ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [451] -- Riders On The Storm

[ Posted Friday, September 1st, 2017 – 17:45 PDT ]

Donald Trump began last week (as we measure time here, from Friday deadline to Friday deadline) by pardoning a racist sheriff who had been convicted (but not even sentenced yet) of ignoring the Constitution and defying the federal courts. Trump announced this just as Hurricane Harvey hit Texas, in the hopes that nobody but his base would notice. He also sent formal instructions to the Pentagon to begin turning away transgendered Americans who want to serve their country, also in the hopes that few would notice. In the midst of all this "news dump" frenzy, Steve Bannon's acolyte Sebastian Gorka was unceremoniously shown the door at the White House. That all happened late in the day last Friday, so for us it was a fairly jaw-dropping start to the week.

Also on Friday came an interview with Trump's National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, who ripped into Trump's reaction to Charlottesville and apparently thought deeply about resigning the White House in disgust. But then he thought better of it, because he reportedly really, really wants Janet Yellen's job (and resigning would guarantee he never gets it from Trump). So not exactly a profile in courage, but by all accounts Trump was not exactly happy when he heard about it.

Later in the week, a poll was released -- from Fox News, no less -- showing that 56 percent of Americans think Trump is "tearing the country apart," so Cohn's not the only one condemning Trump's attitude towards the alt-right.

Speaking of the alt-right, this weekend was an example of "What if they gave an alt-right rally and nobody came?" once again. Planned rallies in San Francisco and Berkeley were cancelled or overwhelmed by counterprotesters, in a similar fashion to what happened the weekend before in Boston. Monday saw the "1,000 Ministers' March For Justice" in Washington, organized by the Reverend Al Sharpton to decry Trump's lack of morality.

Most of this news was completely overshadowed by Hurricane Harvey, however, which has broken U.S. single-storm rainfall records. The slow-moving storm hit the Texas coast a week ago, dumped an incredible 50-plus-inches on Houston, moved back out to sea, and then took a whack at Louisiana before heading further inland.

Trump's initial reaction to the hurricane was somewhat odd and tone-deaf, it has to be said. He traveled down to Texas, but avoided the actual area of destruction. Later, he claimed to have seen "first hand" the devastation, even though he hadn't. Sarah Huckabee Sanders tried to defend this statement by redefining some terms:

[President Trump] met with a number of state and local officials who are eating, sleeping, breathing the Harvey disaster. He talked extensively with the governor, who certainly is right in the midst of every bit of this, as well as the mayors from several of the local towns that were hit hardest. And detailed briefing information throughout the day yesterday talking to a lot of the people on the ground. That certainly is a firsthand account.

Which led the Washington Post to waggishly respond:

No, it's not. That's a *second*hand account -- the very definition of one, in fact.

Merriam-Webster defines firsthand as "obtained by, coming from, or being direct personal observation or experience." Secondhand is defined as "received from or through an intermediary." Those intermediaries in this case were the state and local officials, the governor, the mayors and the people on the ground. Those people may have been witnessing the devastation firsthand, but passing along that information doesn't make Trump's account firsthand.

Trump's visit didn't exactly gain him much good press. The print media largely ignored the visit (on their front pages, at least). When Trump's visit was covered, many pointed out that Trump praised the crowd size ("What a turnout!") and seemed most concerned with keeping the attention on himself:

He has talked favorably about the higher television ratings that come with hurricane coverage, predicted that he will soon be congratulating himself and used 16 exclamation points in 22 often breathless tweets about the storm. But as of late Tuesday afternoon, the president had yet to mention those killed, call on other Americans to help or directly encourage donations to relief organizations.

Trump also predicted that his hurricane response would be the best in all history, and people would study it later to see how to properly respond to a natural disaster. But it didn't take long for people to notice a glaring problem with this boast. Trump's budget proposal for next year would have slashed almost a billion dollars from disaster preparedness funds (most of it directly from FEMA's budget). This would be roughly half the money Trump wants to build his wall on the southern border (the wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for). Trump recently threatened to shut the government down in September if he doesn't get this money -- money that he's taking away (at least in part) from FEMA.

Congress likely won't go along with such a "penny wise and pound foolish" idea, one would like to hope. But then again, you never know. Trump is doing all he can to advance such short-sighted idiocy on his own, after all:

Trump officials recently struck down an Obama administration rule requiring building projects in line for federal funding to strongly consider climate change risks -- for example, by elevating structures in flood zones away from the reach of rising water.

The goal of the Obama rule was to mitigate the costs to taxpayers of damage claims under the federal flood insurance program.

Climate scientists have warned that coming decades will bring rising sea levels, along with more frequent and serious flood risks to housing, offices and infrastructure. But Trump officials say that removing the rule streamlines the approval process.

When Congress returns, they will not only have to fund all the regular disaster-preparedness functions of the federal government, they'll also have to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program as well. Many are pointing out that when New Jersey and the East Coast needed emergency funding after Hurricane Sandy, Republicans balked and voted against it. Slate had some amusing snark to sum up the situation:

Which means it's time to turn to another round of Southern Republicans Who Voted Against the Hurricane Sandy Relief Package but Will Soon Want Federal Disaster Money for Their Flooded Homes. (Previous contestants included the congressional delegations of Florida and Louisiana.)

This time the spotlight is on Texas, where 20 sitting Republican congressmen and both of the state's senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, voted against the 2013 Sandy Relief Act.

Republican Representative Peter King has not forgotten, tweeting out: "I won't abandon Texas the way Ted Cruz did New York." When Cruz lied about what was in the Sandy bill (he claimed two-thirds of it was unrelated to Sandy recovery), Chris Christie shot back: "That is an absolute falsehood that two-thirds of the $50 billion did not go to Sandy aid.... Let's remember what Senator Cruz was trying to do at the time. He was trying to be the most conservative, the most fiscally conservative, person in the world. And what I said at the time... is that someday it's going to come to Texas... a disaster is going to come to you. And when it does, I'm going to promise him that New Jersey congresspeople will stand up and do the right thing."

So there's that fight to look forward to, in the coming weeks.

What else? Trump gave a speech this week in Missouri on how cutting wealthy people's taxes was actually good for the middle class (warmed-over "trickle-down surprise cake" with a faux-populist frosting), but his timing wasn't exactly well-thought-out. Trump had been criticized by Republicans for not even attempting to sell the "repeal and replace Obamacare" idea to the public, so he seems to want to get out in front of the upcoming tax-cutting fight in Congress. But, as Digby put it in Salon, this led to a jarring split-screen image on cable television:

But for all Trump's inability to deal with real human tragedy, I must admit that his decision to go ahead with his scheduled rally for tax reform in Missouri on Tuesday really surprised me. He and his political team aren't the best, but they usually aren't quite this tin-eared. On TVs all over America yesterday, we saw the president talking about tax cuts before a cheering crowd on one side of the screen, while footage of harrowing rescues and maps with swirling storm animations showed on the other. It appeared that Trump was in campaign mode while America's fourth-largest city, and towns for hundred miles around it, were drowning before our eyes.

However, as usual, the "most insensitive" award during the hurricane went to the media, who (as always) are eager and willing to exploit people's grief and misery for ratings. There were plenty of examples of what is called "disaster porn" to be seen during the week, but one woman pushed back hard when a CNN reporter tried to ask inane questions to her after a harrowing ordeal:

But y'all sitting here, y'all trying to interview people during their worst times. Like, that's not the smartest thing to do. Like, people are really breaking down, and y'all sitting here with cameras and microphones trying to ask us, "What the fuck is wrong with us?" And you're really trying to understand with the microphone still in my face. When she's shivering cold and my kid's wet and you still putting a microphone in my face!

Will the media learn any lessons from this incident? If the past is any prologue, the answer is: "No. Absolutely not."

That's about it for the week that was. Next week Donald Trump will have to make a momentous decision on the "dreamers," or the young people covered by Barack Obama under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Trump faces a Tuesday deadline to decide whether to continue the program or halt it, and already many are begging him not to end it. These include hundreds of major CEOs from the business world, just about every Democrat around, and members of Trump's own party. Senators Orrin Hatch and Jeff Flake have called on Trump to continue the DACA program, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan also urged Trump not to pull the plug.

At this point, nobody knows what Trump will do (rumors are flying, but we'll have to wait and see which ones are correct), but the issue is guaranteed to start off next week with a bang no matter what Trump ultimately decides. But that's a subject for next week, so let's continue to review the past week by handing out our regular awards.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Before we get to the main award, we have to give an anonymous Honorable Mention out first. Because a group of pranksters went to Trump Tower last week and slipped in some "merchandise" of their own amongst all the tacky crap on the shelves.

A person claiming to speak for the pranksters gave the following reasoning for the prank: "We thought the tourists coming in to buy some stuff, especially people from other countries, should get the whole story of who the president is, because the items in the Trump store don't accurately reflect the person."

Social media images showed two of the items. Here are the labels from these items:

TRUMP RUBBER SHEETS
"The piss tape is totally real!"
--Donald J. Trump

Avoid stains!
No messy clean up!
The same sheets Trump watches!

and:

TRUMP WHITE HOOD
"The same brand my father used!"
--Donald J. Trump

For fine people
Show your pride!
One size fits all!

Snarkiness aside, though, there was one notable essay last week, from none other than Joe Biden. Writing in The Atlantic, Biden shows Democrats how to take on Trump with style:

If it wasn't clear before, it's clear now: We are living through a battle for the soul of this nation.

The giant forward steps we have taken in recent years on civil liberties and civil rights and human rights are being met by a ferocious pushback from the oldest and darkest forces in America. Are we really surprised they rose up? Are we really surprised they lashed back? Did we really think they would be extinguished with a whimper rather than a fight?

Did we think the charlatans and the con-men and the false prophets who have long dotted our history wouldn't revisit us, once again prop up the immigrant as the source of all our troubles, and look to prey on the hopelessness and despair that has grown up in the hollowed-out cities and towns of Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania and the long-forgotten rural stretches of West Virginia and Kentucky?

We have fought this battle before -- but today we have a special challenge.

Today we have an American president who has publicly proclaimed a moral equivalency between neo-Nazis and Klansmen and those who would oppose their venom and hate.

We have an American president who has emboldened white supremacists with messages of comfort and support.

This is a moment for this nation to declare what the president can't with any clarity, consistency, or conviction: There is no place for these hate groups in America. Hatred of blacks, Jews, immigrants -- all who are seen as "the other" -- won't be accepted or tolerated or given safe harbor anywhere in this nation.

. . .

A week after Charlottesville, in Boston, we saw the truth of America: Those with the courage to oppose hate far outnumber those who promote it.

Then a week after Boston, we saw the truth of this president: He won't stop. His contempt for the U.S. Constitution and willingness to divide this nation knows no bounds. Now he's pardoned a law-enforcement official who terrorized the Latino community, violated its constitutional rights, defied a federal court order to stop, and ran a prison system so rife with torture and abuse he himself called it a "concentration camp."

You, me, and the citizens of this country carry a special burden in 2017. We have to do what our president has not. We have to uphold America's values. We have to do what he will not. We have to defend our Constitution. We have to remember our kids are watching. We have to show the world America is still a beacon of light.

Well done, Joe, well done. There are a lot of people still wistful that Biden didn't make a presidential run in 2016, and this just serves to remind us why. Joe Biden is a class act, and he minces no words in calling out President Trump. For doing so, he is certainly deserving of this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Joe Biden is now a private citizen, so you'll have to look up his contact info on your own if you'd like to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

And then there's "how not to do it," sadly.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California has yet to announce whether she will be running for re-election next year. After Barbara Boxer retired in the last election cycle, many would dearly love to see Feinstein step down as well. But so far, she's been cagey about the subject.

Also so far, prominent California Democrats haven't announced they'll take Feinstein on in a primary, preferring to wait for a much-more-winnable open race. That may be about to change, however, after Feinstein gave a disastrous response to a question at the Commonwealth Club recently. Asked about Trump, Feinstein reportedly said:

Look, this man is going to be president most likely for the rest of this term. I just hope he has the ability to learn and to change, and if he does, he can be a good president. And that's my hope.

Feinstein followed this stunning statement up with apologies for Trump because he had only been in office eight months, and a plea for voters to have "some patience" with him. She then doubled down on her pipe dream that Trump will eventually pivot to being presidential: "We'll have to see if he can forget himself and his feelings about himself enough to be able to have the empathy and direction that this country needs." There were reportedly gasps and boos from the audience in response.

Compare that to Biden's words, to see a few things Feinstein might have said instead. One day later, realizing what a political buzzsaw she had stepped into, Feinstein desperately tried to come up with what she should have said in the first place:

The duty of the American president is to bring people together, not cater to one segment of a political base; to solve problems, not campaign constantly. While I'm under no illusion that it's likely to happen and will continue to oppose his policies, I want President Trump to change for the good of the country.

During this tumultuous time, I'm working to protect the progress we've made and find a way to get things done for Californians during a period of total Republican control of Washington. I've been strongly critical of President Trump when I disagree on policy and with his behavior. Most recently, I was appalled by his comments in response to Charlottesville and the pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. President Trump said that there were "very fine people" in a crowd chanting "Jews will not replace us." There's nothing "fine" about white supremacists, Nazis or the KKK.

