions more in subsidies to "stabilize" the price gouging health insurance market they've rigged to cause the problems in the first place is not a "sane alternative".

    Your praise for the "problem solvers" working on the same thing, and your spinning it as award worthy, is full on denial that rewarding the insurance companies for the problems they caused is a good thing. The need to whitewash the source of the problem and the "solution" in an attempt to sell it to readers is telling.

    Dems caving to corporate extortion by paying the bribes they demand painted as award worthy bipartisan problem solving is most impressive.

    The "some Democrats won't like" the right wing approach giving taxpayer money to unworthy corporations bit is the understatement of the week.

    I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the Democrats in Congress who like the approach will be showered with legalized kickbacks for their largesse with our money.

    Less clear is why a pundit would like the approach.

    A

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Russia interfering in our election process a serious problem?
    Of course it is.
    Is it new?
    Of course it's not.

    Exactly...

    This kind of interference happened in 2012, 2008 etc etc...

    We're only hearing more about it now because the Establishment got their asses handed to them and they are doing their best to nullify a free, fair and legal election...

    This isn't a Right v Left or Dem v GOP issue..

    It's an Establishment v Middle Class issue...

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig (part two)-
    So the question is how do you and everyone else here feel about whether or not CW should post a guest column or mention One Demand in Friday Talking Points as he did with Not One Penny and other ideas?
    And the question is not whether you support One Demand, it is whether or not it should be part of the public discourse beyond the comments section here.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chose not to do anything about it? Wrong. As you already know, the FBI and other intelligence agencies have been investigating the issue since mid 2016.

    Odumbo knew in April of 2016 that Russians were trying to interfere in our elections..

    But he chose not to do anything about it because he thought NOT-45 was going to win...

    It was only in late Sep/Early Oct when it looked like NOT-45 was in trouble did Odumbo take steps...

    This is all well-documented...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Odumbo knew in April of 2016 that Russians were trying to interfere in our elections..

    August.. Not April..

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    This one's for you...

    The CEO of Budweiser orders a Bud Light..
    The CEO of Miller orders a Miller Light..
    The CEO of Coors orders a Coors Light..
    The CEO of Guinness orders a Diet Coke..
    The other CEOs ask him why he is not ordering a Guinness...
    To which the CEO of Guinness replies, "If you guys aren't drinking beer, then neither will I!"..

    :D

  69. [69] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    10

    Iran upholding the deal in order to maintain the relationships with the other powers involved may well be what happens, and Iran is publicly working to that end to make Trump look ever worse, but the US is nonetheless violating the deal with the hopes of ending it, and Democrats are aiding Trump in that effort.

    "The sanctions in the bill that Trump signed are narrowly targeted, and mostly symbolic"

    Those words are only sort of pregnant.

    "I can't imagine Democrats believing another word that comes out of Trump's mouth on anything that isn't backed up by irrefutable evidence"

    Sarin.
    How many Democrats refused to believe those claims again?
    And we still don't have "irrefutable evidence".

    Many humans have an ability to recognize a recurring pattern, and there is such a pattern that originated decades ago, but that has continued through the Trump regime.
    Irrefutable evidence is not the standard Congress, the media, or Democrats in particular have used when deciding whether or not to support our wars.

    Wanting to believe as you do in this case may be noble, but the evidence suggests your faith is misguided.

    "But be reasonable: 'direct covert action' (i.e., introducing a computer virus to shut down Iranian centrifuges) was likely what brought the Iranians, finally, to the bargaining table"

    Iran offered to negotiate prior to our cyber attack, so you are not the reasonable one here.
    Sanctions didn't reduce the civilian nuclear energy program in Iran, our negotiations did.
    And there's ample evidence those negotiations could have been successful years earlier, prior to the escalation of our sanctions and our illegal attack on their NPT guaranteed right to enrichment for nuclear power.

    As reported in the NYT, our covert actions include numerous other efforts, and Congress has budgeted hundreds of millions of dollars to pursue them.

    We should also remember that there's supposed to be a declaration of war based on a sound legal premise prior to attacks on a sovereign nation, but that little detail gets ignored.

    "And there's no credible evidence that we deliberately shot down that Iranian civilian airline."

    Launching a missile to blow a civilian airliner out of the sky is a deliberate action.
    The missile didn't launch itself.

    The intent may not have been criminal, but that doesn't make it legal.

    And the supposed accident justifiably remains a sore point in Iran, and should still be a source of shame for us that should also help us understand Iranian skepticism about our actions, and the actions they have taken in response.

    A

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "If you guys aren't drinking beer, then neither will I!"..

    yeah, american adjunct lagers are basically just soda.

  71. [71] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-65

    As a matter of pure courtesy, I leave the decision of who gets to be a guest columnist entirely up to The Editor in Chief.

    The problem I have with One Demand is that is appears to be an Evolutionarily Unstable Strategy. That is, politicians (and their supporters) who follow your strategy will usually lose elections and fail to prosper. Framed in reverse, politicians who take big donations will tend to win and go on to try again. It's not like the small donation candidate can't win - Senator Proxmire from Wisconsin won his senate seat many times accepting small donations and at least once accepting NO outside donations, but it's fairly rare.

    Evolutionarily Stable Strategies are something I know a bit about - one Dissertation and the best paper I ever published plus more multidisciplinary papers on the subject over the years (it has lots of way cool applications). I got paid to do it, which by definition makes a professional. It's not the sort of thing I want to get into in detail on this site, unless you want to talk about saddle points, min max, information lags and partial differential equations to name a few odds and ends.

    Another problem with 1D is that you don't really present an explicit model. It's hazy. For example you seem to believe that Big Money will magically surrender if 20% of the electorate signs a nonbinding pledge? Pardon me, but you need to connect some dots. What about dark money, which is supposedly "independent" of a candidate's campaign? Not even mentioned.

    Red teaming a novel idea such as yours is an inherently brutal process (similar to the KGB final exam) and can be tough on a promoter, but it's an essential part of the game. You need to up your game in order for me to take you and your idea seriously. You should talk to some actual politicians and their handlers.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    yeah, american adjunct lagers are basically just soda.

    {Hoists a Bud Light}

    I'll drink to that... :D

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Launching a missile to blow a civilian airliner out of the sky is a deliberate action.

    Ahhhhhh But it WASN'T a deliberate action to blow a CIVILIAN AIRLINER out of the sky now was it??

