ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [463] -- Lock Him Up!

[ Posted Friday, December 1st, 2017 – 19:35 PST ]

This morning, Donald Trump's first National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, pled guilty to charges of lying to the F.B.I. He is now the highest-ranking Trump aide to be targeted by Robert Mueller, and also the highest-ranking person to have flipped on Trump. Flynn is still at risk of being prosecuted for other charges as well, including lying about his foreign lobbying on government forms. But he's now apparently cut a deal with the prosecution to possibly avoid further charges and also reportedly to avoid charges for his son.

The main assumption, however, is that he is now singing like a little birdie to the investigators. Trump (as of this writing) has yet to respond on Twitter, which likely won't be pretty when it does happen. Already, news reports surfaced this week of Trump's increasingly unhinged behavior, including (astonishingly) trying to tell people the infamous Billy Bush Access Hollywood tape wasn't actually his voice. But there was one interesting bit about the "is Trump losing it?" story, as it relates to the entire Mueller investigation:


Hanging out at [Mar-a-Lago], Trump told friends, "This investigation's going to be over with pretty soon," adding that his lawyers, whom he praised as "brilliant," had assured him of it.... Some Trump aides and confidants worry about the president's optimistic assessment of the situation, which he has repeated in conversations in recent weeks. One outside adviser to Trump warned that the president would "blow a gasket" if there is no statement of exoneration by year's end.

With Flynn's guilty plea today, the possibility of Trump being publicly exonerated by Mueller by year's end just went from slim to none. Maybe there'll be fireworks at the White House this year for New Year's Eve, as Trump explodes in pyrotechnic fury?

Of course, the irony of Flynn pleading guilty to federal crimes is delicious for another reason. Flynn gave a hearty speech in support of Trump at last year's Republican National Convention, in which he led the audience in a round of chanting "Lock her up!" (referring to Hillary Clinton). Flynn has already faced crowds of people who showed up today to change that to "Lock him up!" in response. Turn-about is certainly fair play, in this case.

Speaking of turnabouts, Lindsey Graham seems to be arguing with his former self about Trump's sanity. This week on CNN, Graham said of the media's treatment of Trump: "You know what concerns me about the American press is this endless, endless attempt to label the guy as some kind of kook not fit to be president." From February of 2016, here is the very same Graham on Fox: "I think he's a kook. I think he's crazy.... He's not fit to be president." So maybe the press isn't so much to blame, Lindsey, as that guy who stares back at you in the mirror each morning? We're just sayin'....

Joe Scarborough has a somewhat different take, however. On yesterday's Morning Joe, Scarborough said Trump is now "completely detached from reality," and according to his sources: "people close to [Trump] say he is mentally unfit... people close to him during the campaign told me had early stages of dementia."

Of course, with Trump, it's hard to tell. Was this just another average week for Trump, or is he hitting new lows? Earlier in the week, he was supposed to be honoring Navajo Code Talkers, but he held the ceremony in front of a picture of Andrew Jackson and insulted Elizabeth Warren by calling her "Pocahontas." Trump also retweeted some racist anti-Muslim videos from a British nationalist, and then when the British prime minister sternly rebuked him, Trump tweeted back -- to the wrong "Theresa May" on Twitter (the one he originally chose had only six followers, a pretty rookie mistake for someone who uses Twitter as much as Trump). He also issued an "AIDS Day" proclamation which failed to mention the gay community at all. So is that just a par-for-the-course insensitive week for Trump, or indications of truly losing it? You decide.

John McCain, in response to the Navajo incident, tweeted his disgust: "Our nation owes a debt of gratitude to the Navajo Code Talkers, whose bravery, skill & tenacity helped secure our decisive victory over tyranny & oppression during WWII. Politicizing these genuine American heroes is an insult to their sacrifice." We would have to agree.

One other interesting bit of fallout from Trump's week was seeing Sarah Huckabee Sanders straight-up admit that propaganda (or "fake news," in its original meaning) is just fine with the White House, as long as it feeds into their agenda. When asked about the fact that the videos in question were not actually what they were stated to be, Sanders answered: "Whether it's a real video, the threat is real. His goal is to promote strong border security and strong national security." Got that? Fake news is okeley-dokeley as long as Trump believes it is real. Next question?

Speaking of Trump fantasies, the Republicans are slouching forward with their tax bill. Trump held a campaign-style rally to promote it, where he laughably claimed: "This is going to cost me a fortune, this thing, believe me. This is not good for me! ... I think my accountants are going crazy right now."

There is craziness in that statement, but it's not coming from Trump's accountants. The fact-checker for the Washington Post responded bluntly: "If anyone believes this line, we have a bridge in Brooklyn available for them." He then went on to crunch the numbers, from Trump's leaked 2005 tax return: "Trump would have saved as much as $42 million on his 2005 taxes under the House bill and $35.1 million under the Senate bill. A big part of the savings is from elimination of the alternative minimum tax." As we've pointed out before, the A.M.T. elimination alone would have saved Trump a whopping 81 percent of the taxes he paid that year. A "fortune" will indeed be changing hands between Trump and the I.R.S., but it's going to move in the opposite direction of what Trump is telling his die-hard fans.

Maybe some of them are starting to notice. Chuck Jones, a Union leader from Indiana, wrote a piece for the Post this week pointing out it's been a year since Trump promised to save all the Carrier jobs, and has not done so at all. From his article:

Beyond Indiana, workers across the country feel like they too are victims of a false Trumpian bargain, in which they were invited to trade their votes to keep their jobs. In fact, according to new research conducted by Good Jobs Nation, more than 91,000 jobs have been sent overseas since Trump was elected, the highest rate of jobs lost to outsourcing in five years.

This summer, I traveled across the Midwest, from Indianapolis to Kalamazoo to Racine, to talk with hundreds of manufacturing workers who lost their jobs to foreign countries. Many of them (some wearing "Make America Great Again" hats) agreed that Trump hasn't lived up to his end of the deal.

"I don't think he's really going to come through, even though I hoped he would," one laid-off worker told me.

"He pulled a bait-and-switch on us," another said.

Just like he and all the other Republicans are currently attempting on tax cuts. As we write this, the wheeling and dealing has reached a fever pitch, and Republicans seem confident they'll pass it out of the Senate tonight. But we'll get to all of that later, in the talking points segment of the program.

What else is happening? Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was undermined once again by the White House leaking a story about how they're ready to go with a plan to replace him, but then Trump walked the story back later on. Will there be a "Rexit" or not? Your guess is as good as ours.

North Korea launched an I.C.B.M. which could hit pretty much anywhere in America, and Trump (once again) had absolutely no idea what to do about it. He swore "We will take care of it," but (once again) did not specify how. It's times like these when an effective secretary of State would be an asset, right? Instead of, you know, actively undermining his authority in the press.

Roy Moore is back up in the polls in Alabama, so nobody should be surprised if he actually wins the special Senate election this month. However, he's drawn a powerful new enemy in Jimmy Kimmel, who not only sent someone from his late-night show to Alabama to spoof Moore supporters, but is now engaged in a full-on war of words with him. This started on Twitter, but soon spread to Kimmel's nightly monologue, which was absolutely brutal in response. Are the two men going to settle it "man to man" (as Moore offered)? Stay tuned!

And finally, two amusing notes to close on: Bernie Sanders has been nominated for an Emmy, for the audio version of his book. And Donald Trump hosted the National Christmas Tree lighting ceremony, where the turnout was rather pathetic, as photos plainly showed. Of course, if Trump sees the picture, he'll doubtlessly claim that it was the "largest audience EVER" to see such a spectacle, "both in person and around the globe."

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This was a pretty easy call this week. We do have to start with two Honorable Mention awards for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer for snubbing President Trump's White House photo op (after Trump had tweeted earlier in the day that no deal would be possible with Democrats). But the obvious winner for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award this week is a woman named Dana Nessel.

Don't be afraid to admit you've never heard of her. We hadn't either, right up until she released a campaign ad (she's running for attorney general of Michigan) which, well, cuts right to the bone. So to speak.

Here's the full story (and the video of the ad):

Dana Nessel sits in front of a fireplace in her YouTube ad for Michigan attorney general, posted this week. She runs through a few recent headlines about famous fallen men. An image of Trump kissing a beauty pageant winner floats above her head and she says:

"When you're choosing Michigan's next attorney general, ask yourself this: Who can you trust most not to show you their penis in a professional setting?

"Is it the candidate who doesn't have a penis?

"I'd say so."

The whole ad is simultaneously hilarious and quite serious. Harassment (and worse) is no laughing matter, of course, but her treatment of it truly is. She explicitly promises that, if elected, she will not show anyone the penis she doesn't have. Also, that she won't walk around wearing nothing but an open bathrobe.

She gets a bit more to the point when countering the notion that Michigan Democrats shouldn't have an all-female ticket next year (which she seems sick of hearing), pointing out that electing as many women as possible to high office right now is probably a better idea, instead.

As we said, it's tough to walk the line between seriousness about sexual harassment and humor (and making political hay, for that matter), but Nessel manages it beautifully. So her "candidate who doesn't have a penis" ad makes her the easy choice for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Look for this to become a hot topic for any female running for office next year, in fact. Nessel can now claim to have pioneered the way. Well done!

[As a general rule, we don't link to campaign sites, so you'll have to search Dana Nessel's contact information yourself if you'd like to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Alas, this one was also pretty easy to figure out. The past two weeks have seen an acceleration of the sex scandals, which are now happening so fast it's almost time for the accusers to start coordinating schedules so that nobody gets overshadowed in any one news cycle.

Two weeks ago, this new phase started in the world of journalism, with Charlie Rose crashing and burning at both CBS and PBS. This was swiftly followed by the ouster of Matt Lauer from NBC and the downfall of Garrison Keillor of Prairie Home Companion fame on the same day. So many entertainment figures have also had their comeuppance that we've stopped even noting them, as well.

But in the political world, the past two weeks has seen multiple other accusers of Al Franken come forward, and what is looking like the end of the career of John Conyers -- currently the longest-serving member of the House.

The last time we wrote a Friday article, we gave the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to Franken, so it is only fair that we give this week's MDDOTW to Conyers. His transgressions, at least so far, were much more serious than Franken's, since he was caught trying to hide tens of thousands of dollars of payout money to one of his victims in his payroll accounting. Nancy Pelosi joined the growing ranks of Democrats calling on Conyers to step down, but so far he's remaining fairly defiant.

While he contemplates his future, he'll have a brand-new Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to hang on his wall, though.

[Contact Representative John Conyers on his House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 463 (12/1/17)

We're back after a two-week hiatus (to eat some turkey), but once again Democrats should be laser-focused on denouncing what the Republicans are attempting to do on taxes. By the time you read this, their odious bill may have made it through the Senate, which brings up the scary possibility that at any time the House could just pass the Senate version and put it on Trump's desk. All that talk you're hearing of a conference committee may not actually happen, in other words, especially if the GOP gets backed into a corner just before the year-end holidays.

This needs to be an all-hands-on-deck effort for Democrats. Luckily, the GOP tax monstrosity is -- much like the "repeal and replace Obamacare" bill before it -- massively unpopular with the public, and getting less popular by the day as more people hear what it contains. So this one is teed up and waiting to be smacked down the old fairway. Here are a few suggestions for how to do so. As always, use responsibly.

 

1
   Trickle-down has never worked

This one starts with a quote that every Democratic politician should have readily available when being interviewed over the next week or so.

"The snake oil the Republicans are trying to sell is not new, of course, I'd like to read a quote from William Jennings Bryan's famous 'Cross Of Gold' speech, if I may:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.

"This speech was given in 1896, mind you. 'Leak through on those below' would be read today as 'trickle-down' -- it's the same exact metaphor, in fact. This economic philosophy did not work in the 1890s, it did not work in the 1920s, it did not work in the 1980s, and it did not work in the 2000s under George W. Bush. More recently, it spectacularly failed in the state of Kansas, to the point where Republicans had to desperately raise taxes after all their promised economic growth did not materialize. Democrats have known trickle-down does not work for over a century, but Republicans keep trying to convince everyone that it'll work this time, because if we all clap our hands hard enough Tinker Bell will boost our G.D.P.!"

 

2
   A lump of coal

Republicans, rather inexplicably, will be raising taxes for millions of middle-class Americans. Normally they spread a few crumbs around the lower tax brackets, so that they can claim "tax cuts for all," but this time they didn't even pretend to do so. This is making the bill a much harder sell, of course -- even among conservatives. Here is Marc Thiessen, former Republican speechwriter to both George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld -- who on most political matters might be described as "somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun" -- on the Republican tax bill:

President Trump has promised to "give the American people a huge tax cut for Christmas -- hopefully that will be a great, big, beautiful Christmas present." Unfortunately for millions of Americans, what they will be getting instead is a lump of coal in the form of a tax increase -- courtesy of the GOP.

When George W. Bush campaigned for his 2001 tax cuts, he was able to truthfully say that "everybody who pays taxes is going to get tax relief." Republicans can't say that today, because it isn't true.

 

3
   Tax hikes more popular than this bill!

This one is just truly stunning. From fivethirtyeight.com, some astounding polling statistics:

"Five Thirty Eight ran an article which showed that not only is the Republican tax bill the least-popular tax cut ever, with less than a third of the public supporting it, this bill is actually less popular than two tax hikes. When both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton raised taxes in the early 1990s, more of the public supported them than now support the Republican tax bill. That's pretty astonishing when you think about it. The public has been fooled so many times by unkept GOP promises of wealth trickling down from the skies that they now put such claims in the same place as the boy who cried 'wolf.' As the Washington Post recently put it:

Republicans (22 percent approval as a party) move a tax bill (25 percent approval) out of Congress (13 percent approval) thanks to Republican leaders (20 percent approval) and members of the party (also 22 percent approval) to be signed into law by Trump (37 percent approval). When Trump is the most popular part of the equation, you've got a problem.

"And please remember, the Republican Party is absolutely convinced that this is the magic bullet which will propel them to political victory in next year's midterms. Good luck with that, is all I have to say!"

 

4
   A kick in the face to the middle class

That phrasing came from a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Apparently Republicans Want To Kick The Middle Class In The Face," to give credit where it is due.

