ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [452] -- The Art Of The Steal

[ Posted Friday, September 8th, 2017 – 17:20 PDT ]

We cannot claim originality for that subtitle. It's taken from Republican Senator Ben Sasse, from when he was speaking out against the deal President Donald Trump cut this week with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi: "Yesterday we saw Washington's swamp continue to rise: Chuck Schumer wrote The Art Of The Steal by taking hurricane relief hostage to guarantee a December showdown that favors Democratic spending priorities." We thought it was the best description of the stunning events of this week in Washington, so we decided to use it (with attribution, of course). "The art of the steal" pretty much sums up how Trump and "Chuck and Nancy" brutally cut the legs out from under the entire Republican Party in Congress.

But we'll get to this earthshaking situation in a moment, because before this bombshell hit there was another major political announcement earlier in the week. President Trump seems genuinely conflicted about the issue, but he allowed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to make the announcement that all the people currently covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will lose their deferments starting six months from now.

Technically, these folks were originally targeted for relief with the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act), but this legislation was never successfully passed by Congress. Originally "DREAMers," eventually editors got tired of all the capitals and they have now become "Dreamers" or even just "dreamers" instead (although we did see one amusing attempt to update the label -- "the DACAmented"); these are the most sympathetic undocumented immigrants around, since they were brought here as children, through no fault of their own.

Trump seems to want to let the DREAMers stay, but he was convinced by the hardliners on immigration to end the program after a six month period. Trump himself undercut the announcement within hours, tweeting out that if Congress doesn't fix the problem, he might just extend that six-month deadline until they do. Later in the week, Nancy Pelosi even got Trump to tweet out a reassurance that nobody's getting targeted for deportation during that six-month period (more on this in a moment).

Trump really pleased nobody with the announcement, with the possible exception of Jeff Sessions (who always looks like a happy little elf, right?). The nationalist hardliners were disappointed that the DACA program didn't end immediately, and they're already wary that Trump will give the DREAMers "amnesty." The public is overwhelmingly on the side of allowing the DREAMers to legally stay, by enormous margins across the board: 84 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of independents, and 69 percent of Republicans. Even among Trump voters, a whopping two-thirds think the DREAMers should be allowed to stay.

Donald Trump has flip-flopped on the issue in a stark and notable way, and he's been moving towards helping the DREAMers out for a while, now. So this looks like a deal he could conceivably cut with congressional Democrats and Republican moderates before the six months is up.

Speaking of deals with Democrats, Wednesday will go down in Trumpian history as the day "Chuck and Nancy" (as he put it) began working with Trump -- to advance the Democratic agenda. Nobody saw this one coming (the people most shocked by it were quite likely Chuck and Nancy themselves), and in the aftermath a bill whipped through Congress faster than a speeding bullet. Wednesday, Trump shook hands with Chuck and Nancy; Thursday the bill cleared the Senate, 80-17; Friday the bill made it through the House, 316-90. Trump may have even signed it by now, or perhaps he'll sign it some time over the weekend. For Washington, that is beyond lightning-fast, it is a downright freakin' miracle.

The deal that got struck wrapped almost all the contentious issues that had been facing Congress in September into one bill that punts the whole debate three months down the road. Everything was attached to the must-pass Hurricane Harvey (and Irma) relief bill, as a goad to get Republicans to vote for it. This means a month that was supposed to be chock full of grandstanding and posturing and brinksmanship is now over before it even began. It's beyond breathtaking.

Donald Trump is now showing open contempt for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and (for good measure) his own Treasury Secretary. Trump is now actively working to keep Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp in her seat, while he's been hostile to a number of Republicans who need to get re-elected next year (most notably, Jeff Flake). Trump has said more nice things about "Chuck and Nancy" in the past three days than he's said about most Republican leaders ever.

This has been such a stunning turn of events that virtually everyone is reacting with an abundance of caution. Nobody knows what the long-term implications are, or even if there will be any. Trump is nothing if not mercurial, so he could decide tomorrow that the whole thing was a bad idea. It's certainly happened before.

Democrats are wary, but hopeful. After the initial bombshell story, further details leaked out about what Trump had also agreed to discuss with Democrats in the future, including doing away with debt ceiling votes altogether, and passing a DREAM Act so the DACA kids won't wind up getting deported. Chuck and Nancy will be following through on both of these, you can be sure. Will this mean there will be other openings for making deals with Trump on Democratic legislative priorities? Nobody knows, but so far the signs are at least somewhat encouraging.

Republicans, on the other hand, are still experiencing shell-shock. While a few have openly denounced the "Pelosi-Schumer-Trump deal" (as they call it), most are grumbling from the sidelines, at the most. All 90 of the "nay" votes in the House were from Republicans, but few prominent Republicans have come out strongly against Trump for striking such a deal.

The funniest thing we read from a Republican reacting to the deal was a bit of unintentional irony from Representative Barry Loudermilk from Georgia, who laughably claimed that Trump "is a businessman" who "understands you can't continue to go into debt." Um, you might want to check Trump's actual business record before making such a claim, to put it politely (cough, cough... multiple bankruptcies... cough).

But there was some snarking heard from the Republican side of the aisle as well, including that "art of the steal" quip we began with. Representative Mike Simpson from Idaho got pretty caustic towards Trump, saying: "A three-month debt ceiling? Why not do a daily debt ceiling? He's the best deal-maker ever! Don't you know? I mean, he's got a book out!"

An anonymous Republican operative emailed an Axios reporter: "Democrats got more done in a single Oval Office visit in one afternoon than the congressional Republicans have achieved all year," which is a pretty good overview of the situation. In the same article, a "senior GOP official" was a lot more blunt: "He fucked us."

Spirits apparently ran high this morning, as Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mike Mulvaney arrived to convince the House Republicans to vote for the deal. They were met, at times, with "groans, boos, and hisses" from the GOP membership. Neither was spared any anger, either. First, Mnuchin:

Mnuchin, in particular, drew jeers after asking Republicans to support the measure for him personally rather than for the policy, then leaving the meeting early by explaining he had other pressing matters to attend to.

"His last words, and I quote, was, 'Vote for the debt ceiling for me,'" said Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), who leads a group of conservative members. "That did not go over well in the room at all... His performance was incredibly poor."