    It was a deliberate action to blow an attacking F-14 out of the sky...

    The fact that it wasn't an attacking F-14 doesn't change the intent..

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    The intent may not have been criminal, but that doesn't make it legal.

    It doesn't make it illegal either...

    It was an unfortunate accident brought on by the belligerence of the Iranians...

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    The intent may not have been criminal, but that doesn't make it legal.

    It doesn't make it illegal either...

    Legal/illegal is not the issue..

    Was the shoot-down JUSTIFIED??

    Yes it was..

    Just like the Calisto shooting in Minneapolis...

    It was a tragic accident, but it was justified...

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    yeah, american adjunct lagers are basically just soda.

    That's putting it mildly.

  77. [77] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    Of course CW gets to decide what is in his column. That doesn't mean that we can't also have an opinion and express it in the comments section. I may not even be the only one that has expressed their opinion on what should or shouldn't be in CW's articles. Kinda one of the purposes of a comments section.
    I appreciate your opinions on One Demand, though I disagree with some of your points.
    You are correct that politicians that take Big Money tend to win. However, since they are usually competing only against other Big Money candidates they also tend to lose.
    The fact that Big money candidates are the only ones that seem to be able to win is a major problem with our political system that needs to be fixed. Even Al Gore said that on Real Time Friday night.
    You do admit that sometimes small contribution candidates have won. They won even though there was no organization to support them- which is one reason why it is rare.
    The purpose of One Demand is to BUILD an organization that can change the current dynamic that says only Big Money candidates can win and make it possible for citizens to work together to support the small contribution candidates so it will be less rare.
    Sort of like a Union for Politics.
    Just as workers can go on strike by withholding their labor to get better pay, working conditions, etc., citizens can withhold their vote from and vote against the Big Money candidates and demand small contribution candidates.
    20% national participation will not magically do anything.(Another shameful attempt to belittle One Demand through dismissive labeling like Evolutionarily Unstable Strategy. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.)
    With 20% national participation there will be some states below the 20% average and some above the 20% average. In states at 20% or above there will be some districts below the state average and some above.
    These districts will be the first to have competitive small contribution candidates, still possible to accomplish in 2018.
    The success of those candidates, whether it is by winning an election, beating one of the CMP candidates as a third party or independent candidate or by enabling a CMP candidate to win in a district gerrymandered for the other CMP will expose the vulnerability of the Big Money Duopoly and inspire more people to participate in subsequent elections.
    This will reach the point in a few election cycles when enough citizens are participating that the majority of congressional districts will have competitive small contribution candidates.
    That is how things are changed and the same approach as any other movement. Sounds like an evolutionary strategy to me.
    Is Not One Penny having people sign a petition with no teeth going to suddenly fix that problem?
    But for some reason One Demand must solve every problem all at once or it is no good.
    Of course politicians have no control over dark Money or groups outside their campaign. As I have said here before it will be up the the participants to decide if the politicians are living up to their commitment.
    And the whole point of this is NOT the money that the participants provide in contributions to the candidates which will be enough to run a campaign, but the VOTES that they cast which is how our political system was designed to work.
    That is how the politicians can and will be held accountable.
    The dots are connected. But you are still not seeing the picture. The conventional political wisdom that you are basing your analysis on has already been proven to not be as set in stone for posterity as previously thought. (see 2016 election)
    Believe me, I have tried to contact many politicians, pundits, activists, etc. That's partly how I ended up commenting here because I had to sign up here to contact CW about an article he wrote.
    Having a guest column published or a mention in one of CW's or anyone else's columns would make that a lot easier to accomplish.
    People have a romantic notion that somehow the media is competing to find the story no one else has first like in the movies. The reality is just the opposite.
    If you have been published somewhere else first then they will consider your submissions. Politicians and pundits, etc. seem to be the same.

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale [68]

    Good one :)

    Definitely stealing that.

    Sitting at a cafe in Paris (dream vacation with wife, the honeymoon we couldn't afford 25 years ago) drinking a Heineken as I saw this! Good timing!

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    "If you guys aren't drinking beer, then neither will I!"..

    yeah, american adjunct lagers are basically just soda.

    When I first came to the U.S. in 1990 those were the choices in most bars.

    My coworkers and myself who were all transferred from London at the same time used to ask for a pint of "put it back in the horse" and howl with laughter.

    We were not popular in the local bars but our bar tab and subsequent tip usually helped smooth over any hurt feelings.

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    Beer kicking in. Forgot on the last comment.

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    Forgot close italics.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Beer kicking in. Forgot on the last comment.

    Yer home. Go drunk :D

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is it cold?

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... the beer in Paris, I mean.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    drinking a Heineken as I saw this!

    I know..

    That's why I posted it at that time.. :D heh

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oui Madame Miller. Just came to Paris via the Channel Tunnel from London (where I lived for three years before coming to the U.S.) and the beer there was as warm as usual, however it is so good it is still good.

    That, I suppose, is the test of a great beer, is it good warm.

    Still prefer cold ones however.

    You have great beers in Canada as I remember (I lived there before moving to London) (after Nigeria and Scotland) (I had an itinerant childhood).

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    I know..

    That's why I posted it at that time.. :D heh

    Good timing my friend. Always a cold one waiting if you and your better half come over to visit :)

  88. [88] 
    neilm wrote:

    California I mean Michale. But Paris might be fun too

  89. [89] 
    altohone wrote:

    74, 75

    "It doesn't make it illegal either...

    It was an unfortunate accident brought on by the belligerence of the Iranians..."

    "Legal/illegal is not the issue.."

    Yes, the legality is the issue as that was the framing in my comment... not whether or not there was criminal intent, or excuses offered.

    The incident was officially called an accident by the US because shooting down civilian airliners is not legal... not just so that we didn't look like assholes.

    And, no.
    The Iranians did not cause the supposed accident.
    The US misidentifying the aircraft was the cause according to their claims.

    Just as a reference point, about a week ago, the US fired warning shots at an Iranian vessel in the Persian Gulf.
    The US released an official statement claiming the warning shots were fired after sounding five warning signals... the official procedure recognized internationally.

    The video the dumbasses released clearly showed the official statement was false, as the warning shots were fired after the 2nd and 4th blasts of the warning signal... in violation of the official procedure... with no time for the Iranians to react prior to the supposed justification for firing warning shots.

