ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [464] -- Ending GOP Whataboutism

[ Posted Friday, December 8th, 2017 – 18:28 PST ]

In the same week that Time magazine gave its "Person Of The Year" award to the #MeToo movement, three members of Congress resigned because of it. The last week anything similar happened, according to historians, was during the Civil War, over the issue of slavery. On a single day in January of 1861, five senators resigned (as their states seceded from the Union). One historian noted: "If you look over the history of the 20th century in Congress, there just is no comparable event."

John Conyers Jr., Al Franken, and Trent Franks all announced their resignations this week -- two Democrats and one Republican. There are several others under pressure to resign on both sides of the aisle as well, so this may only be the beginning and not the end of the trend.

Politically, so far, the Democrats are in the winning position of taking the moral high road. Democrats, on the whole, have reacted to these scandals by drumming the offenders out. Republicans don't have much of a moral leg to stand on, and are left with weak complaints that the Democrats didn't act fast enough. However, they are hamstrung both by Donald Trump being in the Oval Office and by the special election race in Alabama, where they truly are proving they want to win no matter what the political cost. And now they've even been denied the "whataboutism" argument.

Speaking of Roy Moore, the man Republicans are trying to elect to the United States Senate in Alabama, he was asked recently at a campaign event when America was last "great" (a riff on Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan). Moore revealingly answered: "I think it was great at the time when families were united. Even though we had slavery, they cared for one another." This is the man Republicans want representing Alabama in the Senate. In 2017. "America was last great before the Civil War, even with the slavery!" -- now there's a slogan Republicans should really consider getting behind for next year's midterm elections!

Of course, not all Republicans are quite that willing to commit political suicide. This week, an anti-Trump conservative group led by Evan McMullin spent $500,000 to run two ads which essentially tell conservative Republican voters in Alabama that the best thing they could do at this point is stay home and not vote (the ads don't endorse any candidate, while ripping into Moore). The first of these ads features a staunch Republican voter saying Moore "makes Republicans and us Christians look bad." The second is even more to the point, showing photos of young women while describing the allegations against Moore before asking: "What if she was your little girl? Your daughter? Your sister? What if she was 16 years old, or 15, or 14?" These are conservative ads being run against a Republican Senate candidate, mind you.

When interviewed, McMullin says he "believes that the character of our elected leaders has great influence over the character of our nation. We must oppose candidates that fail even the most basic ethical standards and reject the idea that temporary political advantage justifies abandoning our values. Roy Moore is unworthy of a seat in the U.S. Senate. The credible allegations against him, his history as a judge, and his many discriminatory statements demonstrate that he does not respect the dignity and safety of young girls, has no commitment to the rule of law, and no respect for religious liberty."

Mitt Romney also continues to speak out against Moore, which led Steve Bannon to light into Romney during a Moore rally:

Judge Roy Moore has more honor and integrity in that pinkie finger than your entire family has in its whole DNA. You hid behind your religion. You went to France to be a missionary while guys were dying in rice paddies in Vietnam. Do not talk to me about honor and integrity.

Bannon used to work for Donald Trump, who not only also has over a dozen claims of sexual misconduct against him, but also got multiple deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam. So Bannon's on rather shaky ground, here. Some conservatives seem to recognize this, such as conservative radio host Charlie Sykes, who tweeted:

Actually surprised at the number of Dems who don't seem to realize the significance of Franken/Conyers resignations. Right now GOP/Moore/Trump hiding behind whataboutism. This strips them of that excuse. They go into 2018 exposed.

He's right, and if Moore wins on Tuesday, the problem is not going to go away for Republicans, it is going to intensify.

Speaking of Trump's problems with women, oral arguments were heard on a motion in the Summer Zervos defamation suit against Donald Trump. Trump's lawyers are arguing that the case should be tossed out, even though the Supreme Court ruled (in Bill Clinton's case) that civil lawsuits against sitting presidents could indeed be tried. In the case of Clinton, it was lying during a deposition that got him impeached, please remember. If Trump is deposed what chance does anyone think he has of making it through without repeatedly telling whoppers under oath?

In other #MeToo news, Republican Representative Blake Farenthold is refusing to resign, even though a sexual harassment accusation against him resulted in a settlement of $84,000. Of the taxpayers' money. Farenthold now says he'll pay the money back to the Treasury, but that he's not stepping down. So far, only one Republican member of Congress (Representative Mia Love of Utah) has called on him to step down -- a noticeable difference in how the two parties are handling these scandals. Up until now, the Republicans had the "what about John Conyers and Al Franken" defense to fall back on, but that is no longer operative.

Republican Representative Trent Franks did resign this week, after it was revealed that he asked female staffers if they would be a surrogate mother for his baby. That's a rather odd twist on the general subject of sexual misconduct, and it provoked some rather amusing reactions from journalists. Karen Tumulty tweeted: "Trent Franks to staffers: may I borrow your uterus?" while James Downie asked: "Wait, so is this scandal's name Surrogate-gate or just Surrogate?"

Out of politics (and now out of a job), former Democratic Senator Harold Ford Jr. was just fired for sexual misconduct by Morgan Stanley. And, due to limited space, we aren't even going to attempt to list all the state-level politicians who have also either recently resigned or are facing heat to do so due to sexual misconduct. It truly has been a historic week, that's for sure.

This is all pretty depressing, we realize, so we thought we'd end the subject of sex and politics on a lighter note: The Washington Post celebrated its 140th birthday this week, and admitted to a funny typo it ran a century ago, about Woodrow Wilson: "The President gave himself up for the time being to entering his fiancee." They quickly corrected this (to "entertaining," of course) and then "scrambled to recall papers already on the stands."

The other big issue in Washington this week was Congress creating a joint committee to hash out the differences between the House tax bill and the Senate tax bill. They're tasked with putting together two massively unpopular bills, and they'll probably wind up with a final effort that is even more unpopular. Evidence of this: not even two-thirds of the Republican governors signed a letter supporting the tax cuts. A surprising 13 of the 34 GOP governors refused to sign the letter. Meaning the effort isn't even all that popular within the ranks of elected Republican officials, to say nothing of the country at large.

Republicans seem to really be dropping the ball when it comes to selling their tax plan, which is kind of astonishing because usually they're much better at this sort of thing. The worst example was probably Senator Charles Grassley this week, who said (about removing taxes on heirs inheriting more than $5 million dollars at once): "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." Marie Antoinette would have approved that sentiment, one assumes.

Representative Barbara Lee was not amused, however, tweeting back:

Just so we're clear, Senator Grassley, here's what my constituents are spending "every darn penny" on:

Rent.

Groceries.

Prescriptions.

College tuition.

You just made their lives harder in order to give billionaires massive tax breaks.

Michael Gerson, a Republican political operative, bemoaned the image the party was presenting to the public by asking: "What drives many elected Republicans to embody every destructive, plutocratic stereotype? Do they really need to wear spats and a top hat every time they appear in public?" Good questions.

And, in an incredible fit of political malpractice (even more stunning than Grassley's idiocy), Paul Ryan announced -- before the tax bill has even been finalized -- that now that Republicans have blown a $1.5 trillion hole in the budget, it is time to slash spending for the poor and the elderly -- because of the big, bad deficit, of course. The chutzpah is just stunning.

Here is what Ryan has to say -- again, right before blowing that $1.5 trillion dollar hole in the debt: "We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit.... Frankly, it's the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements -- because that's really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking."

Orrin Hatch agrees: "We're spending ourselves into bankruptcy. Now, let's just be honest about it: We're in trouble. This country is in deep debt. You don't help the poor by not solving the problems of debt, and you don't help the poor by continually pushing more and more liberal programs through." From a different article, Hatch identified what he'll be targeting -- children's health programs: "The reason CHIP's having trouble is because we don't have money anymore, and to just add more and more spending and more and more spending, and you can look at the rest of the bill for the more and more spending." No word on whether he was wearing spats and/or a top hat when he said this.

Jared Bernstein had the best response to this:

Turning to Hatch's statement, I cannot state the following adamantly enough:

Because they have used the deficit to pay for a tax cut that blatantly favors the rich over the rest, Republicans have forfeited their ability to tell us what we can and can't afford.