Mnuchin's closing went so poorly, Walker said, that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had to remind members afterward hundreds of thousands of hurricane victims were counting on their votes.

Mulvaney wasn't treated any better:

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) rose to ask Mulvaney if he had 42 openings for deputy directors at the Office of Management and Budget.

A bewildered Mulvaney replied he had only one vacancy.

Issa replied that was unfortunate, because he could hire his former Freedom Caucus colleagues so they could reverse their positions on raising the debt limit just like Mulvaney had -- a response that prompted a roar in the room and caused Mulvaney, in several members' telling, to turn red.

Ouch. By week's end, the Tea Partiers were even strategizing how they could get rid of Paul Ryan -- although their master plan seems pretty far-fetched, because it involves electing either (are you sitting down?) Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum to be speaker. Probably not going to happen, but it sure would be interesting to watch that power struggle.

Democrats, for the most part, kept the gloating to a minimum. One bedrock rule in handling Trump is to never seem to be suggesting that Trump himself didn't come up with every idea, so keeping this low profile is probably pretty smart right now.

Next week will be a rather interesting one for Democrats, since two big fights within the party will get the spotlight. First, Bernie Sanders will introduce a newly-drafted single-payer healthcare bill in the Senate. He's already got Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris signed on as cosponsors. The fight for single-payer is becoming a definitional one within the party, but there are other plans being floated as well. Senators Chris Murphy and Brian Schatz are both reportedly readying a "Medicare buy-in" plan that would essentially bring back the "public option." This wouldn't go as far as whatever Bernie unveils, but might be a whole lot more politically viable, so both efforts bear watching.

The other big fight that may erupt next week is a rematch of the whole "Bernie versus Hillary" fracas, as Hillary Clinton's new book What Happened will be released. A rehash of the 2016 election cycle is not exactly what Democrats need right now, but the book will doubtlessly spark many of the "Bernie-versus-Hillary" battles across the Democratic spectrum, once again. Bernie's also got a new book out, but it looks forward to the future, not back, so it probably won't be part of the argument over Hillary's take on what went wrong.

But that's for next week. Let's move right along to the awards for the current week, and then we'll have a special set of talking points at the end -- an agenda of items that might also (with some luck) lead to more Democratic deals with Trump, in the next few months.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

There's really no competition at all for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award, this time around.

Both Senate Minority Leader Charles "Chuck" Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy "Nancy" Pelosi deserve the MIDOTW award for stealing Trump's first big congressional deal away from the Republicans. It's hard to even find the words for how breathtaking a victory they just scored, in fact. It has shifted the entire landscape in Washington, and even now, days later, many inside the Beltway are wandering around in a daze, wondering what just happened.

Both Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have been operating under what has turned out to be a delusion -- that they would set the agenda, move bills through Congress, present them to Trump, and he'd sign whatever they put in front of him just so he could brag about all the "winning." The only problem with this scheme was that they couldn't deliver. The schism within the Republican Party goes so deep that even when they control all the levers of power, they are patently unable to accomplish anything.

Trump got tired of this, and saw how impressively cohesive Democrats have been. He knows that with all Democrats voting in a solid bloc, he only needs a smattering of Republicans to pass bills, and there are still enough of them out there who are terrified of bucking Trump's popularity among the Republican base. So they'll probably vote for anything Trump supports. With this coalition in place, Ryan and McConnell become all but irrelevant to the process.

In other words, Trump is now pulling Ryan's and McConnell's strings, not the other way around. Which is why their grand strategy has been shown to be mere illusion, with just one deal cut with "Chuck and Nancy."

That's a pretty impressive and far-reaching deal, folks.

Nancy Pelosi has a long history of being able to hold her caucus together on key votes (unlike Paul Ryan), and Chuck Schumer has an "in" with Trump -- as Pelosi reportedly put it, Schumer "could speak New York to the president." This is a bromance worth cultivating for the future, obviously. Although, obviously, it'll have its ups and downs, as Senator Chris Murphy warned: "Take advantage of it -- but do it with the full knowledge that Trump will be calling, you know, Chuck Schumer names on Twitter within the fortnight."

Pelosi also seems to be getting along with Trump swimmingly. Trump called her up yesterday morning, and she asked him to tweet out a message that the DACA kids won't face deportation for six months. Trump immediately did so, as requested. As Pelosi put it later: "This is what I asked the president to do and, boom boom boom, the tweet appeared." How many Republicans in Congress can make such a claim, on any issue?

Democrats walked into that meeting with Trump prepared. They had their plan ready to go, they made their case (which assumably included "we can pass this quickly in Congress if floor votes are allowed"), and they convinced Trump to take their initial offer, with no compromises and no strings attached. The art of the steal, indeed.

Who knows if this will be a one-time thing, or if a real legislative relationship will blossom? As we lay out in the talking points, below, Democrats should be ready with all the next items on their list, just in case.

But this week was indeed a good one for "Chuck and Nancy," and for Democrats everywhere. This is an almost-unprecedented level of power for a political party in the minority in both houses of Congress to be enjoying. And the lightning speed of the bill from a handshake deal to Trump's desk has got to have impressed Trump.

The equation is a simple one. Work with the Republican leadership, get nothing but high drama, delays, and failures, for months on end. Work with the Democrats, and you get to sign a bill within days. Which one do you think Trump really enjoys more? Perhaps he can be reminded of this later.

Whether such long-range plans work or not, Chuck and Nancy certainly deserve this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. The deal they struck has shaken Washington to its foundations. Whether or not it bears any legislative fruit later on, that is a worthy accomplishment all by itself.

[Congratulate Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on his Senate contact page, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on her House contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Some might consider this premature, but just for the possible outcome we have to award the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week to Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, whose corruption and bribery trial opened this week.

Now we do understand innocent until proven guilty and all of that, but even if a court of law finds him innocent, the underlying conduct is pretty disappointing nonetheless. It represents cronyism of the worst kind, whether or not it is found technically illegal. After all, it's always tough to be in the position of arguing: "Hey, it's sleazy, but it's not illegal!"