But Feinstein never should have needed such a do-over in the first place. Do us all a favor, DiFi, use the media attention you've created to gracefully announce your upcoming retirement from politics as you throw the 2018 Senate race wide open. In the meantime, enjoy your fifteenth Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. And please, please realize that Donald Trump is not going to change, because everyone else has already reached that conclusion.

[Contact Senator Dianne Feinstein on her Senate contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 451 (9/1/17)

Another grab-bag week for talking points. The first three come from conservatives not happy about Donald Trump. Joe Arpaio's pardon sent shockwaves through Republicans, closely following the shockwaves still receding from Trump's disastrous Charlottesville response.

The remaining talking points are kind of all over the map, but the last one should bring a bit of joyous schadenfreude to all Democrats. OK, that's enough teasing, let's get on with the show....

 

1
   Conservatives rip into Trump (Part 1)

Plenty of conservatives denounced Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio. The Washington Examiner -- a very conservative publication -- even broke ranks with the president in startling fashion.

President Trump described himself as "the law and order candidate" on the campaign trail, but he has consistently shown he really meant "the candidate of busting heads."

Trump's pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio -- a man who responded to overly-lax immigration enforcement with a lawless and overly-harsh crackdown on illegal immigrants and suspected illegal immigrants -- showed once again Trump really means "busting heads" when he says "law and order."

. . .

But "law and order," if the words have any meaning, has to apply to government actors as well. Lawless sheriffs promote disorder, and that's what Arpaio did to get himself convicted.

Arpaio's defiance of a judge's order to stop detaining people simply based on the suspicion that they were illegal immigrants was worthy of punishment. His career as a veteran and a long-time public servant does not change that. As sheriff, Arpaio's office would routinely detain Latinos solely on the suspicion they had broken immigration law, without any evidence whatsoever that a crime had been committed. It was government overreach that was backed up by Arpaio's authority, all while it was supposed to be Arpaio's job to protect the people of Maricopa County from injustice.

 

2
   Conservatives rip into Trump (Part 2)

These next two are from Senator John McCain, who has always been a thorn in Trump's side, especially when it comes to questions of morality. Speaking of the Arpaio pardon, McCain said:

No one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold.... The president has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions.

 

3
   Conservatives rip into Trump (Part 3)

But McCain was only getting warmed up. He wrote a much more wide-ranging opinion piece for the Washington Post, where he continued to let everyone know precisely what he thinks of a president from his own political party.

Americans recoiled from the repugnant spectacle of white supremacists marching in Charlottesville to promote their un-American "blood and soil" ideology. There is nothing in their hate-driven racism that can match the strength of a nation conceived in liberty and comprising 323 million souls of different origins and opinions who are equal under the law.

. . .

Our entire system of government -- with its checks and balances, its bicameral Congress, its protections of the rights of the minority -- was designed for compromise. It seldom works smoothly or speedily. It was never expected to.

It requires pragmatic problem-solving from even the most passionate partisans. It relies on compromise between opposing sides to protect the interests we share. We can fight like hell for our ideas to prevail. But we have to respect each other or at least respect the fact that we need each other.

That has never been truer than today, when Congress must govern with a president who has no experience of public office, is often poorly informed and can be impulsive in his speech and conduct.

We must respect his authority and constitutional responsibilities. We must, where we can, cooperate with him. But we are not his subordinates. We don't answer to him. We answer to the American people. We must be diligent in discharging our responsibility to serve as a check on his power. And we should value our identity as members of Congress more than our partisan affiliation.

 

4
   Pardon me?

Checks and balances could stymie Trump.

"In an interesting development after the pardon of Joe Arpaio, Special Counsel Bob Mueller has joined his investigation into all things Trump with the New York state attorneys. This could become important if Trump were ever to defy all norms and try to pardon anyone being investigated. In our federal system of government, the president can indeed pardon anyone he wants -- but only for federal crimes. State crimes are an entirely different matter, and no president can pardon state crimes (the state's governor has this power instead). So this could be a move by Mueller to negate the possibility of Trump deciding to pardon everyone in his campaign for any crimes committed during the campaign or transition, because they would all still be on the hook for state crimes even with a federal pardon in hand. Trump may be contemplating an end-run around Mueller, but it appears that Mueller is ready for such a move and has already countered it."

 

5
   Please ignore our president

This is becoming somewhat of a regular thing.

"Have you noticed that the few adults surrounding Donald Trump are repeatedly telling the rest of the world to just flat-out ignore everything the president says on both foreign and domestic policy? Last week Secretary of State Rex Tillerson strongly made the case that the State Department expresses values to the rest of the world, such as 'our commitment to freedom, our commitment to equal treatment of people the world over.' When the interviewer pointed out this didn't square with Trump's actions after Charlottesville, Tillerson weakly admitted: 'The president speaks for himself.' Later in the week, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis directly contradicted Trump's tweet that 'talking is not the answer' with North Korea, flatly stating: 'No, we're never out of diplomatic solutions.' This seems to be a recurring cycle now -- Trump says something outrageous in contradiction with American policy fundamentals, and then his spokespeople have to reassure the world that Trump didn't really mean what he just said. Sooner or later Trump seems destined to be reduced to 'the president who cried wolf' -- since what he says simply cannot or should not be believed."

 

6
   A resignation few noticed

Maybe if enough time goes by, they'll all leave?

"A Trump appointee in the Energy Department just quit this week, which led to one of the more astonishing lead sentences ever seen in a news story: 'William Bradford, a Trump appointee who sent racist and anti-Semitic tweets before being chosen to lead the Energy Department's Office of Indian Energy, resigned from his position on Thursday.' His history includes supporting the detainment of Japanese-Americans in World War II ('It was necessary'), and calling President Obama a 'Kenyan creampuff' and 'the son of a fourth-rate p&*n actress.' And yet, he was appointed to a job in the Trump administration in the first place and was allowed to stay until now. Maybe if enough time goes by, all the people with racism in their past will eventually leave the Trump administration, but I'm not exactly holding my breath or anything."

 

7
   Lights out...

And finally, we saved the best for last.

"People in Great Britain will no longer be able to watch Fox News, as the channel was just dropped in the United Kingdom by 21st Century Fox, its parent company. They explained in a statement: 'We have concluded that it is not in our commercial interest to continue providing Fox News in the U.K.' But they also admitted the real reason -- nobody seems to be watching it. As they explained: 'It averages only a few thousand viewers across the day.' This is in a nation of 65 million people, I would hasten to point out."

-- 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

 

234 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [451] -- Riders On The Storm”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The End is near . . . again.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joe Biden is a class act.

    Indeed.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    From McCain's op-ed:

    That has never been truer than today, when Congress must govern with a president who has no experience of public office, is often poorly informed and can be impulsive in his speech and conduct.

    And, by impulsive he meant repulsive.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, with respect to Michale and his contributions to the CW.com comments section ...

    Why must it be feast or famine, Michale?

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    With less than a paucity of respect for the current US president ...

    There are many words and phrases that may be used to describe the president of the United States of America, or at least one of his personalities (some say there are two Trumps - I say there is just one and he is a good actor)but, good-hearted, well-informed and leader who commands respect are most decidedly not among them.

    Good luck running a country missing one of those attributes, let alone missing all three of them and their synonyms.

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So the most impressive Democrat is one that criticized Trump with class and the most disappointing failed to properly criticize Trump.

    And still no clue why the Democrats keep losing elections?

    So the Move On email with the clip from Elizabeth Warren's Netroots speech that was only the last 11 minutes when she talked about universal democratic platitudes and started after the first 18 minutes when she criticized the Move On/ Hillary/ Big Money part of the Democratic Party doesn't even get an honorable mention for most disappointing?
    Kamala Harris seeking contributions from Hillary contributors in direct contradiction to Elizabeth Warren's statement in her speech that the first place candidates should go for contributions should NOT be Wall Street doesn't merit a mention?

    Maybe next week you could do what Feinstein did and try to make up for your mistake by doing a special award- The Missing Most Disappointing Democrats Of The Week where you list the above mentioned disappointing Democrats and any other ones that you have missed over the last month or so.

    Do us all a favor, CW, use the media platform you've created to gracefully announce your retirement from the Big Money Democratic establishment, write about the efforts to change the Democratic Party instead of sticking to the Party establishment talking points and write about efforts to change the entire political system like One Demand and throw dozens of senatorial and congressional elections wide open in 2018.

    And please. please realize that the Democratic party and the entire political system needs to change, as more and more people are realizing it every day.

    It's a shame there isn't some other group of people that are desperately trying to hold on to their outdated beliefs that could provide a parallel for you hanging on to your outdated belief in the Big Money Democratic establishment.

    Do you really want to end up in the little group surrounded by the thousands that are against you?

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    'We have concluded that it is not in our commercial interest to continue providing Fox News in the U.K.' But they also admitted the real reason -- nobody seems to be watching it. As they explained: 'It averages only a few thousand viewers across the day.' This is in a nation of 65 million people, I would hasten to point out.

    And, most of those few thousand viewers are watching only intermittently, just to see how ill-informed people get that way. :)

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So the most impressive Democrat is one that criticized Trump with class and the most disappointing failed to properly criticize Trump. And still no clue why the Democrats keep losing elections?

    Well, to be fair, Don, if Biden was the Democrat candidate for president the last time around, one could argue coherently that Democrats running for office and citizens, in general, would have been more successful and far better off than they are today.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    'We have concluded that it is not in our commercial interest to continue providing Fox News in the U.K.' But they also admitted the real reason -- nobody seems to be watching it. As they explained: 'It averages only a few thousand viewers across the day.' This is in a nation of 65 million people, I would hasten to point out.

    And, most of those few thousand viewers are watching only intermittently, just to see how ill-informed people get that way. :)

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    'We have concluded that it is not in our commercial interest to continue providing Fox News in the U.K.' But they also admitted the real reason -- nobody seems to be watching it. As they explained: 'It averages only a few thousand viewers across the day.' This is in a nation of 65 million people, I would hasten to point out.

    And, most of those few thousand viewers are watching only intermittently, just to see how ill-informed people get that way. :)

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't even ask.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wonder if Michale ever received messages urging him to slow down because he's commenting too fast and furiously ...

    Heh.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I've never considered Biden as being part of the Big Democratic money machine.

    Mostly because if he were, he'd have already been POTUS by now. :)

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And they also would have been far better off if Bernie was the Democratic nominee.

    Repeating the same mistakes that culminated in the choice between Hillary and Trump is not likely to improve the choices in 2018 or 2020. It is more likely to result in wistfully looking back to 2016 when the choices were only as bad as Hillary and Trump.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think that's true - Bernie would most certainly have been better than Trump and more Democrats might have been elected to Congress as well.

    And, let's face it, your message resonates with Democrats. Granted, much less so that you would want and what is needed but it doesn't, apparently, resonate at all with congressional Republicans nor with Republican leaders across the country.

    I guess my point is not to burn bridges that will be necessary to get to where you want to go.

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    I wouldn't call my comments bridge burners. Sometimes when you are trying to point out that someone is engaged in self-destructive behavior you have to say it in no uncertain terms, especially when attempts at reason have not been successful.

    I consider my comments trying to make CW aware that he is on a bridge that is about to collapse.

    Trust me when I say the above comments are much more reserved than I am capable of producing.

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    #6 (i.e. the racist in the DOE) just isn't a surprise any longer. This is the new normal.

    Frankly, I'd be more surprised if somebody was fired for being competent. There is an unusual commodity in the current White House.

    Seeming, for instance, "The Munch" has over 100 tax experts working up 45's single piece of paper and the verbal diarrhea he spouted in Missouri into real policy. Sounds great, but then we discover 45 expects congress to write the bill and he will just sign it - i.e. the health fiasco all over again.

    There is a "game" that senior managers often unwittingly play in large companies we call "Fetch me a rock". They want something done, but can't tell you what it is, but they reject all attempts without giving more information to help the hapless soul trying to meet their needs. It is called "Fetch me a rock" because it is analogous to somebody asking you to fetch them a rock from a large field. You get them a rock and they don't like it. So you get a different rock and they don't like that. Then you ask what sort of rock they want, and they can't tell you, but they can tell you they don't like every rock you bring them.

    I make sure all the tasks handed to me team aren't "Fetch me a rock" type ones - I let other teams fall into that trap.

    It looks like 45 is playing "Fetch me a rock" with congress and they haven't twigged yet.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I wasn't calling your comments bridge-burners. I called them important to the discussion. Jeez Louise. :)

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I consider my comments trying to make CW aware that he is on a bridge that is about to collapse.

    Heh.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Trust me when I say the above comments are much more reserved than I am capable of producing.

    There is a place for reservation.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The bridges I was talking about were the ones that lead to all Democrats- as opposed to the increasingly irrelevant (with respect to their stances on the issues) Republicans, not Chris.

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (18)-
    Guess I did not understand what you meant.

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hmmm.

    That's okay, it happens all the time because my comments are, apparently, about as clear as Mississippi mud. :)

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Don, what do you think about the idea of working with Democrats - all of them, and especially the really Big Money Dems in elected office - in an effort to persuade and win them over to your approach?

    In other words, not always denigrating Dems but rather urging positive change. I think you would get more support for your petitions and movement that way.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    I am willing to work with Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, independents or anyone from any other party that are willing to commit to only supporting and voting for small contribution candidates.