Meanwhile, new figures out show that: "The share of wealth owned by America’s top 1 percent of households has reached 40 percent, according to a new paper. The richest Americans now own more wealth than at any other point in the past 50 years."

Historically speaking, after comparing this tax plan to all other tax reform in the past 50 years, the only conclusion to be drawn is: "It's probably the most regressive tax cut in the past 50 years, but there's not enough data to speak with absolute confidence. The Bush tax cuts were pretty regressive too.... That said, it is hard to find a tax plan that has done less for the middle class."

OK, this is far too long already, so let's just quickly review what else is taking place while everyone's paying attention to the big political stories:

Donald Trump announced America will be moving its embassy to Jerusalem, which has already unleashed a wave of violence which is likely only going to intensify. Trump can now kiss any hope he ever had for a Middle East peace deal goodbye, since he has so obviously thrown his lot in with Israel's side.

Congress quietly kicked the budget can two more weeks down the road, so look for some last-minute drama in Washington, right before Christmas.

Donald Trump shrank two National Monuments by millions of acres this week, prompting the outdoors brand Patagonia to change their website to a stark warning: "The President Stole Your Land."

The wedding cake case from Colorado (where a baker refused a gay couple's request to make them a cake) made it to the Supreme Court this week, so everyone's wondering which way Justice Kennedy is going to vote (because his will likely be the determining vote).

It was announced (but not noticed much by anyone) that there are four times as many American troops in Syria as previously acknowledged by the Pentagon.

And the Republicans are utterly failing to support those troops when they get home, too: "Four days after Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin held a big Washington event to tout the Trump administration's promise to house all homeless vets, the agency did an about-face, telling advocates it was pulling resources from a major housing program. The VA said it was essentially ending a special $460 million program that has dramatically reduced homelessness among chronically sick and vulnerable veterans." Par for the course, but just imagine if a Democratic administration had done anything remotely that cruel to veterans.

And a few final items unrelated to the rest of the week's news. We offer our sincere condolences to Vice President Mike Pence's family, since their cat died this week. The Pences tweeted: "We will all miss Pickle, our very chatty, sweet kitty of 16 years." We are strictly non-partisan in our love of political pets here, so we mourn Pickle's loss with the Pences.

And we'll end with a few tweets, just because. Donald and Melania Trump both tweeted messages out in honor of the anniversary of Pearl Harbor. The president misquoted Franklin Delano Roosevelt, while the first lady got the year of the attack wrong. Whoops! Again, just imagine what the reaction would have been if a Democrat had done such a thing....

But the best news from Twitterland is that even though Trump has been the most prolific president on Twitter ever, the year's most retweeted message came from none other than Barack Obama -- a message of love that has now been retweeted 1.7 million times. So, obviously, it's not about quantities of tweets, it's about the quality of what gets tweeted.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

In keeping with the times, we're going to award the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to Democratic women officeholders. While fewer than ten percent of Republicans in Congress are women, on the Democratic side the proportions are a lot better. This week, Democratic women (particularly in the Senate) flexed their political muscles. Whether you agree or disagree that Al Franken needed to go, you have to admit that it would have been almost impossible for him to stand up to the united Democratic women calling for him to step down.

This was all triggered by the seventh and eighth accuser of Franken going public, and it was initially led by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand's voice alone might not have been enough, but she was quickly joined by almost all the other Democratic women in the Senate.

Contrast this to the stunning silence on the other side of the aisle, as Republicans in Congress shy away from calling for cleaning up their own ranks. When Republicans are caught in sexual misconduct scandals, few voices are raised calling for them to step down.

On the Democratic side, however, a tide of such calls rose up, which led to the resignations of John Conyers and Al Franken within the same week.

That is real political power. And it's impressive -- again, whether or not you agreed with their position, you have to admit the show of strength was indeed impressive. So to all the Democratic women who showed just how powerful a caucus they can be within the Democratic Party, you have earned this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[There are simply too many of these women to list individually, so if you are represented by one of these women in the Senate, you can use the Senate webpage to get their contact information, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one, alas, is pretty easy. Senator Al Franken has disappointed millions. First, for his behavior; and second, for the potential future political career he will now not have.

Franken, up to this week, was going to attempt to tough it out. He was planning on fighting the charges in the Ethics Committee in an attempt to clear his name. However, the number of women accusing him hit a critical mass this week, and after the Senate Democratic women jointly called for his resignation, toughing it out really disappeared as a viable option.

Democrats were already feeling the heat, as Republicans supporting Roy Moore were using John Conyers and Al Franken in classic "whataboutism" style. By removing Conyers and Franken, this removes this entire line of attack, making it clear which party prioritizes morals and which does not. But to accomplish this, Franken had to go.

To his credit, when faced with this inevitability, Franken dutifully stepped down. He put party above his own personal career, which is pretty rare in this day and age. There was nothing really stopping him from announcing he was going to continue to tough it out in an attempt to salvage his reputation, but he knew how bad this would be for the party as a whole, going forward. By stepping down, he completely ended the "What about Al Franken?" attacks from Republicans.

Being a comedian, he said in his resignation speech, he was fully aware of the irony in his having to step down: "There is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office, and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party." But again, if Democrats really want to successfully use this as a political bludgeon, it was really required that Franken had to go.

Of course, as we wrote yesterday, he could always run for office again. It's really up to the voters what they can accept and not accept in a politician, after all. So the possibility of a comeback isn't completely out of the question. That will be up to Minnesota voters to decide, though.

We have to admit, we'll miss hearing Franken's voice in the Senate. He had a real knack for putting progressive ideas into language that anyone could understand, which is rare in any politician. We can't remember a single instance where Al Franken was on the wrong side of an important political issue, in fact (which is more than we can say about a lot of Democrats).

Different people are disappointed in Franken for different reasons, of course. Some are disappointed that he resigned, for instance. But for us, we are mostly disappointed that we won't get the chance to see if he could successfully run for president in 2020. He certainly would have been the most interesting candidate on the Democratic side, but now that is just not going to happen. But for whatever reason, it's pretty obvious that Al Franken was the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Contact Senator Al Franken on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions (but you'd better do it quick, because he won't be there for much longer).]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 464 (12/8/17)

Democrats are in a unique position right now. They are taking the moral high road, and sticking to a zero tolerance policy towards sexual harassment. To be politically successful at this, however, they've got to be bold in taking this stand.

Now is not the time for nuance. Instead, it is a time for drawing a clear contrast between how seriously Democrats take the issue, and how morally compromised Republicans are with Donald Trump in the White House and Roy Moore possibly heading to the Senate.

Hammer this home. In the long run, this is going to be a winning strategy for Democrats. The more the Republican Party has to wear these millstones around their neck, the more they're going to drag themselves down into the sewer. So help them along, by all means!

 

1
   Democrats respect women

Start with the most basic way to frame the issue.

"Democrats have proven that they respect women. Democrats respect women's right to not be sexually harassed by anyone -- no matter how powerful, no matter what office they currently hold. We are saying loudly that this is no longer acceptable and it is no longer enough to brush such things under a carpet. Every daughter, every sister, every mother in this country deserves a basic level of respect no matter where she is -- and that includes working in the halls of Congress. Contrast this with the shifting moral sands of the Republican Party, who puts women second to gaining some sliver of partisan advantage. Democrats are confident that every woman voter in this country is paying close attention to what is going on right now -- as they should. We're also confident that women will remember this when they walk into the voting booth."

 

2
   Have you stopped beating your wife?

That has always been the classic example of an unanswerable question for a politician to be asked. But now we need to add a few more.

"I would like to ask every Republican currently in Congress, and every Republican candidate for office in next year's midterms the following questions: Do you support the accused child molester or not? It's important to get these things on the record, so where exactly do you stand on a man accused of abusing a 14-year-old girl? If you do support Roy Moore, an even wider question must also be asked: How do you stand on pedophilia in general? You may think these questions are revolting and disgusting, but given the candidate Republicans are now officially supporting, they demand answers."

 

3
   How about Moore's ideas on slavery?

Don't limit it just to Moore's sexual history, either. There are all sorts of issues he's vulnerable on, so many in fact that if he does get elected next week, he will doubtless prove to be the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats, every time he utters one of these gems.