    There is a long history of the official narrative not jibing with the facts, including in Trump's failed raid in Yemen, and Obama's attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz Afghanistan... and countless other incidents going back.

    It happens frequently enough that blind faith in the accuracy of their claims is naïve.
    And there are indeed disputes over the facts in the Iranian airliner case.

    But as a supporter of war crimes including torture, and blatant disregard for the rule of law, I am not the least bit surprised your opinion on this incident is comparably twisted... a red flag for all reasonable people.

    A

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, the legality is the issue as that was the framing in my comment...

    It's an incident that CAN'T be framed as 'legal/illegal'...

    The incident was officially called an accident by the US because shooting down civilian airliners is not legal...

    It's like trying to frame killing someone as legal or illegal..

    If it's justified, by definition, it's "legal"..

    But as a supporter of war crimes including torture, and blatant disregard for the rule of law, I am not the least bit surprised your opinion on this incident is comparably twisted... a red flag for all reasonable people.

    If I were a supporter of war crimes, you would have a point..

    But, as with your "definition" of everything else, it's self-serving that has little or nothing to do with reality and everything to do with ignorance and Party zealotry...

  91. [91] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    Israel just joined Arab monarchs in censoring the press.

    Al Jazeera is being shut down for "incitement"... as they reported on security issues at holy sites in Jerusalem that angered the Palestinians.

    Got that.
    Instituting the measures is not the incitement, reporting on them is, and that justifies censorship.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40843126

    A

  92. [92] 
    altohone wrote:

    90

    "It's an incident that CAN'T be framed as 'legal/illegal'..."

    Bull.
    Shooting down civilian airliners is illegal.

    "If it's justified, by definition, it's "legal".."

    No. Not generally or in this case.
    If it was officially called an accident, it wasn't justified.

    "If I were a supporter of war crimes"

    Are you disavowing your previous support for illegal wars of aggression and torture?
    Both are war crimes.
    You've supported both.
    You even claimed personal experience with the effectiveness of torture.

    Are you evolving?

    A

  93. [93] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If it was officially called an accident, it wasn't justified.

    Careful there, your anti-institutional bias is showing. Every investigation of that event showed it to be a mistake.

    I remember an article in Playboy (back when people read Playboy for the articles) about the crash of a DC-10. After extensive investigation, the author reported that a case could be made that dozens of people had conspired to bring that plane down, because of all the things that had to line up to make that crash happen.

    Of course, that's nonsensical. Nobody wanted a plane full of innocent people to crash then, just as nobody wanted a jetliner filled with Iranians to be accidentally blown out of the sky in 1988. You could argue that it was stupid, but you can't make a case that it was malicious.

    Anyway, eventually the US settled with Iran in the International Court of Justice for an amount that came out to a little over $213K per passenger.

    It did have an effect on US policy. It's the reason that American ships in the Persian Gulf regularly put up with the games that the Iranians play with speedboats.

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shooting down civilian airliners is illegal.

    The action doesn't lend itself to the legal question..

    Just like killing someone..

    The only question is, is it justified..

    If it was officially called an accident, it wasn't justified.

    Yes it was... Given the circumstances and the frame of mind of the captain, the action was justified..

    Are you disavowing your previous support for illegal wars of aggression and torture?

    I am disavowing your definition of them....

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    I remember an article in Playboy (back when people read Playboy for the articles) about the crash of a DC-10.

    "You have GOT to stop reading these magazines so much!!!"
    "I only look at them for the naked pictures.."
    -MORK & MINDY

    :D

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you evolving?

    YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!!!!

    :D

  97. [97] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris [77],

    Just as workers can go on strike by withholding their labor to get better pay, working conditions, etc., citizens can withhold their vote from and vote against the Big Money candidates and demand small contribution candidates.

    You have made this point multiple times in conversations on here, but I still cannot figure out how not voting or writing in my own name would send the message that I am demanding small contribution candidates. To most, it sends the message that I just don't care about politics anymore.

    Receiving large donations does not make a candidate dirty anymore than only receiving small donations makes for a good candidate! What happens when the OneDemand candidate running in my district is running on a platform that would force gays into conversion therapy camps? If they get 20% of the votes in my district, is the message that most people will take away from this be that small contribution candidates are in demand or is it that I should probably find a new place to live?

    Small contribution candidates cannot run on that alone. I think of the fact that a candidate chooses to only accept smaller contributions as being bonus points when I score a candidate -- like having served in the military. I don't fault a candidate that didn't serve -- it makes no sense to do so. Neither does it make sense to not vote for a candidate that shares identical views on the major issues that I do simply because they do accept larger donations.

    It makes for a great side dish, but not the main entree.

  98. [98] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    i don't think don would vote for such a paleolithic candidate just because they accepted only small donations. to him the small donation is necessary but not sufficient. he'd sooner vote for someone who has less of a chance of winning than someone who EITHER accepts large contributions OR has horrific policy preferences.

    JL

  99. [99] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Nypoet(thank you) is correct that the small contribution is necessary but not sufficient. I have also made the point many times that the small contribution is the starting point. No one will vote for a small contribution Isis candidate.
    And small contributions is a actually a good indicator that a candidate will represent average citizens better than a Big Money candidate.
    But since we have only had Big Money candidates to choose from we will not know for sure unless we try electing small contribution candidates.
    I have also explained that by citizens registering on the website how they intend to vote and how they voted it will make the message sent clear if the vote totals match the website totals.
    And it is the main dish as every other issue is effected by Big Money, the definition of the main dish.
    It doesn't make sense to vote for or to believe the promises of the Big Money candidates because they have already proven where their loyalty lies by taking the Big Money contributions.

  100. [100] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "NO one will vote for a small contribution Isis candidate."
    Unless of course, that candidate is Italian.

  101. [101] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    93

    "Careful there, your anti-institutional bias is showing"

    No it's not.
    Calling it an accident means it wasn't justified.
    They are inherently contradictory.

    "Every investigation of that event showed it to be a mistake."

    Mistake and accident are different?
    In any case, the only investigation I am aware of was by the military of itself, unless you're counting congressional hearings or journalism... or the Iranian investigation that contradicts your claim.

    "You could argue that it was stupid, but you can't make a case that it was malicious."

    I made no such case.
    Shooting down a civilian airliner doesn't need to be malicious to be illegal.