    Maybe I am not understanding again, but I don't consider pointing out flaws denigrating. I may occasionally may push the line a bit, but as I said before sometimes when reason doesn't work a figurative cold slap in the face is required to wake people out of their stupor.

    And I am usually very careful to try to save my disdain for the Big Money Democratic establishment and their supporters, though it may not be interpreted that way by all Democrats.

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As for the Big Money Dems (and for that matter the Big Money Repubs )already in office, they will only be persuaded by the same thing that can persuade the candidates that are running to replace them- they not only won't get our votes if they take Big Money we will vote against them.

    We need to offer them an alternative way to finance their campaigns (the list of small contribution candidates that participants can use to find small contribution candidates), create demand for small contribution candidates (citizens registering to participate) and vote accordingly.

    The Big Money candidates and legislators don't care if citizens vote for other Big Money candidates or if they stay home. They will care if citizens register votes against them- and if they still don't care it will make it possible to replace them with small contribution candidates that do.

    As long as citizens remain divided into the categories defined by the Big Money politicians the Big Money politicians and contributors are happy. But if the Bernie supporters, Trump supporters and other marginalized groups all worked together on this one common issue in the 2018 congressional elections it would be the Big Money politician and contributor's worst nightmare.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't be so defensive ... I'm trying to work with ya on this!

    We may actually be on the verge of a real discussion!!!

    I'll be back ... :)

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Perhaps 'denigrating' was too harsh a word.

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neil [17]: Unfortunately, Watergate, Iran-contra, and probably the entire Russian collusion scandal were all to some degree the results of issuing a 'find me a rock' orders as interpreted by lackeys with variable ethics.

    On the up side, it leads to innovation: who thought that you could fund a secret war by selling crack in San Francisco? Or make a fortune by slapping your name on every expensive thing you see?

  30. [30] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    'Infamy, infamy, they all have it in for me'...A lovely line from Carry On Cleo, uttered by the wonderfully camp Kenneth Williams.

    To point 7, Murdoch has been at odds with the English for decades. His various publications in print are the original gossipy rags one expects at grocery store checkouts, designated 'impulse buys'. Murdock is to reputable news as 'red MAGA ballcaps' are to returning manufacturing jobs to the USA.
    My local cable company abandoned FOX NEWS years ago in favour of The Shopping Channel, their reasoning being, if you're to be sold snake-oil, better it's unabashed than surreptitious.

    LL&P, my American cats, Texas remain headstrong.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump hugs children, serves food in Houston as city fights back from flooding
    http://news.trust.org/item/20170902183837-916ih

    If President Trump can't do ANYTHING right by ya'all...

    Maybe the problem is not him...

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    Maybe the problem is not him...

    No, the problem is him, now what was the issue?

    He is 100% reliable when it comes to making things worse.

  33. [33] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    What astounds me in this, 'the Trump era', is the notion that there are still people labouring under the delusion that Trump has been sent by some entity to save the day. The man is lucky to have a day go by that doesn't need saving from him. This silly person honestly believes his own press, his followers are in for the greatest let down since before their own births, then as now, the poor souls won't realise it, more's the pity.

    I still maintain, Trump might not have been the president the people wanted, but he's proving daily, he's the president they deserve. He's a self writing 'how to' on what not to do as a president...On an unrelated note, popcorn sales are up.

    LL&P

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    James T and Neil...

    Thank you for proving my point.. :D

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Why is President Trump, after having seen the devastation in Texas in the wake of Harvey, still want to cut the budgets of FEMA and EPA?

    And what does he intend to do about climate change after having announced his decision to pull out of the consequential Paris climate agreement?

    Is Irma heading your way!?

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why is President Trump, after having seen the devastation in Texas in the wake of Harvey, still want to cut the budgets of FEMA and EPA?

    You will have to give me specifics and context of these alleged budget "cuts"...

    Why are specifics and context important?? Let's say there are functions in FEMA or the EPA that are being quad-ruplicated at a waste of manpower and productivity. President Trump proposes to "cut" out the redundancy and make the organizations more productive.

    Such a "budget cut" would be a GOOD thing, no??

    And what does he intend to do about climate change after having announced his decision to pull out of the consequential Paris climate agreement?

    What can President Trump DO about climate change?? Absolutely NOTHING.. NO ONE can do ANYTHING about climate change. The planet's climate is going to change regardless of the actions of mere puny humans..

    The characterization of the Paris agreement as "consequential" is way over stated...

    If the Paris agreement is maintained as agreed TO THE LETTER, predictions say it will only cool the planet by less than a degree over 100 years.. And the economic costs of that >1 degree will be astronomical.. That doesn't even take into account that the sun is entering into a Maunder Minimum when, historically, temps have plunged.. It's only the first week of Sep and here in FL, it's already comfortable at 0300hrs... We usually don't see that til late Sep or early Oct... So, that >1 degree cooling might not be such a good idea if the planet is entering a cooling phase naturally..

    Further, the Paris agreement requires that signatories, with 2 notable exceptions, reduce carbon output by 25% by 2030.. That type of reduction will wreck economies..

    Oh, the 2 notable exceptions??

    India and China, the 2 biggest polluters on the planet.. They get to continue spewing carbon willy nilly till 2030.. What does the Paris agreement require that these 2 biggest polluters do in 2030?? It requires that China and India "think" about reducing their carbon output... Get that?? The 2 biggest polluters can pollute all they want with the world's blessing until 2030.. And in 2030, they have to "think" about reducing carbon...

    These are the facts of the "consequential" Paris agreement.. It has consequences, all right. All bad..

    Is Irma heading your way!?

    So far, it is.. But predictions this far out are rarely accurate.. If we still have this same track by say, Weds or Thu, then I drag out the generator and the hurricane kit..

    I have a feeling it's going to be another Matthew.. All hype, all hysteria, very little in the way of actual danger... My parents freaked when they learned we weren't evacuating for Matthew.. I imagine they will freak about Irma too..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, if ya'all want to have some REAL discussions..

    Let's talk about how the Democrat Party is spearheading a movement to change the First Amendment so that speech they don't like is no longer protected speech...

    Ya don't want to talk about that??

    OK.. How about let's discuss how the Democrat Party's muscle branch, antifa, has been declared to be committing domestic acts of terrorism by DHS.. And Nancy Pelosi, of all people, is the ONLY Democrat who has condemned antifa terrorists and terrorism...

    Of course, NO ONE wants to talk about that.. No, they are just to darn busy getting their hate on over President Trump....

    It's all a hysterical HATE TRUMP bubble....

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the Paris agreement is maintained as agreed TO THE LETTER, predictions say it will only cool the planet by less than a degree over 100 years.. And the economic costs of that >1 degree will be astronomical.. That doesn't even take into account that the sun is entering into a Maunder Minimum when, historically, temps have plunged.. It's only the first week of Sep and here in FL, it's already comfortable at 0300hrs... We usually don't see that til late Sep or early Oct... So, that >1 degree cooling might not be such a good idea if the planet is entering a cooling phase naturally..

    Change the >1 to <1...

    CW, have you ever considered the DISQUS package???

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    That doesn't even take into account that the sun is entering into a Maunder Minimum when, historically, temps have plunged.. It's only the first week of Sep and here in FL, it's already comfortable at 0300hrs... We usually don't see that til late Sep or early Oct... So, that >1 degree cooling might not be such a good idea if the planet is entering a cooling phase naturally..

    By way of comparison..

    Imagine what would have happened if, in the 40s and 50s there was a "scientific consensus" that smoking was good for you and had many MANY healthy benefits and hundreds of millions of people were convinced to start smoking to enjoy a better and healthy lifestyle...

    Imagine the pain and suffering and death THAT "scientific consensus" would have caused...

    Oh... wait....

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis

    Last weekend in Berkeley, Calif., a group of neo-communist antifa — “anti-fascist” — thugs attacked peaceful protesters at a “No to Marxism in America” rally, wielding sticks and pepper spray, and beating people with homemade shields that read (I kid you not) “No Hate.” The Post reports how one peaceful protester “was attacked by five black-clad antifa members, each windmilling kicks and punches into a man desperately trying to protect himself.” Members of the Berkeley College Republicans were then stalked by antifa goons who followed them to a gas station and demanded they “get the [expletive] out” of their car, warning, “We are real hungry for supremacists and there is more of us.”

    The organizer of the anti-Marxism protest is not a white supremacist. Amber Cummings is a self-described “transsexual female who embraces diversity” and had announced on Facebook that “any racist groups like the KKK [and] Neo Nazis .?.?. are not welcome.” The protest was needed, Cummings said, because “Berkeley is a ground zero for the Marxist Movement.”

    As if to prove Cummings’s point, the antifa movement responded with jackboots and clubs — because their definition of “fascist” includes not just neo-Nazis but also anyone who opposes their totalitarian worldview.

    And let’s be clear: Totalitarian is precisely what they are. Mark Bray, a Dartmouth lecturer who has defended antifa’s violent tactics, recently explained in The Post, “Its adherents are predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists” who believe that physical violence “is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective.” In other words, they are no different from neo-Nazis. Neo-Nazis are the violent advocates of a murderous ideology that killed 25 million people last century. Antifa members are the violent advocates of a murderous ideology that, according to “The Black Book of Communism,” killed between 85 million and 100 million people last century. Both practice violence and preach hate. They are morally indistinguishable. There is no difference between those who beat innocent people in the name of the ideology that gave us Hitler and Himmler and those who beat innocent people in the name of the ideology that gave us Stalin and Dzerzhinsky.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-antifa-is-the-moral-equivalent-of-neo-nazis/2017/08/30/9a13b2f6-8d00-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.1f1610895b04

    I have been checking in every now and then.. I don't recall ANYONE condemning antifa. Oh, there may have been some half-hearted "generic" condemnations ya'all said President Trump wasn't allowed to do.....

    But not any heart-felt and passionate condemnations ya'all demanded from President Trump ad nasuem...

    And, since the Left Wingery has established that SILENCE (indeed) GIVES ASSENT the ONLY conclusion that one can come up with is that the entirety of the Left Wingery (sans Pelosi) supports and condones the antifa terrorists...

    Anyone wanna debate that??

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If President Trump is just going to cut waste from the EPA and FEMA, then that would be a good thing. Maybe he'll even strengthen these two very critical agencies ...

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Do you think less pollution in the air we breathe is a good thing?

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    If President Trump is just going to cut waste from the EPA and FEMA, then that would be a good thing. Maybe he'll even strengthen these two very critical agencies ...

    Complete agreement..

    And, considering the facts and Trump's history as POTUS, cutting waste, eliminating duplicative efforts and making the agencies more streamlined and effective is EXACTLY what the president is doing..

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's talk about how the Democrat Party is spearheading a movement to change the First Amendment so that speech they don't like is no longer protected speech...

    That's a very bad thing and reasonable Democrats everywhere would agree with you on that, even a democrat like me. :)

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I don't understand why you don't want to talk about the obvious benefits of moving to a clean energy economy.

    Forget about climate change, for a moment, as moving to a clean energy economy is just plain good for the future. It makes great economic and common sense!

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    There are certainly groups like antifa whose primary goal appears to be injecting violence into otherwise peaceful protests.

    However, and just to be clear, that statement rests on its own and is separate from the fact that the white supremacy and neo-Nazi and other hate groups should be unambiguously condemned and called out for their dangerous and despicable behavior and not be characterized as being anything other than the hateful people they are.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Further, the Paris agreement requires that signatories, with 2 notable exceptions, reduce carbon output by 25% by 2030.. That type of reduction will wreck economies..

    It doesn't have to, Michale. You can be such a pessimist, you know!

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Here's a great piece on the protests in California and how one city got the response right and the other did not.

    I think you'll like it, for a number of reasons. Just don't hold the fact that it appears in the HuffPo against the author who really knows what he is talking about!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/handling-the-alt-right-san-francisco-gets-it-very_us_59a59e43e4b0d81379a81b92

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I have been checking in every now and then.. I don't recall ANYONE condemning antifa. Oh, there may have been some half-hearted "generic" condemnations ya'all said President Trump wasn't allowed to do.....

    I think that is fair assessment.

    Let me go on the record to strongly condemn the antics of antifa. I think the police need to crack down on these thugs as heavily as they crack down on the white supremacy and neo-Nazi antics.

    Both groups of hateful people should have no place in your country and just condemning them isn't enough.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a very bad thing and reasonable Democrats everywhere would agree with you on that, even a democrat like me. :)

    Yet it's not even mentioned.. I guess it's more important to hate on Trump than to look in the mirror..

    I don't understand why you don't want to talk about the obvious benefits of moving to a clean energy economy.

    There are benefits.. But saving the planet from imminent destruction is not one of them.. And I fail to see how giving billions and billions of money to the UN is going to foster innovation in green energy technology...

    Forget about climate change, for a moment, as moving to a clean energy economy is just plain good for the future. It makes great economic and common sense!

    And if the Left could discuss the issue in THOSE terms, then there wouldn't be ANY debate...

    But the Left wallows in fear-mongering and hysterical predictions that are complete and utter BS...

    There are certainly groups like antifa whose primary goal appears to be injecting violence into otherwise peaceful protests.

    Exactly.. And to date, ONLY Nancy Pelosi has condemned that group..