The trial has already had some cringeworthy moments. The judge interrupted the prosecutor to complain about an inference that Menendez accepted a hotel room in Paris and was traveling with a women to mean something more salacious, which led to this amusing back-and-forth:

The exchange prompted Menendez's lawyer to interject: "This person is actually just a friend, and it is not anybody to be shacked up with." ... The prosecutor then insisted he was not trying to suggest to the jury Menendez "went to Paris in order to shack up with another person."

Who but a lawyer could ever utter the phrase: "it (!) is not anybody to be shacked up with"? But we digress....

The real reason Menendez is so disappointing is the prospect of what could happen if he is convicted. If he steps down from the Senate before January, then Chris Christie will get to appoint his temporary replacement. And Christie would likely appoint a Republican, which would swing the Senate to a 53-47 Republican majority. This would make it one vote harder for Democrats to do anything, or to block anything.

Of course, if Menendez does hang on until January, then the next governor will get to appoint his replacement, and the next governor is quite likely to be a Democrat (Christie has the lowest job approval rating ever recorded in the state, which has been true for some time now).

This could lead to a very ugly fight. If Menendez is convicted, he could always appeal his conviction, so he might not be headed to prison any time soon. But the Senate could vote to expel him in the meantime. The Senate hasn't taken this drastic step in over a century, but it's a possibility to contend with.

For creating this mess with all of its ugliness, Bob Menendez is easily the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Senator Bob Menendez on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 452 (9/8/17)

First, a technical commentary: We must be slipping. We say this because last week was Volume 451, and we didn't make a single joke about book burning, Ray Bradbury, the Fahrenheit thermometer, or even Michael Moore for that matter. Oh, well, a lost opportunity....

OK, onward to this week's talking points. As promised, what we've put together is an agenda of possible deals Democrats might just be able to strike with Donald Trump. The first two are already being discussed with Trump, so they would have the highest chance of actually becoming reality. The next group are all things that Trump swore up and down on the campaign trail that he was for -- and that Democrats can actually support. And then we threw a couple of longshots in, at the end. Hey, why not? If Trump's in a deal-making mood, then you might as well toss everything including the kitchen sink at him just to see how he reacts, right?

 

1
   DREAM a little dream with me...

This is already the highest priority on the Democrats' wish list.

"Democrats are ready to work with President Trump to legislatively solve the dilemma the DREAMers are now in. All the kids affected by DACA need permanent status rather than just temporary deferments. We've been trying to pass the DREAM Act for years, and we look forward to presenting the president with a version that could quickly and easily pass in Congress. Trump obviously is conflicted about this issue, so he should join our efforts to not only allow the program to continue, but to allow their status to permanently change rather than just getting a series of deferments. We think we can easily achieve this within a month or two, if Trump is truly willing to work with us."

 

2
   End the debt ceiling showdowns for good

This one is already in the works.

"Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reportedly spoke with the president about ending this silly brinksmanship game that Congress is repeatedly forced to play over the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is nothing more than a legal fiction. Other countries don't have one -- when they appropriate money, the debt authority is built in. Getting rid of the debt ceiling altogether wouldn't change the budget by one penny, but it would make the budget process a lot easier. This would show some financial stability to the rest of the world, and forever remove the threat of the United States of America defaulting on its debt. Democrats want to get rid of the whole charade of voting to raise the debt limit for spending that has already been authorized, and it appears Trump is willing to work with us. Just this week he left no doubt of his position when he said: 'For many years, people have been talking about getting rid of debt ceiling altogether, and there are a lot of good reasons to do that.' Work with us, Mr. President, and we'll make it happen. Let's have December's vote be the last debt ceiling hike vote ever."

 

3
   If you fund it, they will build

That takes care of what's already in the mix. Now it's time to add a few more issues from the Democratic wish list. Starting with the most obvious one.

"Donald Trump campaigned on revitalizing America's infrastructure. He used to promise his crowds that he would rebuild all the airports, and make America's infrastructure great again. But since he got elected, he's done nothing towards this goal at all. The establishment Republicans tried to talk him into a fake infrastructure plan that would have done nothing more than sell off bridges, highways, and other infrastructure to private companies so they could charge everyone tolls. This is not what Democrats believe in, and we think President Trump should return to his original promise of a trillion-dollar infrastructure spending program that would create millions of good, well-paying jobs across this country. We have always been willing to talk about infrastructure investment, and we strongly urge the president not to listen to the ideologues on the right and instead make good on his original promise. We're ready to work with him if he does. We could get people working on these construction projects by next spring, if we move quickly enough."

 

4
   Take on the drug companies!

Bernie Sanders has been pointing this one out, but other Democrats should pick up on it as well.

"Democrats are also willing to work with President Trump on another issue he campaigned on -- bringing down the cost of prescription drugs. Right now, the big drug companies can charge whatever they feel like, hiking their prices hundreds or sometimes even thousands of percent overnight. We want to use the collective power of Medicare to bargain for cheaper prices -- something that was expressly forbidden when the Part D plan was passed. This is such an easy fix and would save so many billions of dollars that it's really a no-brainer. If Trump wants to score a quick legislative victory that would directly help the people who voted for him almost immediately, then he should work with Democrats on using the buying power of the federal government to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans."

 

5
   How about those hedge fund managers?

Yet another campaign pledge it'd be good for Democrats to remind Trump of, right about now.

"Remember all that talk about how Trump was going to stick it to the hedge fund managers, who are making out like bandits with the current tax system? Haven't heard much of that talk lately, but we are about to discuss tax reform so it seems like a good time to bring it up again. Democrats would fully support getting rid of the 'carried interest loophole' that allows these millionaires to pay a small fraction of the tax rate that everyone else has to pay. Remove this loophole! Trump promised over and over that he would do so, and Democrats certainly can support that effort in the tax reform discussions."

 

6
   Medicare buy-in for all

These last two will be a lot trickier, since Trump didn't ever explicitly back the ideas on the campaign trail. But they would fit in with his philosophy, so perhaps if Chuck Schumer can corner Trump in the Oval Office (yes, I know this is actually an oxymoron or a flat-out physical impossibility, but whatever...) and convince him it's the right thing to do, he'd be for it? It's worth a shot....