"While campaigning, Roy Moore was asked when the last time he thought America had been great. His answer, and I quote: I think it was great at the time when families were united. Even though we had slavery, they cared for one another. Unquote. So every Republican who supports Moore needs to be asked one further question: Do you agree with Moore that the last time America was 'great' was when white people were allowed to own black people? Is that your measure of greatness, too? Moore seems to have a very favorable opinion of antebellum America, so do you agree with him or not?"

 

4
   Moral relativism!

Throw this one back in the Republicans' faces, since they so obviously deserve it.

"Republicans, not so long ago, used to denounce what they called 'moral relativism.' According to them, morals were set in stone, not something that changed depending on the circumstance. Republicans used this term to disparage Democrats on all sorts of subjects, including treating gay people as equals. Homosexuality was inherently bad, Republicans told us, and Democrats were being moral relativists and revisionists to suggest otherwise. Roy Moore still believes this, I have no doubt. But the interesting thing is that now it is the Republicans arguing that putting another GOP vote in the Senate is far more important than things like morals. How times have changed, eh? Democrats are now the ones accurately pointing out that Republicans are simply not practicing what they've been preaching for so long."

 

5
   How low can they go?

Everybody Limbo down!

"The entire Republican Party seems to now be doing a collective political version of the Limbo. This didn't start with the candidacy of Donald Trump, but it certainly has accelerated since then. Each scandal that comes along is rationalized by Republicans that used to actually pride themselves on their supposed 'family values.' But it's hard to square that with Trump's antics, and with Roy Moore things are spiraling even more out of control for Republicans. Each time the bar is lowered, and they contort themselves to dance under it again. Which leads me to the famous Limbo question: How low can they go? Every time you think they've hit bottom, they go lower. You don't hear that 'family values' phrase much these days from the Republicans, do you? They're too busy twisting their souls into ever-lower positions, I guess."

 

6
   So much for law and order, too

Again, hit Republicans anywhere they are vulnerable, especially their current lack of any morals whatsoever.

"Remember when Republicans used to portray themselves of the party which supported law and order? They are now lining up behind a man who -- twice -- was removed from his judicial position for flat-out ignoring the Supreme Court. In addition, Joe Arpaio is considering also running for the Senate, even though he was convicted of a federal crime. President Trump pardoned him, and I certainly didn't hear many Republicans protesting the move. Trump himself seems bent on attacking the F.B.I., as a prelude to more dirt being uncovered from his campaign. Whatever happened to Republicans supporting law and order?!? They now seem to be the party of lawlessness and disorder, instead."

 

7
   Give that man a baby!

Just to be clear, we're not saying Roy Moore is a baby-killer. Perish the thought. But all week long, the "Free Hat" episode of South Park has been running through our mind. In it, the boys get caught up in a movement to free Hat McCollough, a man convicted of killing babies. In true South Park fashion, this is played as ludicrously as possible -- although, notably, the crowd was only trying to free him from prison, not trying to get him elected him to the Senate. There are some things too outlandish even for absurdist satire, right? But the real reason it now seems germane is the one scene where the crowd proves there is absolutely nothing that cannot be rationalized away -- or even defended.

STAN: It's just that, you know, he killed twenty-three babies.

MAN IN CROWD: Well, yeah, but it was in self-defense!

CROWD: Yeah!

CARTMAN: He... killed... twenty-three babies in self-defense?

SKEETER: Hat was attacked maliciously and unprovoked by a gang of babies in West Town Park. When that many babies get together they can be like piranha.

MAN IN CROWD: Three eyewitnesses testified that if Hat hadn't killed those babies, they'd have killed him!

CROWD: Yeah! Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat!

When the movement actually does succeed in freeing Hat, later in the episode, Hat makes an appearance before the triumphant crowd. Now, we're not saying that this is what will happen if Roy Moore gets elected Tuesday, but at this point absolutely nothing would really surprise us.

HAT MCCOLLOUGH: And, uh, I just wonder if I could get a baby real quick?

SKEETER: Sure. Give that man a baby!

CROWD: Yeah! Woohoohoo!

-- 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

 

148 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [464] -- Ending GOP Whataboutism”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re Talking Point No 1, "Democrats respect women!"

    Then howcum starting with the Weinstein guy who pretty much got the sexual harassment ball rolling, the famous folks, politicians and most especially Hollywood types who have been accused of such behavior, have been OVERWHELMINGLY lefties, liberals, and therefor presumably DEMOCRATS??

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Hammer this home. This is going to be a winning strategy for Democrats."

    Maybe you should wait until after you write your article to smoke whatever you are smoking.

    The best way to blow the opportunity of 2018 and the possible special Senate elections and long serving congressmen resigning (assuming there are no women we don't know about yet) is to repeat the mistake of 2016 and try to pass off the same we are not as bad as the Republicans argument.

    That will only depress turnout because people are not buying it anymore.

    The people the Democrats need no longer buy the false promises because it is clear the Democrats are also controlled by Big Money.

    This is no time for nuance.

    It is time to force the Democrats to draw a clear contrast between candidates that have the moral integrity to refuse Big Money and the Republicans and Democrats that take Big Money.

    So please stop cheerleading the Big Money Democrats and the not as bad argument that got us where we are
    and start fighting for what is right.

    Otherwise, the answer to "Who is the guy with the glasses in the picture with Al Franken?" would have to be a quote from the original Ghostbusters movie:

    "It's the Staypuft Marshmallow Man."

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And before everyone gets all upset about the Staypuft Marshmallow Man comment, let me just point out I could have used:
    "Yes it's true. This man has no dick."

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, they are hamstrung both by Donald Trump being in the Oval Office and by the special election race in Alabama, where they truly are proving they want to win no matter what the political cost.

    Yea, cuz Dumbocrats would NEVER act like that, eh? :D

    Donald Trump announced America will be moving its embassy to Jerusalem, which has already unleashed a wave of violence which is likely only going to intensify. Trump can now kiss any hope he ever had for a Middle East peace deal goodbye, since he has so obviously thrown his lot in with Israel's side.

    Yea.. The unmitigated GALL of President Trump to take our BEST ally's side against a group of terrorist thugs..

    APPALLING!!!!!

    The wedding cake case from Colorado (where a baker refused a gay couple's request to make them a cake) made it to the Supreme Court this week, so everyone's wondering which way Justice Kennedy is going to vote (because his will likely be the determining vote).

    It's clear which way Kennedy is going to vote...

    [There are simply too many of these women to list individually, so if you are represented by one of these women in the Senate,

    Really?? TOO many women in Congress to list??

    But I thought our government was a BASTION of sexism!???

    284

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Re Talking Point No 1, "Democrats respect women!"

    Then howcum starting with the Weinstein guy who pretty much got the sexual harassment ball rolling, the famous folks, politicians and most especially Hollywood types who have been accused of such behavior, have been OVERWHELMINGLY lefties, liberals, and therefor presumably DEMOCRATS??

    Yep, yep, yep, yep....

    No one will address that little factoid...

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    The media's Russia probe meltdown: 3 screw-ups in one week

    The media is having a rough week when it comes to reporting on the federal government's multiple ongoing Russia investigations. Three stories in the past seven days have crumbled under greater scrutiny.

    Why it matters: In today's hyperpolarized world, "fake news" has become a refrain to describe stories that observers on both sides of the spectrum decide that they don't like. These reporting issues by esteemed media organizations give credence to that ignorance, which further damages the value of insightful, impactful reporting — especially when it comes to one of the biggest, most polarizing stories of our political age: the Russia probe.

    The misses

    Flynn's testimony: Last Friday, ABC News reported that former national security advisor Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that President Trump, while still a candidate, directed him to contact Russian officials. But later in the day, the network issued a "clarification" that the direction came when Trump was president-elect. That changed the impact of the story entirely as it's a common occurrence for presidential transition teams to reach out to foreign governments.

    Deutsche Bank subpoena: Reuters and Bloomberg both reported on Tuesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for information on accounts relating to President Trump and his family members — seemingly confirming that Mueller had expanded his probe to investigate the president's financial dealings. The WSJ defused that bombshell in a follow-up report stating that the subpoenas actually dealt with "people or entities close to Mr. Trump."