    However, and just to be clear, that statement rests on its own and is separate from the fact that the white supremacy and neo-Nazi and other hate groups should be unambiguously condemned and called out for their dangerous and despicable behavior and not be characterized as being anything other than the hateful people they are.

    No one is claiming otherwise..

    But, just as it's factual that there were anti-hate protesters at Charlottesville who despise everything that antifa stands for, there were ALSO free-speech protesters at Charlottesville that despise everything that Nazis and White Supremacists stand for..

    In other words, there were GOOD people on BOTH sides at Charlottesville..

    It doesn't have to, Michale. You can be such a pessimist, you know!

    It doesn't have to wreck economies or it doesn't have to exclude the 2 biggest polluters on the planet???

    I'll get to the HuffPoop piece in a bit. And I won't hold it against the author that he appears in HuffPoop :D

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me rephrase part of that last comment ...
    I think the police need to crack down on these thugs as heavily as they crack down on the white supremacy and neo-Nazi antics.
    ... because what I wrote is not precisely what I meant. Ahem.

    I think the police and all law enforcement should be cracking down heavily on the violent antics of both antifa and the white supremacists and neo-Nazi types and similar groups. These groups should have no place in America.

    Law enforcement needs to get serious about these groups before they get out of control.

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In other words, there were GOOD people on BOTH sides at Charlottesville..

    This is where you lose me Michale. There are no good people who are white supremacists and neo-Nazis, violent and thug-like behavior or no.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It doesn't have to wreck economies or it doesn't have to exclude the 2 biggest polluters on the planet???

    It doesn't have to wreck economies. There are more jobs being created in the clean energy sector than in the fossil fuel industry. Let's move forward!

    The biggest polluters on the planet need to do more than they are doing and they are actually moving in that direction. Unfortunately, when the US pulls out of an important climate agreement among other policies and executive orders that are detrimental to the environment, it does nothing to coerce/encourage/force other big polluters from doing more themselves.

    It's called environmental leadership, Michale ...

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (27,28)-
    It's sometimes difficult to point out flaws without it coming across or being taken as denigrating. And it's difficult to point to positive change without pointing out the flaws which are the reason positive change is needed.

    Thanks for keeping the conversation active on this as well as the Nader petition.

  55. [55] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Welcome back.

    What's the poop on the Democratic Party trying to change the First Amendment?
    Haven't heard about that.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is where you lose me Michale. There are no good people who are white supremacists and neo-Nazis, violent and thug-like behavior or no.

    OK...

    Would you agree that there were MANY left wing protesters on the side of antifa that did not approve of nor were part of the antifas plan to violently attack the other side???

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I just think that withholding support from candidates that take big money but who have cogent and intelligent and effective policy proposals to move the country forward and provide the kind of leadership that our world needs is a bit wrongheaded.

    Candidates like that need to be supported and encouraged to make the kinds of changes that are needed to get big money out of politics and not discarded solely on the basis that they are part of the big money establishment.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welcome back.

    "I'm not back!!"
    -Bill Paxton, TWISTER

    :D

    What's the poop on the Democratic Party trying to change the First Amendment?
    Haven't heard about that.

    The A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free Speech
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/aclu-first-amendment-trump-charlottesville.html?mcubz=0

    There were many articles about this at the time, but this is the only one I could find..

    Basically top Democrats were thinking that it's time to take away First Amendment protections for "hate" speech and hurtful speech etc etc...

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would you agree that there were MANY left wing protesters on the side of antifa that did not approve of nor were part of the antifas plan to violently attack the other side???

    The simple answer is yes, I would certainly agree with that.

    But, Michale, we just have to be very careful in how we write our comments - at least I do - because often times we can write things that come across as meaning something that we never intended.

    So, I think there were people protesting against hate who were peacefully protesting while antifa members were trying to inject violence into it and essentially trying to make the peaceful protesters look bad.

    In other words, and to be crystal clear about what I think, the citizens peacefully protesting against the bigotry and hatred espoused by the white supremacists and neo-Nazi types are not part of the antifa thugs. They are two separate groups that need to be viewed that way.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    It doesn't have to wreck economies. There are more jobs being created in the clean energy sector than in the fossil fuel industry. Let's move forward!

    The technology is not yet mature enough to mass-produce..

    If it were, the BETTER way forward would be to simply give away solar systems for free....

    Solar power on a mass scale, sufficient to replace fossil fuels, is still in the RnD stage..

    The biggest polluters on the planet need to do more than they are doing and they are actually moving in that direction.

    No they are not. They are producing more coal plants and causing more pollution and they are doing so with blessings of the international community as codified in the Paris agreement..

    It's called environmental leadership, Michale ...

    It's called a politically correct band-aid that will have absolutely ZERO effect on reality...

    And, until such time as there is viable and mass-producable energy that can replace fossil fuels, that is all it's ever going to be...

    Of course, there IS an energy source that IS mass-producable, has absolutely ZERO emissions of pollutants, is doable under current technology and has the capability to provide virtually unlimited energy...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it were, the BETTER way forward would be to simply give away solar systems for free....

    I got dibs on 40 Eridani... :D

  62. [62] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    That article seemed to be more about how people should interpret and defend the First Amendment than anyone changing it. But I will take your word that some may be talking about changing it. Changing it will take a long time so let's wait and see if anyone actually makes any headway trying to do it before worrying about that for now.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, and to be crystal clear about what I think, the citizens peacefully protesting against the bigotry and hatred espoused by the white supremacists and neo-Nazi types are not part of the antifa thugs. They are two separate groups that need to be viewed that way.

    OK...

    And, since the UNITE THE RIGHT protest was billed as a FREE SPEECH protest, would you also agree that there were MANY Right wing protesters physically on the side of the White Supremacists but did not approve of nor were part of the White Supremacists or Nazi groups???

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    That article seemed to be more about how people should interpret and defend the First Amendment than anyone changing it.

    If there is a push to interpret and/or defend the First Amendment, that changes the First Amendment..

    If one interprets the First Amendment to mean that hate speech is not protected and that protection will no longer be defended, then that changes the amendment..

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Doesn't 'Unite the Right' mean that there should be no distinction between right-wing protesters and the white supremacists/neo-Nazis?

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    But these aren’t the same Nazis who marched through Skokie, and this isn’t the same progressive movement — and it isn’t the same ACLU, either. The backlash has already spurred other ACLU chapters to declare that they don’t believe free-speech protections apply to events like the one in Charlottesville, and led the ACLU’s national director, Anthony Romero, to declare the group will no longer defend the right to protest when the protesters want to carry guns.
    https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazis-charlottesville

    Get that???

    If you invoke your 2nd Amendment rights, then you must give up your 1st Amendment rights...

    Democrat Party "logic"...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Doesn't 'Unite the Right' mean that there should be no distinction between right-wing protesters and the white supremacists/neo-Nazis?

    It may.. In the eyes of those same White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis.. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone outside of those groups that CARE what they think.. :D

  68. [68] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    The First Amendment doesn't change if people or groups like the ACLU change how they interpret or defend it. Only the court's interpretation and the government agencies charged with enforcing that interpretation can change how it is applied and it takes an actual amendment to actually change it.

    And I don't think the ACLU will change how they interpret or defend the First Amendment.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    There’s No ‘Nazi’ Exception to the First Amendment
    http://tinyurl.com/y9c8akwk

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I don't think the ACLU will change how they interpret or defend the First Amendment.

    And yet, they have...

    See #66

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ACLU's free speech stance should be about social justice, not 'timeless' principles
    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-weinrib-aclu-speech-history-20170830-story.html

    Get that???

    Screw principles.. Just push the Left Wing agenda...

  72. [72] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (57)-
    We will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

    If Big Money is a Big Problem (and it is), then any candidate that takes Big Money is part of the problem. They are not providing the kind of leadership our world needs and they do not have cogent, intelligent and effective policies to move the forward because the Big Money contributors are paying them not to.

    The Big Money candidates have different policy proposals than they implement when they become Big Money legislators. The strategy of supporting them has not worked and is not likely to work in the future.

    When Big Money candidates/legislators can make promises and keep failing to deliver and citizens keep supporting them and voting for them the Big Money candidates/legislators will continue to make promises and not deliver. They have no incentive to change.

    As voting for them has not worked it's time to try voting against them. Then they will have no choice but to change or be replaced.

    Kind of Democracy 101. How the system was designed to work.

    I think Altohone used a quote from FDR recently about you try something and if it doesn't work you try something else.

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (70)-
    Seems reasonable to me. I defend peaceful protest. Bringing a gun or other weapon is not peaceful.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seems reasonable to me. I defend peaceful protest. Bringing a gun or other weapon is not peaceful.

    But you shouldn't have to give up one right when you exercise another..

    Further, if you have word that someone is arming up to prevent you from exercising your right, aren't you going to arm up to defend yourself??

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The problem with your thinking on this business of rights - you don't seem to take into account the responsibility to, among other things, act reasonably, when exercising your rights.

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Further, if you have word that someone is arming up to prevent you from exercising your right, aren't you going to arm up to defend yourself??

    Further still, this is the point at which law enforcement does its job to prevent both from devolving into violent protest.

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I think it is a faulty assumption (as most assumptions are, I hasten to add) to assume that a candidate who is advocating for intelligent, future-oriented policies should be opposed simply because he or she accepts big donations to their campaign ... especially if that candidate recognizes the problem and is doing what he or she can to reform the way political campaigns are financed.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Further, if you have word that someone is arming up to prevent you from exercising your right, aren't you going to arm up to defend yourself??

    It sounds like you are saying that we can't trust law enforcement to keep our protests safe from violence.

    And, in many cases, I think you are right about that. In such cases, the wise thing to do would be to forgo any involvement in such protests. There are better ways to have your voice heard.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Further still, this is the point at which law enforcement does its job to prevent both from devolving into violent protest.

    Unless Law Enforcement are given orders by Democrat office holders to stand down to facilitate violence to further a political agenda...

    The problem with your thinking on this business of rights - you don't seem to take into account the responsibility to, among other things, act reasonably, when exercising your rights.

    Who defines what is reasonable??

    If I am going to a President Trump rally and I hear that there are scumbags who are going to come armed to try and prevent me from attending, then I am going to come armed as well..

    To me, THAT is reasonable...

    Some scumbag arming up to attack me simply because I want to attend a President Trump rally..

    THAT is unreasonable....

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    With that kind of thinking - such as guns are the only answer - its not hard to imagine that the US could be on the brink of a complete meltdown of its civilization.

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Where is the missing apostrophe in comment #80?

    Heh

  82. [82] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Basically top Democrats were thinking that it's time to take away First Amendment protections for "hate" speech and hurtful speech etc etc..."

    We have discussions about the limit and scope of constitutional rights all the time.

    That's healthy and is also what makes the Constitution a "living breathing document" despite what former Justice Scalia said or thought.

    You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, and child porn is not a protected free speech right either.

    However, as recently as 2010 it was determined that, as much as we might detest it, a film of women in high heels stomping on baby chicks, was in fact worthy of free speech protection.

    Surely that is something even the Founding Fathers could ever have dreamed of when they first wrote the amendment.

    Juts because there is always an ongoing discussion about what is and what is not free speech doesn't automatically make the people raising the questions in first place bad guys. The discussion in and of itself is sometimes necessary.

  83. [83] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The technology is not yet mature enough to mass-produce..

    If it were, the BETTER way forward would be to simply give away solar systems for free...."

    There are at least two things wrong with this statement.

    1.) That is not true. Technology is always constantly evolving. If I were to take your point to the extreme, why would anyone go ahead and sell the Model T, for instance? Why not just wait until the corvette came out?

    Or why market a computer that relies on punch cards to function, or fill an entire room with a computer when you can just wait on a hand held calculator that does the same thing?

    2.) No one EVER gives anything away for free, no matter how good it is.

    Rule of Acquisition # 176. Ferengi's don't give promotional gifts!

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    With that kind of thinking - such as guns are the only answer - its not hard to imagine that the US could be on the brink of a complete meltdown of its civilization.

    In the here and now, it's the Left Wing antifa that is instigating the violence...

    Talk to them...

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    THat's law enforcement's job, Michale.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    We have discussions about the limit and scope of constitutional rights all the time.

    That's healthy and is also what makes the Constitution a "living breathing document" despite what former Justice Scalia said or thought.

    What's "healthy" about limiting speech you don't like??

    Tell ya what.. Let's limit speech about equal rights for TGs...

    Still think it's "healthy"??

    Of course not..

    You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, and child porn is not a protected free speech right either.

    Those are safety and security issues and not relevant to the current discussion..

    However, as recently as 2010 it was determined that, as much as we might detest it, a film of women in high heels stomping on baby chicks, was in fact worthy of free speech protection.

    And so is scumbags racist screaming "I HATE {insert minority here}!!!!"

    Juts because there is always an ongoing discussion about what is and what is not free speech doesn't automatically make the people raising the questions in first place bad guys. The discussion in and of itself is sometimes necessary.

    Until that discussion becomes a CITIZENS UNITED type issue and then ya'all are against it..

    Don't tell me.. "That's different".... :D

    2.) No one EVER gives anything away for free, no matter how good it is.

    But if giving things away for free will actually save the planet...

    Doesn't it make SENSE to give it away for free???

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    But if giving things away for free will actually save the planet...

    Doesn't it make SENSE to give it away for free???