"You know, it would have been fairly easy to insure that every American who pays taxes gets at least a small tax cut. Which makes you wonder why, instead, the Republicans seem bent on delivering a kick in the face to so many middle-class working families. Let's run down some numbers. People making $40,000 to $50,000 are going to wind up paying a whopping $5.3 billion in taxes, while at the same time people making more than a million bucks a year will get all that money back and more -- a $5.8 billion cut in their taxes. This is Robin Hood in reverse, and the numbers prove it. The little guy pays more, so the fatcats can buy another yacht. From the Congressional Budget Office's numbers, by 2019 people earning less than $30,000 a year would be paying more taxes. But 2021, people making less than $40,000 will lose out. By the time the bill has done all its damage, most Americans earning $75,000 a year or less would be worse off. While those making between $100,000 and $500,000 will make out like bandits. According to the Wall Street Journal -- hardly some wide-eyed liberal news source -- a California family hit by the loss of the state and local tax deduction would wind up paying $720 a year more, while a family in Iowa hit with high medical costs would see their taxes rise by $2,600 a year. It's like the Republicans set out to be as mean and heartless as they possibly could be -- there's simply no other explanation for it. This tax plan would be more than a disaster for millions in the middle class, it would actually be a real kick in the teeth."

 

5
   Magic math

Even with their patented pixie-dust-and-moonbeam math, the numbers just don't add up for the GOP plan.

"Republicans are lying in so many ways about this bill, it is hard to keep them all straight. But no matter what stories they spin, the math just does not add up to anything more than blowing a gigantic hole in the deficit and the debt. All the former Republican 'deficit hawks' have turned out to be nothing more than chickenhawks, it seems. If you take them at their word, then none of their tax cuts will ever expire because future Congresses will extend them. This is so they can cook the books and not show a hole of over $2 trillion over the next decade. But even without that particular lie, from the White House on down, they've been swearing up and down that 'the tax cuts will pay for themselves' rather than blowing a $1.5 trillion hole in the budget. They even directed the numbers-crunchers to use their magic math which assumes all sorts of economic growth -- and the numbers still showed a trillion-dollar hole. This reflects exactly what every other economist has said -- these tax cuts simply will not pay for themselves at all. To believe that is to believe in unicorns and pixies. Even when they tried to cook the books, they still came up a trillion dollars short."

 

6
   What is Mnuchin hiding?

This could become a rather large story, but it'll probably arrive too late to do anything about it.

"Is Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin hiding a report which contradicts all his rosy promises on the tax bill? The New York Times reports that: 'An economist at the Office of Tax Analysis, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize his job, said Treasury had not released a "dynamic" analysis showing that the tax plan would be paid for with economic growth because one did not exist.' Or maybe it does, but Mnuchin just doesn't want anyone to see it? Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote a letter to the Treasury's Inspector General pointing out: 'Either the Treasury Department has used extensive taxpayer funds to conduct economic analyses that it refuses to release because those analyses would contradict the Treasury secretary's claims, or Secretary Mnuchin has grossly misled the public about the extent of the Treasury Department's analysis.' In response to the letter, the I.G.'s office has opened an investigation. So even using magic math, one assumes that Mnuchin also couldn't make the numbers add up the way his trickle-down fantasy insisted they should. Will we find out later that Mnuchin covered up an analysis which showed he was flat-out lying to the American people about the impact of this tax bill? If so, he should immediately be removed from office."

 

7
   Well, it's something, right?

There were two very funny articles this week skewering the current state of the GOP. The first might appeal more to a literary crowd, as it is a satire of one of the most famous bits of satire of all time, on Jonathan Swift's 350th birthday, no less. Alexandra Petri's modest proposal is for the proper use of Democratic babies in Alabama, of course.

But then Petri outdid herself with today's article, which is even funnier. It's a takedown of the GOP tax plan, so to remain on subject we will close with the opening to her hilarious spoof (the whole thing is well worth reading, as the bit on John McCain alone is worth it):

Look, the Senate GOP wishes very much that it did not have to pass this bill providing for the entire middle class to assemble outdoors and be struck by an immense meteor, but it is important that they not close the year without any legislative accomplishments.

The bill has been the subject of heated debate. On the one hand, millions of people will be struck by a giant rock from space, which will probably make for some close midterms and heated town halls back home, in those towns that survive. On the other hand, are the tax cuts for corporations (also included in the bill) sufficiently large? On the one hand, people like the middle class and do not want them to suffer, and destroying their homes with a gigantic rock (which would also, curiously, trigger cuts to Medicare) does not seem like something that will help them. On the other hand, you have to show that you're using your time in the Senate for something. Everyone can agree that a meteor is something.

-- 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

 

243 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [463] -- Lock Him Up!”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Lock him up!"

    Ah, music to my ears, indeed!

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Maybe there'll be fireworks at the White House this year for New Year's Eve, as Trump explodes in pyrotechnic fury?

    A sight for sore eyes, to be sure.

    It wouldn't do the heart and soul any harm, either.

    :)

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [1]

    And, that goes for Flynn, too.

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump enablers have floated a trial balloon absolving him from obstruction of justice on the grounds of ignorance. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You put on the big boy pants when you take the oath of office.

  5. [5] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I would like to see Flynn do prison time. He could do up to five years for his plea. I'd like to see forfeiture of illegally obtained assets as well. Flynn sold his country down the river. That's behavior unfitting of an officer and gentleman. Send a message.

  6. [6] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Jury duties and you still put out a Friday Talking Points! That is amazing! For your next act you should add twirling plates on sticks accompanied by orchestral sword dance music.

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    I have little sympathy for Flynn. Now there are songbirds spanning different parts of the last couple of years - some who were there during the campaign. Some who were there during the transition, and one who was in the senior leadership after the inauguration.

    Mueller can now conduct long term storylines and can check to see when certain players entered the stage.

    And we already have one incident where 45 himself is not looking good - the first story concocted on Air Force One about the Russian meeting in the NY Tower.

    As usual, if they'd just come out with the truth in the first place it would have been bad, but the coverup means that you are now lying and making other people lie - and that creates more guilty parties, many of whom probably feel that they were put in the position to lie without wanting to.

    This will be a test of loyalty - will people throw themselves under the bus to protect somebody who throws people under the bus regularly.

    Also the magic pardon seems to be off the table. Maybe Flynn made the calculation that a pardon might not be forthcoming as it would look like an admission of guilt by 45. The pardon will be reserved for close family members, in my opinion. And that might not include Jared.

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    Good talking points, CW. Thanks!

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh, and after reading the sample from Alexandra Petri's book "A Field Guide to Awkward Silences" I just bought it - been a while since I've laughed out loud - but just her responses to a talent show written questions had me hooked (do yourself a favor - take 10 minutes to read the sample):

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OQS4HMO

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    and also the highest-ranking person to have flipped on Trump.

    ALLEGED to have flipped on Trump...

    The main assumption, however, is that he is now singing like a little birdie to the investigators.

    Yes. ASSUMPTION...

    And do you know what happens when you make an assumption???

    It makes and ass out of U... And UMPTION... :D

    Joe Scarborough has a somewhat different take, however. On yesterday's Morning Joe, Scarborough said Trump is now "completely detached from reality," and according to his sources: "people close to [Trump] say he is mentally unfit... people close to him during the campaign told me had early stages of dementia."

    And are there any FACTS to support Moron Joe's claim??

    Of course not..

    Ya'all don't need no stinkin' facts... :D

    North Korea launched an I.C.B.M. which could hit pretty much anywhere in America, and Trump (once again) had absolutely no idea what to do about it.

    Of course, to be fair, you'll concede that it was Odumbo's "strategic patience" that allowed Lil Runt Kim to get this far right??

    No???

    As we said, it's tough to walk the line between seriousness about sexual harassment and humor (and making political hay, for that matter), but Nessel manages it beautifully. So her "candidate who doesn't have a penis" ad makes her the easy choice for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Look for this to become a hot topic for any female running for office next year, in fact. Nessel can now claim to have pioneered the way. Well done!

    These days, thanx to Dumbocrats, there is no guarantee that voting for a woman means voting for a candidate without a penis...

    I'm just saying...

    The last time we wrote a Friday article, we gave the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to Franken, so it is only fair that we give this week's MDDOTW to Conyers. His transgressions, at least so far, were much more serious than Franken's, since he was caught trying to hide tens of thousands of dollars of payout money to one of his victims in his payroll accounting. Nancy Pelosi joined the growing ranks of Democrats calling on Conyers to step down, but so far he's remaining fairly defiant.

    Both Franken and Conyers are history.. Ya'all better get used to the idea.. I predict that the next one or two accusations against Franken will force him out...

    Abbreviated comment today.. Running late..

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/78e897dd7970bb1451fa3c174faae4ca3b6f1e2633c859e0583f0db8cc19dc29.png?w=800&h=1111

    This is why ya'all should NEVER listen to Anti-Trump media reports...

    You invariably get egg all over your faces.. :D

    It reminds me of the time the media hyped up, and many Weigantians hyped up, the "bombshells" that was to come out of a couple of officials appearing before some committee or another..

    And NOTHING came of it.. The media (and many Weigantians) all ended up with egg all over their faces..

    One would think ya'all would learn... But the PTDS is strong around here and in the media... :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    This one's for you, Liz...

    "Evacuate your cities... Engage your defenses.... And get this man a shield.."
    -Black Panther, AVENGERS:INFINITY WAR

    :D

    http://www.imdb.com/list/ls053181649/videoplayer/vi3114711065?ref_=hm_hp_i_2

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's so hilarious about all of this is that, even if you Hysterical NeverTrumpers DO succeed in ousting Trump without starting a shooting civil war...

    Then we'll have President Mike Pence!!

    Oh yea.. THAT will be sooooo much better for the Left Wingery... :D

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Better than Trump and, THAT'S saying quite a lot.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Precious little of it is good but, quite a lot, nevertheless ...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Better than Trump and, THAT'S saying quite a lot.

    I'll remind you of that if.....

    Ya'all actually succeed in nullifying a legal fair and free election...

    We're not in a shooting civil war as a result...

    and when..... Ya'all start whining and complaining about President Pence...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:
  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    ABC News on Friday evening corrected an explosive special report that aired in the morning saying that Donald Trump, as a candidate for president, had asked Michael Flynn to make contact with Russians.
    http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/01/media/abc-news-flynn-correction/index.html

    I think it's so cute how ya'all still believe the MSM, even when they blatantly LIE....

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Leon Panetta, President Obama’s former Secretary of Defense, told NBC’s Chuck Todd on Friday that it was a “stretch” to say the Trump transition team broke the law with their contacts with the Russians.

    “We have one administration at a time,” Panetta said, warning that the Trump transition team undermined long-standing political norms in the United States by engaging in diplomacy while the Obama administration was still in office.

    However, the former defense secretary doubted that dealings with the Russians rose to the level of criminal violations.

    “[Their contact with Russia] was very unusual. Whether it breaks the law or not, I think that’s probably a stretch,” Panetta predicted.
    https://ntknetwork.com/leon-panetta-its-a-stretch-to-say-trump-team-broke-law-with-russian-contacts/

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So now some Trump voters are beginning to realize that he is not providing the CHANGE they HOPED for.

    Why does that sound so familiar?

    Whether it's a Big Money Democrat or Big Money Republican that wins in 2020 the odds are it will sound familiar again in 2021.

    Or we could start to change that dynamic by voting against the Big Money candidates in 2018.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    She Says She Quit Her Campaign Job After He Harassed Her. Now He’s In Congress.
    Last year, a 25-year-old woman left her job on Democratic Rep. Ruben Kihuen’s campaign because of what she says were repeated, unwanted propositions for dates and sex. Responding to these allegations, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said Kihuen should resign. Kihuen said on Friday, “I sincerely apologize for anything that I may have said or done that made her feel uncomfortable.”

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/she-says-she-quit-her-campaign-job-after-he-harassed-her?utm_term=.nb75lgpK90#.vbZJ0m7XZ4

    What *IS* it with Democrats???

    "What IS it with you???"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK VI The Undiscovered Country

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    So now some Trump voters are beginning to realize that he is not providing the CHANGE they HOPED for.

    Au contraire....

    Trump supporters are LOVING that Trump is draining the swamp and are cheered and encouraged that it's working, as evidenced by how much the Swamp is fighting back...

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    ALLEGED to have flipped on Trump...

    Flynn's lawyers had previously informed Trump's legal team that they could no longer communicate about Mueller's probe, and Flynn released a statement stating he had an "agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's office."

    If it was a snake, it would have bit you.

    What part of "my guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and our country" is confusing to a law enforcement officer? *LOL*

    I expect the next indictment to be against Jared Kushner, but I'm hoping for a twofer of Kushner and Benedict Donald, Jr. :)

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Flynn's lawyers had previously informed Trump's legal team that they could no longer communicate about Mueller's probe, and Flynn released a statement stating he had an "agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's office."

    And NOTHING about Trump....

    Like I said.. You have NO facts..

    What part of "my guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and our country" is confusing to a law enforcement officer? *LOL*

    The part that has ANYTHING to do with President Trump..

    I expect the next indictment to be against Jared Kushner,

    Yea, but you expected Hitlery to win the election..

    So, yer credibility is in the toilet... :D

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    How do we know that Dana Nessel does not have a penis?

    Did she show her vagina in the ad?

    If I were her opponent I would put out an ad demanding that she proves her claim of not having a penis by revealing her vagina.

    And maybe close it with something like "And if she doesn't have a penis then she will not be able to rise to the occasion and make the hard decisions."

    What goes around comes around. Pun intended.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    How do we know that Dana Nessel does not have a penis?

    Exactly!!!

    Given the ANYTHING GOES mentality of the Democrat Party, it's entirely possible that Dana Nessel does, in fact, have a penis..

    If I were her opponent I would put out an ad demanding that she proves her claim of not having a penis by revealing her vagina.

    And maybe close it with something like "And if she doesn't have a penis then she will not be able to rise to the occasion and make the hard decisions."

    What goes around comes around. Pun intended.

    heh

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    Senate OKs tax bill as Trump, GOP near big legislative win

    :D

    This is why the troll accusations have substance Michale. For a couple of weeks, when the passage of this bill was not guaranteed, you stated that you knew nothing about it. Perhaps you were worried that it would fail à la Obamacare repeal. Now it passes and you are happy.

    It appears you aren't happy because you know what is in it, but that your team has won, or more importantly the other team has lost.

    I don't know your income bracket, but I do know quite a bit about this tax plan, and if you are earning less than $250K and have less than about $1M in the markets, this is not a good long term proposition for you - and it probably isn't a short term win for a good 30-40% of all tax payers under $250K.