"The Democratic Party is moving more and more towards solid support for a single-payer healthcare system, but we know how opposed to this Republicans are, so we know it won't happen any time soon. But in the meantime, we think that all those campaign promises Trump made on health care -- covering everyone, cheaper insurance, better insurance -- can be addressed by bringing back the idea of the 'public option,' or 'Medicare for all who want it.' Anyone at all should be able to buy in to the Medicare system on the insurance exchanges, so they have a solid option they can compare to whatever else is on offer -- other private plans, the group plan they get through work, whatever. The key word is 'option,' because this means that nobody would have to sign up who didn't want to. If people want to sign up, then let them. If they don't, no big deal and nothing changes for them. As I said, this would go a long way towards fulfilling all the promises Trump made on healthcare, so I think there's a real possibility he would consider the idea. We'll even agree to call it the 'Donald J. Trump Medicare For All Who Want It' system, how's that?"

 

7
   $15 an hour

OK, this is the longest of the longshots, but hey, who knows what Chuck and Nancy will be able to talk him into if the mood is right?

"President Trump has always said he wants middle-class wages to rise. But he's never actually proposed anything to make that happen. Democrats, on the other hand, know the best first step to take, and we'd be more than willing to work with the president to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. We even think it'll save the government a bunch of money. Think about it -- current minimum wage is so low that a full-time worker has to rely on getting benefits like SNAP (or food stamps). If you raise the minimum wage to a livable amount, people would no longer need the government to subsidize their salary. In fact, this is a giant form of corporate welfare, because by allowing Big Business to pay peanuts, it causes more people to need subsidies. If the companies paid their workers enough, this public help wouldn't be as needed any more, saving some money in the budget. Plus, it's the right thing to do, because by raising wages at the bottom, a ripple effect will travel upwards through the whole salary scale of the middle class. Pay will improve for everyone as the rising tide lifts all boats (as J.F.K. put it). We are ready and willing to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and we would welcome the president's support. Tens of millions of working people would thank him for making their lives better."

-- 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

 

63 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [452] -- The Art Of The Steal”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    First, a technical commentary: We must be slipping. We say this because last week was Volume 451, and we didn't make a single joke about book burning, Ray Bradbury, the Fahrenheit thermometer, or even Michael Moore for that matter. Oh, well, a lost opportunity....

    I actually thought about the old Fahrenheit thermometer when I read FTP last week and wondered if y'all are ever going to get with the new program. :)

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Trump strikes all of these deals with Democrats, he just might give Biden/Brown a run for their money in 2020. Ahem.

  3. [3] 
    John M wrote:

    Medicare buy in as a public option on the exchanges just might work. Sell it as a replacement for Obamacare and call it Trumpcare.

  4. [4] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Medicare buy in as a public option on the exchanges just might work. Sell it as a replacement for Obamacare and call it Trumpcare.

    And the infrastructure for it is already in place (though it might need some beefing up). This is right up Trump's alley - slapping his name on something that already exists and taking credit.

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [1] -

    Do I get any credit for being able to translate the two in my head?

    :-)

    (((F+40)/9)*5)-40 = C

    Easy! Um, let's see... 451F would be either 232C or 233C...

    (Learned this trick while living in Europe)

    Works the other way, too:

    (((C+40)/5)*9)-40 = F

    The trick is that -40 degrees is the same on both scales...

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Just how deeply reasoned are Trump's actions? That's the trillion dollar question. Did he mean to screw McConnell and Ryan, or was he simply so anxious for a Hurricane Relief bill that inconsequential (to him) details like the debt ceiling, and political leverage were just annoying side issues to be quickly dispensed with - 'sure, whatever.'

    Or he could just be putting the screws to the GOP leaders to shut down the Russia investigations?

    Trump is like Irma - a sharp turn to he left might look like respite for a moment, but turn out to be the worst possible thing in the long run. Trouble is, right now, that's completely unpredictable.

  7. [7] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    CW[5]
    Ugh! (and you need to work on +/- signs)

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    We thought it was the best description of the stunning events of this week in Washington, so we decided to use it (with attribution, of course). "The art of the steal" pretty much sums up how Trump and "Chuck and Nancy" brutally cut the legs out from under the entire Republican Party in Congress.

    So, you admit that President Trump did an awesome thing, right?? :D

    Speaking of deals with Democrats, Wednesday will go down in Trumpian history as the day "Chuck and Nancy" (as he put it) began working with Trump -- to advance the Democratic agenda.

    So, you are giving President Trump the credit too??

    Right??? :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, I gotta ask..

    After a YEAR of claiming Trump is Hitler, Trump is incompetent, Trump is a clown, Trump is every evil, stoopid and wrong thing in the entire universe...

    After an entire YEAR of all of that..

    How do ya'all feel that Democrat Leadership is working WITH this guy??? :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wednesday will go down in Trumpian history as the day "Chuck and Nancy" (as he put it) began working with Trump -- to advance the Democratic agenda.

    I said it back in January...

    If Democrats would just wise up, they would realize that they could get more of the agenda if they worked WITH President Trump instead of vilifying him at every turn..

    Apparently, Democrats have wised up.. :D At least the Democrat leadership has....

    I am a pretty smart guy if I do say so myself..

    And I do!! :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    The other big fight that may erupt next week is a rematch of the whole "Bernie versus Hillary" fracas, as Hillary Clinton's new book What Happened will be released. A rehash of the 2016 election cycle is not exactly what Democrats need right now, but the book will doubtlessly spark many of the "Bernie-versus-Hillary" battles across the Democratic spectrum, once again. Bernie's also got a new book out, but it looks forward to the future, not back, so it probably won't be part of the argument over Hillary's take on what went wrong.

    Democrats dread Hillary's book tour
    Reliving the 2016 nightmare is the last thing the party needs right now, many say.

    President Donald Trump may be the only person in politics truly excited about Hillary Clinton’s book tour.

    Democratic operatives can’t stand the thought of her picking the scabs of 2016, again — the Bernie Sanders divide, the Jim Comey complaints, the casting blame on Barack Obama for not speaking out more on Russia. Alums of her Brooklyn headquarters who were miserable even when they thought she was winning tend to greet the topic with, “Oh, God,” “I can’t handle it,” and “the final torture.”