    Unless, of course, the planet *ISN'T* in any real danger, it's just all as scheme to make money..

    Then yea.... Under those circumstances, it doesn't make any sense to give it away for free...

    Rule of Acquisition # 176. Ferengi's don't give promotional gifts!

    I think we can do better than emulate the Ferengi...

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    THat's law enforcement's job, Michale.

    Unless Law Enforcement are given orders by Democrat office holders to stand down to facilitate violence to further a political agenda...

  89. [89] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "No they are not. They are producing more coal plants and causing more pollution and they are doing so with blessings of the international community as codified in the Paris agreement.."

    Again, this is simply not true.

    "China is canceling plans to build more than 100 coal-fired power plants...

    The announcement, made by China’s National Energy Administration, cancels 103 projects that were planned or under construction, eliminating 120 gigawatts of future coal-fired capacity. That includes dozens of projects in 13 provinces, mostly in China’s coal-rich north and west, on which construction had already begun.

    The cancellations make it likelier that China will meet its goal of limiting its total coal-fired power generation capacity to 1,100 gigawatts by 2020.

    China’s coal use has been on the decline since 2013.

    China has just announced that it will suspend building new coal power plants in 29 out 32 provinces, according to a state-owned newspaper. This news comes only months after China announced it was canceling more than 100 new coal power plants.

    As a proportion of China’s energy mix, coal stood at 62% in 2016, down from its peak of 75% in 1978. All these trends will ensure that coal’s contribution will keep falling."

    As reported by" The New York Times, Scientific American magazine, Reuters News Service, etc. as late as this May, 2017.

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Unless Law Enforcement are given orders by Democrat office holders to stand down to facilitate violence to further a political agenda...

    Well, that sort of nonsense should never happen. And, when it does, it should be emphatically called out by responsible journalists, bloggers and political analysts - of whatever political stripe.

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Who do you think should be leading on environmental issues, the US or China?

  92. [92] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "What's "healthy" about limiting speech you don't like??"

    First off, the proper discussion what not simply about limiting speech you don't like, it was about crossing the line over into intimidation.

    For example, you can march in the street and yell the "N" word all you want, but you can't go burn a cross across from someone's house in the middle of the night.

    "Those are safety and security issues and not relevant to the current discussion.."

    Oh really? If they weren't relevant to the discussion, then why did the Supreme Court feel the need to comment and rule on those very same concepts in the first place?

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    The announcement, made by China’s National Energy Administration, cancels 103 projects that were planned or under construction, eliminating 120 gigawatts of future coal-fired capacity. That includes dozens of projects in 13 provinces, mostly in China’s coal-rich north and west, on which construction had already begun.

    You are taking the world's top polluter's word for it?? :D

    When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change.

    But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.

    These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html?mcubz=0

    They allegedly cancelled 100 and are now building 700..

    You can do the math :D

    As reported by" The New York Times, Scientific American magazine, Reuters News Service, etc. as late as this May, 2017.

    My NY Grime article is July 2017.. :D

    Oh really? If they weren't relevant to the discussion, then why did the Supreme Court feel the need to comment and rule on those very same concepts in the first place?

    Because in the context of the SCOTUS ruling those issues WERE relevant..

    First off, the proper discussion what not simply about limiting speech you don't like, it was about crossing the line over into intimidation.

    And how would you characterize antifa's actions??

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, that sort of nonsense should never happen. And, when it does, it should be emphatically called out by responsible journalists, bloggers and political analysts - of whatever political stripe.

    And yet, it wasn't...

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

    Who do you think should be leading on environmental issues, the US or China?

    Depends on what "issues" you are referring to.. Issues such as pollution control and clean air, water.. The US..

    Climate change?? No one because there is nothing that can be done..

    Put another way..

    Who should be leading on Earth Orbital Rotation issues???

    No one because humans have no say in the rotation of the planet...

    Humans can't control the planet's climate...

    It's THAT simple...

  95. [95] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Tell ya what.. Let's limit speech about equal rights for TGs...

    Still think it's "healthy"??"

    YES. Unequivocally so. Because: it shows you who your opponent is, how silly their argument is, gives you the opportunity to counter it, and enables you to build support for your own position, among other things, etc.

    It is after all, exactly how we won the fight for marriage equality. We did not ban the speech of those who were opposed, we brought it out into the light of day, where it could be tackled properly and shown to be what it really was, which for the most part was thinly veiled prejudice, ignorance, and wild unsupported fantasies.

  96. [96] 
    John M wrote:

    So, if you want to have a discussion about limiting speech advocating equal rights for transgenders, by all mean let's have at it.

  97. [97] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (77)-
    It;s not an assumption. It's a recurring pattern.

    It's been shown that a small contribution campaign can get enough money to be competitive. If a candidate that has taken Big Money in the past continues to take Big Money then they are NOT recognizing the problem and NOT doing what they can to reform the system.

    And if you support them and vote for them when they do that they will continue to do that.

    As I stated here in the summer of 2016 and again recently, If Hillary had committed to and actually run the general election campaign as a small contribution candidate she could have earned my vote. The same is true for other Big Money candidates.

    It is no different than any other issue that people define as essential for a candidate to be committed to. But the Big Money candidates and legislators have to demonstrate with positive actions that any promises will actually be fulfilled.

    "Fool me once- shame on you.
    Fool me twice- (awkward pause)
    ..We won't get fooled again!"
    -GWBush

  98. [98] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Climate change?? No one because there is nothing that can be done..

    Humans can't control the planet's climate..."

    And where is your evidence backing up those statements? Or are they only your unsupported opinions?

    Cite?

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    Remember all those times 45 and his fanboys told us that once 45 was in power Iran and North Korea would be shaking in their boots because a "real leader" was back in power.

    As usual, it was all empty bluster. 45 has no ideas. He claimed he had a plan for the Middle East which turned out to be "ask the generals". He claimed he had a plan for health care - which turned out to be "see what Paul Ryan can gin up".

    I expect an apology from the fanboys for this apology of a president - but they are so gullible that they keep falling for the con.

    Sad.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Humans can't control the planet's climate...

    That's a fair statement, as far as it goes.

    It is also true that humans can and have impacted on the planet's climate, not to mention on the planet's species diversity and overall environmental integrity of the planet.

    We live on a relatively small sphere which has limited resources and a fragile atmosphere. While climate change has been occurring since the planet formed, it has only been occurring at the alarming rate that it is today since the industrial revolution and the global consumption of fossil fuels.

    So, it just ridiculous to say that humans have not had a dramatic and increasingly irreversible negative impact on our planet and its changing climate. Similarly, to suggest that human behavior cannot be changed to positively impact the planet's climate is akin to sticking your head in the sand.

    Besides, all of the things that we can do as humans - with a little help from our artificially intelligent friends - to slow down the rate of climate change will also lead to cleaner air to breath and water to drink, not to mention lessen the disastrous geopolitical impacts of climate change.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, if you want to have a discussion about limiting speech advocating equal rights for transgenders, by all mean let's have at it.

    OK... It's stoopid to try and limit the speech of TGs....

    There.. Discussion ended.. :D

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just try to do that with climate change, Michale!

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    End the conversation, I mean. :)

  104. [104] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "You are taking the world's top polluter's word for it?? :D"

    It neither advances the discussion, nor helps your own position, if you constantly dismiss everything that contradicts you, as fake news.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    I expect an apology from the fanboys for this apology of a president - but they are so gullible that they keep falling for the con.

    Find an example of what you're claiming and we'll go from there.. :D

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    t neither advances the discussion, nor helps your own position, if you constantly dismiss everything that contradicts you, as fake news.

    I didn't. I simply pointed out you are wrong and gave you the facts that show you're wrong. :D

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, all of the things that we can do as humans - with a little help from our artificially intelligent friends - to slow down the rate of climate change will also lead to cleaner air to breath and water to drink, not to mention lessen the disastrous geopolitical impacts of climate change.

    And if you keep it in the context of clean air and water, then we probably won't disagree on much at all..

    But the minute the conversation turns climate change as if humans can control it or that the planet is under threat of destruction, ya lose me... :D

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just try to do that with climate change, Michale!

    End the conversation, I mean. :)

    OK.. Easy...

    Humans can't control the planet's climate...

    The planet is not in imminent threat of destruction...

    Harvey happens....

    Clean air and water is desirable...

    Discussion ended .. :D

  109. [109] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "I didn't. I simply pointed out you are wrong and gave you the facts that show you're wrong. :D"

    Except it is my contention that you in fact did no such thing. If you had continued with the article you cited, it would have pointed out that even with building 700 plants, total coal use in and by China will still decrease and the trend line of coal use in China being on the decline will continue. The same article also pointed out that China is also one of the largest exporters of renewable energy technology in the world as well.

    So, I am simply point out that you are wrong and giving the facts that show you are wrong, from the very same article that you tried to use against me. :-)

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, I am simply point out that you are wrong and giving the facts that show you are wrong, from the very same article that you tried to use against me. :-)

    Fake news!!! hehehehehehe

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't convince me that China can build 700 new coal plants and STILL cut back on their coal usage...

    It's not possible....

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Harvey happens....

    And, in about 7 days, Irma will happen...

  113. [113] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "You can't convince me that China can build 700 new coal plants and STILL cut back on their coal usage...

    It's not possible...."

    Take it up with the writers. I am only quoting from the same article you are. :-D

    As I understand it, from what the article we were both reading says, it has to do with the coal plants being way underutilized and over capacity and not really needed, but still being planned to be built anyway, at least for now.

  114. [114] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Harvey happens....

    And, in about 7 days, Irma will happen..."

    Let's just hope it stays away from both of our areas of Florida, yours and mine.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's just hope it stays away from both of our areas of Florida, yours and mine.

    Yer up in the panhandle, right??

    Most of the tracks that affect Florida have it moving up the east coast...

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    But that will likely change over the next 4-6 days..

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember all those times 45 and his fanboys told us that once 45 was in power Iran and North Korea would be shaking in their boots because a "real leader" was back in power.

    Remember all those times Obama, Bush and Clinton ignored the problem or employed "strategic patience" to the NORKs which gave them the time to develop an H-Bomb and an ICBM to deliver it??

    Wanna talk about THAT!??

    Of course not...

    Only Trump is WRONG in everything he does..

    Odumbo is as pure as the driven snow...

    "Oooops.. Looks like the driven snow has a few tire tracks thru it.."
    -Janet Wood, THREE'S COMPANY

  118. [118] 
    neilm wrote:

    Remember all those times Obama, Bush and Clinton ignored the problem or employed "strategic patience" to the NORKs which gave them the time to develop an H-Bomb and an ICBM to deliver it??

    He developed long range missiles and the H-Bomb on 45's watch.

    He was just a regional pest, now 45 has turned him into a global pest. And we'll have to wait years for an adult to get back in power and fix this ... unless 45 has one of his plans, you know like the ISIS one that he wouldn't tell anybody then announced he was going to ask the generals.

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    He developed long range missiles and the H-Bomb on 45's watch.

    So, Lil Runt was able to develop an ICBM *AND* an H-BOMB all in just 8 months!!???

    And if you REALLY believe that I have some swampland in FL I wanna sell you.. :D

    "The PTDS is strong with this one.."

    :D

  120. [120] 
    neilm wrote:

    And if you REALLY believe that I have some swampland in FL I wanna sell you.. :D

    Exactly, so now can you stop 45 from taking credit for Obama's economy. 45 has done nothing from an economic perspective except claim credit for anything positive, and you'all go along with it.

    In fact, the crazy antics are causing uncertainty - the very thing markets and top executives dislike - but the first time there is a downturn I'll bet you 45 blames it on Obama, or Hillary, or "obstructive democrats". And you'all will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exactly, so now can you stop 45 from taking credit for Obama's economy. 45 has done nothing from an economic perspective except claim credit for anything positive, and you'all go along with it.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru your day...

    NOT-45 would NOT have inspired this kind of confidence in the economy and in American business...

    If you don't believe that you are deluding yourself..

    In fact, the crazy antics are causing uncertainty - the very thing markets and top executives dislike - but the first time there is a downturn I'll bet you 45 blames it on Obama, or Hillary, or "obstructive democrats"

    You mean like every time Dumbocrats and Odumbo blamed everything on Bush???

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    In fact, the crazy antics are causing uncertainty - the very thing markets and top executives dislike - but the first time there is a downturn I'll bet you 45 blames it on Obama, or Hillary, or "obstructive democrats"

    I mean, honestly.. Ya'all made a COTTAGE INDUSTRY of the term "obstructive Republicans"...

    NOW ya'all whine and complain and deny that term is TOTALLY applicable to Dumbocrats???

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That is so juvenile, Michale. :(

  124. [124] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oh, I see Ghandi has returned. And still making excuses for the overgrown child in the White House and his army of detestables.

    And Trump continues to drop in the polls, the latest weakening coming from the gradual dawning of awareness from the alt-right that they haven't gotten any of what they wanted either, yet. And now they've been banished from the White House too.

    But Trump is still promising shit he can't deliver at rallies - Winning!

    These days I just smile at the self-delusion - the belief that a crude and crass contractor from Queens can sweep into Washington and change 200 years of accumulated culture. They've already found a hundred ways around him, and even forced him to sign legislation that limits his ability to fire Mueller. I suspect that they're just warming up.