    You might just be about to find out how much gloating and smugness cost you in real terms.

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And how is it okay for Dana Nessel to paint all men with the same brush?

    Not all of us behave inappropriately and then try to buy off the victims and hope they remain quiet.

    Some of us have the foresight to know that even if they find the bodies they won't be able to get them to talk.

    There may even be a few that actually behave appropriately.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why the troll accusations have substance Michale. For a couple of weeks, when the passage of this bill was not guaranteed, you stated that you knew nothing about it. Perhaps you were worried that it would fail à la Obamacare repeal. Now it passes and you are happy

    I still no nothing about it and yes, I am happy when President Trump can push his Drain The Swamp agenda..

    How, exactly, does that make me a troll..

    And if it does make me a troll, what does that make ya'all who post hysterical Anti-Trump stuff many MANY times a day???

    It appears you aren't happy because you know what is in it, but that your team has won, or more importantly the other team has lost.

    Which describes ya'all perfectly..

    Is there a point???

    I don't know your income bracket, but I do know quite a bit about this tax plan, and if you are earning less than $250K and have less than about $1M in the markets, this is not a good long term proposition for you - and it probably isn't a short term win for a good 30-40% of all tax payers under $250K.

    While I do trust that you know what you are saying, I CAN'T trust that you are saying it because it is factually accurate or because you hate Trump and will say anything against him...

    You might just be about to find out how much gloating and smugness cost you in real terms.

    Since President Trump was elected, my business has been BOOMING.. Even the summer, which was totally dead under Odumbo, was awesome...

    I might get taken down a peg or two for my gloating..

    But ya'all got taken down ROCK BOTTOM when President Trump was elected..

    You seem to be surviving OK... :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    And how is it okay for Dana Nessel to paint all men with the same brush?

    PARTY UBER ALLES

    Bigotry, hatred, sexism, intolerance??

    All of that is PERFECTLY acceptable when it comes from the Left..

    Where have you been???

  31. [31] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Chris is correct in saying that "Trickle-down has never worked" (if your definition of 'worked' is lifting the marginally productive out of poverty).

    Of course, when compared to the liberal alternative (aka "The War on Poverty"), Trickle-Down doesn't really look all that bad. More than 50 yrs, and $bazillions later, we now have MORE poor folks than ever before!

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chris is correct in saying that "Trickle-down has never worked" (if your definition of 'worked' is lifting the marginally productive out of poverty).

    Of course, when compared to the liberal alternative (aka "The War on Poverty"), Trickle-Down doesn't really look all that bad. More than 50 yrs, and $bazillions later, we now have MORE poor folks than ever before!

    Yep....

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    Of course, when compared to the liberal alternative (aka "The War on Poverty"), Trickle-Down doesn't really look all that bad. More than 50 yrs, and $bazillions later, we now have MORE poor folks than ever before!

    I thought you were economics historian. The "war on poverty" ended in the 1980s, replaced by trickle down. Reagan basically said: "instead of transferring wealth to the poor, let's give more money to the poor and then rich will make even more money and that will trickle down and the poor will be better off".

    That is the broken part - the direct transfers of wealth that we had in the 1950s with 90% top tax rates and the 1960-70s with payments directly to poor people was replaced by laissez-faire capitalism. Clinton compounded this with welfare reform, and hey presto, we have had decades of growing GDP but flat income growth for everybody under 80%.

    This tax bill just piles on.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet, when Democrats had total control of the Government, they couldn't do jack and made things a hundred times worse...

    Funny how that works, eh??

    Oh wait, don't tell me..

    It was Bush's fault... :^/

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, we have ya'all hysterically claiming that Trump is feeling the heat.. Making that claim without ANY facts to back it up..

    And then we have FACTS....

    Trump: I’m not worried about Flynn’s guilty plea
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/362919-trump-im-not-worried-about-flynns-guilty-plea

    This USED to be a place where FACTS ruled..

    Now it's a place where Hysterical NeverTrumpers drool...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate GOP repeals ObamaCare mandate
    http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/362838-senate-gop-repeals-obamacare-mandate

    AND TRAIN-WRECK-CARE IS TOAST!!!!! :D

  37. [37] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [33]

    I always presumed that for the Democratics, the 'War on Poverty' goes on into perpetuity.

    Sorry, don't follow. How does "transferring wealth to the poor" differ from "giving more money to the poor"?

    Government only has one way to redistribute the fruits of the labors of the more productive to the less productive, and, whether you define it as the commonly accepted version of wealth (money) or as 'money money', it's all the same, coin of the realm.

    Democratics always imply that the "flat income growth" that arrived concomitant with globalization automatically translates to stagnant standard of living, and nothing could be further from reality.

    Standard of living (or maybe level of prosperity) is as much a function of cost of living as it is of income. The massive reduction of the cost of manufactured goods resulting from globalization has produced a massive increase in our standard of living, ewven with flat income, since the mid '70's.

    Last July I bought a 5 HP gas engine imported from China to replace the dead engine on my rototiller. Cost me a tad less than $100. A substantially inferior Briggs & Stratton engine was $235. Now THAT'S what translates to an increase in our standard of living with no income growth whatsoever.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Earlier in the week, he was supposed to be honoring Navajo Code Talkers, but he held the ceremony in front of a picture of Andrew Jackson and insulted Elizabeth Warren by calling her "Pocahontas.

    So?? Warren has been insulting Native Americans for how many decades???

    Op-Ed: I am a Cherokee woman. Elizabeth Warren is not.
    "As Native people, we are relegated to being invisible, while Warren is not."

    https://thinkprogress.org/elizabeth-warren-is-not-cherokee-c1ec6c91b696/

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Conyers to decide within days on political future

    Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) will decide in the next few days whether to resign in the face of sexual harassment allegations involving three women, his attorney said Friday.

    "We will discuss in the next day or so what Mr. Conyers plans to do," the attorney, Arnold Reed, said at a news conference in Detroit.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/01/conyers-decision-sexual-harassment-scandal-267879

    Conyers is history.....

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I always presumed that for the Democratics, the 'War on Poverty' goes on into perpetuity.

    Using that reference isn't very clever.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Manafort and Gates are accused of having played fast and loose with money and federal regulations — but their offenses actually precede their roles on the Trump campaign. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about the substance of phone calls between him and the Russian ambassador — calls made weeks after the election.

    That means Mueller doesn’t have the goods. Yet. If Mueller had evidence that This Specific Thing and That Specific Thing and the Other Specific Thing took place between the Trump campaign and Russian contacts in the summer and fall of 2016, those Things would be part and parcel of the indictments and pleas he would have reached already.

    Instead, it appears he’s adopted a strategy of getting these guys with whatever he can get them for so that they might provide him with the details and the narrative he needs. In other words, the Flynn plea is part of a fishing expedition.

    If there are fish, Trump likely won’t survive. That’s pretty inarguable now. No one is getting out of this one without answering Mueller’s questions — maybe not even Trump.

    But they’ll need to answer in part because Mueller will still be fishing. And the fish he needs to catch can’t simply be fish from Russia that happen to be floating nearby. The issue isn’t that Flynn had contact with the Russians. The issue won’t even be that Flynn had contact with the Russians on orders from bumbling Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, which ABC News reported Flynn was ready to tell Mueller.

    Campaigns have made contact with foreign powers for decades. Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern sent an emissary to meet with the North Vietnamese while Americans were dying every day in a war against them, for God’s sake.

    Absent real evidence of a conspiracy, Trump will not be driven from office for any of this. We’ll know soon enough whether the expedition hooks a giant marlin or whether it’s been much ado about goldfish.
    https://nypost.com/2017/12/01/trump-is-out-of-excuses-but-not-necessarily-out-of-office-as-flynn-cooperates/

    This is going to be the biggest let down for Hysterical NeverTrumpers since 9 Nov 2016...

    Can't wait to see all the pictures of the crying and the screaming and the yelling at the moon.. :D

  42. [42] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    That "Pocohontas" thing actually originated with Ann Coulter. Coulter actually used "Fauxcohontas" while criticizing Warren for claiming some sort of bogus minority status to make Harvard look good for gov't "racial diversity" statistics. Unfortunately, Trump was too dumb to follow suit, and all he did was create bad feelings.

    Warren's gotta be the blondest Cherokee that ever went on the warpath!!

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you actually believe that Coulter story, C. R. Stucki?

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    That "Pocohontas" thing actually originated with Ann Coulter. Coulter actually used "Fauxcohontas" while criticizing Warren for claiming some sort of bogus minority status to make Harvard look good for gov't "racial diversity" statistics.

    I thought LIE-awatha was pretty good too :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you actually believe that Coulter story, C. R. Stucki?

    Are there any facts that dispute it???

  46. [46] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M

    I guess I only know that's where I first heard it, a long time ago.

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    Democratics always imply that the "flat income growth" that arrived concomitant with globalization automatically translates to stagnant standard of living, and nothing could be further from reality.

    OK, what did we say about assumptions? Flat income means that the share of total income for a group is level in an inflation adjusted sense. Technology and improved productivity increases the relative spending power in some cases (little engines) but not in others (education, healthcare, personal services, etc.), many of which grow faster than inflation.

    I'm going to assume you want to hurt people who you don't think are insufficiently productive by sidelining them and destroying their communities, pricing them out of tertiary education and decent healthcare, and forcing them into perpetual poverty because that is just what people like you enjoy.

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    insufficiently productive -> sufficiently productive

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry, don't follow. How does "transferring wealth to the poor" differ from "giving more money to the poor"?

    Ensuring high quality schools. Good quality policing. Universal preventative healthcare. Good quality roads and other infrastructure.

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    The massive reduction of the cost of manufactured goods resulting from globalization has produced a massive increase in our standard of living, ewven with flat income, since the mid '70's.

    Cost of fees at University of California in constant dollars:

    1992/3: $5,000
    2014/5: $14,000

    That difference covers a lot of little engines from China.

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    Cost of medical services:

    1982-4 = Index set at 100
    Sep 2017 = 476

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIMEDSL

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    These are inflation adjusted numbers.

  53. [53] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    [47] Ofcoures I realize we can't import everything, which is why I specifically mentioned "manufacturd goods".

    Re 'I'm going to assume . . . ." Go ahead and assume, but not worth a response.

    [49] OK, so 'in-kind' non-monetary) transfers are also transfers, I recognize that.

    [50] Yeah, I realize we can't import everything, already admitted above. Food, medical services, etc., same thing, but that doesn't invalidate my point.

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    While I do trust that you know what you are saying, I CAN'T trust that you are saying it because it is factually accurate or because you hate Trump and will say anything against him...

    We've been through this Michale. I don't act or nurture hate - I focus on positive emotions and always have. The whole Jesus thing (even though I'm an atheist I can accept good advice when I hear it, and in my schools in Scotland we got plenty of good advice from Jesus).

    I've done my best to understand what is in this bill, even though it went though several iterations and was very volatile last night.

    The net net is that pass though businesses will be taxed in a way that is very advantageous for them (just about all of 45's businesses are of this type), plus AMT is being pared back (again a big win for 45 and many people who earn enough to get hit with AMT) and businesses are getting a cut from 35% to 20% (although many pay less that that anyway).

    There are some crumbs for regular taxpayers, but the large numbers are going to high earners (>$200K) and investors via the stock market.

    I'm glad to hear your business is improving, but most of the thanks goes to Obama (remember how you chastised us for blaming Bush 2 for things several years into Obama's Presidency, well that is sort of blowing up on you I'm afraid - I'm being consistent in that respect).

    Try to change your status to a pass through business instead of personal income - that is what happened in Kansas and their tax revenue dropped though the floor. Let's hope you don't want schools open for your grandkids 5 days/week though - the Kansas model resulted in an attenuated school week.

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    Re 'I'm going to assume . . . ." Go ahead and assume, but not worth a response.

    Yeah, annoying, isn't it.

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS:

    Food, medical services, etc., same thing, but that doesn't invalidate my point.

    What is you point? I'm not getting it.

    Here is what I'm understanding you are saying in my words:

    If I earned $25,000 in 2017 dollars in 1980 and now earn $25,000 in 2017 I'm actually better off because manufactured goods are lower cost and better quality.

    My response is that this may be the case, but a lot of other things are a lot more expensive because they have increased in price faster than inflation, and they are the high ticket items that we need - I didn't talk about housing earlier, but it has grown at about 1-2% greater than inflation every year as well (see below re Case-Shiller Index).

    At the same time the total GDP has grown and most of the country has not seen any of that growth.

    This is not good for our country - and we are seeing it in a breakdown in communities. As I earlier stated, Charles Murray's "Coming Apart" is a fairly rigorous look at this. I don't agree with all of his proposed solutions, but I can't repudiate his diagnosis.

    In case (sorry, unintentional pun) you are unfamiliar with the Case-Shiller Index here is a link. Basically Shiller thought that traditional measures for house inflation didn't measure apples to apples. Houses were getting bigger, e.g. central AC was becoming standard, as well as other amenities that improved the quality of a house and thus should not be included in the inflation index - it is similar to the argument you are making about manufactured goods, and computers are often cited as an example of a product that costs the same or less, but is radically better after several years:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSUSHPINSA?utm_source=series_page&utm_medium=related_content&utm_term=related_resources&utm_campaign=categories

  57. [57] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neil [55] Don't give it a moment's thought. I am VERY hard to annoy!

    [56] You're getting my point just fine. ("If I earned $25,000 . . . .") And I'm getting yours ("My response is that . . . .")

    There's much validity to the Case-Shiller idea, re not equating apples to apples in attempting to calculate a realistic inflation adjustment factor. It would be comparable to equating a primitive 1940's car to a current model. A thousand times worse than the old "apples to oranges", more like 'apples to skyscrapers!

    I well recall the first desktop electronic calculator I used as an office mgr in 1965. It cost $700 and was the size of a large book. Now a comparable (or better!) one fits in the palm of your hand and costs $7.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    C.R. Stucki,

    I guess I only know that's where I first heard it, a long time ago.

    Oh, I see.

    Well, it's not always a good idea to just repeat stuff you hear without confirming veracity. More often than not, it will end up reflecting poorly on you.

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    I well recall the first desktop electronic calculator I used as an office mgr in 1965. It cost $700 and was the size of a large book. Now a comparable (or better!) one fits in the palm of your hand and costs $7.