    That said, two journalists for Newsweek did make that case, Iran made that case, the Aegis system recorder contradicted crew statements, numerous initial claims were shown to be false, the Vincennes illegally entered Iranian territorial waters well before launching the missiles and the captain was known to be overly aggressive, the captain of the nearest US ship openly questioned the actions of the captain of the Vincennes, and the plane was in Iranian territory inside a recognized civilian flight path.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

    "It's the reason that American ships in the Persian Gulf regularly put up with the games that the Iranians play with speedboats."

    You mean they put up with our games half a world away from home while they patrol their territorial waters right?

    A

  102. [102] 
    altohone wrote:

    94

    "The action doesn't lend itself to the legal question.."

    Bull.
    Repeating a false claim doesn't make it true.
    There are laws that cover the incident.
    The case was argued in a court of law, and was settled... in all likelihood because US lawyers thought they might lose.

    "The only question is, is it justified.."

    Bull.
    By definition, an accident is not justified.
    And if it was justified, it wasn't an accident.
    The official line was that it was an accident.
    You are only offering excuses for the cause of the accident.

    Going back to your false "if it's justified, it's legal" claim-
    Vigilantism may be justified, but it's illegal.
    All sorts of examples of justifiable actions are illegal... cancer patients smoking pot in what 18 states still, etc.

    "I am disavowing your definition of them...."

    They aren't my definitions.
    The definitions of torture and wars of aggression are from US and international law, written in an effort led by US legal experts.

    They formed the basis of many prosecutions of Nazis by US military lawyers at Nuremberg.

    Your disavowal of the official legal definitions doesn't change them, but does prove your disregard for the rule of law, and a twisted view of the world where war crimes are acceptable.

    A

  103. [103] 
    neilm wrote:

    45 makes a lot of claims about how good he is for the stock market. However when you split stocks into those with a light tax burden and those with a heavy one an interesting trend appears.

    High tax burden companies surged after the unexpected election result in anticipation of a cut in business taxes, but over time these have slowed in growth and the lightly taxed companies have overtaken them and are further ahead.

    Since 45 has done nothing from a legislative perspective he can't point to an action that stimulated the capital markets (even though he takes full credit), and this chart shows that even his bluster is wearing off:

    http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/taxbreaks.png

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shooting down civilian airliners is illegal.

    Postulate a scenario where an airliner under terrorist control is heading towards a high population area with the intent to plow the airliner into that high population area...

    The POTUS orders that airliner to be shot down..

    Perfectly legal....

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the thought plickens!! :D

    DOJ Document Dump to ACLJ on Clinton Lynch Meeting: Comey FBI Lied, Media Collusion, Spin, and Illegality
    https://aclj.org/government-corruption/doj-document-dump-to-aclj-on-clinton-lynch-meeting-comey-fbi-lied-media-collusion-spin-and-illegality

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Postulate a scenario where an airliner under terrorist control is heading towards a high population area with the intent to plow the airliner into that high population area...

    The POTUS orders that airliner to be shot down..

    Perfectly legal..

    I mean, if you really WANT to put it into the ridiculous context of legal/illegal.. :D

    The simple fact is, the Vincennes downing of the airliner was justified.. You can characterize it as an accident, a mistake, an illegal act and other irrelevant labels..

    But the simple fact is that, given the circumstances of shots being fired and the information available at the given moment, the Captain's actions were justified..

    It's the same as the Calisto shooting in Minneapolis or any other cop shooting you want to whine about...

    Yes, there will always be second guessers and arm-chair quarterbacks..

    ANYONE can have a "valid" opinion with the advantage of 20-20 hindsight..

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    45 makes a lot of claims about how good he is for the stock market.

    As opposed to all ya'all's claims on how BAD President Trump would be for the markets?? :D

    Since 45 has done nothing from a legislative perspective he can't point to an action that stimulated the capital markets (even though he takes full credit),

    Why not??

    Ya'all were giving FULL BLAME for the huge stock market crash before it even happened??

    How are ya'all's actions any different than President Trump's???

    Aside from the fact that ya'all were completely and utterly wrong?? :D

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    We’re Witnessing A Slow-Rolling Coup

    The Washington Post published complete transcripts of President Trump’s phone conversations with the president of Mexico and the prime minister of Australia. There was no news value in them; they simply took out portions to present out-of-context to embarrass the president. That was enough for the Post to stop its presses, but it is a decision that will do real damage to the presidency and the country.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2017/08/06/were-witnessing-a-slowrolling-coup-n2365059

    Yep... Yep..

    And how does a nation respond to a coup against a freely, fairly and legally elected President??

    By force of arms, if necessary...

  109. [109] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the "coup" narrative is complete bs. the person most responsible for undermining and deligitimizing donald trump's presidency has been donald trump.

    The things you own end up owning you.
    ~fight club

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    the "coup" narrative is complete bs. the person most responsible for undermining and deligitimizing donald trump's presidency has been donald trump.

    That's total bull-puckey

    Yea, Trump has made some mistakes, sure...

    But claiming that is like claiming that the person most responsible for Obama's fuck-ups was Obama..

    The plan was created within 24 hours of NOT-45 losing to de-legitimize Trump's presidency and nullify the election results.

    This is well documented from statements by NOT-45's own campaign..

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    But claiming that is like claiming that the person most responsible for Obama's fuck-ups was Obama..

    Which is COMPLETELY contrary to what ya'all were saying at the time...

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    This illogical appeal to someone else's hypocrisy does not refute the point. Yes, Obama's screw ups WERE largely his own fault, and i said so at the time. If Donald wants someone to blame for his administration not being accepted or respected, her should look in a mirror.

  113. [113] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Her/ he. Autocorrect grrrrr

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    the "coup" narrative is complete bs

    And moose poop I say!!

    Ya'all yerselves have commented on how fanatically devoted Trump supporters are to President Trump..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that if the NeverTrumpers force President Trump from office over some piddley real-estate shenanigan from decades ago that those supporters are going to sit idly by and say, "Eh... OK, no biggie..." ????

    Because if you honestly believe that, I have some swampland down here I wanna sell ya... :D

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, Obama's screw ups WERE largely his own fault, and i said so at the time.

    So, you are saying now that Obama's problems had NOTHING to do with GOP obstructionism???

    If Donald wants someone to blame for his administration not being accepted or respected, her should look in a mirror.