    Political reporters gripe privately (and on Twitter) about yet another return to the campaign that will never end. Campaign operatives don't want the distraction, just as they head into another election season. And members of Congress from both parties want the focus on an agenda that’s getting more complicated by the week.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/07/hillary-clinton-book-tour-democrats-242419

    NOT-45...

    The gift that keeps on giving and giving....

    To Republicans.....

    Between NOT-45 being slammed mercilessly and Democrat leadership actually working WITH President Trump...

    I can imagine some Democrats are fit to be tied... and bound.. and gagged... and carted off to the rubber room.. :D

    Oh it's a great time to be me.. :D

  12. [12] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Bill Maher last night said that future historians will be puzzled by hatred for Hillary:

    “I could see not liking her terribly much because she’s not a great politician,” Maher continued, “but if you really hate Hillary Clinton, you were molested by a real estate lady. I just don’t get it. She’s a bland centrist. This is not Che Guevara in a pantsuit.”

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Pelosi and Schumer are Most Impressive Dems because they made an offer and Trump said OK?!?
    You are way to easily impressed.

    And what was the offer? To extend the debt ceilings and budget battles until December instead of getting it settled now and attaching that to the hurricane relief funding.

    So now Trump will be able to blame whatever happens on the dysfunctional Congress. The only way this is a Big Deal is if you're using the term sarcastically.

    As for Most Disappointing Democrat- once again it is you, CW. So Menendez's trial started. Big Deal (sarcastic, in case you missed it). Menendez didn't set the trial date so he didn't do anything this week that warrants him being the Most Disappointing other than maybe showing up to court in response to a warrant. Pretty sure that not showing up would be what would warrant being Most Disappointing.

    And not showing up is the reason that CW is the Most Disappointing. Still nothing on Elizabeth Warren's Netroots speech, Al Gore's Netroots speech or the MoveOn email that included a clip of Warren's Netroots speech that was only the last 11 minutes or so that Warren talked about universal Democratic platitudes and left out the first 18 minutes when Warren criticized the Move On/ Hillary/ Big Money part of the Democratic Party
    and she said citizens need to pick a side.

    Shame on you, CW, for picking the Pelosi/Schumer/ Hillary/ establishment Democratic Party/ maintaining the status quo side.

    You used to be better than that. You could be again.

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthasar-
    Bill Maher is partially correct. I hate Hillary because she is a bland centrist- which is in reality right of center in today's political climate.

    And we were molested by a real estate lady in the 2016 primaries. That's what Hillary is- a real estate lady. Telling us that a dilapidated house is a "Fix-er Upper".

    But if we can get our act together and purge the Hillarys, Trumps, Pelosis, Schumers, Ryans, etc. from our political process the future historians might be able to accurately be puzzled why it took us so long to stop being suckered by the real estate ladies, insurance and used car salesman that dominate our political process at the moment.

    If historians are puzzled by why people hate Hillary, they should seek a different vocation than being a historian.

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As for the talking points:
    "If Trump's in a deal-making mood then you might as well toss everything including the kitchen sink at him just to see how he reacts, right?"

    And yet talking points is all things Trump is already discussing or spoke in favor of during the campaign (because no candidate ever forgets or abandons what they say during a campaign, right?).

    Sigh.

    Why not throw in getting Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, etc. to commit to running small contribution campaigns from now on? Then it might actually be possible to achieve many of the goals laid out in your talking points instead of continuing to leave them as endless unsolved distractions from solving the most immediate problem- getting the Big Money out of politics.

    As Al Gore said, you can't solve climate without first solving the problem of Big Money in politics. It is the same for the other issues you mentioned.

  16. [16] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I hate Hillary because she is a bland centrist- which is in reality right of center in today's political climate.

    "In reality?" Don't say, 'in reality', it makes you sound stuffed with yourself.

    You could say 'the consensus is..', but that would work against your point, as the consensus seems to be that she's a centrist.

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "The consensus" used to be that the world was flat- in reality it was and still is round.

    The consensus of where the center is is much farther right than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

    See George Orwell in relation to calling Hillary a centrist.

    I would rather be stuffed with myself than stuffed with what Hillary is full of.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Adam Parkhomenko ? @AdamParkhomenko
    PS...you seem to ignore the Russia support online for Bernie during the primaries. The guy is hiding something. Not sure I want to know what

    Hehehehehehehehehehehehe

    So, NOW... BERNIE is accused of Russia Collusion.. :D

    I just LOVE Blue on Blue.... :D

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bernie getting Russian support- ridiculous.

    Bernie is from Vermont so he is controlled by the Maple Syrup Industrial Complex.

    "I work so hard,
    don't you understand,
    making maple syrup for the pancakes of our land.

    Do you have any idea-
    what that can do to a man,
    what that can do to a man?"

    -Magdelena
    Frank Zappa

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Trumpbarts accuse everyone else of whatever they're guilty of. Projection is their thing.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trumpbarts accuse everyone else of whatever they're guilty of. Projection is their thing.

    The same could be said for Lefties as well..

    Funny how it works both ways :D

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    I prefer to use the freezing point conversion:

    C×9/5+32=F
    F-32×5/9=C

    JL

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now in the White House, President Trump demonstrated this past week that he still imagines himself a solitary cowboy as he abandoned Republican congressional leaders to forge a short-term fiscal deal with Democrats. Although elected as a Republican last year, Mr. Trump has shown in the nearly eight months in office that he is, in many ways, the first independent to hold the presidency since the advent of the current two-party system around the time of the Civil War.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/us/politics/trump-republicans-third-parties.html

    Now doesn't THAT sound familiar!! :D

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    WAPO is reporting Mueller has issued subpoenas six ways from Sunday to Trump aides. The six being Priebus, Spicer, Hicks, McGain, Raffel and ...Burnham. MSNBC is adding Manafort to the list (and there goes a perfectly good meme). Looks like the Special P. is going full bore on the obstruction of justice front...even though the SP's investigative team looks especially strong in tax law! A double envelopment of the White House?

    I always suspected we would eventually get to something like this point, but at maybe 5 years into the Trump Presidency.