    So I'm less worried about Trump every day. In the end, his tenure will be a short, if embarrassing, speedbump on the road to a more perfect union and a better world.

  125. [125] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ghandi? Really, Balthasar?

  126. [126] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ghandi? Really, Balthasar?

    Not sarcastic enough?

  127. [127] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthasar-
    "Not sarcastic enough?"
    No, it's not.

    He is risen!

  128. [128] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm talking about the juvenile nature of the discussion at this blog.

  129. [129] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Trump is going to end DACA.

    So much for the promise of America ...

  130. [130] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Good sarcasm is not juvenile, so pfffffft!

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is so juvenile, Michale. :(

    No more juvenile than all the cutesy names many of ya'all call President Trump...

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    These days I just smile at the self-delusion - the belief that a crude and crass contractor from Queens can sweep into Washington and change 200 years of accumulated culture.

    Yep.. You much prefer the Establishment Swamp where nothing ever gets done..

    Sorry, my friend. Those days are gone. The Establishment is going down.. Make sure yer not holding on to it so tight you go down with it..

    So I'm less worried about Trump every day. In the end, his tenure will be a short, if embarrassing, speedbump on the road to a more perfect union and a better world.

    Which President Trump will bring us...

    You lost, Balthasar.. Quit whining about it..

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Trump is going to end DACA.

    So much for the promise of America ...

    DACA was illegal.. President Trump had no choice. He had to end it or the courts were going to end it..

    At least, when President Trump ended it, he could do it in such a way that Congress can step up and do something about it..

    Now all that has to happen is that Democrats work with Republicans and President Trump to fix things..

    Ohh.. DACA is doomed...

    Because Democrats would rather see everything go down in flames before they will work with President Trump..

    They have stated as much..

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.ventusky.com/?p=29.5;-78.5;4&l=wind

    Interesting map....

    LeadingBlue, yer the scientist around here..

    Does the winds show that Irma will likely be pushed into South FL or maybe even the Gulf Of Mexico??

  135. [135] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Because Republicans would rather see everything go down in flames before they will work with President Trump..

    They have stated as much.."

    There, fixed it for you. Sadly, 45's own party are the ones calling him out on this. Like they did for him supporting neo Nazis ("fine people") and ignoring his stupid wall when he insists they pay for it despite telling everybody, and even having his sheep chant "Mexico" to make sure we all knew who was going to pay for it.

    45's problems start at home. When your neighbor is setting his own home alight with gasoline you make sure your home and family are safe first before you try to put his out.

  136. [136] 
    neilm wrote:

    So 45 and Kim Jung-Un are having a crazy-off with nuclear weapons. What can possibly go wrong?

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    So 45 and Kim Jung-Un are having a crazy-off with nuclear weapons. What can possibly go wrong?

    If Odumbo hadn't been so stoopid as to ignore the NORK problem with his "Strategic Patience" bullshit, then we wouldn't be in this mess...

    "Because Republicans would rather see everything go down in flames before they will work with President Trump..

    They have stated as much.."

    There, fixed it for you.

    No, you didn't "fix" it for me. You fixed it for YOU, to continue propagating your delusional bullshit. :D

    Yea, there are a few Never Trumper morons amongst the GOP...

    But the entirety of the Dumbocrat Party have stated as a whole that they will never work with President Trump... (I just LOVE typing "President Trump"... :D)

    So, congrats Dumbocrats. You just sealed DACA's fate... It's going down in flames and ALL because Dumbocrats put their ideology before people...

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Odumbo hadn't been so stoopid as to ignore the NORK problem with his "Strategic Patience" bullshit, then we wouldn't be in this mess...

    But that's our Odumbo.. Never missed a chance to prove what a cowardly punk he is...

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Washington (AFP) - The United States will launch a "massive military response" to threats from North Korea, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said Sunday.

    He spoke after President Donald Trump met with his national security advisers following a test of what Pyongyang said was a hydrogen bomb able to fit atop a missile.

    "Any threat to the United States or its territories, including Guam, or our allies will be met with a massive military response, a response both effective and overwhelming," Mattis said.

    Isn't it funny how General Mattis sounds EXACTLY like President Trump...

    And ya'all have stated that ya'all respect General Mattis..

    So, that means ya'all must respect President Trump.. But you just can't admit it.. :D

    "It's OK, I understand... This ain't no Never Never Land.."
    -J Geils Band, ANGEL IS A CENTERFOLD

    :D

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Name me another POTUS who gave up their salary AND donated 1 million dollars OF THEIR OWN MONEY to disaster relief??

    You can't..

    Like I said above.. If President Trump can't do ANYTHING good or right in your eyes, the problem is not President Trump...

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:
  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Here's my prediction for Hurricane Irma...

    Friday night, Irma is going to skirt the southern end of the Bahamas as a strong Cat 3, possibly a mid-range Cat 4...

    Irma will make landfall in South Florida, Key Largo as a strong Cat 3 somewhere around midnight, probably earlier on Sat, the 9th...

    Irma will track up the spine of Florida, slightly west of center as a weak Cat 3/strong Cat 2..

    Sunday night late will put Irma in Winter Haven area of FL as a low Cat 2...

    Monday 11 Sep noonish will see Irma in the Big Bend area between Tallahassee and Lakeland as a Cat 1...

    Twelve hours later puts Irma in the Atlanta GA area as a Tropical Storm..

    That's my prediction for Hurricane Irma..

    Let's see how it stands up...

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bonus Points..

    Around mid-week, TS/Hurricane Jose will appear well east of Irma, but will curve out to sea and not be a threat to land...

  144. [144] 
    neilm wrote:

    Name me another POTUS who gave up their salary AND donated 1 million dollars OF THEIR OWN MONEY to disaster relief??

    Yeah, 'bout that. Firstly Huckabee is starting to walk that back - she is saying that it isn't going to be his personal money. Hmm.

    Also, 45 claims to be worth $10,000,000,000. Let's say Obama was worth $1,000,000 when he was President.

    45 is giving 1/10,000 of his net worth. Equivalent to Obama standing up and announcing he was going to give $100 to victims of Hurricane Sandy.

    Still as impressed with 45's generosity?

  145. [145] 
    neilm wrote:

    Like I said above.. If President Trump can't do ANYTHING good or right in your eyes, the problem is not President Trump...

    Or he could just be an incompetent buffoon. Which he is.

    You like to deal in absolutes, "ANYTHING", "always" etc, but I only call him out as an incompetent buffoon when he is an incompetent buffoon. And he gives me lots of opportunities.

    Sure he is doing some things that aren't either incompetent or buffoonish, but remember, he wasn't chosen to achieve anything beyond making his marks feel good.

    I asked you at least three times during the run up to the election for the top three achievements you would judge 45 on and you only came up with one: making you feel good about how he supports cops. And even when he tries to do that (e.g. his speech to the NYPD) the cops themselves reject his "bustin' heads" view of their role.

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or he could just be an incompetent buffoon. Which he is.

    An incompetent buffoon doesn't become a very successful businessman. So successful that you are afraid to even use his name..

    An incompetent buffoon doesn't best 19 of the most successful and experienced and well-funded Republicans ever..

    An incompetent buffoon doesn't DEVASTATE the biggest, meanest, most experienced and most well funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet..

    So, on the one hand, we have your biased opinion..

    And on the other hand, we have FACTS...

    Hmmmmm geee... lemme think.. :D

    I asked you at least three times during the run up to the election for the top three achievements you would judge 45 on and you only came up with one: making you feel good about how he supports cops.

    And yet, I was utterly and completely correct about the election and you were utterly and completely wrong about the election.. :D

  147. [147] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Good sarcasm is not juvenile, so pfffffft!

    Fine.

    But, if that was sarcasm, Balthasar, it was pretty lame sarcasm. Geesh.

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, 'bout that. Firstly Huckabee is starting to walk that back - she is saying that it isn't going to be his personal money. Hmm.

    Cite???

    45 is giving 1/10,000 of his net worth. Equivalent to Obama standing up and announcing he was going to give $100 to victims of Hurricane Sandy.

    Still as impressed with 45's generosity?

    Did Odumbo announce ANY personal donations???

    No he did not.

    ANY giving is worthwhile and a good thing..

    President Trump is giving..

    Odumbo couldn't be bothered..

    You can denigrate President Trump's kindness all you want but that just says more about you then it does about him...

  149. [149] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    No more juvenile than all the cutesy names many of ya'all call President Trump...

    THAT is what is childish, much more so than the name itself.

    Rise above it, if you can!

  150. [150] 
    neilm wrote:

    An incompetent buffoon doesn't become a very successful businessman. So successful that you are afraid to even use his name..

    Serena Williams is a great tennis player, does that qualify her to run the country?

    If 45 is so skilled at business, why does he have to hide his tax returns? Maybe he is worth nothing and is running on huge loans to the Russian mafia. We don't know because he is the only President in modern history to hide his finances and refuse to divest himself from his businesses.

    You don't know anything about his finances other than what he tells you, and you know he lies constantly. Mueller knows, and he probably knows about the cash flow and assets and liabilities, which would be the part I'd personally like to see. That is also why he has brought the NY state into the investigation - he is going to line them all up on state charges that 45 can't pardon.

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:
  152. [152] 
    neilm wrote:

    Did Odumbo announce ANY personal donations???

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/02/06/obama-donated-over-1-million-to-charity-as-president-heres-where-the-money-went/#4eabd7c6459e

    Don't you do at least a perfunctory internet search before you set yourself up for a pratfall Michale?

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Serena Williams is a great tennis player, does that qualify her to run the country?

    Maybe.. Maybe not..

    But calling her an incompetent buffoon is not accurate either..

    She is obviously VERY competent in her chosen field..

    If 45 is so skilled at business, why does he have to hide his tax returns?

    If Odumbo was so smart and intelligent why did he have to hide his school records??

    Works both ways..

    You don't know anything about his finances other than what he tells you, and you know he lies constantly. Mueller knows, and he probably knows about the cash flow and assets and liabilities, which would be the part I'd personally like to see. That is also why he has brought the NY state into the investigation - he is going to line them all up on state charges that 45 can't pardon.

    Yea.. And there was a 98% chance that NOT-45 was going to be President.. :D

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And ya'all have stated that ya'all respect General Mattis..

    The comments made by Secretary Mattis about using overwhelming force against NK if it threatens the US were anything but measured, as many are characterizing them.

    I just lost a little more respect for this general.

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't you do at least a perfunctory internet search before you set yourself up for a pratfall Michale?

    When you move the goal posts, how can I avoid it??

    We're talking specific disaster relief donations like Sandy and Harvey..

    NOT generic yearly charity donations that EVERYONE does....

    How much did Odumbo personally donate to Sandy relief??

    A big fat ZERO

    Odumbo couldn't be bothered...

  156. [156] 
    neilm wrote:

    The $1.1 million of donations Obama declared on his tax returns also do not include the $1.4 million he directed the Nobel Committee to give 10 charities after he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

    Shooting fish in a barrel. I expect a subject change now.

  157. [157] 
    neilm wrote:

    We're talking specific disaster relief donations like Sandy and Harvey..

    From the above Forbes link, Obama gave $118,500 to disaster relief.

    Fish. Barrel. Shotgun.

    Do try to change the subject, it is just getting sad now.

  158. [158] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sad and juvenile.

  159. [159] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I thought we were essentially a pretty mature crowd around here ... and, by mature, I mean old enough to produce good sarcasm ... :)

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I mean, good sarcasm writes itself, these days ...

  161. [161] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Last Friday's talking points without Michale- 48 comments.

    This Friday's talking points with Michale- 158 comments and counting.

    Sad and juvenile seems to be what people want.

  162. [162] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How do you reach that conclusion, Don?

  163. [163] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (162)-
    158 is greater than 48.

    It's like the scene from the Howard Stern movie when Pig Vomit is talking with the numbers guy about Howard Stern's listeners.

    (not exact quotes)
    numbers guy: The average radio listener listens for about an hour, the average Stern fan listens for two hours. Most common reason- they want to hear what he will say next.

    pig vomit: But those are the people that like him- what about the people that don't like him?

    numbers guy: The average listener that doesn't like Stern listens for three hours.

    pig vomit: But if they don't like him - why do they listen?

    numbers guy: The most common reason- they want to hear what he will say next.

  164. [164] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, Don. But, then again, an analysis based on the dynamics of the Howard Stern show wouldn't, would it?

  165. [165] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ...unless you actually believe that Howard Stern's listeners are just like Weigantians.

    You're not saying that, are you Don?

  166. [166] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Let me put it this way. The discussion you and I had earlier in the thread that the Democrats need to have generated no comments from anyone else. (Thanks for trying.)

    Michale's comments got many responses. He is giving the people what they want.

  167. [167] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (165)-
    Are you saying they aren't ?!?!?!

  168. [168] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I think you should read through the comments on this thread again.

    While it is too bad our little discussion didn't attract a larger crowd, your Stern analysis ... heh ... doesn't seem to apply here.

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    From the above Forbes link, Obama gave $118,500 to disaster relief.

    Did Odumbo donate DIRECTLY to the Sandy Relief effort AT THE TIME of the disaster??

    No he did not..

    So quit trying to move the goal posts. Yer embarrassing yerself..

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Last Friday's talking points without Michale- 48 comments.

    This Friday's talking points with Michale- 158 comments and counting.