    Comparing over time is fraught with hazards. We have to contend with nostalgia and its evil twin, rose tinted memories, many of which never happened. Alternatively we also can magnify the bad and forget the good, and are prone to rampant cherry picking - or at least I am.

    I also forget how bored I used to be when I was younger. A few years ago I longed for the time when I didn't have a phone and a signal, only to get antsy after a couple of days in the wilderness when I went hiking in the High Sierras.

    One of my Dad's cousins asked me a question when I was in my late teens or early thirties that I've always remembered - he asked me what age I felt I was. He was a lot older, in his late 40's at the time, and said when he was asked ten years before he honestly answered "about 15". He said the funny thing was that he still felt inside that he was "an old teenager".

    I've asked the question of other people and said they don't need to tell me their answer, but those that did also felt much younger than they were physically. Personally I feel no more than half my actual age.

    I miss my old Ti-30 calculator more than any computer or other electronic device I've had:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/TI-30_LED.png/220px-TI-30_LED.png)

    Why? Because it reminds me of my Engineering Science class in high school - man we had a lot of fun ... or at least that is how I remember it.

  60. [60] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M

    Evidently I didn't make that clear. Didn't mean to imply that I heard from a 3rd party that coulter said it first, I meant that I actually heard Coulter say it the first time I ever heard it. Was no need to "confirm veracity", I actually heard her say it.

  61. [61] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I fondly remember my father's HP 9100 desktop computer circa 1969. Three line CRT with soothing blue characters. My introduction to Reverse Polish Notation. I recall the price being around 4K$.

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [60],

    Oh boy, I wish I could recommend something for that.

  63. [63] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "Houses were getting bigger, e.g. central AC was becoming standard, as well as other amenities that improved the quality of a house and thus should not be included in the inflation index"

    This is complicated. It's an apples to oranges problem. Older houses were built better, lumber in particular was better, craftsmanship was much better. Old yellow pine joists and studs are unbelievably tough - they will smoke an electric drill bit. Studs were 18" on center in the 60's, by the 80's they were spaced 24", now they probably throw a few up every couple of yards. Old wood floors - God I love 'em. Ditto copper plumbing.

    On the other hand, older houses tended to be poorly insulted. HVAC has gotten radically more efficient and effective over 20 years. Old electrical systems are very suspect. New energy windows tend to look cheesy, but they are a lot more energy efficient.

    I live in a community with a mix of housing ranging from late 19th century to 21st century. The market place is smiling on the well maintained and modernized older homes, adjusted for square footage and location.

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is complicated.

    :)

    Well at least we have a Nobel Prize winner looking at it:

    https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2013/shiller-facts.html

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well the AARP has figured out the impact of the removal of the medical deduction on its members.

    When your tax "cut" increases the taxes of one of your key voting constituencies, you know that you're going to have some fun town halls in the New Year ... if you are brave enough to face your constituents, of course:

    https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2017/house-medical-expense-tax-fd.html

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well at least we have a Nobel Prize winner looking at it:

    Yea, cuz receiving a NOBEL is **NEVER** political.. :^/

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Byron York: Nunes blows up, threatens contempt after FBI stonewalls House on Russia investigator demoted for anti-Trump bias

    "By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress' constitutional oversight responsibility," Nunes said in a statement.

    House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has issued an angry demand to the FBI and Department of Justice to explain why they kept the committee in the dark over the reason Special Counsel Robert Mueller kicked a key supervising FBI agent off the Trump-Russia investigation.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-nunes-blows-up-threatens-contempt-after-fbi-stonewalls-house-on-russia-investigator-demoted-for-anti-trump-bias/article/2642387

    Muellers team is falling apart....

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    ABC News suspends Brian Ross for 4 weeks over erroneous Flynn story
    ABC News announced Saturday that it has suspended investigative reporter Brian Ross for four weeks without pay after Ross was forced to correct a bombshell on-air report about Michael Flynn.
    "We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error we made yesterday. The reporting conveyed by Brian Ross during the special report had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process," ABC said in a statement. "As a result of our continued reporting over the next several hours ultimately we determined the information was wrong and we corrected the mistake on air and online."
    "It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience -- these are our core principles," the statement added. "We fell far short of that yesterday."

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/02/media/abc-news-brian-ross/index.html

    Like I said, I think it's cute ya'all still put faith in the media, even though they LIE and spew bullshit against Trump on a regular basis...

    FoxNews whataboutism in 3....2.....1......

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    No Fox News "whataboutism" exists because they don't fact check their nonsense.

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is going to be hilarious - the Republicans had to run away from their Obamacare repeal because they got so much flak for it. So they thought "hey, let's not even give anybody time to really get pissed off at the tax bill by showing it through in less than an hour after releasing the final version".

    Can anybody see the slight problem with this approach?

    My guess is they will be running away from this monstrosity for the rest of their terms, which will be less than a year for a lot of them.

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    Still no Tax Bill defense from our stalwart Republicans.

    C'mon Michale, explain to us what it is about this tax bill that has you so happy!

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    No Fox News "whataboutism" exists because they don't fact check their nonsense.

    Maybe no FoxNews whataboutism, but a really hefty dodge...

    I hope you didn't hurt yourself.. :D

    My guess is they will be running away from this monstrosity for the rest of their terms, which will be less than a year for a lot of them.

    Yea, but like Kick, your "guess" was that Hitlery was going to be POTUS...

    So, the "guess" track record ain't all that good, my friend.. :D

    Still no Tax Bill defense from our stalwart Republicans.

    I'll ask a stalwart Republican next time I see one.. It may be a while.. We don't run in the same circles...

    Drowbonian??? You a "stalwart" Republican???

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump insists there was 'no collusion' with Russia as Michael Flynn guilty plea fails to show a smoking gun

    Michael Flynn's admission has not resolved the fundamental question being probed: Did Trump's campaign collude with Russia to win the election?

    On Saturday, the president told reporters that "what has been shown is no collusion, no collusion. There's been absolutely no collusion."
    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/1...

    Even after the Flynn indictment which ya'all touted for MONTHS as "the turning point", ya'all are left with nothing but yer dicks in yer hands..

    No Trump, No Collusion...

    Add to that, the FACT of Leon Panetta's claim??

    You people got nuttin....

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    No Fox News "whataboutism" exists because they don't fact check their nonsense.

    And yet, ya'all quote FNC when they say what you want to hear... :D

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  75. [75] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Ezra Klein has written The case for normalizing impeachment for Vox

    https://www.vox.com/2017/11/30/16517022/impeachment-donald-trump

    The takeaway:

    There is no actual definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors”

    "Impeaching an unfit president has consequences. But leaving one in office could be worse."

  76. [76] 
    TheStig wrote:

    RE - 75

    Klein also argues:

    "the Founding Fathers envisioned a political system without parties, where the salient political competitions would be between states and between branches rather than between Democrats and Republicans"

    "Believing that the American political system would resist parties and then designing our mechanisms of accountability around that assumption was,... “the most important constitutional failure.”

    "It is a principle that sounds radical until you say it, at which point it sounds obvious: Being extremely bad at the job of president of the United States should be enough to get you fired."

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It is a principle that sounds radical until you say it, at which point it sounds obvious: Being extremely bad at the job of president of the United States should be enough to get you fired."

    Except for the FACT that a Democrat will say a Republican POTUS is "extremely" bad and a Republican will say that a Democrat POTUS is "extremely" bad...

    And a POTUS who wants to eliminate the status quo and drain the swamp, BOTH Parties will say he is extremely bad..

    Even when he ain't...

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny..

    When there were no indictments, the hysterical NeverTrumpers would scream and yell, "Wait til we get Manafort!!! THEN we'll have our smoking gun!!!!"

    Manafort gets indicted...

    NOTHING...

    THEN the hysterical NeverTrumpers screamed "Wait til we get Flynn!!!! THEN we'll have our Smoking Gun!!!!"

    Flynn gets indicted....

    NOTHING....

    NOW the hysterical NeverTrumpers are screaming, "Wait til we get Kurshner!!! THEN we will REALLY have our smoking gun!!! REALLY!!!!"

    What is so hilarious about the hysterical NeverTrumpers is that they actually BELIEVE they have ANY credibility!!!! :D

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    No Trump, No Collusion...

    Patience grasshopper. Go back and look at the record. I stated from the start that nobody outside of the inner circle knows for sure what happened, so we need to give Comey/Mueller time to investigate, and even more time if there is a case to be built.

    Legal analysts who know far more than I do about these things feel the investigation/prosecution is moving at a fast pace - these types of criminal cases usually take years.

    We'll see who has what in their hands ... or around their wrists in good time.

    Enjoy the show, I've got the popcorn out for this one :)

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    NOW the hysterical NeverTrumpers are screaming,

    Well then thank goodness we don't have any hysterical NeverTrumpers around here. Can you show me who said these things (you know, sources), or are they just part of your rationalization because you are getting nervous and need to rationalize away your mounting fear of impending doom?

    What is your personal idol is a traitor? How for does fanboyism go? We might find out.

    pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop - whose got the melted butter?

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    My kingdom for a a short term edit facility ... "What if" & "How far"

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Stig [76]: There is a new book you might be interested in:

    Washington's Farewell
    The Founding Father’s Warning to Future Generations
    by John Avalon

    George Washington’s Farewell Address was a prophetic letter from a “parting friend” to his fellow citizens about the forces he feared could destroy our democracy: hyper-partisanship, excessive debt, and foreign wars.

    http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Washingtons-Farewell/John-Avlon/9781476746463

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    And yet, ya'all quote FNC when they say what you want to hear... :D

    Yes, because if even Fox News say it then you know the most ardent of spin agents for the right can't spin their way out of it, and most people on the loony right will believe anything Fox News tells them, but claim every other source is "Fake News".

    Anybody quoting Fox News to you isn't a good thing for you, it is a final nail in the coffin of your "argument", but since you believe in zombie lies, most of the time it is pointless.

  84. [84] 
    neilm wrote:

    Kim Jong Un Fears That G.O.P. Tax Bill Makes His Plan to Destroy U.S. Redundant

    “After having such a wonderful missile test, he should be on top of the world this week,” the source said. “Instead, he’s afraid that all his hard work has been for nothing. He now understands why so many Americans despise the Republicans.”

    https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kim-jong-un-fears-that-gop-tax-bill-makes-his-plan-to-destroy-us-redundant

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well then thank goodness we don't have any hysterical NeverTrumpers around here.

    Yea... OF COURSE we don't.. :D

    What is your personal idol is a traitor? How for does fanboyism go? We might find out.

    Yea, ya'all have been saying that for almost 2 years..

    Guess what???

    Ya'all STILL got bupkis.... :D

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    Guess what???

    A long way ... denial, that feeling of sand in your ears is the give away Michale ;)

    pop-pop-pop-pop

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let's not forget that Mueller has a history of incompetence and fraking up major investigations...

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Denial??

    You mean like the year + denial ya'all have been in regarding President Trump is the legal and legitimate POTUS??

    You mean like THAT denial??

  89. [89] 
    neilm wrote:

    And let's not forget that Mueller has a history of incompetence and fraking up major investigations...

    Then why doth the lady protest so much?

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then why doth the lady protest so much?

    Which lady would that be???

    :D

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ladies who are hysterical about President Trump?? :D

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    My kingdom for a short term edit facility ... (There, I fixed it for you...heh)

    I've been thinking that we wouldn't really need an edit function if we just took the time to think before we post.

    I'm going to start doing that (including ALWAYS using the preview function before commenting, as a matter of course, even for a very short comment, like, you know, #81...heh) and see if it works better than any edit function could ... :)

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, then, that would one less thing Chris has to worry about!

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    SHEEE - IT ... I didn't use the preview thingy!!!

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, from now on ...

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    ZERO DEGREES OF SEPARATION
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d33b99a2b80be049c99468d55844569cbf658ffc5dc57a92c9c2a264b759c8c1.jpg?w=800&h=605

    Gotta love the Democrat Party..

    They make an art form out of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm going to start doing that (including ALWAYS using the preview function before commenting, as a matter of course, even for a very short comment, like, you know, #81...heh) and see if it works better than any edit function could ... :)

    The PREVIEW function is really good for catching un-closed attributes...

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... and other things, ahem.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, on the PLUS side, the latest bonehead move by Mueller has prompted a re-opening of the Clinton Email case..

    BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How so?

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I used the preview button for that, btw.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    :^D Heheheheh

    Mueller's team is rife with Hillary supporters and donors and hysterical NeverTrumpers. The public found out about it and one especially egregious violater was fired..

    Turns out he was also a lead agent in the Hillary Email case, so Congress is re-opening that case to see how badly tainted it was...

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The public found out about it and one especially egregious violater was fired..

    Do you think maybe you have that ass-backwards, as it were?

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In my book, Mueller and Comey rest high on the scales of integrity, honesty and just plain olde-fashioned human decency.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you think maybe you have that ass-backwards, as it were?

    Not according to the facts...

    In my book, Mueller and Comey rest high on the scales of integrity, honesty and just plain olde-fashioned human decency.

    Read about how badly Mueller frak'ed up the Anthrax investigation in Sep-Oct of 2001....

    Completely dropped the ball...

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I find that very hard to fathom ... got a link? :)

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    I find that very hard to fathom ... got a link? :)

    I always do.. :D

    ROBERT MUELLER IS A HOTHEAD WHO CAN'T OWN UP TO HIS MISTAKES, FORMER AIDES SAY
    BY CARLOS BALLESTEROS ON 11/26/17 AT 5:25 PM

    Robert Mueller, special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election, is a “gruff guy” who routinely undermined his subordinates and evaded responsibility as head of the FBI, according to several former aides and investigators who worked with Mueller interviewed by the Los Angeles Times.

    The first of these cases took place in 1979, when Mueller, as head of the U.S. attorney’s special prosecutors unit, took over the case against 33 members of the Hells Angels motorcycle club charged with drug trafficking, murder, and bombings. The first trial, which sought to imprison 18 of the accused members, was unsuccessful, as the five convictions reached in the case were overturned on appeal.

    Mueller then took over the case and lead a team of four prosecutors in the second trial with 11 eleven defendants. However, as reported by the Times, “after four months, the jury said it was deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Mueller decided not to ask for a retrial.”

    Mueller then transferred to the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston where he oversaw cases against Panamanian president Manuel Noriega, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, and head of the Gambino crime family, John Gotti.