    I have feeling Mueller's latest barrage is what triggered Trump acting all bipartisan...to the bafflement of Reps & Dems alike.

  25. [25] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    So, I gotta ask..

    After a YEAR of claiming Trump is Hitler, Trump is incompetent, Trump is a clown, Trump is every evil, stoopid and wrong thing in the entire universe...

    After an entire YEAR of all of that..

    How do ya'all feel that Democrat Leadership is working WITH this guy??? :D

    I feel great that they are working WITH Trump -- that's their freaking job! That you seem shocked by this just shows how twisted conservative thinking has become!

    I realize the Republicans refused to work with Obama for 8 years, but their refusal had nothing to do with any political or philosophical differences of opinion. They decided to vote against any piece of legislation that would be viewed positively by the American public, regardless of the damage doing so would cause their constituents the day Obama first took office. Republicans chose not to represent their constituents and instead served only their party's interests.

    Democrats have always been willing to support good legislation, regardless of who introduces it.

    It wasn't the Dem's agreeing to follow Trump's lead, it is the other way around! The Dems went in and pitched their plan and Trump signed on to it.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    That you seem shocked by this just shows how twisted conservative thinking has become!

    No.. It's shocking that Democrats would deign to work with Hitler...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    I realize the Republicans refused to work with Obama for 8 years, but their refusal had nothing to do with any political or philosophical differences of opinion.

    Ahem.. TPP...

    'nuff said..

    But Republicans never said that Obama was Hitler... Republicans never said Obama was a fascist or a Nazi...

    Democrats have said those things and many MANY worse about President Trump.....

    By working with Hitler....er.. I mean Trump now, Democrats have PROVEN that they were completely and utterly full of shit with their baseless and hysterical attacks on Trump...

    Either that or they are admitting that they are AS BAD as a Nazi for wanting to work WITH a Nazi Hitler such as Trump...

    Which is it??

    Democrats have always been willing to support good legislation, regardless of who introduces it.

    Oh really???

    Apr 30, 2017 - Democrats in Washington are “shifting into full 'no' mode” with regards to President Donald Trump and his agenda, according to a Sunday.
    rawstory.com/2017/04/we-dont-want-to-work-with-him-democrats-vow-to-defy-trump-and-obstruct-his-agenda-at-every-turn/

    Majority of voters don't think Democrats have accepted Trump as a legitimate president.
    thehill.com/homenews/administration/334972-poll-dems-dont-accept-trump-as-legitimate-president

    “As a Jew, as an American, as a human, words cannot express my disgust and disappointment. This is not my President,”
    -Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

    I can find you hundreds of more examples..

    You gots to face reality, dood.... :D

    The obstructionism and hatred that Righties had against Obama is an orgasmic love fest compared to the downright hatred that Democrats have for President Trump...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    The track is heading your way now..

    If you want a cool way to track Irma, check out this sight..

    https://www.ventusky.com/?p=27.9;-81.0;5&l=wind-850hpa&t=20170910/09&m=gfs

    Please be safe...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please be safe...

    I mean, who will there be to pick on me if you go offline...

    Oh.. wait.. :D hehehehehe

    "The line is long, yet distinguished"
    -Goose, TOP GUN

    :D

  30. [30] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    But Republicans never said that Obama was Hitler... Republicans never said Obama was a fascist or a Nazi...

    Democrats have said those things and many MANY worse about President Trump.....

    That's probably because Obama never made comments that were fascist! He didn't race-bait crowds, he wasn't xenophobic. Trump gets called those things when the words out of his mouth earn him those nicknames!

    This is why your "Odumbo" comments just seem childish -- they aren't in response to Obama saying something stupid.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why your "Odumbo" comments just seem childish -- they aren't in response to Obama saying something stupid.

    In your opinion..

    But regardless of WHY, the simple fact is, the hysterical hatred amongst the Left against President Trump knows no precedent..

    And NOW, Democrat leadership is WORKING with the man that they claimed was Hitler..

    How do you reconcile the irreconcilable??

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    15

    Why not throw in getting Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, etc. to commit to running small contribution campaigns from now on?

    While he's at it, CW should throw in getting Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, etc. to commit to running naked around the Capitol rotunda and see which one happens first.

    As Al Gore said, you can't solve climate without first solving the problem of Big Money in politics.

    Yes, he did, but Al Gore is worth approximately a quarter of a billion dollars, and when he talks about getting "big money" out of politics, he's talking about the Koch brothers billions, not comparable with your "one demand" or Bernie's "27 dollars" campaign rhetoric. :)

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    I sure hope it's the small contribution thing.
    Trump, Pelosi and Schumer are frightening enough with their clothes on.

    But I'm all for Ivanka running around naked.

    As for Al Gore talking about Big Money, I was talking about the Netrrots speech and Bill Maher appearance. Maybe in some other interview or speech Gore was talking only about The Koch Bros billions, but no specific Big Money distinctions were made in the Netroots speech or Bill Maher appearance.

    If there was such a distinction then I would have criticized Gore for talking about the Koch Bros billions while ignoring the Big Money Democrats accept.

    Just the same as when I criticize the Big Money Democrat Deniers here.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, he did, but Al Gore is worth approximately a quarter of a billion dollars, and when he talks about getting "big money" out of politics, he's talking about the Koch brothers billions,

    Kick makes a good point and it's not just applicable to Al Gore but to Democrats in general...

    Democrats in general don't really mind big money in politics...

    They just don't want to have Republicans to have big money in THEIR politics.. :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I'm all for Ivanka running around naked.

    Word.......

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    "Democrats in general don't really mind big money in politics...
    They just don't want to have Republicans to have big money in THEIR politics.."

    Are you saying the Democrats complain about what Republicans do and then do the same thing themselves?

    I think I would have noticed that by now if it were true. :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you saying the Democrats complain about what Republicans do and then do the same thing themselves?

    It sounds so silly when said out loud.. :D

    I think I would have noticed that by now if it were true. :D

    heh :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    IRMA UPDATE:

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT11/refresh/AL112017_5day_cone_no_line_and_wind+png/093910_5day_cone_no_line_and_wind.png

    This is truly the worst case scenario for Florida..

    An extremely large hurricane going over very warm waters and staying over water the whole time...