    And Democrat obstructionism and violence has absolutely NOTHING to do with it??

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Democrat obstructionism and violence has absolutely NOTHING to do with it??

    That should read:

    And NeverTrumper obstructionism and violence has absolutely NOTHING to do with it??

  117. [117] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No, that's not what I'm saying.

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, that's not what I'm saying.

    Good.. Cuz I wouldn't have believed ya... :D

  119. [119] 
    altohone wrote:

    104

    If you need to stoop to an exception that requires a presidential order, it's safe to say this debate is over.

    A

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you need to stoop to an exception that requires a presidential order, it's safe to say this debate is over.

    You said that shooting down an airline is ALWAYS illegal..

    I just proved you wrong..

    So... yea... I guess the debate IS over..

    And you lost.. :D

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘This was not supposed to happen’: Gore’s sequel comes in dismal 15th at box office – Gore fans allege film ‘sabotaged’ by Paramount

    Climate activists in shock at Gore sequel bombing at box office: 'This was not supposed to happen'
    'Al Gore Gets Ripped Off Again'
    'He should have demanded a recount.'
    Gore fans reduced to blaming the distributor. 'A botched strategy by Paramount Pictures effectively sabotaged the nationwide release' of Gore's sequel.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/07/under-performance-gores-sequel-comes-in-dismal-15th-at-box-office-gore-fans-allege-film-was-sabotaged-by-paramount/

    BBBWWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Yer Climate savior!!

    AL 'Crazed Sex Poodle' Gore....

    :D hehehehehehehehehehehehe

    Now THAT's funny :D

  122. [122] 
    altohone wrote:

    120

    If you need a presidential action to waive the rule of law, you are proving my point, not yours.

    And nice straw man btw.

    A

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you need a presidential action to waive the rule of law, you are proving my point, not yours.

    And if you make absolute black/white claims that are easily proven false, you lose the debate...

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    64

    Exactly...

    This kind of interference happened in 2012, 2008 etc etc...

    You've gone from insisting there is no proof Russia interfered in the 2016 election to insisting that they interfere routinely. You should bookmark this post for review when you're wondering why no one seems to take you seriously. :)

    We're only hearing more about it now because the Establishment got their asses handed to them and they are doing their best to nullify a free, fair and legal election...

    Donald Trump has already admitted publicly that he fired Director Comey because of the Russia investigation and claimed it was a hoax. Somebody should have told Poor Donald that Russia did this in 2012, 2008, etc., etc. If the Trump campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with Russia's routine election meddling, then there was absolutely no need whatsoever to fire Comey for looking into the routine Russian meddling. What would be the big deal with the FBI investigating these mundane, routine matters if the Trump campaign had absolutely nothing to do with Russia's regular interference?

    This isn't a Right v Left or Dem v GOP issue..

    It's an Establishment v Middle Class issue...

    Wrong. It's a Russia v. the United States having a free, fair, and legal election issue. Since you are the one claiming Russia performed this kind of interference in multiple elections and also the one who keeps claiming over and over like a broken record that 2016 was a free, fair, and legal election, perhaps you could explain how Russia interfering into United States elections on a regular basis makes them free, fair, and legal and why it makes any sense whatsoever to fire the Director of the FBI or anyone in the United States intelligence community or working with the DOJ to investigate such routine Russian interference and how it happened in 2016. If this kind of interference is so darned routine and happens all the time, why would Trump fire the FBI director for trying to investigate it in 2016? Do tell.

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    You've gone from insisting there is no proof Russia interfered in the 2016 election to insisting that they interfere routinely.

    There IS no proof that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, but it's common knowledge that Russia ROUTINELY tries to interfere in US elections..

    You should bookmark this post for review when you're wondering why no one seems to take you seriously. :)

    And yet, here you are, hysterically trying to prove me wrong.. :D

    Donald Trump has already admitted publicly that he fired Director Comey because of the Russia investigation and claimed it was a hoax.

    Cite...

    If the Trump campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with Russia's routine election meddling, then there was absolutely no need whatsoever to fire Comey for looking into the routine Russian meddling.

    Except that it was a complete waste of time and taxpayer money...

    Since you are the one claiming Russia performed this kind of interference in multiple elections and also the one who keeps claiming over and over like a broken record that 2016 was a free, fair, and legal election, perhaps you could explain how Russia interfering into United States elections on a regular basis makes them free, fair, and legal

    Because Russia, as it always does, TRIED to interfere..

    There are no FACTS that prove they succeeded...

    NOT-45 was a shitty candidate.. She ran a shitty campaign..

    And THAT is why she lost...

    This was a free, fair and legal election...

    And your candidate lost....

    Get over it...

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    This was a free, fair and legal election...

    How do we know??

    Because Odumbo said so....

    Just as we know that Odumbo didn't care about Russian "hacking" when he was first briefed because he figured that NOT-45 was going to win..

    It was ONLY when NOT-45 got her ass handed to her and was DEVASTATED by President Trump, did the Russian "hacking" take front and center...

    Which is ironic because it was ya'all who accused President Trump that he wouldn't accept the results of the election...

    Ironic because it's YA'ALL that are refusing to accept the results of the election..

    Which is why ya'all are doing your damnedest to nullify the election and overturn the results JUST BECAUSE you don't like them..

  127. [127] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH - 77

    So, you have taken my advice and written what looks to be about a 725 word white paper. This is technically know in some circles as "piggy backing on somebody's blog."

    My comments:

    While it’s true that roughly 80% of individuals polled think too much money is spent on elections it is equally true that the candidate raising the most money wins congressional races 80-90% of the time. When it comes to actual voting, big money repugnance among voters doesn’t typically lead to rebellion on election day. Voters apparently weigh a market basket of other issues more heavily than just big money.

    Most voters don’t contribute a penny to any candidate, and a few big donors give 3 times as much as all the small fry. Individual donations are also outgunned 3 to 1 by: self-financing by candidates, PACs and other miscellaneous donations. These data don’t even include mushrooming Super PACs and other forms of dark money which don’t count as donations to individual candidates. Oh, and campaign laws are very weakly enforced.

    One other thing. A 1Demand registration of resistors is going to require substantial overhead. To be credible, that is “1 person, 1vote,” it must be a shadow voter registration system to prevent ballot and stuffing and other fraud. Computers, software and the people who how to make them go. Transparency, so outsiders have confidence in your lists. $$$$. All for a non-binding pledge.