    WikiLeaks emails: CNN reported this morning that senior Trump campaign officials, including Trump himself, received an email from an unknown sender on September 4, 2016 that linked them to what could have been unreleased WikiLeaks documents. WaPo issued their own report later in the afternoon that the email was actually sent on September 14 — and linked to a trove of documents that WikiLeaks had publicly released a day earlier.
    https://www.axios.com/the-medias-russia-probe-meltdown-3-screw-ups-in-one-week-2515978886.html

    When it comes to President Trump, you simply cannot trust ANYTHING the Leftist MSM says..

    This is fact

    286

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay... all right...

    If ya'all want to judge soon to be Senator Roy Moore by the man he may have been 40 years ago then that leaves you no choice...

    You MUST judge Odumbo by the man he was 10 years ago... The man who explicitly stated for the record that marriage was between a man and a woman...

    You MUST judge the Democrat Party by the Party it was 100 years ago.. The Party of racism and the Party that gave us the KKK...

    If ya'all are logical and rational you MUST pronounce judgment...

    My guess is you won't because well.. yunno... "That's different.."

    Yea.. SURE it is.... :^/

    287

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh and let's judge Teddy Kennedy on the man HE was 40 years ago...

    Ya'all want to do that???

    Of course not.. Kennedy has a -D after his name. Soon To Be Senator Roy Moore has an -R after his name, so he is not afforded the same consideration...

    Ya'all are so unbelievably transparent in your Party bigotry..

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    Then howcum starting with the Weinstein guy who pretty much got the sexual harassment ball rolling, the famous folks, politicians and most especially Hollywood types who have been accused of such behavior, have been OVERWHELMINGLY lefties, liberals, and therefor presumably DEMOCRATS??

    Did you miss the point about Republican women not speaking up? Or that a Fox & Friends host thinks it normal to be kissed on the lips by a man in an elevator. Liberal women are standing up for themselves and calling out the men in their circles who are predators.

    Republicans are still threatening women with lawsuits and scarlet letters. And even if they do speak up, Republican voters like you and Michale go into full attack mode. It takes far more courage to speak out against any Republican man at the moment, and so most victims are keeping quiet.

    I feel sorry for my friend who is an evangelical pastor. He is genuinely passionate about abortion, and I respect that, but he feels that the only party that represents what he believes is right on a burning issue to him is getting everything else so wrong at the moment. From tax cuts to the rich (not what Jesus would do) to attacking victims of sexual assault, he feels politically homeless. Other ex-Republicans have been turned off by the denial of basic science from the right and the populist vulgarity of the middle finger movement that characterizes basic human decency as "political correctness".

    As usual, a party gains momentum as the pendulum swings in their favor then overplay their hand. As the pendulum swings back, it tends to sweep away the extremes first. It is going to be a fun decade as the demographics change and Republicans start to eat the more bitter tasting humble pie.

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    If ya'all want to judge soon to be Senator Roy Moore by the man he may have been 40 years ago then that leaves you no choice...

    Let's judge him on the man he was in September, when he announced that the era of slavery was the greatest time in America.

    Sorry CW, you were wrong about the "whataboutism" - Michale is dragging up dead politicians from the past to excuse Moore. This is the underlying factor that we have to address, denial, be it in the scientific field or the "whataboutism" of politics is not a bug in the vocal Republican mindset at the moment, it is a feature. Without it, they might have to deal with reality, and that isn't looking too good for them at the moment - a sexual deviant in the White House, a child molester running for Senate in Alabama - cognitive dissonance demands that they need to compare their flawed candidates to the alternative - but look at the comparisons - CRS brings up Weinstein for example - look guys, if your comparisons are a recognized sexual predator you might want to take a step back and rethink your support for the "whatabout" you are defending.

  11. [11] 
    neilm wrote:

    No one will address that little factoid...

    What is it like being continually wrong ... oh yes, you don't know because reality doesn't interfere with your game of "us and them", only gloating and scoring points.

    Time to leave the middle school playground Michale.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did you miss the point about Republican women not speaking up? Or that a Fox & Friends host thinks it normal to be kissed on the lips by a man in an elevator. Liberal women are standing up for themselves and calling out the men in their circles who are predators.

    Well, I am glad we didn't stoop to bigotry.. :D

    Let's judge him on the man he was in September, when he announced that the era of slavery was the greatest time in America.

    That's not what he said, but why confuse yer rant with facts..

    Sorry CW, you were wrong about the "whataboutism" - Michale is dragging up dead politicians from the past to excuse Moore.

    No, I am simply forcing ya'all to adhere to your own principles equally..

    Or just admit that you have different standards for Democrats than you do for Republicans..

    CRS brings up Weinstein for example - look guys, if your comparisons are a recognized sexual predator you might want to take a step back and rethink your support for the "whatabout" you are defending.

    No one is defending the "whatabout"...

    No one is even REFERRING to the "whatabout".. While I won't speak for CRS, *MY* point is ya'all and your hypocrisy...

    Has NOTHING to do with the "whatabout" whatsoever...

    290

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting study about 45's lying shows that he habitually lies 6 times per day (prior study showed that on average people lie about 1.5 times per day).

    Also, about half of normal lying is to make other people feel good ("no those jeans don't make you look fat") vs. self serving lying. Over 90% of 45's lies are self serving. Also, the level of cruelty in 45's lies is unique - off the charts if he had been a participant in the study.

    Worryingly, the count is increasing and lately 45 has been lying at a rate of 9 per day.

    I don't want to read too much into his recent slurring - frankly I thought he just had a dry mouth, but since he got so much flak for "pulling a Rubio" he refrained from taking a sip of water. However his grip on reality isn't getting any tighter.

    Link to study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8656340

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh and let's judge Teddy Kennedy on the man HE was 40 years ago...

    Ya'all want to do that???

    Poster example of "whataboutism".

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    But if you DO what to delve into the realm of defending the "whatabout", I have two words for you..

    Bill Clinton....

    291

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Poster example of "whataboutism".

    Nope.. Poster example of your differing standards dependent on the -D/-R after a person's name...

    292

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    15] Michale wrote:
    But if you DO what to delve into the realm of defending the "whatabout", I have two words for you..

    Bill Clinton....

    You are the only person who ever brings up Bill Clinton - and then in the form of "what about Bill Clinton" when you can't defend 45's sexual assaults.

    I mean, if you are trying to fool yourself into believing that 90% of your arguments aren't of the "whatabout" variety, bringing up one of the comparisons seems like shooting yourself in the foot.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are the only person who ever brings up Bill Clinton - and then in the form of "what about Bill Clinton" when you can't defend 45's sexual assaults.

    Yea, that's kinda my point.. If ya'all were rational and logical about things ya'all would acknowledge Clinton is worse than what ya'all accuse Trump of being..

    Unless and until you can do that, ya'all's argument has no moral or ethical foundation..

    I mean, if you are trying to fool yourself into believing that 90% of your arguments aren't of the "whatabout" variety, bringing up one of the comparisons seems like shooting yourself in the foot.

    Not at all.. Ya'all are forced to TRY and make it a whataboutism argument because you have no defense for my point...

    As with practically EVERY debate we have, ya have to move the goal posts because you can't debate the point..

    The point being that ya'all have absolutely no moral foundation to condemn Republicans until ya'all clean yer own house first..

    It's really simple..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are the only person who ever brings up Bill Clinton - and then in the form of "what about Bill Clinton" when you can't defend 45's sexual assaults.

    I am also constrained to point out that there is no need to defend President Trump's sexual assaults because President Trump is completely and 1000% INNOCENT of all accusations...

    And THAT fact really burns ya'all up, eh?? :D

    294

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's judge him on the man he was in September, when he announced that the era of slavery was the greatest time in America.

    Is a man judged by a single statement??

    OK, let's judge Odumbo by a single statement..

    "I firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman only"

    Will you judge Odumbo by that single statement??

    Of course not. Odumbo has a -D after his name, so that's different.. :^/

    Until you clean up yer own house, you don't have a leg to stand on... :D

    295

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's judge him on the man he was in September, when he announced that the era of slavery was the greatest time in America.

    Is a man judged by a single statement??

    OK, let's judge Odumbo by a single statement..

    "I firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman only"

    Will you judge Odumbo by that single statement??

    Of course not. Odumbo has a -D after his name, so that's different.. :^/

    Until you clean up yer own house, you don't have a leg to stand on... :D

    295

  22. [22] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [9]

    Yeah, actually I DID "miss the point" about Rep women "not speaking up". But I suspect it's not a legitimate point anyway.