    Sad and juvenile seems to be what people want.

    hehehehehehehehe

    Funny how the normal malcontents weren't around when I wasn't.. :D

  171. [171] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm just gonna let [167] slide ...

  172. [172] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Come on, Michale!

    You must admit that this thread wasn't that bad ... just one juvenile response to your comments.

  173. [173] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I mean, this is still a work in progress but, gimme some credit!

  174. [174] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't prove me wrong, Michale. :)

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    I updated my IRMA prediction GIF.....

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    You must admit that this thread wasn't that bad ... just one juvenile response to your comments.

    Yes, it's so far a very fun debate/discussion...

    Don't prove me wrong, Michale. :)

    I would never!! :D heh

    You know me well enough to know that I just follow were people lead me.. :D

  177. [177] 
    neilm wrote:

    Did Odumbo donate DIRECTLY to the Sandy Relief effort AT THE TIME of the disaster??

    Yes.

    And do you remember what 45 did? He offered to donate money to Sandy victims only if Obama would release personal documents. When his "deadline" expired, 45 kept all his money and donated nothing.

  178. [178] 
    neilm wrote:

    “Good thing there's no charity that needs $5m right now!” said MSNBC contributor Dave Weigel on Twitter. “Seriously, though, pulling a charity donation stunt when countless fellow New Yorkers are recovering from a disaster is monstrous.”

  179. [179] 
    neilm wrote:

    The worst 45 "pretend charity" disgrace was when he gatecrashed the opening of an Aids Children's benefit as though he was one of the large donors then left without giving anything:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-boasts-of-his-philanthropy-but-his-giving-falls-short-of-his-words/2016/10/29/b3c03106-9ac7-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html

    But there are lots more sleezy antics from 45 - even in this election he announced he was going to donate to Vets, then only did after he was fact checked by the Washington Post.

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes.

    Cite??

    The worst 45 "pretend charity" disgrace was when he gatecrashed the opening of an Aids Children's benefit as though he was one of the large donors then left without giving anything:

    Like I said. If Trump can do no right in your eyes, that says more about you than it does about him..

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    And do you remember what 45 did? He offered to donate money to Sandy victims only if Obama would release personal documents.

    Apparently, Odumbo's personal secrets are more important to him than helping out Sandy victims...

    Swell guy, yer Odumbo. :^/

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    There must be some really nasty stuff in Odumbo's past that he would let Sandy people suffer instead of releasing it..

  183. [183] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Do you see a trend here? I do. When Michale answers, every horrible act of Trump's is justified by some imagined horrible, or very Democratic, act done by Obama, or Hillary, or Democrats, in that order of preference.

    So Trump found the not-so-sweet spot of the GOP base: be the opposite of Obama. Where he was kind, be cruel. Where he was generous, be obtuse. The alt-right in particular didn't just disagree with Obama, they HATED him, and saw Hillary as possibly worse. This is why Trump has trouble criticizing the alt-right: despite their despicable brand of politics, they're enthusiastic in their hatred, and that's a big basket of votes.

    So we can carry on all day, and the answer will be the same - Obama did something, or Democrats did something that DEMANDS that Trump do the opposite. Everything's to blame on Obama (except the economy, of course). It's dull-witted, but easy to remember.

  184. [184] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Why don't you tell us something we don't already know?

    It's more interesting that way ... :)

  185. [185] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So we can carry on all day ...

    Well, that is an option but, it's not the only one and certainly not the best one.

    Just try to ignore the crazy stuff and try to elicit something better and, if all fails, just move on.

  186. [186] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, Liz, I'll play it your way for a second. Here are all the things that I can think of that Michale might agree with me about:

    Hillary was a poor candidate, not because she couldn't have done a better job, but because she couldn't relax, and speak from the heart. She did once, in New Hampshire in 2008, and it almost nabbed the nomination for her then. Not since, though, not once.

    So far Trump and his generals have handled Iraq and Afghanistan correctly, save for the dick-wagging with the cruise missiles and giant bomb. I agree with Bill Maher when he points out that we're in Afghanistan, actually, to be a local speedbump for Pakistan and Iran, the way our troops are in positioned in South Korea to keep an eye on North Korea and China. I also agree with the MSNBC commentator who said today that even Bernie might have made similar strategic decisions after getting the Presidential briefing on US options in that part of the world.

    Trump's last visit to Houston was a good one, where he was able to put his prior experience as host and casino greeter to good use. He wasn't, in my opinion, as empathetic as (Bill) Clinton, but he did okay. He needs to channel this side of himself more, because he's not bad at it.

    Trump's choice of Kelly as chief of staff was a good pick. The White House has calmed down quite a bit since the banishment of Bannon and Gorka and Priebus, all political, rather than pragmatic personalities. I suspect Stephen Miller is the next to get the boot. Kellyanne Conway, being Rebecca Mercer's sole remaining tether to the White House, will probably be ignored rather than axed. It remains to be seen whether Kelly can translate the WH's new calm into legislative success, because:

    Mitch dropped the ball on healthcare, pure and simple. Trump made it abundantly clear that he'd sign anything that reached his desk, even broaching himself the possibility of a bi-partisan solution. McConnell wasn't having any of it, being too partisan and self-serving himself to yank the chains of his right flank by cutting a deal with Schumer. Ryan can't be blamed for it, because he all but plowed a path to a quick conference, which should have been a slow pitch over the plate for the majority leader.

    There's more, but I'll pause with that.

    There you have it, Liz. We'll see if it 'elicits something better' in the form of dialogue. I'll bet you 10 quatloos that Michale won't come up with a list like that.

  187. [187] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hmm. The filter apparently trapped my response - a list of items on which I agree with Michale, and it didn't even include links. The fates are against goodwill today, Liz.

  188. [188] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

    Are you sure that comment wasn't blank, Balthasar?

    :-)

  189. [189] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    161

    Last Friday's talking points without Michale- 48 comments.

    This Friday's talking points with Michale- 158 comments and counting.

    About half of those are the same old cut-and-paste comments replete with the same repetitive lies he posts over and over as if they're new and hadn't been discussed ad nauseam. *LOL*

    Subtract the monotonous drivel and conspiracy theory nonsense and post those numbers. ;)

  190. [190] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    The situation is what it is. We have it in our power, each of us, to make this comments section a fun and informative place for debate and discussion of the issues.

    We can do all we can to elevate it or bring it down.

    That is your choice.

  191. [191] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    140

    Name me another POTUS who gave up their salary AND donated 1 million dollars OF THEIR OWN MONEY to disaster relief??

    You can't..

    You can't either until the current POTUS actually donates the $1 million. If Trump gives any of his personal money, even if it's less than promised, he should definitely get credit for it, but you wielding it like a sword against other presidents is kind of ridiculous when The Trump Foundation is currently under investigation by the State of New York for illegally self-dealing. It ain't a very pretty picture, if you know what I mean. Little chip-off-the-old-con Eric's foundation was found doing the same thing in the process.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/09/new-york-attorney-general-looking-into-eric-trump-foundation/#6742ec8a1075

    So the media and CW are finally reporting that the New York AG is working with Mueller. Actually, that's been going on for quite awhile now. Who knew? *LOL* :)

  192. [192] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    'Name me another POTUS who gave up their salary AND donated 1 million dollars OF THEIR OWN MONEY to disaster relief??'

    Agent Orange, Mr Trump was sporting a $40 (on his web site) hat when he first visited Texas, the profits of which were no doubt going to feed his struggling and cash-strapped family. I think it's premature to pat this guy on the back for his altruistic intentions until his taxes are revealed, and his largesse confirmed...

    LL&P

  193. [193] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    133

    DACA was illegal.. President Trump had no choice. He had to end it or the courts were going to end it..

    Yes, Trump had a choice.

    At least, when President Trump ended it, he could do it in such a way that Congress can step up and do something about it..

    Congress could have done something about it already; they didn't need Trump or anyone else to give them an opportunity "to step up and do something."

    Now all that has to happen is that Democrats work with Republicans and President Trump to fix things..

    Seems to me like Trump has chosen not to work with Democrats and then blamed Democrats and Republicans for not getting his agenda passed... and then there's that pesky fact that Trump never delivered on that health care plan he promised... nor any of the other plans he promised because he has none that I've seen... and then expected Republicans to come up with something he would just sign whether it kept the promises or not. Expect this pattern to continue, and expect Trump to keep blaming Democrats and Republicans for not enacting Trump's plans that never existed.

    Why can't the Trump sycophants admit that Trump has brought nothing in the way of actual policy ideas to the table and is blaming Democrats and Republicans for his shortcomings?

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you see a trend here? I do. When Michale answers, every horrible act of Trump's is justified by some imagined horrible, or very Democratic, act done by Obama, or Hillary, or Democrats, in that order of preference.

    Not at all.. I am simply pointing out the FACT that ya'all (NEN) don't really CARE about any "horrible" act of Trump's because you gave a pass to your Dumbocrats for their equally horrible acts..

    It's not the act that bothers you.. It's the fact that Trump allegedly did it..

    This is documented fact..

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hmm. The filter apparently trapped my response - a list of items on which I agree with Michale, and it didn't even include links. The fates are against goodwill today, Liz.

    If you break down the comment, you can usually find the culprit that trips the NNL filters...

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    About half of those are the same old cut-and-paste comments replete with the same repetitive lies he posts over and over as if they're new and hadn't been discussed ad nauseam. *LOL*

    And Victoria returns with her personal attacks... Funny how she wasn't around when I wasn't around, but just HAD to come back when I came back..

    I have my own personal little stalker.. :D

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    We can do all we can to elevate it or bring it down.

    That is your choice.

    And she chose....poorly...

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Agent Orange, Mr Trump was sporting a $40 (on his web site) hat when he first visited Texas, the profits of which were no doubt going to feed his struggling and cash-strapped family. I think it's premature to pat this guy on the back for his altruistic intentions until his taxes are revealed, and his largesse confirmed...

    Of course you would think that it's premature...

    You don't want to give credit to Trump for ANYTHING, so you will always find a reason NOT to...

    As I said, that says more about you than it says about President Trump...

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    About half of those are the same old cut-and-paste comments replete with the same repetitive lies he posts over and over as if they're new and hadn't been discussed ad nauseam. *LOL*

    We were having a nice comfortable debate and discussion and then she has to barge in and spoil it..

    And, of course, she can't point to ANY lies in this commentary, which proves it's her that is the liar...

    Funny how that is, eh...

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump has offered the full resources of the Federal Government for Floridians in anticipation of a Florida strike by Hurricane Irma..

    Gods, it's great to know that President Trump has our backs...

    NOT-45's response would have been, "Frak you, people!! Yer own yer own.. I am going to the Hamptons!!" :^/

    Looks like my predicted track of Irma is going to be dead on ballz accurate..

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    The alt-right in particular didn't just disagree with Obama, they HATED him, and saw Hillary as possibly worse.

    And the Left and the Alt-Left feel the exact same way about President Trump..

    What's yer point???

  202. [202] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    'You don't want to give credit to Trump for ANYTHING, so you will always find a reason NOT to...'

    I'm waiting patiently for Mr Trump to inaugurate the torrent of winning he assured his adherents was imminent. Blind faith and dashed hopes might appeal to some, but facts and action pay the piper. Trump and his 'razzle-dazzle' demagoguery has done little but supply his core supporters an endless diet of protein and promises. He bemoans that the left-wing has him stymied at every turn, yet turns on his own party when he feels his 'ideas' are being subverted.
    John Donne wrote, 'no man is an island entire of itself'... Trump manages to piss on his own parade without help from anyone, he honestly believes his own spins, doubles down on egregious utterances and stumbles from one catastrophe to the next, seemingly oblivious to the festival of eye-rolls from all those around him.
    I'd love to congratulate this individual for something, anything, I'll even settle for a good hair day, but he's yet accomplish anything worthy of applause. Pencil-whipping sober regulations into oblivion, squabbling with the press and crayon tweeting can't be considered triumphs.
    I don't blame Trump for his lack of accomplishments, he's not an ideologue with a clear and unassailable set of goals. Trump is more frequently painting a picture of a man bewildered by his station, making it up as he goes along.

    LL&P (lacklustre, limp and ploding, in this instance.)

  203. [203] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    'You don't want to give credit to Trump for ANYTHING, so you will always find a reason NOT to...'

    I'm waiting patiently for Mr Trump to inaugurate the torrent of winning he assured his adherents was imminent. Blind faith and dashed hopes might appeal to some, but facts and action pay the piper. Trump and his 'razzle-dazzle' demagoguery has done little but supply his core supporters an endless diet of protein and promises. He bemoans that the left-wing has him stymied at every turn, yet turns on his own party when he feels his 'ideas' are being subverted.
    John Donne wrote, 'no man is an island entire of itself'... Trump manages to piss on his own parade without help from anyone, he honestly believes his own spins, doubles down on egregious utterances and stumbles from one catastrophe to the next, seemingly oblivious to the festival of eye-rolls from all those around him.
    I'd love to congratulate this individual for something, anything, I'll even settle for a good hair day, but he's yet accomplish anything worthy of applause. Pencil-whipping sober regulations into oblivion, squabbling with the press and crayon tweeting can't be considered triumphs.
    I don't blame Trump for his lack of accomplishments, he's not an ideologue with a clear and unassailable set of goals. Trump is more frequently painting a picture of a man bewildered by his station, making it up as he goes along.