    All in all, I conclude 1Demand is threatening candidates and their apparatchiks with what is perceived as a very small stick. This is why “politicians, pundits, activists, etc.” aren’t embracing your concept. I agree with them. You are simply losing out in the market place of ideas. This market is sometimes wrong, but not often. As the old saying goes “if you are not queen, do not think you are wronged.”

    “People have a romantic notion that somehow the media is competing to find the story no one else has first like in the movies.” Really? Not anybody who has ever tried to publish anything. Peer review is brutal, but it makes for higher quality publications. Man-up and embrace it. There really isn’t much choice. Nobody is stopping you from promoting your idea, but people generally don’t jump into what looks to be a leaky boat.

    Most of my numbers source to the OpenSecrets web site, some from an article in the Atlantic.

  128. [128] 
    TheStig wrote:

    84, 85 - Neil & Liz

    The USA has finally learned to make world class beer and wine. 'Bout time. I still can't learn to like the taste of bourbon...even the high rated stuff.

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    125

    There IS no proof that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, but it's common knowledge that Russia ROUTINELY tries to interfere in US elections..

    As I have said many times, someone could rub your face in shit, and you'd insist it didn't stink. You agreed with Don's statement that Russian interference was serious... using the term "exactly" and stating that "this kind of interference happened in 2012, 2008 etc etc." Now you've moved the goalposts to "tried to interfere" and surprised exactly no one.

    And yet, here you are, hysterically trying to prove me wrong.. :D

    I'm pointing out that you're contradicting your own statements. Your prolific use of the term "hysterical" and its derivatives render the term pointless, boring, redundant... crack a book and expand your vocubulary, please. You're insisting there's no proof of Russian interference in 2016 yet claiming "this kind of interference" is routine. You are blaming Obama for doing nothing about Russian interference that you claim there is no proof ever happened, yet you claim that continuing an FBI investigation is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. What should Obama have done about the interference that you claim didn't happen that would have been within your acceptable spending range?

    Donald Trump: “Well I just heard today for the first time that Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it. But nobody wants to talk about that. The CIA gave him information on Russia a long time before they even – before the election…. It’s an amazing thing. To me – in other words, the question is, if he had the information, why didn’t he do something about it? He should have done something about it. But you don’t read that. It’s quite sad.”

    Donald Trump blames Obama for doing nothing about a Russian cyberattack that he also insists never happened. This kind of utter nonsense works well with goobers and rubes because thinking things through is not really their strong suit and requires some kind of critical thinking skills.

    In June 2016, Russians were blamed for cyberattacks on Democratic and Republican campaigns; Donald Trump blamed both the Democratic National Committee and Russians for the hacks. In July 2016, more hacked DNC emails were released, and Trump invited Russia to meddle in the campaign.

    Donald Trump: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. … They probably have them. I’d like to have them released.”

    Russians hacking into the DNC was discussed in all three televised debates between Clinton and Trump. Where was Trump? He then claimed nobody brought it up until after the election.

    Donald Trump tweet: Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before election?
    8:21 AM - Dec 12, 2016

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/01/every-russia-story-trump-said-was-a-hoax-by-democrats-a-timeline/?utm_term=.7bb0078fe3f3

    It was brought up before the election, Donald... many, many times... by you as well as many others.

  130. [130] 
    Kick wrote:

    Cite...

    You stated Obama said as much... that we wouldn't be hearing a peep about Russia, and you supply no cite yet request a cite where Trump admits he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation he called a hoax.

    I'm still waiting for your quote from Obama that backs up your claim, but here is the quote from the Trump/Holt interview that everyone except you seems to have heard already:

    Donald Trump to Lester Holt: He [Rosenstein] made a recommendation, he’s highly respected, very good guy, very smart guy. The Democrats like him, the Republicans like him. He made a recommendation. But regardless of [the] recommendation, I was going to fire Comey. Knowing there was no good time to do it!

    And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

    If the Trump campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with Russia's routine election meddling, then there was absolutely no need whatsoever to fire Comey for looking into the routine Russian meddling.

    Except that it was a complete waste of time and taxpayer money...

    Again, what should Obama have done that was in your acceptable price range in order to stop the Russian interference that you claimed happens in every election except no proof it happened in 2016 and was all made up within 24 hours after the election? Except, of course, all those many times it was discussed before the election.

    Perhaps you also missed the part in Trump's interview with Lester Holt where he said he might lengthen the investigation. Saying you might lengthen an investigation doesn't exactly convey your concern about cost to taxpayers, wouldn't you say? When Holt pressed Trump on the topic, he maintained that he wanted the investigation “to be absolutely done properly.” Since he was concerned the firing would “confuse people,” he went on, perhaps he would even “lengthen” the investigation:

    Trump to Holt: Look, let me tell you, as far as I’m concerned I want that thing [the Russia investigation] to be absolutely done properly. When I did this now I said, “I probably, maybe, will confuse people, maybe I’ll expand that, you know, I’ll lengthen the time” — because it should be over with, in my opinion it should’ve been over with a long time ago, because all it is is an excuse. But I said to myself, “I might even lengthen out the investigation.”

    How fortunate for Trump that his desire to "lengthen out the investigation" and for "that thing to be absolutely done properly" has played out as per his statement to Lester Holt.

    Because Russia, as it always does, TRIED to interfere..

    Time will tell you what many already know and have sworn under oath, but I doubt you'll accept the findings unless they fit the multitude of lies as told by the Trump campaign and Trump himself... you know, those lies about no one in his campaign meeting with any Russians at all... and then the moving of the goalposts each time they're caught in the lie... then the next lie... then the next lie. Without the Trump sycophants missing a beat, their Orange Worship has gone from "no one in the campaign met with any Russians at all" to "it's not illegal to collude."

    Newsflash: It is illegal to work with a foreign adversary to attack American democracy. "But, but, but... they can't prove a single vote was changed," the sycophants whine on cue. Oh, come on. This utter nonsensical BS is like claiming that Julius Rosenberg shouldn't have been prosecuted for espionage unless the prosecutor could prove the Soviet Union successfully produced a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star. Duh.

    There are no FACTS that prove they succeeded...