    JM, I hope you bugged out....

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    33

    As for Al Gore talking about Big Money, I was talking about the Netrrots speech and Bill Maher appearance. Maybe in some other interview or speech Gore was talking only about The Koch Bros billions, but no specific Big Money distinctions were made in the Netroots speech or Bill Maher appearance.

    "Our democracy has been hacked by big money and lobbyists for polluters long before Putin hacked our democracy, and too many politicians bow down to the large big money contributors because they feel like they have to beg them for money to buy TV ads." ~ Al Gore

    I'm not referring to any speech where Al Gore was "only" talking about the Koch brothers, I'm referring to quarter billionaire Al Gore generally having a different definition of "big money" than your definition when he refers to getting "the lobbyists and the fat cat contributors" out of our democracy, as he did on Real Time with Bill Maher.

    Being that Al Gore has run quite a few PACs in his day and has given millions to candidates who champion his causes, Al actually meets the definition of "fat cat with an agenda," although admittedly from a purely right-wing perspective. The fact that I happen to agree with the agenda of the guy writing the checks to support the candidates whom I support doesn't change the fact that he's giving "big money."

    Just the same as when I criticize the Big Money Democrat Deniers here.

    You mean those Democrats who deny that one person's "big money" is another person's chump change? ;) <-- note the wink

  40. [40] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    27

    But Republicans never said that Obama was Hitler... Republicans never said Obama was a fascist or a Nazi...

    Where were you?

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+Hitler&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS733US733&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUorfq9prWAhWJ14MKHVcyA8wQ_AUICygC&biw=1536&bih=735

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    34

    Kick makes a good point and it's not just applicable to Al Gore but to Democrats in general...

    I believe this is applicable to the Republican Party also, and add to that the fact that we've increasingly got more money being laundered into PACs from foreign sources, which is a crime.

    Democrats in general don't really mind big money in politics...

    I believe the ones who refer to centrist Democrats and Democratic leaning Independents and NPAs as "neoliberals" actually mind to an exponential degree. ;)

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick

    Where were you?

    Probably at the movies..

    But I submit that those comparison were from whack-job Republicans and not Republican leadership or sitting Congress Critters....

    If you have any quotes from Republican leadership or Republican Congress Critters that have that kind of vitriolic, I would be happy to concede your point. :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe this is applicable to the Republican Party also,

    Absolutely without a doubt unequivocally agree with you...

    There is no daylight between the Partys in that regard..

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    42

    Probably at the movies..

    I am Groot.

    But I submit that those comparison were from whack-job Republicans and not Republican leadership or sitting Congress Critters....

    You say that like there's any difference between "whack-job Republicans" and Republican leadership/elected critters. ;) <-- wink

    If you have any quotes from Republican leadership or Republican Congress Critters that have that kind of vitriolic, I would be happy to concede your point.

    Oh, I see. That seems fair.

    But regardless of WHY, the simple fact is, the hysterical hatred amongst the Left against President Trump knows no precedent..

    See link at [40] for plenty hysterical hatred and lots of precedent. Besides, Adolph HWMNBN hasn't exactly cornered the market on evildoers, and Barack "Hussein Obama" was accused of being an illegitimate President who wasn't even born in the United States and a Muslim sympathizer and was suggested he created and worked with ISIS against the United States by Republican leadership.

    And NOW, Democrat leadership is WORKING with the man that they claimed was Hitler..

    Is that so? I do remember Nancy Pelosi talking about Hitler, but that was because Sean Spicer, the White House Press Secretary paid to speak for Trump, stated that even Hitler didn't use gas against his own people. But tell you what... fair is fair:

    If you have any proof of accusatory "Trump is Hitler" quotes from the Democratic leadership who are "WORKING with the man that they claimed was Hitler"... or any Democratic Congress critters... I too will happily concede your point. :)

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    Floridians, please keep us updated on the weather in your part of the state shaped like a peninsula.

    Hope you're okay JM and M. :)

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just some winds and rain.. Nothing a normal Nor'easter wouldn't bring....

    Sister In Law in Palm Coast lost power an hour ago...

    Another day in FL....

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really getting pounded here.. Lost power around 2130 last night.. Kicked in the generator around 0100 when it got too hot to sleep...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you have any proof of accusatory "Trump is Hitler" quotes from the Democratic leadership who are "WORKING with the man that they claimed was Hitler"... or any Democratic Congress critters... I too will happily concede your point. :)

    Keep these numbers in mind: 316 to 90 and 80 to 17. They were the lopsided votes in the House and Senate in support of the deal President Trump made with Democratic leaders on storm aid, the debt limit and government funding.

    Remarkably, all the no voters were Republicans.

    Every Democrat worked with President Trump on this Debt Ceiling deal of his.. :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump's approval numbers are going up..

    He is becoming downright likable.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Maybe his enablers will rouse themselves when the Brownshirts come for them. I, for one, will resist."
    -Democrat Rep. Gerry Connolly

    "What We're Seeing With Trump Is Like The Rise Of Hitler"
    -Democrat Rep. James Clyburn

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Has anyone been hearing from the Progressive base about the new romance between President Trump and the Democrat Party???

    I am sincerely curious as to how the Progressive base is taking it.. :D

  52. [52] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I think Trump chose to throw the Dems a victory because he is getting scared at what Mueller is going to come at him with. Trump wants to butter up the Democrats so he can say,

    "Remember when I helped you out? You owe me! Please don't impeach me!"

    Trump cannot understand how his polls are so low when the people paid to go to his rallies act as if they truly love him! If his polls go up, you can count on him screwing over the Republicans more and more!

  53. [53] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LWYH-52

    You and I are thinking along roughly the same lines - see comment 10 from "CW's Donnie, Chuck, And Nancy Strike A Big Deal" column.

    Trump is beginning to grasp some new concepts he has never had to seriously consider before. The first is the notion of "separation of powers." The second is that the Roy Cohn school of legal defense (defame, outspend, and outlast) won't work against his political opponents, who also have access to media outlets and deep pockets. Trump is re-lawering-up as he begins to grasp his precarious situation.

    I was somewhat surprised Trump didn't try and fire Mueller during Hurricane Weekend. Maybe Trump is starting to listen to his attorneys.