    I can believe that Dem politicians only hire Dem secretaries/girl Fridays etc., but remember, the sexual harassment game is centered in the Hollywood/TV/entertainment business, and I'm not buying that the likes of Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose and now the 'harasser du jour" Dustin Hoffman, never manage to hire or be cast opposite a single Rep woman.

    Your rebuttal reeks of desperation!

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, actually I DID "miss the point" about Rep women "not speaking up". But I suspect it's not a legitimate point anyway.

    Heh

    Your rebuttal reeks of desperation!

    Desperation is such a strong word...

    It fits, but it's still a strong word.. :D

    296

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    President Trump is completely and 1000% INNOCENT of all accusations...

    And THAT fact really burns ya'all up, eh?? :D

    He is as guilty as sin and has described his behavior and why he does it. You jus can't handle the fact that you voted for a criminal, and a sexual assault criminal at that.

    I understand your need to absolve yourself of this stain, but for Pete's sake, show some decency and dump this monster.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    He is as guilty as sin and has described his behavior and why he does it. You jus can't handle the fact that you voted for a criminal, and a sexual assault criminal at that.

    Nope.. President Trump is COMPLETELY innocent..

    You can dispute this FACT all you want, but it nonetheless, remains factual...

    I understand your need to absolve yourself of this stain, but for Pete's sake, show some decency and dump this monster.

    President Trump is making America Great Again... Only a fool or someone who hates this country would be against that...

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Your rebuttal reeks of desperation!

    Time will tell. I mean, you are claiming that only Democrats are sex offenders when there is a Republican sex offender in the White House and another on the ticket in Alabama. This is just the most prominent list, a more complete list would include Mark Souder (R-IN), Chris Lee (R-NY), Scott DesJarlais, Herman Cain who had to suspend his 2012 run for President, Vance McAllister, Blake Farenhold (R-TX) who owes us $84,000 for his tax-payer funded get out of jail card, Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Tim Murphy (R-PA), or Joe Barton (R-TX)?

    If the Republican Party would stop attacking the victims, the floodgates would reall open and you'd be even more desperate ;)

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nope.. President Trump is COMPLETELY innocent..

    My God you are naive. Whatever you have to tell yourself. I mean it isn't like he admitted it on a bus with an open mic or anything :)

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, no one wants to comment on the explosion of Anti-Trump fake news??? :D

    298

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    Did I forget Wes Goodman (R-OH) from my list of sex Republican offenders?

    And Tony Cornisg (R-MN)?

    And Cliff Hite (R-OH)?

    And Steven T. McLaughlin (R-NY)?

    And ex-House Speaker Jeff Hoover (R-KY)?

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, no one wants to comment on the explosion of Anti-Trump fake news??? :D

    Some mistakes were made. They were corrected.

    45 is still a sex offender. Moore still wrote in a 16-year-old's year book and attacked her, and stripped a 14-year-old to her underwear and sexually assaulted her.

    Care to talk about that?

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why is it Michale that only the left wing media apologizes and corrects its mistakes and the right wing media doubles down on obvious lies?

    And why is it that Franken and Corben have the decency to resign and Moore and 45, who both committed far worse acts, get a free pass from the right wing?

    Decency, if you don't act on it when you should, it just hurts later.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    My God you are naive. Whatever you have to tell yourself. I mean it isn't like he admitted it on a bus with an open mic or anything :)

    As I have PROVEN beyond ANY doubt... He didn't..

    You only read into what you want to hear....

    The FACTS are completely different..

    It is simply undeniable that President Trump is 1000% *INNOCENT* of all the accusations against him..

    299

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why is it Michale that only the left wing media apologizes and corrects its mistakes and the right wing media doubles down on obvious lies?

    For example.....??????

    And why is it that Franken and Corben have the decency to resign and Moore and 45, who both committed far worse acts, get a free pass from the right wing?

    Because we have this thing in the US.. INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty in a court of law..

    It's not my fault or the GOP's fault that Dumbocrats don't understand that concept...

    Decency, if you don't act on it when you should, it just hurts later.

    Which is why the Dumbocrat Party is really REALLY hurting. :D

    300

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Are you ignoring all the Republican politicians I listed Michale?

    Do you just not want that to have happened?

    Can't you admit that there are some Republican politicians who face up to their actions and belatedly act with decency, and those that lie and attack victims - you know, the ones you like, 45 and Moore?

  35. [35] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [34]

    I thought we were trying to dump "Whataboutism"? Isn't that "whataboutism" writ large???

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you ignoring all the Republican politicians I listed Michale?

    All you have ever "listed" was Moore and Trump..

    And as I keep pointing out to you, they are COMPLETELY INNOCENT of any of the accusations..

    This is fact...

    301

  37. [37] 
    John M wrote:

    [36] Michale

    "All you have ever "listed" was Moore and Trump..

    And as I keep pointing out to you, they are COMPLETELY INNOCENT of any of the accusations..

    This is fact..."

    NO, THIS IS NOT FACT. In what court of law were they acquitted??? Did we all miss something???

    Until that happens, please stop with your totally unsupported bullshit opinions.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some mistakes were made. They were corrected.

    No... If they were "mistakes" then some would be against Trump and some would be in Trump's favor..

    These were NOTHING but intentional deceit in an attempt to attack President Trump...

    Can you REALLY blame Trump supporters when they ignore media reports of Trump's alleged actions???

    93% Of Reports from the MSM are NEGATIVE...

    OF COURSE Trump supporters are going to ignore the BS...

    302

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    NO, THIS IS NOT FACT. In what court of law were they acquitted??? Did we all miss something???

    Yes.. Ya'all apparently DID "miss something"... The entire foundation of US jurisprudence...

    Here in America, we don't go to court to PROVE our innocence... Americans are *INNOCENT* of any and all crimes until proven GUILTY in a court of law...

    In short, Trump doesn't have to go to court to PROVE his innocence..

    He has to be taken to court to PROVE his GUILT....

    Trump (and Moore) are INNOCENT of all accusations against them..

    I am somewhat surprised that you would doubt this..

    Oh wait. Yea, I remember..

    In your world, DEMCORATS are always innocent and Republicans are always guilty..

    I had forgotten..

    303

  40. [40] 
    TheStig wrote:

    aquila non capit muscas

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    aquila non capit muscas

    Gesundheit...

    304

  42. [42] 
    neilm wrote:

    I thought we were trying to dump "Whataboutism"? Isn't that "whataboutism" writ large???

    Are you kidding - I'm all over "whataboutism" at the moment :)

    The Democrats may be unilaterally disarming but I'm not.

    Moore should drop out and 45 should resign. Times have changes and overwhelming evidence of sexual abuse needs to be addressed, not ignored or attacked.

    You, yourself listed all the groups and Democratic politicians who are getting their comeuppance, and what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

    45 needs to resign. Decent Republicans need to call on him to step down clearly and loudly.

    Moore needs to drop out and prove that a vote in the Senate isn't worth dragging a whole party any further into the stinking gutter 45 is wallowing in.

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    45 is averaging 9 lies per day yet Republicans believe him over umpteen women and his own spoken testimony.

    What is wrong with Republicans?

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    For example, 45 has lied 40 times to date that the tax cuts are the biggest in U.S. history.

    40 times.

    And 50 times he lied about the U.S. having the highest corporate tax rate or is the highest taxed country in the World.

    50 times.

    And what do we hear from Republicans - 45 is to be believed over 19 women who claim he sexually assaulted them.

    You can't really believe we think you aren't ignoring reality because it is convenient, right?

    45's lie total to date (since the inauguration) is 1,628 in 298 days.

    And his batting average is increasing - he is lying more now than he did in the early days - although the whole inauguration crowd lie was one of the funniest.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    PTDS is really REALLY strong today. :D

    304

  46. [46] 
    Paula wrote:

    The "Dems deal with predators/Repubs don't" argument isn't in and of itself, a strategy.

    As a "position" it may attract or please Dems/Dem-leaners. Which is fine. It may attract Republicans who have the decency to reject the unbelievably disgusting position the GOP is currently taking, which not only welcomes sexual predators, it denies their existence on the right at the same time.