    M'kay... but unless you were a shitty LEO, you're well aware that people don't have to succeed in committing a crime in order to be found guilty of intent. Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner met with a lawyer with ties to the Kremlin with the clear intent of obtaining information after having been forewarned in writing that this was part of an effort by Russia to support the election of Donald Trump. We also have Trump making statements on the campaign stump shortly after this meeting that he would be disclosing some "very interesting material" on Clinton, which renders his claim that he didn't know about the meeting utterly implausible. Dang... if that's not evidence of intent, then what the hell qualifies?

    Yes, we've come quite a long way from your Orange Worship insisting that no one in his campaign met with any Russians to now, wouldn't you say? Yep. Tip of the iceberg, though. :)

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    NOT-45 was a shitty candidate.. She ran a shitty campaign..

    Your personal opinion of any candidate -- including your Orange Worship -- isn't relevant. Many of your statements on this blog would lead one to believe you were a shitty LEO... again, not relevant to the case.

    This was a free, fair and legal election...

    If that is true, then Donald Trump had nothing whatsoever to worry about and no need to fire James Comey in order to save the taxpayers' money he wasn't going to save by lengthening the investigation he claimed had gone on too long that he said he might lengthen.

    And your candidate lost....

    Get over it...

    I'm fine. You seem to be stuck in November 2016, though, but to each his own. Knock yourself out. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." The one who spent months insisting no one from his campaign met with any Russians. Why lie about a thing like that if it was so innocent? Stay tuned.

    This was a free, fair and legal election...

    How do we know??

    Because Odumbo said so....

    Cite? Still waiting on that from your prior posts.

    Just as we know that Odumbo didn't care about Russian "hacking" when he was first briefed because he figured that NOT-45 was going to win..

    Total BS but not really relevant to the case regardless. Mueller is concerned with the evidence against the multiple Trumps, Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, etc. The FBI has been working on it since mid 2016 and aren't going to be stopping any time soon. If the New York Times had little Donnie's email, imagine what Mueller and those 16 prosecutors must already have.

    It was ONLY when NOT-45 got her ass handed to her and was DEVASTATED by President Trump, did the Russian "hacking" take front and center...

    Wrong. If you think the IC and Obama not alerting the public (and thereby alerting the subjects of their investigation) regarding said investigation, then please tell us all why we shouldn't conclude you must have been a shitty LEO... actually, don't... it's simply not relevant.

    If your Orange Worship did nothing wrong, he'd have no need to lie about it, right? No need to fire Comey or to fire anybody else and/or attempt to further lengthen the investigation into the routine meddling -- the investigation that he claimed had gone on too long -- and blamed Obama for not doing anything... unless, of course, you count the "wire tapp" he blamed on Obama... a mischaracterized FISA request that began many months before the election. Oh, you must have forgotten that you claimed Obama would be doing a "perp walk" for Trump's "wire tapp" claim. That FISA request was started in June 2016, many months before the election... and BOOM, that blows your incorrect "Sep/Oct" argument that Obama did nothing... hoisted by your own petard. :)

    Which is why ya'all are doing your damnedest to nullify the election and overturn the results JUST BECAUSE you don't like them..

    If ya'all would stop worshiping Benedict Donald and sucking on the orange goop and take a breath and a glance every now and then at the moving goalposts of the Red team, perhaps you won't have goop all over your face when the game nears the 2-minute warning... because when people think the game is nearly over, it'll just be getting started... and in the end, some of the Red team is going to jail.

    These little town blues are melting away
    I'm gonna make a brand new start of it in old New York
    A-a-a-nd if I can make it there, I'm gonna make it anywhere
    It's up to you, New York, New York. :)

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Have you noticed that you take HOURS to write a big long missive that is nothing but your same old bullshit with absolutely NO supporting facts.. :D

    I laugh my ass off at your attempts to be relevant here.. :D

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michael
    132

    Have you noticed that you take HOURS to write a big long missive that is nothing but your same old bullshit with absolutely NO supporting facts.. :D

    I laugh my ass off at your attempts to be relevant here.. :D

    I have voice recognition software that types out what I say... so once again, you're woefully uninformed and making up bullshit about something you really know nothing whatsoever about. Have you noticed how often you either make up lies or assume things about people/issues you actually know nothing about? You can add this bit of BS to the evidence that you must have been a shitty LEO, because if you'll look at the time stamps on the posts above, you won't find an hour's worth of time spent there. Besides, if you'd like to concern yourself with the "HOURS" being spent on the board, you should probably worry about yourself and less about others.

    I actually do understand why you've got no rebuttal to my posts. I've quoted Your Worship multiple times where he implicates himself by opening his orange blowhole, and there simply is no defense for spewing prolific fabrication and saying dumb shit that self-incriminates... so you have that in common with BLOTUS. :) *LOL*

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria...

    I have voice recognition software that types out what I say... so once again

    Suuuree ya do.. :D

    Once again, I think it's cute how you think yer actually relevant here.. :D

    I actually do understand why you've got no rebuttal to my posts.

    Veronica, I don't even READ your posts.. I skim them to find the obvious pieces of bullshit I can point out and laugh at... Unlike you who has stated she reads everything I write... :D

    Sorry, Victoria.. Yer just not that interesting... :D

    You say the same thing over and over in a desperate and futile bid to be relevant.. You throw out tons of ass-kissing comments to others hoping they will like you.. :D

    But me?? Yer mildly amusing.. :D

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    134

    Suuuree ya do.. :D

    Facts are facts, regardless of what you wish/choose to believe.

    Once again, I think it's cute how you think yer actually relevant here.. :D

    And I think it's mentally psychotic to claim to know what other people think... how you just constantly choose to create bullshit and obsess over other posters rather than actually discussing political issues; your modus operandi reveals so much more about you than it does any other poster or anyone else.

    Veronica, I don't even READ your posts.. I skim them to find the obvious pieces of bullshit I can point out and laugh at... Unlike you who has stated she reads everything I write... :D

    This bullshit of yours AGAIN? While I'm certainly not the first poster to point this out, you have a problem wherein you expect every poster to discuss the same bullshit over and over going back to square one as if it's a totally new topic when it's actually been discussed ad nauseam... your obvious and ever-present reading comprehension issue and inability at retention. So now here you are again... back to making up bullshit and choosing to believe what you wish; thanks for proving my point. *LOL*

    You say the same thing over and over in a desperate and futile bid to be relevant..