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    TheStig,

    I have no doubt that Trump believed he could fire anyone he wanted to and he that was untouchable the day he decided to kick Comey to the curb -- that's how it is when you are the boss of your own company. He found out very quickly that being the president isn't ANYTHING like being a CEO and there are repercussions for that in DC!

    Maybe he has realized that if he fired Mueller, the backlash would be at an exponentially harsher degree than anything he faced after Comey's termination. He's terrified of Mueller (and for very good reasons, no doubt!), that much is very clear. I keep waiting for Russia to release a bombshell of dirty info on Trump, which I think will occur immediately after Tillerson quits/is forced out.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    OR....

    Trump has come to the conclusion that Republicans are useless and the only way that Trump can drain the swamp is with the help of Democrats..

  56. [56] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    ...And they scoffed. When I suggested a few installments ago that Trump could always be the default 'MDDOTW' recipient when none availed themselves, I feel strangely vindicated by this week's summary. To my mind, he's a closet Democrat, regardless of his present affiliation.
    I still can't fathom why universal healthcare isn't an option in the US, 'single payer' is a watered down and more palatable name for it, but it's essentially the same thing. I've said it before, and won't say it again, America has a backwards, draconian healthcare apparatus. Removing the useless, cash-grabbing segment of the system (insurance companies) and utilising their profit margin to actually help and heal will make everyone happy...that is except for the useless money grabbing people whose only contribution to society is to bottom-feed off the needs of people at the mercy of a failed system.

    LL&P...Glad to see Florida is still alive and kicking, despite the right-wing assurance that global warming is a conspiracy.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    LL&P...Glad to see Florida is still alive and kicking, despite the right-wing assurance that global warming is a conspiracy.

    Considering the number of bone head predictions that have been WRONG... WRONG... IMPRESSIVELY WRONG (hint: 99.9% of them)

    It's a reasonable conclusion... :D

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    48

    Keep these numbers in mind: 316 to 90 and 80 to 17. They were the lopsided votes in the House and Senate in support of the deal President Trump made with Democratic leaders on storm aid, the debt limit and government funding.

    * That nugget is certainly not a Hitler quote from Democratic leaders/elected critters that accused the president they're "working with" of being Adolph HWMNBN.
    * Okay, I will keep those numbers in mind.

    Remarkably, all the no voters were Republicans.

    But not too "remarkably" when you consider that a large quantity of Republicans in Congress have spent near a decade voting "no" on almost everything the Democrats proposed.

    Every Democrat worked with President Trump on this Debt Ceiling deal of his.. :D

    Now, right there is where we disagree since I believe it would be much more honest to say that President Trump worked with the Democrats on their deal.

    A: The Democrats' deal was presented to PT.
    B: PT agreed to the Democrats' deal.
    C: Some Republicans refused to vote for the Democrats' deal because Republicans in Congress have spent near a decade voting "no" on almost everything the Democrats proposed.

    A + B = C. :)

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    46

    Just some winds and rain.. Nothing a normal Nor'easter wouldn't bring....

    Oh, good. :)

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    47

    Really getting pounded here.. Lost power around 2130 last night..

    Oh, bad. :(

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    50

    “Maybe his enablers will rouse themselves when the Brownshirts come for them. I, for one, will resist."
    -Democrat Rep. Gerry Connolly

    Not a very nice thing for a representative of some of the people to say. I have heard it said that one should never compare anything to Nazi Germany unless it's Nazi Germany. I guess Twitter will make you say stupid things. Perhaps he was just agreeing with this twit:

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to "leak" into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?
    7:48 AM - Jan 11, 2017

    Do you think maybe he was following the lead of these guys?

    * In an interview with Breitbart News, candidate Mike Huckabee said, "This president's foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven."

    * In a 2009 interview with Alex Jones, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) discussed his concern about President Obama's increasing power: "You had the money destroyed in Germany in 1923, and out of that chaos came Hitler, who promised that these awful people were the ones doing this to you and we need to round them up and put them in camps. And the liberties just went out the window. But people actually democratically voted in a Hitler. And I worry about that again in our country." Senator Paul then joked about whether Obama supporters had "brown shirts on," a reference to Nazi stormtroopers.

    In a 2014 interview with NewsmaxTV, Ben Carson suggested the Obama administration had created a favorable climate for the rise of Communism in the United States. The interviewer asked whether Carson was specifically calling Obama and (former) Attorney General Eric Holder communists. Carson responded by encouraging viewers to reach their own conclusions. Read "The Naked Communist and read, you know, "Mein Kampf" and read the works of Vladimir Lenin."

    "What We're Seeing With Trump Is Like The Rise Of Hitler"
    -Democrat Rep. James Clyburn

    You are quoting a clickservative headline there and it appears like a quote of James Clyburn when it's actually not. He was being interviewed on CNN and answering questions about the incidents in Charlottesville which included, in fact, neo-Nazis who were chanting "Jews will not replace us" and yelling "names at passersby who did not have white skin.

  62. [62] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I fail to get these spurious analogies between Hitler and Trump, apart from their shameless demagoguery and lack of popular vote in a free election, they are two different characters.
    Hitler was an ideologue, he genuinely believed he was thrust by fate, into politics, to save a demoralised and embarrassed post-war Germany. Trump on the other hand, is a populist, he's invented most of the foghorn-rhetoric woe that he decried during the hustings, simple lies like, inflated unemployment figures, depressed economy, smothered national identity and Muslim rage being obvious examples.

    Let's leave old Adolf out of contemporary narratives, he's an historical figure, one people should learn from, not one to judge others by contemporaneously.

    LL&P

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    LWYH 52
    TS 53

    Yes, yes, and yes.

    Add to that the fact that Trump so resembles Benedict Arnold in his never-ending search for wealth/power and/or recognition/praise. It should surprise no one that Trump would be a turncoat against his own Party in search of a good headline... a con artist who bought all in to his own rhetoric that he "alone can fix it" realizes that he isn't getting that praise he thinks he deserves from his own crowd and quite obviously will take it however he can get it... Benedict Donald.

    MAGA: Making Attorneys Get Attorneys

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]