    What it will NOT do is cause idiot-rightwing-spigots to do squat. They will continue to scream "Bill Clinton!", etc. It will not cause the traitorous rightwing media to do squat -- they will continue to scream "Bill Clinton" and "Benghazi!" and whatever lies are on their daily list of talking points. It will not cause the MSM to cease false-equivalency stories or questions.

    That's what Dem leaders better grasp, and quickly. "Doing the right thing" is only a starting point. They have to, finally, start dealing with the fact that the GOP doesn't play by the rules, rejects all norms, and will abuse the system until forced to stop. NO STRATEGY THAT RELIES ON THE GOP TO "DO THE RIGHT THING VOLUNTARILY" WILL WORK. The GOP will say "no". They will welcome Roy Moore, just as they cover for Blotus.

    Good piece on some of this: https://www.gq.com/story/republicans-always-count-on-democrats-to-do-the-right-thing

    The key quote: " After all, the reason why conservative movements have had such success is arguably because their opponents have remained static."

    GOP started down an amoral/wicked path years ago. Every step of the way, as GOP went worse and worse and worse Dems have acted like "things were normal". That, above all else, has been their mistake.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10251

    The fascist Left strikes again...

    305

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOP started down an amoral/wicked path years ago. Every step of the way, as GOP went worse and worse and worse Dems have acted like "things were normal". That, above all else, has been their mistake.

    Well, I am sure glad ya'all don't stoop to bigotry.. :D

  49. [49] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    I question the accuracy of your accounting of Trump's lies. I've been following them, and I come up with the figure of 11.837 lies per day. You've gotta pay closer attention.

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [46] Thank you. That piece, plus the piece for Slate by Dahlia Lithwick that's linked to within that piece, and a similar recent piece by Ruth Marcus, all make the same familiar point: when Democrats go high, while Republicans go low, are Democrats just being chumps?

    It all reminds me of Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football. I shouldn't have to explain that, because it's depressingly familiar: at various times in the recent past, Democrats have relied on Evangelicals to reject open vulgarity and bad behavior, on conservative Deficit Hawks to reject trillion dollar boondoggles, and on National Security Hawks to reject open overtures to America's adversaries, only to see each of those groups end up voting enthusiastically for candidates and programs that unabashedly trash those principles.

    And if I got a bitcoin for every time I've heard a Democrat bemoan the tendency of low income Republicans, black republicans, hispanic republicans, female republicans, and elderly republicans to vote against their own self-interests, I could be a Winklevoss twin.

    And yet, whenever Democrats gather these days, the subject comes up: why can't we win those people over? What are we doing wrong? What about independents? Why can't we attract them?

    Sorry sunshine, but most 'independents' are just closet partisans, who voted against the popular vote (i.e., Democrats) in 2000, 2004 and 2016.

    Most observers put the number of 'true' independents in the 4-5 percent range, most of them being folks who don't even want to be bothered, and probably won't vote.

    So all of the anguished hand-wringing that went into the decision that vanquished Franken was for naught. Save for the temporary and ephemeral bragging rights it bestows upon the Democratic congress, it accomplishes exactly nothing for Democrats politically, and we need to understand that as we move forward.

    So when Moore wins next Tuesday in Alabama, we shouldn't be surprised, nor should we wonder where all of the 'good' republicans went to. They will do what they always do, and have always done - vote with their cultural tribe, for the most part.

    2018 will not be a war of ideas, it will be a war of attrition in which turnout determines outcomes, as it did in last month's Virginia primary. If Democratic enthusiasm remains strong, and if GOTV efforts are vigorous, we will win.

    But let's stop pretending that appeals to Republican decency or consistency will have any effect on those races, or that Democrats can claim the 'high ground' in any of these contests, because we've already been dragged into the GOP swamp, where any perceived high ground is merely a cruel illusion.

  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So Republicans are screaming bloody murder because it was revealed that some Democrats are on Mueller's team.

    That's wrong, they say, because Democrats might be biased against Trump.

    Some of those same Democrats were also on the team that investigated Hillary.

    That's wrong, they say, because Democrats might have been biased in favor of Hillary.

    To recap: Democrats can't investigate Democrats, and Democrats can't investigate Republicans.

    And both Comey and Mueller are Republicans who are too biased, they say, to investigate Trump.

    That's what pretzel logic looks like!

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what pretzel logic looks like!

    No... That's what FACTS look like....

    309

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    The U.S. Media Yesterday Suffered its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages: Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened

    Glenn Greenwald
    December 9 2017, 10:17 a.m.
    FRIDAY WAS ONE of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN, with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation’s largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened.

    The spectacle began on Friday morning at 11:00 am EST, when the Most Trusted Name in News™ spent 12 straight minutes on air flamboyantly hyping an exclusive bombshell report that seemed to prove that WikiLeaks, last September, had secretly offered the Trump campaign, even Donald Trump himself, special access to the DNC emails before they were published on the internet. As CNN sees the world, this would prove collusion between the Trump family and WikiLeaks and, more importantly, between Trump and Russia, since the U.S. intelligence community regards WikiLeaks as an “arm of Russian intelligence,” and therefore, so does the U.S. media.
    https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

    The Leftist MSM is abandoning all pretext of journalistic ethics and facts and just going with an all out war to bring down the President. They couldn't do it with FACTS because the FACTS don't support their narrative.

    So they have opted for a campaign of lies and bullshit...

    And the fact that ya'all buy into the shit storm of Fake anti-President Trump Fake News shows that ya'all don't care about facts or ya'all's old stand by "truth"...

    Ya'all support the removal of President Trump by *ANY* means necessary..

    How long, I wonder, until the hysterical NeverTrumpers start searching around for a John Wilkes Booth or a Lee Harvey Oswald???

    I honestly have to wonder if anyone here would really care??

    310

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    But what one should expect with journalistic “mistakes” is that they sometimes go in one direction, and other times go in the other direction. That’s exactly what has not happened here. Virtually every false story published goes only in one direction: to be as inflammatory and damaging as possible on the Trump/Russia story and about Russia particularly. At some point, once “mistakes” all start going in the same direction, toward advancing the same agenda, they cease looking like mistakes.

    Sound familiar???

    If this Fake News is all just a bunch of honest mistakes, why are the virtually *ALL* in one direction and one direction only??

    Answer: They are not honest mistakes, but a coordinated campaign of dis-information and out and out bullshit with one single goal in mind..

    The nullification of a free fair and legal US presidential election..

    And the fact that ya'all actively SUPPORT such a plan is disturbing beyond all belief..

    311

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    U.S. media outlets are very good at demanding respect. They love to imply, if not outright state, that being patriotic and a good American means that one must reject efforts to discredit them and their reporting because that’s how one defends press freedom.

    *******But journalists also have the responsibility not just to demand respect and credibility but to earn it.*******

    That means that there shouldn’t be such a long list of abject humiliations, in which completely false stories are published to plaudits, traffic and other rewards, only to fall apart upon minimal scrutiny. It certainly means that all of these “errors” shouldn’t be pointing in the same direction, pushing the same political outcome or journalistic conclusion.

    But what it means most of all is that when media outlets are responsible for such grave and consequential errors as the spectacle we witnessed yesterday, they have to take responsibility for it by offering transparency and accountability. In this case, that can’t mean hiding behind PR and lawyer silence and waiting for this to just all blow away.

    At minimum, these networks – CNN, MSNBC and CBS – have to either identify who purposely fed them this blatantly false information, or explain how it’s possible that “multiple sources” all got the same information wrong in innocence and good faith. Until they do that, their cries and protests the next time they’re attacked as “Fake News” should fall on deaf ears, since the real author of those attacks – the reason those attacks resonate – is themselves and their own conduct.

    Emphasis mine...

    And, if ya'all were the fair minded rational people I know ya'all CAN be, you would agree 1000% with everything I just said here..

    But I know that ya'all are in the throes of virulent cases of PTDS so I expect ya'all will ignore or attack what I just said here..

    It's OK.. I understand and forgive ya'all.. Ya'all are not responsible for your actions when under the influences of such a grave illness...

    312

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, if ya'all were the fair minded rational people I know ya'all CAN be, you would agree 1000% with everything I just said here..

    To be more accurate, agree 1000% with everything that Glenn Greenwald just said...