    However, his success was marked by a disdain from some of his subordinates. As noted by the Times, Mueller sparked resentment “when he referred privately to reassigning career lawyers as ‘moving the furniture.’”

    Mueller was also criticized for his time as head of the FBI. He led the investigation into the deadly anthrax attacks in the years after 9/11 for nearly seven years, ultimately leading in the prosecution of the wrong suspect, who later successfully sued the government for $5.8 million.

    After agents successfully traced back the anthrax to an Army microbiologist who committed suicide once he was informed of the impending charges, Mueller “was reluctant to publicly address the missteps” in the case.

    "I think he was personally embarrassed," a former aide told the Times. "I would assess him as someone that can't accept the fact that he screwed up."
    http://www.newsweek.com/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-aides-criticize-722670

    I know you don't like clicking on links, so I highlighted the points that prove my conclusion...

    Which isn't to say that Mueller is a total frak-up..

    But he is NOT the sterling knight in shining armor ya'all have portrayed him to be..

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey: Michael Flynn plea means 'not very much else there'

    Former Attorney Gen. Michael Mukasey said the guilty plea from former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn signals that perhaps there were no severe crimes committed by the Trump campaign.

    In an interview on ABC's "This Week," Mukasey, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said the plea, which was announced Friday by special investigator Robert Mueller, should tamp down speculations about collusion with Russia.

    "What I made of it is a lot of the heavy breathing and a lot of the speculation is completely unwarranted," he said. "That plea agreement does not, to me, indicate that there’s very much else there."

    Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his communications with Russian officials during the transition period after the election.

    Mukasey said such a plea does not appear to indicate a large collusion conspiracy.

    He said in cases like Flynn's, prosecutors "can make them plead guilty to participating in the same criminal conduct that you're trying to prove against the other people you’re after, because that’s the most convincing evidence of the existence of the conspiracy."
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/former-attorney-general-michael-mukasey-michael-flynn-plea-means-not-very-much-else-there/article/2642396

    WOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Oooooppppp What's that sound???

    That's the sound of the hysterical NeverTrumpers dreams being flushed down the toilet.. :D

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michael Mukasey?

    Isn't he the one who doesn't know what torture is?

    He's not a reliable source, in my view.

    As for Mueller's competence ... having read the Newsweek story in your link, I stand by my previous assertion about his character.

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for Mueller's competence ... having read the Newsweek story in your link, I stand by my previous assertion about his character.

    That's kewl..

    But facts are facts and it's a fact that Mueller has scroo'ed the pooch on more than one occasion...

  111. [111] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hey Michale, are you and 45 competing for who is least worried about Mueller by who is commenting/tweeting about the investigation and how 45 isn't guilt most often?

    Overcompensate much?

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Haven't we all, Michale? :)

    Should that be the defining factor in assessing character?

    Certainly, Comey and Mueller are not perfect. But, I do consider them among the most reliable and competent in what they do.

  113. [113] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [107] some quotes you left out of your post:

    But Mazer and Alan Caplan, another defense lawyer, praised Mueller’s straightforward handling of the case. “We fought hard, but I can’t conceivably say anything negative about him,” Caplan said.

    “We ultimately got 25 of our people out, including their families,” in a trade for Zehe and several other Soviet-bloc spies, recalled a U.S. official involved with the negotiations.

    “He would ask, ‘Have you done your work? Do you have your facts?’ … He knew what he was asking was the way to make sure everything stood up” in court.

    “If he believes somebody has committed a crime, he’s going to do whatever he can to hold them accountable,” said a former FBI colleague. “Trump’s name or brand is not going to back down Mueller.”

  114. [114] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hey Michale, tell us again in only 30-40 comments how innocent 45 is and how incompetent Mueller is ;)

    pop-pop-pop-pop

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale [107] some quotes you left out of your post:

    What part of "Which isn't to say that Mueller is a total frak-up.." was unclear??

    Unlike ya'all, I don't just cherry pick the facts I like. I lay it ALL out...

    It's called integrity.. Ya'all should try it sometime..

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hey Michale, are you and 45 competing for who is least worried about Mueller by who is commenting/tweeting about the investigation and how 45 isn't guilt most often?

    Overcompensate much?

    Says the guy who makes 100 comments per commentary on how bad Trump is, ALL without ANY FACTS to support the opinion.. :D

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Haven't we all, Michale? :)

    Should that be the defining factor in assessing character?

    It is when it suits a partisan agenda...

    Certainly, Comey and Mueller are not perfect. But, I do consider them among the most reliable and competent in what they do.

    Certainly, President Trump is not perfect. But, I do consider him among the most reliable and competent in what they do.

    Funny how it works for you, but you won't allow it to work for me... :D

    Iddn't that funny?? :D

  118. [118] 
    neilm wrote:

    Says the guy who makes 100 comments per commentary on how bad Trump is, ALL without ANY FACTS to support the opinion.. :D

    Oh, but we do have facts ... and we also have videos :)

    https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/924111999306313729/pu/vid/1280x720/rzsxXzUZlwXav1RJ.mp4

    (Note: I think this was posted earlier, but when your VERY right wing 90-year-old Uncle from Canada sends you this, you know that things are going wrong for 45 and his gang.)

  119. [119] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M[117]: Funny how it works for you..

    We're not the ones trying to call Trump "reliable and competent". It'd be like trying to call Pence "funny and edgy" - just doesn't work.

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Iddn't that funny?? :D

    Nope.

  121. [121] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Hey CW:

    Nice FTPs. Now, a rant.

    Let's talk about your Wednesday Superdelegate article. That may be the single worst article and stupidest set of positions you've taken in the decade or so I've been reading you. No kidding. This was just a Bernie Bros whine "oh, we lost, we couldn't handle the superdelegates, oh, woe is us, the deck was stacked against us, whine!" B-lS-t. I'm outright calling you out for BS.

    Let's begin with: HRC had nearly all of the superdelegates in her camp in Dec 2007. But then a funny thing happened along the way. Obama started winning (he ran a superior campaign). By March, many had flipped. By April, nearly all of them had. That's why the Superdelegates still exist: Because they've never actually gone against the popular primary vote. And while they do give fundraising advantages to a candidate when they declare early, O showed that this was not insurmountable. Bernie also sucked as a candidate, hence the fact that he couldn't beat Clinton in an actual vote count.

    They exist to ensure that a Trump-of-the-left doesn't actually receive the party's nomination, pure and simple.

    Now let's look at your other claims. They are not some "secret cabal" intent on destroying the USA, democracy, the Dem party, the Left, or any other institution. And yes, they are SuperDels because of their positions. Yes, Barack Obama is a SuperDel. What, should he be beholden to the Illinois voter (or perhaps the Kansas voter, where he was raised, or Hawaii, where he was born, or perhaps even the Kenyan voter, who doesn't exist)? I voted for O twice and I don't live in any of those places. What, Al Gore should be beholden to the TN voter, despite the fact that they didn't even give him their electoral votes in 2000? Same thing for Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or the other SuperDels. I'm cool with them voting their conscience.

    Will they all flip, of course not. It'd be weird dinner conversation for Bill Clinton to not vote for his wife, even if the popular vote shifted, as it did in '08. Still, the vast majority voted with the popular vote, as they always do. They exist only to prevent an absolute whacko (see the current president) from being the party's nominee. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing (again, see the current president).

    The real problem is not the Dem SuperDels. It's the percentage of Bernie Bros who are racist/misogynist/xenophobes (yes, we have them on the left) who stayed home or voted for the current prez because whine! Will the left stick together in '18? I have no idea. If the Left is not in love, they can't be trusted because the Left is too stupid to fall in line even when it is absolutely essential.

    That's my rant.

  122. [122] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    So, the real question is how to win electons.

    I begin with a simple assumption. Despite the right-wing rhetoric that says that we are a center-right nation, we are not a center-right nation. We are a center-left nation. If every eligible voter voted, the Left would win elections in an overwhelming fashion. Gerrymandering and population geography would not overcome that fact. If we were truly a center-right nation, there would be no reason for the right to suppress the voting rights of voters who are more likely to vote left. If we were center-right, then the right would still win, even if everyone voted.

    In 2016, Leftist dollars amounted to about $45 per eligible voter (Rightist dollars was slightly higher) when taking all dollars spent into account. If we removed the "will not vote, no matter what" and "will vote, no matter what" we are closer to $75 per eligible voter (let's call them the "gettables," even if getting them means they vote GOP). Why are we spending money on advertising? TV? Radio? Internet? Why?

    OK, a candidate needs to actively campaign, and some polling is helpful in determining where to campaign. Beyond that? This is just campaign professionals throwing money at their own people rather than actually helping the cause.

    $75 per "gettable" is enough to ensure that every single "gettable" is registered, has appropriate ID, and gets to and from a polling place (or does absentee, mail-in, etc). Left "elites" don't make nearly as much money from this approach, but if the goal is to GOTV, then cut the nonsense and simply spend the money to GOTV, including registration, ID, and actual voting. We need nothing else to win.

  123. [123] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    [121]

    "The real problem is . . . . the percentage of Bernie Bros . . . . who voted for the current prez . . ."

    What the hell are you thinking?? Just MAYBE a rational person could imaging a few Sanders backers sufficiently mad at HRC to stay home on election day, but VOTING FOR TRUMP!!!

    Again WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING???

  124. [124] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Maybe not you Stucki, but a % actually did.

    Oh, sufficiently mad at HRC? Whine! Bernie has been in this game for 45 years (he lost his first race in '71 or '72). He didn't get ripped off, he got beat. Plain and simple. Of course there were shenanigans, this is politics. He knew what to expect. He just used that as an excuse for losing the popular vote in the primaries and his supporters bought it (because too many of them were young and stupid and inexperienced - give me wide eyes, baby).

    Keep whining and the Left will keep losing!

  125. [125] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    There are exactly 13 important words:

    "Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan; Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell; President Donald Trump)"

    Everything else is just BS.

  126. [126] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    [125]

    Of course he got beat, but not in a fair fight. He got cheated by the DNC and the whole Clinton machine. If that ain't "ripped off", I don't know what would be!

    But don't misunderstand me, I'm not "whining". I wouldn't have voted for him if he hadn't been "ripped off"! I voted Libertarian, 'cause I am one, and 'cause I couldn't stand either of the successful candidates. I told each of the several Trump fundraisers that called me for a donation that in my opinion, Trump was "a world-class asshole".

  127. [127] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    I disagree with your reasoning and thinking Stucki, but I'll accept it (like I have a choice or something).

    To the rest of the CW community: I meant what I wrote, but I should have said my posts in a much less "p'd off" fashion. My bad. The current state of things has me angrier on occasion than I want to be. I should always pause before I post.

    S2

  128. [128] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I pardon you. :)

  129. [129] 
    neilm wrote:

    Speak [121]: Thank you! I'm so bored being a progressive who is lectured to because I'm not progressive enough.

    We can win because we are the middle, not be the perpetual loser because we aren't angry enough on either side of the spectrum.

  130. [130] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neil [129] You echo my sentiments.

    I've mentioned before that EJ Dionne called Obama's lead up to running for president "the closest thing to a draft" that he'd ever seen in politics.

    That's because Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, was the rarest of politicians - he was a likeable, charismatic centrist.

    We have a number of women in the Democratic Party who might fit that description - and due to fear of the chance of past indiscretions popping up during campaigns, women will probably take a great leap forward as 'viable' candidates.

  131. [131] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    At least through the mid-terms.

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, but we do have facts ... and we also have videos :)

    Yea, but they are not RELAVANT FACTS... :D

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    We're not the ones trying to call Trump "reliable and competent". It'd be like trying to call Pence "funny and edgy" - just doesn't work.

    It doesn't work for YOU...

    But it DOES work for those who are not enslaved by Party ideology..

    What you just don't get is that ya'all are WORSE than Republicans during the Obama years...

    And what makes it all the more pathetic and sad is that ya'all don't realize it...

    Or, worse, you DO realize it, but ya'all just don't care... Your PTDS is absolute...

    There is absolutely not a SINGLE rational person here amongst you hysterical NeverTrumpers...

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    S2,

    They exist to ensure that a Trump-of-the-left doesn't actually receive the party's nomination, pure and simple.

    So, to hell with what the People want, it's PARTY UBER ALLES???

    And this is democratic, exactly how???

    If the Left is not in love, they can't be trusted because the Left is too stupid to fall in line even when it is absolutely essential.

    I have NEVER seen the policy of PARTY UBER ALLES
    so blatantly and shamelessly espoused..

    Wow... Just Wow....

    Upvote for yer honesty...

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    What the hell are you thinking?? Just MAYBE a rational person could imaging a few Sanders backers sufficiently mad at HRC to stay home on election day, but VOTING FOR TRUMP!!!

    Again WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING???

    And yet, that is EXACTLY what happened.. :D

    Not only that, but tens of millions of Odumbo voters ALSO voted for Trump..

    "Ain't it kewl!!"
    -John Travolta, BROKEN ARROW

    :D

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, sufficiently mad at HRC? Whine! Bernie has been in this game for 45 years (he lost his first race in '71 or '72). He didn't get ripped off, he got beat.

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary...

    Who knows if Bernie would have won if the DNC hadn't cheated...

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    I told each of the several Trump fundraisers that called me for a donation that in my opinion, Trump was "a world-class asshole".

    Yes, he is..

    But he is ALSO one of the most successful businessmen in the history of the planet and is not tainted by massive political correctness..

    As such, he is EXACTLY the POTUS we need right now..

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Among Republicans, Trump’s approval rating has held remarkably steady. The week Mueller was named, according to Gallup, Trump’s GOP support stood at 84 percent. In the days after Donald Trump Jr. was revealed to have written, “I love it” in response to a Russian offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton, it reached 87 percent. In Gallup’s last poll, taken in late November, it was 81 percent. Trump’s approval rating among Republicans has not dipped below 79 percent since he took office. None of the revelations from Mueller’s investigation—nor any of the other outrageous things Trump has done—has significantly undermined his support among the GOP rank and file.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/trump-impeachment/547358/

    Face the facts, people.. Patriotic Americans have got President Trump's back...

    Ya'all are simply NOT going to be able to nullify a free, fair and legal election..

    Deal with it...