    Coming from the poster who is most likely to post repetitively, most often referred to as "troll," and ignored completely by deployment of "Tamper Monkey," this is truly some side-splitting hysterical comedy on your part. *LOL* :)

    You throw out tons of ass-kissing comments to others hoping they will like you.. :D

    Again, you're claiming to know what somebody thinks/hopes. Your propensity to make up bullshit and obsession with discussing posters rather than issues is once again and always duly noted. Also, you've apparently found "tons of ass-kissing comments" in posts you "don't even READ." Pardon me while I throw that nugget of yours onto my "shitty LEO" evidence pile. :)

    But me?? Yer mildly amusing.. :D

    Do us all a favor and crack a book and learn to write a proper paragraph, m'kay? Otherwise, you should seriously consider doubling the terms of your "pay-to-play" arrangement with CW to account not only for all your fabricated hot air but also your excessive dead space. :)

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Facts are facts, regardless of what you wish/choose to believe.

    And you have NOTHING in the way of facts.. :D

    Do us all a favor and crack a book and learn to write a proper paragraph, m'kay?

    Wow.. A grammar lame... Why am I not surprised.. :D

    Otherwise, you should seriously consider doubling the terms of your "pay-to-play" arrangement with CW to account not only for all your fabricated hot air but also your excessive dead space. :)

    I understand why you would want to drag CW into this, Veronica.. You just have to have an excuse why you are always getting your ass kicked each and every time..

    Blame CW for yer ass-kicking... Blame the Russians for NOT-45's ass-kicking...

    It's a pattern with you...

    A sad and pathetic pattern...

  137. [137] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    136

    And you have NOTHING in the way of facts.. :D

    If that were true, then you wouldn't have to resort to attacking me personally in the same manner you do everyone here in the same tedious and repetitive way ad nauseam. Your rants and one-note attack style rarely vary. You attack posters who say anything against your Orange Idol, and your hatred for Democrats and anyone who doesn't share your pathetic worldview and love of the Orange Prick is palpable. You ignore political issues that are posted by commenters and devolve nearly every topic into a repetitive rant and personal attack regarding Party.

    Wow.. A grammar lame... Why am I not surprised.. :D

    Because you're whining about grammar while I'm simply pointing out your apparent inability to not waste bandwidth and insist on posting in single sentences followed by wasted space.

    I understand why you would want to drag CW into this, Veronica.. You just have to have an excuse why you are always getting your ass kicked each and every time..

    It's delusional how you think your repetitive rants are ass kickings when you quite literally appear to be pasting the same bullshit over and over. Trolling posters with your one-note bullshit and claiming victory is a surefire way to prove nothing more than how high up your own ass your head must reside. *LOL* Whining incessantly about how you hate Democrats and calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a Democrat is very telling, and what it tells everyone is you got one argument, and other than that one, you've quite simply got nothing.

    I didn't "drag CW into this," merely stated that you should double whatever you're paying him in order to cover the space you're wasting with your hot air and repetitive quotes as well as the dead space you waste by writing in single sentences.

    Blame CW for yer ass-kicking... Blame the Russians for NOT-45's ass-kicking...

    So you're doubling down on your ignorance? Your display of your inability to comprehend the written word is legendary, and your deflection to Hillary is predictable and right on cue. Once again, you totally missed the point and resorted to your mindless drivel and hysterical hate.

    Here, let me write it in words with one sound and dumb it down to the speed of your wee small brain:

    Next time you pay to play, you should give Chris more cash for your use of hot air as well as your waste of line space. :)

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    If that were true, then you wouldn't have to resort to attacking me personally

    I only respond to you how you respond to me..

    If you wouldn't attack me personally, then you wouldn't be attacked personally...

    It's really THAT simple..

    Next time you pay to play, you should give Chris more cash for your use of hot air as well as your waste of line space. :)

    Sure.. Attack the host of this place..

    GOOD Call.. :^/

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it's a good thing you keep your CW attacks on old threads...

    Don't worry. I won't tell on you.. :D

  140. [140] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    138

    I only respond to you how you respond to me..

    And more bullshit from you. If you honestly think that hijacking the comments of posters trying to discuss political issues with other posters and referring to them as hysterical Party bigots because you disagree with them is "only" responding how you are responded to, then you're quite simply deluding yourself, but you'd be sorely mistaken if you thought for one minute that you're fooling anyone else.

    If you wouldn't attack me personally, then you wouldn't be attacked personally...

    Oh, come on. You can't seriously believe that nonsense, right? Charles Brown, Esq. invented Tamper Monkey and several people here employ it at times and/or read the blog without commenting or decide to bail out altogether in frustration (for which you've actually bragged about). This "if you wouldn't attack me" is utter nonsense on your part, and I cannot fathom why you'd attempt to delude anyone here with that ridiculous drivel.

    You should try that bullshit of yours on a poster whose comments to others are not hijacked and trolled by you with the same mindless bullshit on a repetitive basis... if you can find one. :)

    Sure.. Attack the host of this place..

    GOOD Call.. :^/

    Quite the contrary, and once again as you frequently do, you miss the entire point and substitute it with your fabricated bullshit... it's what you do here nearly every day. I'm simply saying that whatever you're paying him, it's not nearly enough to cover the bandwidth you occupy wherein you make a choice to troll others personally with the same repetitive and fabricated BS wherein you discuss them rather than discussing political issues, while at the same time you're wasting bandwidth with your excessive use of one-sentence paragraphs followed by dead space... so much bullshit and dead space adds up... exponentially so.

    But it's a good thing you keep your CW attacks on old threads...

    Don't worry. I won't tell on you.. :D

    Thank you ever so much for proving my point. I make a comment that whatever you're paying CW to pay to play is not enough to cover the repetitive bullshit and the sheer amount of physical space with your one-sentence paragraphs so you naturally misrepresent that in your typical fashion. I think it's admirable that he allows people a voice, even the ones who spread their own brand of bullshit and that of the Big Liar of the United States... BLOTUS... along with the utter nonsensical conspiracy theory bullshit from the right fringe lunatics. Keep up your bullshit wherein you twist my words and fabricate, and I promise you now that it won't be the last time I discuss the pay-to-play issue, how I suspect you know you are full of it and that you are paying CW by the pound of it. I'm simply adding to that discussion that whatever you're paying him is clearly not enough. :)

Comments for this article are closed.