    Agreeing with me?? THAT is just asking WAY too much.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    In shocking news, it has been announced that Al Franken will be divorcing his wife.. It seems that Soon To Be EX Senator Franken has fallen in love with the 2016 Presidential Candidate Jill Stein. They plan to be married in the Spring and, in the time honored tradition of Left Wingers, they will hyphenate the last name..

    No word yet as to where the newlyweds will honeymoon, but the Stein family is reputed to own a castle in Romania...

    :D

    314

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://youtu.be/sW85ZcswiqM

    If ya'all watch NOTHING else today, ya'all have to watch this.. :D

    315

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    agree 1000% with everything that Glenn Greenwald just said...

    Agreeing with me?? THAT is just asking WAY too much.

    I never thought that I'd find you spreading leftist propaganda this early in the morning, but stranger things have happened lately.

    You do know what Greenwald's point of view is here, don't you? Greenwald is the American who helped Snowden get to Russia so that he could dump thousands of top secret US documents onto the internet via Wikileaks and Greenwald. Greenwald is protecting both his Russian friends and Wikileaks by attacking western media. That's the background.

    As for the story itself, Greenwald probably gets it right: at least two – and possibly more – sources, which these media outlets all assessed as credible in terms of having access to sensitive information, all fed the same false information to multiple news outlets at the same time.

    Likely a staffer who saw the email and read the date wrong, told his boss, who told his boss, etc.

    This all comes at a time when Mueller is turning up the heat on his probe - at least four indictments that we know of, at least two flipped witnesses that we know of, and at least two guilty pleas that we know of, so far. The new FBI director just confirmed that Mueller's team has obtained FISA warrents, and Mueller just spent two days with Trump's personal assistant, Hope Hicks.

    Considering where this investigation began - with Jeff Sessions for instance testifying under oath that nobody 'he knew of' having any contact with Russians - Mueller already has enough evidence to prove extensive contact between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

    The contacts that we know about include at least nine principals in the Trump campaign interacting with Russians at least 31 times, including at least 19 meetings. In addition, extensive financial ties between Trump, Kushner, Eric Prince, Manafort, Mike Flynn and Wilber Ross, and the Russians, some worth billions of dollars, have been documented.

    So at this point it's not a matter of IF, but of HOW the Trump team did its collusion, and what quid pro quo's were bandied about. Flynn, for instance, finally admitted to discussing the lifting of Magnitsky Sanctions with the Russian Ambassador, his previous lie to the FBI revealed when Kislyak reported the exchange to Putin and it was picked up in intelligence intercepts.

    Attacking the messenger Michale, whether it is Mueller or the press, won't change the direction of the investigation or the facts of the case. It's already evident that the Trump campaign was prepared to trade US policy, and possibly the Ukraine itself, for advantageous assistance in the 2016 election. It shouldn't be long now before we discover how deep, and how high, that corruption actually went.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for a morning laugh for everyone...

    Trump's global credibility is shot
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/opinions/trump-global-trust-lost-opinion-ghitis/index.html

    Get that??

    *CNN* says that Trump's credibility is shot...

    BBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    316

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    You do know what Greenwald's point of view is here, don't you? Greenwald is the American who helped Snowden get to Russia so that he could dump thousands of top secret US documents onto the internet via Wikileaks and Greenwald. Greenwald is protecting both his Russian friends and Wikileaks by attacking western media. That's the background.

    SO, an ad honimem attack on Greenwald... CHECK

    Likely a staffer who saw the email and read the date wrong, told his boss, who told his boss, etc.

    So, a half dozen staffers ALL read the date wrong???

    My gods, man.. Do you see how far off the reservation you have to be to float THAT kind of BS and actually EXPECT it to be believed!!??

    All the rest is just strawmen and deflection and has nothing to do with the FACT that the MSM has absolutely NO CREDIBILITY on President Trump whatsoever...

    317

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's already evident that the Trump campaign was prepared to trade US policy, and possibly the Ukraine itself, for advantageous assistance in the 2016 election.

    It's "already evidence"???

    Why?? Because the MEDIA has told you so??

    The SAME media that has blatantly LIED over and over and over again??

    And you believe them SOLELY because you WANT to believe them..

    318

  63. [63] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [60]:

    Pew research surveyed 37 countries and found a widespread collapse of trust in the US president and in the United States. A median of just 22% said they have confidence in Trump to do the right thing in world affairs, a jaw-dropping collapse from the 64% who trusted the US president at the end of the Obama presidency.

    A stunning 74% said they have little or no confidence in Trump, up from just 23% who didn't trust Obama. Mistrust in the US leader extended to confidence in the United States, with favorable views of the United States plummeting around the world from 64% to 49% since Trump became president.

    Thanks for the data, Michale.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think it's SOOOO cute that you STILL put your faith in polls...

    At least, the polls that tell you what you want to hear.. :D

    All you have to support your position is FACTUALLY PROVEN bullshit polls and FACTUALLY PROVEN bullshit media..

    :D

    Like I said.. It's so adorable..

    319

  65. [65] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's "already evidence"???

    No, it's already evident

    adjective: evident

    plain or obvious; clearly seen or understood.
    "she ate the cookies with evident enjoyment"

    synonyms: obvious, apparent, noticeable, conspicuous, perceptible, visible, discernible, clear, clear-cut, plain, manifest, patent

    Why?? Because the MEDIA has told you so?

    Where do you get your information? From cloud patterns? Of course the media had a role. Unlike most Fox viewers, I peruse a large amount of media, both online and offline, both left and right leaning, before forming an opinion, which is why I'm usually fairly well informed. I'm what they call a "news junkie".

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where do you get your information? From cloud patterns? Of course the media had a role. Unlike most Fox viewers, I peruse a large amount of media, both online and offline, both left and right leaning, before forming an opinion, which is why I'm usually fairly well informed. I'm what they call a "news junkie".

    And yet, you don't mind when your news media blatantly LIES to you??

    Of course you don't.. Because you WANT to believe it's true... So, you don't question it. Even when it's PROVEN to be a false narrative...

    That's not being a "news junkie".. It's being a Party slave... A drone without a mind of it's own..

    320

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    A "news junkie" would be OUTRAGED their the media got things so blatantly WRONG..

    A Party slave would be OUTRAGED that their media frak'ed up what should have been an easy lie...

    321

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    I never thought that I'd find you spreading leftist propaganda this early

    So, attacking Leftist MSM for their blatantly lies is now "leftist propaganda"???

    Jeezus, you will say ANYTHING to protect your biased and totally full of shit media, won't you?? :^/

    322

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which is why I think it was a prudential mistake to sue the baker. Live and let live would have been a far better response. The baker’s religious convictions are not trivial or obviously in bad faith, which means to say he is not just suddenly citing them solely when it comes to catering to gays. His fundamentalism makes him refuse to make even Halloween cakes, for Pete’s sake. More to the point, he has said he would provide any form of custom-designed cakes for gay couples — a birthday cake, for example — except for one designed for a specific celebration that he has religious objections to. And those religious convictions cannot be dismissed as arbitrary (even if you find them absurd). Opposition to same-sex marriage has been an uncontested pillar of every major world religion for aeons.

    And so, if there are alternative solutions, like finding another baker, why force the point? Why take up arms to coerce someone when you can easily let him be — and still celebrate your wedding? That is particularly the case when much of the argument for marriage equality was that it would not force anyone outside that marriage to approve or disapprove of it. One reason we won that debate is because many straight people simply said to themselves, “How does someone else’s marriage affect me?” and decided on those grounds to support or acquiesce to such a deep social change. It seems grotesquely disingenuous now for the marriage-equality movement to bait and switch on that core “live and let live” argument. And it seems deeply insensitive and intolerant to force the clear losers in a culture war into not just defeat but personal humiliation.

    “If the cake shop loses, does that mean that if I’m, say, a freelance designer or an artist or a writer or a photographer, I can no longer pick and choose my clients? If the Westboro Baptist Church comes to me, I can’t reject them on the grounds that they’re deeply un-Christian scumbags? If I’m Jewish, do I have to design a Hitler’s Birthday cake with swastikas on it? Would a Muslim cake-shop owner be forced to design a cake that shows an Islamic terrorist with crosshairs over his face, a common target design in most gun shops in America? Can a gay, atheist web designer choose not to do work for the Catholic Church, or would we have the government compel him to take on a client he loathes?”