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    The GOP senators who have challenged Trump, by contrast, have seen their support among Republican voters crash. In July, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake’s brave and honorable book was excerpted in Politico as “My Party Is in Denial About Donald Trump.” Trump retaliated, of course. And by October, a Morning Consult poll found that Arizona Republicans disapproved of Flake by 13 points. That month, he declined to run for reelection. The other GOP senator to most frontally challenge Trump has been Tennessee’s Bob Corker, who in a series of interviews in October, accused him of “debasing” the presidency and warned that he could lead America into World War III. The result: A similar collapse of support. As The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake has noted, Tennessee Republicans approved of Corker in February by 40 points. By the end of October, they disapproved of him by 12 points. Not surprisingly, Corker isn’t running for reelection either.

    Facts that prove what I said above was accurate...

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why did Flynn lie and why did Mueller charge him with lying?

    The charge to which retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty may tell us a great deal about the Robert Mueller investigation.

    The first question is, why did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime. But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong.

    Consider his request to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., to delay or oppose a United Nations Security Council vote on an anti-Israel resolution that the outgoing Obama administration refused to veto. Not only was that request not criminal, it was the right thing to do. President Obama’s unilateral decision to change decades-long American policy by not vetoing a perniciously one-sided anti-Israel resolution was opposed by Congress and by most Americans. It was not good for America, for Israel or for peace. It was done out of Obama’s personal pique against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than on principle.

    Many Americans of both parties, including me, urged the lame-duck Obama not to tie the hands of the president-elect by allowing the passage of a resolution that would make it more difficult to achieve a negotiated peace in the Middle East.

    As the president-elect, Donald Trump was constitutionally and politically entitled to try to protect his ability to broker a fair peace between the Israelis and Palestinians by urging all members of the Security Council to vote against or delay the enactment of the resolution. The fact that such efforts to do the right thing did not succeed does not diminish the correctness of the effort. I wish it had succeeded. We would be in a better place today.

    Some left-wing pundits, who know better, are trotting out the Logan Act, which, if it were the law, would prohibit private citizens (including presidents-elect) from negotiating with foreign governments. But this anachronistic law hasn’t been used for more than 200 years. Under the principle of desuetude — a legal doctrine that prohibits the selective resurrection of a statute that has not been used for many decades — it is dead-letter. Moreover, the Logan Act is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the exercise of free speech.

    If it were good law, former Presidents Reagan and Carter would have been prosecuted: Reagan for negotiating with Iran’s ayatollahs when he was president-elect, to delay releasing the American hostages until he was sworn in; Carter for advising Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to reject former President Clinton’s peace offer in 2000-2001. Moreover, Jesse Jackson, Jane Fonda, Dennis Rodman and others who have negotiated with North Korea and other rogue regimes would have gone to prison.

    So there was nothing criminal about Flynn’s request of Kislyak, even if he were instructed to do so by higher-ups in the Trump transition team. The same is true of his discussions regarding sanctions. The president-elect is entitled to have different policies about sanctions and to have his transition team discuss them with Russian officials.

    This is the way The New York Times has put it: “Mr. Flynn’s discussions with Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, were part of a coordinated effort by Mr. Trump’s aides to create foreign policy before they were in power, documents released as part of Mr. Flynn’s plea agreement show. Their efforts undermined the existing policy of President Barack Obama and flouted a warning from a senior Obama administration official to stop meddling in foreign affairs before the inauguration.”

    If that characterization is accurate, it demonstrates conclusively that the Flynn conversations were political and not criminal. Flouting a warning from the Obama administration to stop meddling may be a political sin (though some would call it a political virtue) but it most assuredly is not a crime.

    So why did Flynn lie about these conversations, and were his lies even material to Mueller’s criminal investigation if they were not about crimes?

    The second question is why did Mueller charge Flynn only with lying? The last thing a prosecutor ever wants to do is to charge a key witness with lying.

    A witness such as Flynn who has admitted he lied — whether or not to cover up a crime — is a tainted witness who is unlikely to be believed by jurors who know he’s made a deal to protect himself and his son. They will suspect that he is not only “singing for his supper” but that he may be “composing” as well — that is, telling the prosecutor what he wants to hear, even if it is exaggerated or flat-out false. A “bought” witness knows that the “better” his testimony, the sweeter the deal he will get. That’s why prosecutors postpone the sentencing until after the witness has testified, because experience has taught them that you can’t “buy” a witness; you can only “rent “ them for as long as you have the sword of Damocles hanging over them.

    So, despite the banner headlines calling the Flynn guilty plea a “thunderclap,” I think it may be a show of weakness on the part of the special counsel rather than a sign of strength. So far he has had to charge potential witnesses with crimes that bear little or no relationship to any possible crimes committed by current White House incumbents. Mueller would have much preferred to indict Flynn for conspiracy or some other crime directly involving other people, but he apparently lacks the evidence to do so.

    I do not believe he will indict anyone under the Logan Act. If he were to do so, that would be unethical and irresponsible. Nor do I think he will charge President Trump with any crimes growing out of the president’s exercise of his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI or to ask him not to prosecute Flynn.

    The investigation will probably not end quickly, but it may end with, not a thunderclap, but several whimpers.
    http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/362948-why-did-flynn-lie-and-why-did-mueller-charge-him-with-lying

    You people really need to face up to reality...

    This is a big nothingburger..

    The ONLY thing that is going to remove President Trump from office will occur on 20 Jan 2024....

    This is the reality and the sooner you come to grips with that, the better off ya'all will be...

  141. [141] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speak2-
    Is the real problem really the percentage of people that voted for Bernie in the primaries and then voted for Trump in the general election?

    Shouldn't Hillary have been able to overcome that in the same way the Bernie should have overcome the primary obstacles like Obama did?

    After all, Obama was able to overcome the 24% of people that voted for Hillary in the 2008 primaries but voted for McCain in the 2008 general election
    (2010 study by Public Opinion Quarterly).

    Your mistake is assuming that just because someone voted for a candidate in the primaries that they are then subject to remaining with the that party if the party nominates someone else.

    Hillary was not a suitable candidate for me and many others. Had Bernie not been running I would not have voted in the Democratic Primary. Hillary was never going to get my vote any more then Trump would ever get my vote.

    The complaint about Bernie supporters voting for Trump is not only ridiculous and inaccurate- it sounds an awful lot like whining.

  142. [142] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speak2 (125)-
    Yes, that strategy was so successful in 2016.

  143. [143] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speak2-
    Here are the REAL important words:
    BIG MONEY
    INTEGRITY

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speak2 (125)-
    Yes, that strategy was so successful in 2016.

    "I know, right!??"
    -Felix, WRECK IT RALPH

    Not only in 2016, but in every election of the Obama Administration that led up to 2016..

    Over 1000 political seats lost, being in the worst political shape in over a century...

    "We're good.. We just need to hone our message"
    -Democrat Party..

    Talk about delusional...

  145. [145] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Sorry folks, I just can't believe that a SINGLE PERSON with a political ideology that aligns with that of Bernie Sanders, wound up voting for Trump, regardless of how pissed off they were over the way Hillary and the whole Dem party treated their guy (as revealed by the purloined Dem emails).

    That would be close to the political equivalent of me voting for HRC because my own party had nominated a 'world-class ass hole!! Nobody should be dumb enough to believe that even if he's hearing it from somebody who claimed to have done so. The 'somebody' is a simply lying!!

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump...

    Dow soars 300 points higher to record as Street cheers Senate passing tax bill
    Senate Republicans managed to narrowly pass a bill to revamp the country's tax system on Saturday.
    The Dow and S&P 500 both hit record highs.
    Bank stocks rose broadly, with the SPDR S&P Bank exchange-traded fund (KBE) surging 2.3 percent.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/us-stock-futures-dow-data-tax-plan-opec-politics-on-the-agenda.html

    Making America Great Again.... :D

  147. [147] 
    TheStig wrote:

    “Our system knocked the missile out of the air,” President Trump said, referring to the Scud like missile launched at Riyadh last month by Houthi rebels .

    Well, it turns out "our system", the Patriot, probably didn't.

    According to an article in the New York Times:

    "The pattern of missile debris littering Riyadh suggests missile defenses either hit the harmless rear section of the missile or missed it entirely."

    The incoming warhead exploded on Saudi territory, but missed its target, the airport, by 12 miles.

    Nothing seems to have changed since the First Gulf War:

    Scuds are inaccurate

    Patriots can't kill them very often

    Air defense units (and the manufacturers of their weapon systems) wildly over estimate the percentage of kills under battlefield conditions. It has been true since there have been air defense systems.

    “That’s how good we are. Nobody makes what we make, and now we’re selling it all over the world.” - Donald Trump.

    How Trumpian. Flashy, but overpriced.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/04/world/middleeast/saudi-missile-defense.html

    I don't think the NYT report is blocked. It's worth a read.

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think the NYT report is blocked. It's worth a read.

    TRANSLATION: It says what I want to hear..

    :D

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Michael Flynn's 'crime' is all Robert Mueller has, it is time to move on
    James S. Robbins, Opinion columnist Published 6:00 a.m. ET Dec. 4, 2017
    Transitions include the president-elect talking to foreign officials. That's not treason; that's the job description.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/04/flynn-talk-russian-ambassador-legal-james-robbins/917714001/

    Face reality, people.. Ya'all hysterical NeverTrumpers got nothing... Yer big FLYNN/LOCK HIM UP moment has come and there is simply NOTHING to it.. NOTHING that ties Trump to ANYTHING shady or illegal...

    Ya'all got NOTHING....

  150. [150] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    [149]

    Not only do they "got nothing', the NEVER HAD ANYTHING!!!! It never was and never will be illegal to get dirt on your political opponents, even if it comes from the worst foreign enemy of the U.S.

    Libs are so naive/stupid that their cold-war mindset carryover left them with some kind of vain hope that getting political help from Ruskies just HAD to be illegal. (Of course, it was ONLY illegal for Republicans, and they were perfectly OK with that, because that is only 'fair').

    They've been grasping at the proverbial straws to keep them afloat from the beginning, so now we're about to see them sink beneath the waves, and gonna enjoy every sadistic, schadenfreude minute of it!

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not only do they "got nothing', the NEVER HAD ANYTHING!!!! It never was and never will be illegal to get dirt on your political opponents, even if it comes from the worst foreign enemy of the U.S.

    Yep, yep, yep... Notice how the Hysterical NeverTrumpers don't care when Hillary did the exact same thing..

    They've been grasping at the proverbial straws to keep them afloat from the beginning, so now we're about to see them sink beneath the waves, and gonna enjoy every sadistic, schadenfreude minute of it!

    I was kinda hoping their RUSSIA!!! COLLUSION!!!!! RUSSIA!!!! COLLUSION!!!! would carry on for at least another 8-10 months. It practically would have guaranteed a GOP Super Majority...

    But it looks like the big nothing burger is getting all rotted....

  152. [152] 
    neilm wrote:

    They've been grasping at the proverbial straws to keep them afloat from the beginning, so now we're about to see them sink beneath the waves, and gonna enjoy every sadistic, schadenfreude minute of it!

    Sure. You could be right. But, and I know this might come as a surprise to you, you could be wrong.

    Let's all just take a deep breath and wait for Mueller to tell us what happened.

    But if you pair need to keep telling us all how much of a nothingburger it is to make yourselves feel good, post away.

    I'll just be eating popcorn and enjoying the show. It is fun to see 45 squirm, and, like you pair, he's been really trying to convince himself that nothing bad can possible happen several times a day recently.

    I mean, it isn't as if the Democrats would repeat the Benghazi!!! farce if they won either the Senate or the House next year or anything, right?

  153. [153] 
    neilm wrote:

    so now we're about to see them sink beneath the waves

    What are you exactly predicting here and when?

    I'm reading this as:

    1. Mueller will wrap up the investigation and publish a report that basically says nothing bad happened involving 45 or his family

    2. This will soon - before Christmas, let's say.

    Am I right?

  154. [154] 
    neilm wrote:

    You pair may have forgotten that I basically agree with you.

    Neilm, May 20,2017:
    As I stated earlier, I expect no evidence of collusion between 45's campaign and Russia to be found, because I don't think there is any, but if Mueller feels that there is a larger story around Russian influence on the election and the current White House, and starts digging into 45's business dealings, the likelihood of a resignation/pardon deal dramatically increase.

    Source: http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/19/ftp437/#comment-100471

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure. You could be right. But, and I know this might come as a surprise to you, you could be wrong.

    Yes, he could be wrong.

    But YA'ALL could be wrong as well.. And there aren't many people here who will concede that..

    Let's all just take a deep breath and wait for Mueller to tell us what happened.

    And yet, NO ONE here can do that...

    It is fun to see 45 squirm

    Any facts to support that??

    No?? Didna think so..

    I mean, it isn't as if the Democrats would repeat the Benghazi!!! farce if they won either the Senate or the House next year or anything, right?

    They probably would.. And ya'all would be cheering them on..

    How is that not hypocritical???

  156. [156] 
    neilm wrote:

    They probably would.. And ya'all would be cheering them on..

    How is that not hypocritical???

    It would also by hysterically funny - I mean, you know how thin skinned 45 is :)

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    You pair may have forgotten that I basically agree with you.

    I have not forgotten..

    But yet, you don't correct anyone when they go off the deep end regarding Russian Collusion??

    Why not???

  158. [158] 
    neilm wrote:

    But yet, you don't correct anyone when they go off the deep end regarding Russian Collusion??

    Why not???

    Because I might be wrong. Plus you are posting hysterically, why would I align myself with that sort of panic attack?

    Thanks for the entertainment on this FTP Michale - by my count you are at about 20 of the 30-40 posts I predicted less than 20 hours ago convincing yourself that nothing can possible go wrong for 45. I expected it to take you a few days to get to 30 - you are going at 3x the pace I would have guessed.

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ex-Florida Democratic Rep. Corrine Brown sentenced for mail, wire and tax fraud involving sham charity
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/ex-florida-democratic-rep-corrine-brown-sentenced-for-mail-wire-and-tax-fraud-involving-sham-charity.html

    Ooooooo bad time to be a Democrat.. :D

  160. [160] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So this is the legal expert you've settled on: Alan Dershowitz, author of “Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy” AS SEEN ON FOX & FRIENDS! (that banner found on the book's Amazon page)

    To say that Dershowitz's opinion is compromised would be to understate the matter by several degrees. His cred with the right stems largely from his support for hard-line policies in Israel, along with his stated support for the torture of terror suspects by the US. When Jimmy Carter called Israel's settlement policy an obstacle to the peace process, Dershowitz offered to debate him on the issue. Carter replied, "There is no need to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine." In the final days of the Obama presidency, Dershowitz vehemently criticized the administration's decision not to veto a UN resolution that made the same point, calling the act 'anti-Israel'.