    LL&P (lacklustre, limp and ploding, in this instance.)

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the Left and the Alt-Left feel the exact same way about President Trump..

    What's yer point???

    That's what I don't understand about ya'all...

    Ya'all went apeshit crazy over the Republicans response to Obama and yet ya'all are acting the EXACT same way in ya'all's response to President Trump..

    And what is so gabberflasting is that ya'all don't even see it!!

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    James T,

    I'm waiting patiently for Mr Trump to inaugurate the torrent of winning he assured his adherents was imminent.

    You mean like illegal immigration being down 80%+??

    You mean like American confidence way WAY up???

    You mean like Business Confidence way WAY up???

    You mean like pulling out of that HORRENDOUS TPP???

    You mean like pulling out of that even MORE horrendous Paris Climate Con???

    Your problem is that Trump IS winning but you just don't like the wins...

    President Trump is doing EVERYTHING he was hired to do...

    I don't blame Trump for his lack of accomplishments, he's not an ideologue with a clear and unassailable set of goals.

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary :D

    Trump is more frequently painting a picture of a man bewildered by his station, making it up as he goes along.

    And yet, he is one of the most successful businessman in history. So successful that Lefties are afraid to even say his name for fear of giving him credit for his success...

    And yet, he dispatched with great ease 19 of the most qualified, most well known and most well funded GOP candidates in history..

    And yet, he DEVASTATED the biggest, meanest, most experienced and most well funded political juggernaut in the history of politics..

    So, on the one hand, we have your bigoted opinion unsupported by facts...

    On the other hand, we have stone cold FACTS that prove your opinion wrong..

    Oh gee... Which one should I believe...

    Stone cold fact??? Unsubstantiated opinion....????

    Hmmmmm It's a tough call....

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    . He bemoans that the left-wing has him stymied at every turn, yet turns on his own party when he feels his 'ideas' are being subverted.

    You just don't get it...

    Which PROVES he is not a rabid ideologue like Odumbo was who put Party before Country...

    And *THAT* is why President Trump was elected.. So he would put COUNTRY before Party....

    If you could lose the ideological zealotry and look at things with an objective eye, you would see how accurate this is...

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the track for Irma has moved east ward...

    JM, looks like you dodged the bullet..

    But we're going to have a Cat 5 storm 25 miles east of us come Monday....

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://theworleys.net/temp/irma11Sep1100.jpg

    And another system JOSE, was projected to turn northward and stay in the ocean, but it's on track to follow in Irma's wake...

    The GOOD news is that, with all the churning caused by Irma, Jose probably won't shape up to be a very big storm..

    This is looking like 2005 all over again...

  209. [209] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yikes!

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    The administration’s handling of Harvey objectively seems to be going well so far. Supplies were positioned for distribution ahead of the storm. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has publically praised the Federal Emergency Management Agency as well as the White House, saying the state was “getting absolutely everything we need.” Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards said he had nothing to ask of Trump after meeting with him during a presidential visit to Harvey-affected areas Saturday.

    The administration has been swift to turn on the money as well. Trump sent a request for $7.85 billion for Harvey recovery to Congress Friday night and on Saturday amended the Texas disaster declaration to increase the amount the federal government would pay for storm-related debris removal. In the category of nice gesture, Trump’s re-election campaign emailed 10 million addresses a note encouraging donations to a list of charities including the Red Cross, Salvation Army, United Way and local animal shelters.

    In the absence of significant things to complain about, some journalists have turned to pettiness.

    Multiple outlets including The New York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, and Vogue criticized Melania Trump for wearing high heels from the White House to Marine One when departing for Texas last week, apparently assuming she was sporting her flood gear. One writer for refinery29 – which bills itself as “a modern woman’s destination for how to live a stylish, well-rounded life” -- called the first lady “Flood Watch Barbie.” Several commenters had to update their snarky critiques when Mrs. Trump emerged from Air Force One in the sneakers she had obviously planned to wear in the disaster zone.

    The fact that she was going to change shoes en route was available to any reporter worth that job title — The Washington Examiner’s Caitlin Yilek reported early that Trump’s spokeswoman told her the first lady had a different pair of shoes to change into. But with hurricane assistance going well, these reporters were a little desperate . “Criticism of the ensemble must have reached somebody in a position to right the ship,” said The Daily Beast’s Erin Gloria Ryan, stupidly choosing an interpretation of the outfit change that fit her narrative despite the White House having explained hours before her report that sneakers were the game plan the entire time.

    Never Trumpers. :^/

    Morons.....

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly..

    Is there *ANYONE* here who thinks it's a legitimate criticism to complain when the FLOTUS wears high heels from her residence to a waiting chopper??

    Anyone???

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's yer Democrat Party...

    http://theworleys.net/temp/fb1.jpg

    And ya'all wonder why it's hard to take the Never Trumpers seriously... :^/

    THAT ^^^^ is why....

    There is really no difference between THAT fool and the people that claim Trump is "incompetent" and the like...

  213. [213] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    195

    And Victoria returns with her personal attacks... Funny how she wasn't around when I wasn't around, but just HAD to come back when I came back..

    I have my own personal little stalker.. :D

    And Michale returns with his usual whining and delusions of grandeur... reminds me of BLOTUS... poor thing, such a "victim" of everyone. *LOL* :)

    I actually was around when you weren't here, but I'm sure it surprises no one here that you'd lie about that. I never left. I did go help with the hurricane we had here in Texas... popped in to post between trips down to help... you may have heard of it? I returned when I dropped my friends home in Houston. Here's hoping you and/or your friends aren't in the path of a hurricane any time soon.

    p.s. As always and forever will be the case, everything is NOT about you, Michale. *LOL* :)

  214. [214] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    198

    Oh, you had to respond twice to the same comment; thank you ever so much for letting me know it bothered you. You need to develop a thicker skin; you do so resemble that which you claim about others.

    We were having a nice comfortable debate and discussion and then she has to barge in and spoil it..

    Gee... you resemble that remark. If you'd like to know what it feels like to be having a discussion with someone on this board only to have it hijacked by you then you should write down that nugget of your above. It seems you have no problem doing that which you're whining about like a victim. :)

    And, of course, she can't point to ANY lies in this commentary, which proves it's her that is the liar...

    Oh, yes, I can easily point to the lies in your repetitive commentary and have done so before... as have many others here.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/10/will-youre-fired-be-trumps-undoing/#comment-99677

    Yet you continue repeating the same drivel as if it's new commentary and hasn't been discussed on this board ad nauseam, and that says more about you than it does anyone else. <-- Nice to see you adopt my language in your latest posts to other posters... you repeating it back to others lets me know what is effective with your ilk. :)

    Want more lies? I'm not reading this drivel again, I'll just skim it and post one to prove my point:

    And Nancy Pelosi, of all people, is the ONLY Democrat who has condemned antifa terrorists and terrorism...

    Lie.

  215. [215] 
    Kick wrote:

    James T Canuck
    201

    Very well said, sir. :)

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    I actually was around when you weren't here, but I'm sure it surprises no one here that you'd lie about that. I never left. I did go help with the hurricane we had here in Texas... popped in to post between trips down to help... you may have heard of it? I returned when I dropped my friends home in Houston.

    Yea.. Suuuure ya were.. :D Yer always so full of shit..

    Here's hoping you and/or your friends aren't in the path of a hurricane any time soon.

    Sweethart, I have been in the path of hurricanes many times... And we are again. A Cat 5 monster...

    Just another day.. Ho Hum...

    And, of course, she can't point to ANY lies in this commentary, which proves it's her that is the liar...

    Oh, yes, I can easily point to the lies in your repetitive commentary and have done so before... as have many others here.

    ANd if I go back months and months I can point to lies and bs in your comments as well...

    But, as usual, you are too stoopid to follow simply instructions..

    You claim I came back into THIS commentary with "the same old cut-and-paste comments replete with the same repetitive lies he posts over and over"...

    So, I told you to post the lies in THIS commentary..

    But you can't because you KNOW that it is YOU who is the liar here, not me.. :D

    Put up or shut up, bitch.. :D

  217. [217] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    209

    I mean, honestly..

    Is there *ANYONE* here who thinks it's a legitimate criticism to complain when the FLOTUS wears high heels from her residence to a waiting chopper??

    Anyone???

    I will go on record stating that was ridiculous. Who cares what shoes she wears? I don't care what she wears in public as long as it's not her birthday suit. I think a lot of that "shoes" and "clothes" commentary is in response to the right-wing criticism of the Obamas for their clothing choices: the tan suit, the sleeveless dress, etc., etc., etc.

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Like I told you.. I respond to people how they respond to.. If they start with the personal attacks, I respond in kind...

    It's really that simple...

  219. [219] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    214

    Yea.. Suuuure ya were.. :D Yer always so full of shit..

    You speak of people you know nothing about and claim to know what they do and what they think. Claiming to know what people think and do are actually your modus operandi, and it's utter drivel and nonsense and... yes, absolute lies at times.

    Please continue to put words in my mouth and those of others and claim to KNOW what we think and what we do; please do so at every chance you get. Please continue to refer to me and others on this board using derogatory names and profanity. You're proving my point, and it's awesome. :)

    ANd if I go back months and months I can point to lies and bs in your comments as well...

    But, as usual, you are too stoopid to follow simply instructions..

    Actually, you repeated that very same commentary I linked to in my comment on this page at comment [146] and comment [203], you've actually repeated it ad nauseam as if repeating the lies over and over magically makes them come true. To be fair to you, some of them are your opinion, but some of them are just repeated lies that have been debunked here already by multiple posters... your ever present dearth of ideas.

    So, I told you to post the lies in THIS commentary..

    But you can't because you KNOW that it is YOU who is the liar here, not me.. :D

    Put up or shut up, bitch.. :D

    You actually don't KNOW what I think and what I do... nor anyone else on this board for that matter, and typing out your drivel over and over and claiming that you do know what people think and do does not and will not magically make it a fact and actually says way more about you than it does about anyone else on this board.

    I was here when you left like a whiny victim when JL spoke the truth about Trump borrowing themes from "He Who Must Not Be Named" from the book he kept at his beside, I was here when you left again like a whiny victim when JL said that you were proving CW correct in his assessment... albeit with a detour to help friends and fellow Texans who were literally under water with Harvey, and I'll be here when you leave again for whatever whiny victim reason you come up with. I ain't going nowhere and never will. :)

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blaaa blaaaa blaaaa

    Help me JL!! Help me!!! :D

    You are so pathetic.. :D

  221. [221] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why are you on this old thread!!!???

  222. [222] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    218

    Oh, come on. Mischaracterizing my post is all you've got? I wasn't remotely asking JL for help... that's actually one of your signature moves... you do love your projection.

    My post didn't ask JL for any help... just pointed out the FACT that every time I've seen you leave whining, it was because JL posted a fact that hurt your fee-fees. :)

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wasn't remotely asking JL for help...

    My post didn't ask JL for any help...

    And yet, you have to deny that you weren't asking JL for help TWICE..

    Sounds like yer protesting TOO much...

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    HELP ME!!! HELP ME!!!!!! MICHALE IS BEING MEAN!!!! HELP ME!!!!!
    -Victoria

    BBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    But when all is said and done, the FACTS are clear..

    We're having a nice and semi-civil discussion and debate..

    Victoria shows up and FIRST thing starts in with the personal attacks and name-calling...

    And then it all goes to hell......

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

  225. [225] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You two are HOPELESS!!!!

  226. [226] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    222

    But when all is said and done, the FACTS are clear..

    We're having a nice and semi-civil discussion and debate..

    Victoria shows up and FIRST thing starts in with the personal attacks and name-calling...

    I didn't call you a name. I answered Don's post with a comment that included no name calling.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/09/01/ftp451/#comment-108788

    I did say you lied, but that is a FACT. The name calling is all your handiwork. :)

  227. [227] 
    Michale wrote:

    I did say you lied, but that is a FACT. The name calling is all your handiwork. :)

    No, it's NOT a fact. It's a personal attack..

    Thank you for proving me correct once again...

  228. [228] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    225

    No, it's NOT a fact. It's a personal attack..

    Actually, it wasn't even a post to you; it was a post to someone else. If you can't handle someone pointing out the FACT that your posts contain lies, then you have choices. Either stop posting repetitive lies or grow a thicker skin.

    Like my mother always says: "Don't dish it out unless you can take it." Wise words to live by. :)

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, it wasn't even a post to you; it was a post to someone else. If you can't handle someone pointing out the FACT that your posts contain lies, then you have choices. Either stop posting repetitive lies or grow a thicker skin.

    And you continue to lie..

    Post the comment that was a lie.

    You can't because all you ever do is lie..

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, it wasn't even a post to you; it was a post to someone else.

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    So, if I post to someone else that you are a lying bitch, it's NOT a personal attack because I wasn't even posting to you!??

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

    "You really are a sad simple creature, aren't you.."
    -Bartleby, DOGMA

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's hoping you and/or your friends aren't in the path of a hurricane any time soon.

    You really aren't up on current events, are you??

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT1+shtml/051742.shtml

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://icons.wunderground.com/data/images/at201711_5day.gif

    Looks like my prediction from a couple days ago is holding steady....

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:
  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:
Comments for this article are closed.