    Lately, Dershowitz, who would likely end up on Trump's legal team if Mueller returns indictments implicating Trump, has been arguing on behalf of Trump, asserting for example that presidents can't be charged with obstruction of justice, ever, because they are granted control of the federal law enforcement apparatus by law, including investigations into their own activities. As Richard Pildes, Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU has pointed out, that issue has already been litigated by the Supreme Court, which dismissed similar arguments in Morrison v. Olson (1988).

  161. [161] 
    neilm wrote:

    presidents can't be charged with obstruction of justice, ever, because they are granted control of the federal law enforcement apparatus by law, including investigations into their own activities.

    Nixon tried that emergency escape route as well - didn't work out too well for him.

  162. [162] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In light of all that, perhaps Trump's sudden renewed interest in relocating the US Embassy in Israel is a bit of bait for Dershowitz, who is also a first-class criminal attorney, having represented such rogues as O.J. Simpson, Claus Von Bulow, and Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein.

  163. [163] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    [162]

    I just Googled 'Jeffrey Epstein'. His lengthy Wikipedia entry does not mention the name of Donald Trump. Of course, he is originally a New Yorker, and I presume Trump knows every single person in town, so maybe that justifies the "Trump Friend" characterization.

    Seems the guy likes underage girls. He lives in the "Virgin Islands", perhaps there's a connection there!!!

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    So this is the legal expert you've settled on: Alan Dershowitz, author of “Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy” AS SEEN ON FOX & FRIENDS! (that banner found on the book's Amazon page)

    SO, you have nothing but ad honimem attacks..

    Got it..

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just Googled 'Jeffrey Epstein'. His lengthy Wikipedia entry does not mention the name of Donald Trump. Of course, he is originally a New Yorker, and I presume Trump knows every single person in town, so maybe that justifies the "Trump Friend" characterization.

    Seems the guy likes underage girls. He lives in the "Virgin Islands", perhaps there's a connection there!!!

    And is best buddies with Bill Clinton who visited Epstein's island numerous times with over 20 flights on the Lolita Express...

  166. [166] 
    neilm wrote:

    “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing — as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies,” Grassley told the Des Moines Register in an interview published Saturday. Grassley, who serves on the Finance Committee, made the remark when asked about the Senate tax reform measure which would double the exemption for estates to $11 million for an individual and $22 million for a couple. Heirs would inherit the estates tax-free.

    You can't make this stuff up. All he needs to add is a comment about letting them eat cake and we have "Bumpkin Bingo".

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lately, Dershowitz, who would likely end up on Trump's legal team if Mueller returns indictments implicating Trump,

    As I stated earlier, I expect no evidence of collusion between 45's campaign and Russia to be found, because I don't think there is any.
    -Neil

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Face the facts, Balthy..

    You ain't got nuttin.. :D

    But you can always defend Al Frakit.. :D

  169. [169] 
    neilm wrote:

    Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

    http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Major concealed-carry bill picks up momentum, steams toward House floor
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/major-concealed-carry-bill-picks-up-momentum-steams-toward-house-floor.html

    Now THAT's what I am talking about....

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

    Why don't you talk about Epstein's Clinton connections, Neil???

    Seems disingenuous to me..

  172. [172] 
    neilm wrote:

    I wonder if Jared is wearing a wire? And if so, does Ivanka know?

    Isn't this fun?

  173. [173] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why don't you talk about Epstein's Clinton connections, Neil???

    Seems disingenuous to me..

    Epstein has close connections to Bill Clinton, as has been frequently reported on, and to the best of my knowledge, not denied.

    If Epstein, Clinton or 45 have harmed any underage girl in any way they should be thrown in jail.

  174. [174] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why don't you talk about the underage allegations about Roy Moore Michale?

    Seems disingenuous to me..

  175. [175] 
    dsws wrote:

    In a previous column, CW wrote:
    The idea of superdelegates was anti-democratic from the beginning

    This presupposes that casting a vote is the only valid form of political participation, that superdelegates were ever expected to swing a nomination, that primary electorates constitute "the People", and that "one person one vote" is an adequate formula for a democratic outcome. All of these suppositions are dubious at best. The statement also insinuates that there's something wrong with having anti-democratic components in a political system.

    Let's start with the idea that "one person one vote" is an adequate formula for a democratic outcome. Suppose we have 26 people, from Aisha through Zebediah, who have to choose one of their number to perform some chore. Aisha would prefer to make Bill do it, with Charlotte as her second choice, then Daniel, Edith, and so on (looping back to herself as last choice, right after Zebediah); likewise, Bill would prefer to stick Charlotte with the task, with Daniel as his second choice, then Edith. And so on. A little consideration will show that "one person one vote" is a non-answer in this case.

    For that matter, maybe if chores could be allocated systematically, instead of on a one-time basis, each person would prefer instituting some reasonable system and being done with it, over getting their way on a one-time decision but having the group be faced with the same hassle next time a chore has to be assigned. Just saying "one person one vote" doesn't tell who decides what options are available to vote on. A nomination process is supposed to embody precisely that kind of intelligent deliberation.

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why don't you talk about the underage allegations about Roy Moore Michale?

    I have.. They are allegations only... If true, then Moore should be castrated....

    Having said that, the timing is suspect, the connect to the Democrat Party is undeniable, the accuser has an axe to grind with Moore and claims there is documented evidence but refuses to relinquish it..

    Given all these FACTS, your claims against Moore are SOLELY based on Partisan bigotry and Party slavery...

  177. [177] 
    neilm wrote:

    Given all these FACTS, your claims against Moore are SOLELY based on Partisan bigotry and Party slavery...

    So you don't believe the women because it is inconvenient timing for you?

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you don't believe the women because it is inconvenient timing for you?

    Nice try... Lame.. But nice try..

    This allegedly occurred 40 years ago.. She waits just a few weeks before the biggest election of Moore's life to come forward...

    She has an axe to grind with Moore because he took her mother's side in a competency hearing...

    She claims to have "proof" but refuses to let anyone examine it...

    All of these *FACTS* call into question her credibility...

    I know, I know.. You don't care about FACTS when it comes to attacking someone with a -R after their names..

    But they are FACTS nonetheless..

    An OBJECTIVE assessment of the FACTS indicates that this is nothing but a political hitjob...

    What *FACTS* do you have that proves your case???

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

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    OOOOPPPPP What's this???

    Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban

    The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.
    https://www.apnews.com/b8244def36484dfb93fd958962b7d649/Supreme-Court-allows-full-enforcement-of-Trump-travel-ban

    And the hysterical anti-Trumpers hopes and dreams are once again, flushed down the toilet....

    WWWOOOOOSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Another win for President Trump...

    But I have to concede.. President Trump was wrong..

    I am *NOT* getting tired of winning!! :D

  180. [180] 
    neilm wrote:

    Another win for President Trump...

    What did he win? We don't have terrorists killing 10,000+ Americans every year - we have stupid gun laws for that.

  181. [181] 
    neilm wrote:

    The fact that it took almost a year to institute a simple change to immigration rules is a sign of massive incompetence. And the fact that it is also pointless because it won't save one American life.

    This is all you can count as a win?

  182. [182] 
    neilm wrote:

    No Obamacare repeal.

    No middle class tax cut.

    No wall.

    I'm tired of winning.

  183. [183] 
    neilm wrote:

    The story so far:

    1. No contact with any Russian.

    2. OK, there was contact, but no collusion

    3. OK, but collusion isn't a crime.

    I need some more popcorn.

  184. [184] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wait a minute Michale - all that SCOTUS did was allow the ban to be enacted while the appeals were in process - they didn't OK the ban.

    If that is all you got as a win in 10 months it is beyond sad.

  185. [185] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Do you think the Supreme Court would have allowed the ban to go into full effect pending lower and Supreme Court rulings if they didn't think the latest version of the ban had merit?

  186. [186] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In other words, Neil, it sure sounds like a win to me.

  187. [187] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Temporary though it MAY be ...

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    No Obamacare repeal.

    TrainWreckCare gutted..

    Good enough..

    No middle class tax cut.

    Except that there is..

    No wall.

    Except that there is. Prototypes are done and being evaluated..

    I'm tired of winning.

    I'm tired of LOSING

    There.. Fixed it for you.. :D

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you think the Supreme Court would have allowed the ban to go into full effect pending lower and Supreme Court rulings if they didn't think the latest version of the ban had merit?

    In other words, Neil, it sure sounds like a win to me.

    Yes it is..

    This is EXACTLY why it's impossible to take the hysterical NeverTrumpers seriously..

    The REFUSE to acknowledge reality...

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    The story so far:

    1. No contact with any Russian.

    2. OK, there was contact, but no collusion

    3. OK, but collusion isn't a crime.

    As I stated earlier, I expect no evidence of collusion between 45's campaign and Russia to be found, because I don't think there is any.
    -Neil

    You have PTDS bad, neil... Yer starting to contradict yerself.. :D

  191. [191] 
    neilm wrote:

    You have PTDS bad, neil... Yer starting to contradict yerself.. :D

    I'm just observing and laughing Michale. You and 45 are running around changing the story all over the place.

  192. [192] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you think the Supreme Court would have allowed the ban to go into full effect pending lower and Supreme Court rulings if they didn't think the latest version of the ban had merit?

    I don't know - do you?

  193. [193] 
    neilm wrote:

    So a win is now defined as 10 feet of wall when there is a thousand plus mile unwalled border, a temporary lift of a ban while the courts decide on several cases, and a tax bill that raises taxes on the middle class over ten years.

    Congrats, break out the champagne :)

  194. [194] 
    neilm wrote:

    I just want to make sure I understand you clearly now Michale. You are conceding that 45 has "gutted" Obamacare.

    Correct?

  195. [195] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Just breaking from the LA Times. Paul Manfort has played fast and loose with his bail agreement. Mueller is not pleased. Manafort is a very cheeky monkey. Brass balls or not very bright? I don't see Manafort wintering in Florida.

  196. [196] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    I think if the SCOTUS was leaning toward the notion that the ban was unconstitutional, then they would probably not have stayed the lower court's ruling. Instead, they would have left the lower court's ruling in place and wait for the appeals to proceed.

    Wouldn't you agree?

  197. [197] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    TheStig,

    Brass balls or not very bright?

    I am guessing it’s a combo of the two!

    I don’t see Manafort wintering in Florida.

    They’ve got federal prisons in Florida, I believe, so it could happen.

    Breaking the judge’s gag order is very stupid on its own, but to do so with Russian operatives is just priceless! ‘No ties to Russia,’they say! Hahahahaha!

    And for those that believe Mueller charging Flynn for lying means that Trump is innocent since Mueller wouldn’t charge his star witness with lying need to rethink that position. If Flynn’s testimony isn’t necessary to charge Trump because the evidence is strong enough not to need it, then Flynn pleading to lying doesn’t hurt their case against Trump at all. If he claims that he was ordered to lie by Trump, it only makes things worse for Trump!

  198. [198] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think if the SCOTUS was leaning toward the notion that the ban was unconstitutional, then they would probably not have stayed the lower court's ruling. Instead, they would have left the lower court's ruling in place and wait for the appeals to proceed.

    Wouldn't you agree?

    If they have already decided it is constitutional then what is the point of the lower courts proceeding?

  199. [199] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why do you keep answering questions with more questions?

  200. [200] 
    neilm wrote:

    You mean like "Wouldn't you agree?"?

  201. [201] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Look again ... I answered you first.

    I'm done here.

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do you keep answering questions with more questions?

    Because Neil knows he is wrong, but he just can't admit it..

    It's a common tactic of those who have severe cases pf PTDS.. It's why things have gone so downhill around here..

    Some people simply CAN'T admit the facts because of their slavery to Party ideology..

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller’s Credibility Problem
    The special counsel is stonewalling Congress and protecting the FBI.

    Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

    The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.

    The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

    Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the Clinton probe when it came out that Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr. McCabe’s wife. The texts haven’t been publicly released, but it’s fair to assume their anti-Trump bias must be clear for Mr. Mueller to reassign such a senior agent.

    There is no justification for withholding all of this from Congress, which is also investigating Russian influence and has constitutional oversight authority. Justice and the FBI have continued to defy legal subpoenas for documents pertaining to both surveillance warrants and the infamous Steele dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign and relied on anonymous Russian sources.

    All of this reinforces our doubts about Mr. Mueller’s ability to conduct a fair and credible probe of the FBI’s considerable part in the Russia-Trump drama. Mr. Mueller ran the bureau for 12 years and is fast friends with Mr. Comey, whose firing by Mr. Trump triggered his appointment as special counsel. The reluctance to cooperate with a congressional inquiry compounds doubts related to this clear conflict of interest.

    ***
    Mr. Mueller’s media protectorate argues that anyone critical of the special counsel is trying to cover for Mr. Trump. But the alleged Trump-Russia ties are the subject of numerous probes—Mr. Mueller’s, and those of various committees in the House and Senate. If there is any evidence of collusion, Democrats and Mr. Mueller’s agents will make sure it is spread far and wide.

    Yet none of this means the public shouldn’t also know if, and how, America’s most powerful law-enforcement agency was influenced by Russia or partisan U.S. actors. All the more so given Mr. Comey’s extraordinary intervention in the 2016 campaign, which Mrs. Clinton keeps saying turned the election against her. The history of the FBI is hardly without taint.

    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller, is also playing an increasingly questionable role in resisting congressional oversight. Justice has floated multiple reasons for ignoring House subpoenas, none of them persuasive.

    The latest news supports our view that Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible. The investigation would surely continue, though perhaps with someone who doesn’t think his job includes protecting the FBI and Mr. Comey from answering questions about their role in the 2016 election.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/muellers-credibility-problem-1512432318

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    Journalist accuses Rev. Jesse Jackson, director John Singleton of sexual harassment
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rev-jesse-jackson-john-singleton-accused-sexual-harassment-article-1.3617222

    Once again, the question needs to be asked..

    What *IS* it with Democrats???

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    ABC News president James Goldston excoriated staff Monday over Brian Ross' major error on a report about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, and announced that Ross, the network's chief investigative reporter, will no longer cover stories related to President Trump.
    http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/04/media/abc-news-president-brian-ross-flynn-correction/index.html

    For those who want to pooh-pooh the HUGE error that ABC FakeNews made with the Flynn charge...

    As usual, the FACTS paint a totally different picture...

  206. [206] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [203]

    But, Michale, isn't that fake news?

    I'm confused ...

    You see where I'm going with this.

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    If he claims that he was ordered to lie by Trump, it only makes things worse for Trump!

    And, if he doesn't??

    Are you going to admit you're wrong??

    Of course not.. You CAN'T admit you're wrong because you're ideological slavery won't LET you admit you're wrong...

    But here's the thing and there is just NO getting around it..

    You have been WRONG about President Trump for almost TWO YEARS....

    There is ZERO credibility in your claims..

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

    102

  208. [208] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And if he doesn’t make the claim, then he doesn’t. I gave you two possible reasons for why it is foolish to think that Flynn pleading guilty to lying is a sign that Trump is innocent; I wasn’t looking into a crystal ball and making predictions for the future.

    That said, I have been far from wrong about how Trump’s first year has gone. You claimed he was going to leave the LGBTQ community alone, I said he wouldn’t. The DOJ has entered amicus briefs supporting the Colorado baker’s right to discriminate against gay couples by refusing them service.

    You are the one without any credibility.

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    That said, I have been far from wrong about how Trump’s first year has gone. You claimed he was going to leave the LGBTQ community alone, I said he wouldn’t. The DOJ has entered amicus briefs supporting the Colorado baker’s right to discriminate against gay couples by refusing them service.

    That's not going against the LGBDDTTTIQQAAPP community...

    That's supporting the religious rights. And you want to lay a wager on how the SCOTUS will rule?? :D

    You are the one without any credibility.

    Says the guy who has been WRONG about every Trump prediction to date.. :D

    103

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's not going against the LGBDDTTTIQQAAPP community...

    And ya'all wonder why the hysterical Left Wingery has absolutely ZERO credibility with patriotic Americans. :^/

    104

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    By the way, I liked your comment over at the Death Of Daniel Shaver article over at The Atlantic...

    The anti-cop hysteria is strong there. Kudos for being a voice of calm and reason.. :D

    105

  212. [212] 
    neilm wrote:

    What *IS* it with Democrats???

    Some people simply CAN'T admit the facts because of their slavery to Party ideology..

    Michale calls out Democrats more than every other person on the board calls out any political party, and then throws out the "slave to party ideology" accusation.

    We have already talked about Michale being the poster child for Dunning-Kruger - and it is the same lack of self awareness that underpins this other weakness - seeing your own faults in everybody else.

    Amusing.

    And Elizabeth, I'm probably not the only one who is bored of your threatening to take your ball and go home when you decide somebody isn't good enough for you. Either stop posting, or stop threatening to stop posting, don't keep making a middle school drama out of it.

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale calls out Democrats more than every other person on the board calls out any political party,

    Not factually accurate..

    When you take all the times that ya'all have called out Republicans, my contribution of calling out Democrats is a mere fraction of that. And a SMALL fraction ta boot.. :D

    We have already talked about Michale being the poster child for Dunning-Kruger - and it is the same lack of self awareness that underpins this other weakness - seeing your own faults in everybody else.

    Says the guy who can't address the facts, but can only attack the messenger. :D

    Amusing.

    Whatever you have to do to distract yerself from the shithole that the Dumbocrat Party has become is fine by me.. :D

    I understand what a dark cloud you are living under, Neil.. I forgive you.. :D

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    Conyers accused of sexual misconduct at a church amid looming announcement
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/conyers-accused-sexual-misconduct-at-church-amid-looming-announcement.html

    Conyers is toast...

    What IS it with Democrats???

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    Elisa Grubbs made the allegation in an affidavit publicized late Monday by attorney Lisa Bloom. Grubbs worked for Conyers for more than a decade and is the cousin of another accuser, Marion Brown, who reached a confidential settlement with the Michigan politician over sexual misconduct allegations.

    "Rep. Conyers slid his hand up my skirt and rubbed my thighs while I was sitting next to him in the front row of a church," Grubbs said in the affidavit. "I was startled and sprang to my feet and exclaimed, 'He just ran his hand up my thigh!' Other staffers witnessed the event."

  216. [216] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And Elizabeth, I'm probably not the only one who is bored of your threatening to take your ball and go home when you decide somebody isn't good enough for you. Either stop posting, or stop threatening to stop posting, don't keep making a middle school drama out of it.

    Neil, you really need to lighten up, especially now, in this period we call the Trump era.

    Btw, I'll never stop posting. You can bet the farm on that - unless, of course, it's in Iowa. Yes, I've been known to hold a grudge for that long.
    In the words of my favourite Eagles song, take it ee-ee-asy.

  217. [217] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, so I used the preview thingy and still didn't get it right. :(

    Let's try that again ...

  218. [218] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And Elizabeth, I'm probably not the only one who is bored of your threatening to take your ball and go home when you decide somebody isn't good enough for you. Either stop posting, or stop threatening to stop posting, don't keep making a middle school drama out of it.

    Neil, you really need to lighten up - especially now, in this period we call the Trump era.

    In the words of my favourite Eagles song, take it ee-ee-asy.

    Btw, I'll never stop posting. You can bet the farm on that - unless, of course, it's in Iowa. (Yes, I've been known to hold a grudge for that long.)

  219. [219] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Do you really think I'm a drama queen?

    :-)

  220. [220] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you really think I'm a drama queen?

    Fair enough - I'll lighten up, but it is difficult to understand your emotions via comments - you come across as the stern school teacher at times - or at least to me, and the huffy middle schooler other times.

    I'd rather you kept posting.

  221. [221] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    That's not going against the LGBDDTTTIQQAAPP community...

    That's supporting the religious rights.

    Nope, it’s about the right to discriminate in Jesus’ name.

    It’s about tearing down as many protections granted to us by the Obergefell ruling as possible.

    It’s about bitter closet cases attacking those that had the courage to live their life honestly and doing so out of spite and jealousy.

    The Supreme Court ruled long ago when Southern whites tried to say that serving blacks in white diners would violate their religious beliefs that a person can practice their religion how they see fit — as long as it does not interfere with the rights of anyone else. Your religious rights cannot trump another’s civil rights!

    By the way, I liked your comment over at the Death Of Daniel Shaver article over at The Atlantic...

    The anti-cop hysteria is strong there. Kudos for being a voice of calm and reason.. :D

    Thanks! The author should have stated that the police were not able to secure the scene because they were not sure where the third person was, which is why the police didn’t just walk over and handcuff the two on the ground. He stated at the start of the story that the third guy had left before police arrived, but that wasn’t something the police were aware of when the shooting occurred.

    The kicker is that the police DID the right thing by charging the officer who shot the suspect. The fact that he was the only officer out of the six with their guns drawn to open fire is pretty much a “he’s guilty” sign for the jury.

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope, it’s about the right to discriminate in Jesus’ name.

    Nope.. It's about a person's right to freely practice their religion..

    Businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, under certain conditions..

    Your religious rights cannot trump another’s civil rights!

    Religious rights ARE civil rights...

    The kicker is that the police DID the right thing by charging the officer who shot the suspect. The fact that he was the only officer out of the six with their guns drawn to open fire is pretty much a “he’s guilty” sign for the jury.

    I think the cop will be exonerated..

    From the description I read, when they were crab-walking the subject down the hall, his hand went into the ladies purse that was there... It's reasonable for the officer to think the subject was going for a weapon...

    It also needs to be taken into account that the Vegas shooting is still very much uppermost in the minds of street officers.. The heightened awareness is a natural consequence of that..

    But you were on of the few voices of reason on there.. Not surprising, considering it was The Atlantic.. :D

  223. [223] 
    neilm wrote:

    Businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, under certain conditions..

    So if there was a town with 10 doctors and all refused to treat red haired kids just because, you'd be OK with that?

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    So if there was a town with 10 doctors and all refused to treat red haired kids just because, you'd be OK with that?

    What part of "under certain conditions" was unclear???

    121

  225. [225] 
    John M wrote:

    [188] Michale

    It is so funny to see Michale twist himself into a pretzel in order to avoid being wrong.

    "No Obamacare repeal.

    TrainWreckCare gutted..

    Good enough.."

    Except Obamacare is NOT gutted, is still around, and no legislation has yet been passed affecting it.

    "No middle class tax cut.

    Except that there is.."

    Except when there is NOT. No legislation is passed yet.

    "No wall.

    Except that there is. Prototypes are done and being evaluated.."

    Architectural plans are NOT the same as actual construction. That's like claiming the existence of a hope chest is the same as an actual wedding having taken place when you haven't even been proposed to yet.

    I'm tired of winning.

    I'm tired of LOSING

    There.. Fixed it for you.. :D

    And I'm tired of Michale's obfuscations. There, REALLY fixed it for you. :-)

  226. [226] 
    John M wrote:

    [222] Michale wrote:

    "Nope.. It's about a person's right to freely practice their religion..

    Businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, under certain conditions.."

    Which is what, anti-discrimination laws are all about in the first place, if you understood that. As those anti-discrimination laws SET the conditions!

    What you can't seem to grasp, and for the life of me I don't understand why, is that you ARE free to practice your religion, up until the point that it starts to IMPINGE on someone else's OTHER constitutional rights.

    You, as a Christian, for example, cannot burn a witch at the stake, simply because practicing your Christian religion requires you to do so.

  227. [227] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale [224]

    "What part . . . was unclear?

    How about ALL of it? The phrase itself is 'prima fascia' unclear!

    LWYH [221]

    "your religious rights cannot trump another's civil rights"

    'Civil rights' are defined as the rights that accrue to a person by virtue of his citizenship. They include such as the right to vote, the right to utilize publically-funded facilities (i.e., public schools, public roadways, etc.), first ammendment rights, and similar citizenshi-related rights.

    They do NOT include the right to never be offended, the right to perpetual happiness, or the right to claim the fruits of the labors of others.

  228. [228] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    What part of "under certain conditions" was unclear?

    All of it. If this customer were black or hispanic the law would be clear: serve the public or take down your public shingle and do contract work. You might be able to assert "no shoes, no service" in the facility, but you can't say, "my religion classifies blacks as untouchables" and get away with denying service on that basis, even though that may be true of your religion. But in that case, don't try to put "Christian" on your passport because that's not a christian tenet - Jesus said that we should love and treat everyone equally in plain enough language that even SCOTUS should get it.

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    What you can't seem to grasp, and for the life of me I don't understand why, is that you ARE free to practice your religion, up until the point that it starts to IMPINGE on someone else's OTHER constitutional rights.

    Point to me the Constitutional Amendment that says you have a right to have a cake made....

    You can't, ergo yer argument is bullshit..

    123

  230. [230] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    From the description I read, when they were crab-walking the subject down the hall, his hand went into the ladies purse that was there... It's reasonable for the officer to think the subject was going for a weapon...

    It seems strange that he was the only officer to fire if that happened. If he can explain and convince a jury that he believed he was justified in the use of deadly force when he fired and killed the suspect, he will go free.

  231. [231] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Point to me the Constitutional Amendment that says you have a right to have a cake made.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems strange that he was the only officer to fire if that happened. If he can explain and convince a jury that he believed he was justified in the use of deadly force when he fired and killed the suspect, he will go free.

    I agree, that looks bad for him.. However, speaking for me personally, it would not be my place to second guess an officer. If HE felt there was a need to fire all I would/could say is that I did not..

    124

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    Point to me the Constitutional Amendment that says you have a right to have a cake made.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Nothing about a cake in there...

    Maybe you can find it and point it out..

    125

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess not...

    130

  235. [235] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    Nothing about a cake in there...
    Maybe you can find it and point it out..

    Sure: Title II of the Act prohibited discrimination in all...public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce, i.e., any business open to the public.

    The baker in question is seeking several exemptions from the act, by asserting that it violates his first amendment rights to practice his religion (asserting that Christianity doesn't condone homosexuality), and to free speech (because cake-making is an 'art').

    The former argument probably won't fly because it's been tried before, and never swayed the Court, and the latter argument, while novel, is overly broad - one could assert, then, that any occupation could be considered an 'art' subject to the same 1st Amendment exemption, and thereby undermine the entire Civil Rights regime.

  236. [236] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    you come across as the stern school teacher at times - or at least to me, and the huffy middle schooler other times.

    YIKES!

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar..

    Still didn't see anything about a constitutional right to have a cake made...

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    They do NOT include the right to never be offended, the right to perpetual happiness, or the right to claim the fruits of the labors of others.

    Yea.. What HE ^^^^ said...

    hell, I forgot where I was at... I am just gonna start again at 150

    150

  239. [239] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Finding out what other people think about you can be quite a sobering experience.

    :-)

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    Finding out what other people think about you can be quite a sobering experience.

    Not really...

    All you have to do is realize that they are foisting their own prejudices and bigotries onto you..

    Projection... :D

  241. [241] 
    John M wrote:

    [237] Michale

    "Still didn't see anything about a constitutional right to have a cake made..."

    Why is it even any of the baker's business what the cake is used for in the first place???

    If I want to smash the cake in someone's face, feed it to the cat, or use it for a gay wedding, what concern is that of that baker???

  242. [242] 
    Kick wrote:

    Neil

    Playing catch up here.

    Love your posts. :)

  243. [243] 
    Kick wrote:

    LWYH
    197

    They’ve got federal prisons in Florida, I believe, so it could happen.

    Yes, sir! Eglin, Marianna, Pensacola, Tallahassee, and several in Coleman and Miami.

    Breaking the judge’s gag order is very stupid on its own, but to do so with Russian operatives is just priceless! ‘No ties to Russia,’they say! Hahahahaha!

    I know, right!? And don't forget Bayrock, Trump SoHo... speaking of which, has anyone at all heard recently from Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky a.k.a. Felix Sater? Hmmmm... wonder what he has been doing lately. Actually, no I don't wonder. :)

    And for those that believe Mueller charging Flynn for lying means that Trump is innocent since Mueller wouldn’t charge his star witness with lying need to rethink that position. If Flynn’s testimony isn’t necessary to charge Trump because the evidence is strong enough not to need it, then Flynn pleading to lying doesn’t hurt their case against Trump at all. If he claims that he was ordered to lie by Trump, it only makes things worse for Trump!

    Too true, and you don't exactly get a proffer from the FBI if you have nothing to offer. :)

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.]