    It always worries me when gays advocate taking freedom away from other people. It worries me as a matter of principle. But it also unsettles me because some gay activists do not seem to realize that the position they’re taking is particularly dangerous for a tiny and historically despised minority. The blithe unconcern for the First Amendment in the war on “hate speech,” for example, ignores the fact that, for centuries, the First Amendment was the only defense the gay minority ever had — and now, with the first taste of power, we are restricting the rights of others in this respect? Ugh. Endorse the state’s right to coerce speech or conscience and you have ceded a principle that can so easily come back to haunt you. The freedom of any baker to express himself is, in this respect, indistinguishable from that of any gay person to do so — a truth that our current tribalism blinds so many to. I hope, in other words, that the baker prevails — but that the Supreme Court decision doesn’t turn on religious so much as artistic freedom.
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-let-him-have-his-cake.html

    Yep.. Yep... Yep...

    323

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would a Muslim cake-shop owner be forced to design a cake that shows an Islamic terrorist with crosshairs over his face, a common target design in most gun shops in America?

    Or, better yet... Go into a muslim deli and FORCE the muslim owner to make me a BLT...

    THAT is the road that the hysterical Left Wingery and hysterical gay activists are leading us down..

    That your conscience and convictions are subject to the whims and the will of the State....

    That's not the America that I have fought and bled and killed and so many have died for...

    324

  71. [71] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Andrew Sullivan is one of my favorite writers, and even when I don't agree with him, I always find him challenging and thought-provoking.

    The article that you post at [69] is just such an article, even more so when you realize that Sullivan is himself gay.

    I suppose that my answer to Sullivan would be to say that it gets a lot stickier when you substitute the word 'gay' with 'black' or 'female', and the word 'baker' with the word 'bank'. Can a privately owned bank refuse an account or a loan to a black family, or to single woman simply on the grounds of the applicant's race or sex, even if the bank's private owner cites some religious ground? I certainly hope not.

    And what if that religion happens to be Scientology or Islam, rather than Christianity? Could a Buddist
    contractor refuse to amend the plans for a building in progress on the ground that the feng shui of the change is all wrong? What if it's a government project?

    Now all of the examples that Sullivan gave, and the one that you provide at [70] already have remedies. It is already legal for a baker to tell a client that he doesn't do penises. It's already legal for a kosher deli to not carry pork, etc.etc.

    It is not, however, legal for a kosher deli to refuse to serve the same product to an ethnic arab that it would serve to anyone else.

    That's the point that Sullivan is missing. It is not the province of the shop owner to care what the client does with his product once he's made and sold it, unless the customer informs him that, for instance he intends to use the cake to choke his grandfather, at which point he should call the police.

    But unless the couple in question were asking for him to also officiate their wedding, the cake's ultimate use is not the baker's concern.

    As I understand it, the couple were asking only for a 'rainbow' cake, much like those often made for children's birthdays. The baker could legally refuse to provide anything he didn't normally provide - like a plastic image of two men on top, for instance - but if he would normally have no religious objection to making and selling rainbow cakes, he should have no problem making this one, and what happens to it once it leaves his store is of no concern to him.

    By the same token, the seller of tiki torches in Charleston can't be sued because they were used in a White Nationalist march because, a) his is a public business, by law anyone can enter and purchase a torch or torches, and b) his responsibility for the torches ends once the torches are sold.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    But we're not talking about a bank, are we??

    Sullivan is saying that THIS case is a bad case for a multitude of reasons..

    Now all of the examples that Sullivan gave, and the one that you provide at [70] already have remedies. It is already legal for a baker to tell a client that he doesn't do penises. It's already legal for a kosher deli to not carry pork, etc.etc.

    Oh, so you allow that bakers CAN discriminate, just not because of their faith..

    Where is the logic in that??

    That's the point that Sullivan is missing. It is not the province of the shop owner to care what the client does with his product once he's made and sold it,

    But we're not talking about a product, we are talking about a creation...

    Put another way. If someone commissioned me to paint a picture and told me that he was going to burn it afterwards, I would tell him to bugger off..

    How is a cake any different??

    Your examples are all products. And, in this instance, we're talking about creations..

    But I do acknowledge the logic of your arguments..

    I simply believe, as Andrew Sullivan believes, that this is a case that the Baker's adherence to his faith trumps the couple's inconvenience of having to go elsewhere..

    The gay couple will lose this case and set a bad precedence for the gay community..

    325

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Could a baker refuse to make a cake shaped like the Staypuft Marshmallow Man because his religion doesn't believe in ghosts?

    On a semi-related point- Has anyone noticed how the NY Jets coach Todd Bowles looks like the Staypuft Marshmallow Man?

  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [49] :)

    Seriously, in the article that tallied the number of lies they did say that at some points 45 issues so many lies that they can't be counted, so the number they use is only those that they can specifically count - they know he lies more, but just too quickly at times.

  75. [75] 
    neilm wrote:

    If a muslim deli had BLT on the menu, then they can't choose who buys it, but if they don't then you can't force them to make one. Which is probably obvious because they won't have any bacon in their deli. Weak argument, basically.

    Also, are you trying to tell us that a BLT is a form of speech - this is the argument the right wing religious extremists are using to defend the baker from not selling the cake.

    A cake is speech? Snowflake thinking. The religious already have their safe spaces - they are called churches. In America, thanks to the Constitution, they don't have any special privileges, unlike, for example, the United Kingdom, where 26 Bishops (Lords Spiritual) of the chosen religion get to vote in the House of Lords.

    But the religious right want to impose their morality (which, it seems, includes touching 14-year-old girls) on everybody. It doesn't work like that. And the real hypocrisy is that these are the same people bleating on and on about "Sharia Law".

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's already legal for a kosher deli to not carry pork, etc.etc.

    It is already legal for a gas station not to carry pork. Or a car dealership not to sell Twinkies. I mean, really, is this the level of argument that the right is running with?

    Do you really want to force your exterminator to sell you broccoli? Or a new toaster? Or a cruise to Alaska?

  77. [77] 
    neilm wrote:

    If an exterminator says "I don't like the color of your skin", or "I don't serve women" or "I'm not working for a veteran" they'd be guilty of discrimination, as long as you were asking them to act as an exterminator. But if she said "I'm not selling you 100 red balloons" she'd be perfectly in her rights.

    Is that clear? I mean, it isn't that difficult.

    That is why the religious whackos who are pursuing this are going with the "Cake is speech" nonsense. Even they don't think a house painter should be forced to stock mushroom omelets just because you feel a bit peckish.

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    The gay couple will lose this case and set a bad precedence for the gay community..

    I think that the religious will see this as a pyrrhic victory after the initial gloating is over. The gay community is well organized and this is going to piss them off, and they are going to highlight all the bigots who come out of the woodwork if this passes and Christianity, which is already suffering from association with child molesters such as the Catholic priests and Roy Moore, are going to be indelibly tied to the most hateful who relish the chance to legally act on their bigotry.

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    Scotland was the most religious part of the United Kingdom in my grand parent's day. When Sunday trading laws were passed in England and Wales (Scotland has a separate legal system) they didn't bother in Scotland because it was inconceivable that any shop in Scotland would open on the Sabbath. In the 1970's the troubles in N. Ireland spilled over and inflamed the already sectarian West of Scotland, and the numbers going to Church started to drop. It started with the young, who grew increasingly non-religious. Then it spread and within 10-15 years not only were Churches empty on Sunday, but the stores were open and everybody went out shopping. It took several years for England to undo their Sunday trading laws, but Scotland had already broken the ground.

    The religious might find they are overplaying their hand.

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    Andrew Sullivan is right. This is not a good case for any number of reasons, and he lists them. But that isn't the point, the point is that we now have to act on the case because the courts accepted it, then ruled on it.

    We have these manufactured cases all the time, and the problem is, who decides which to accept into court and which to ignore.

    We will have one testing Roe vs. Wade soon enough - this is the hideous bargain the religious made with their morals to support 45 and Moore - they would get them the votes to stack the SCOTUS with anti-abortionists.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    If an exterminator says "I don't like the color of your skin", or "I don't serve women" or "I'm not working for a veteran" they'd be guilty of discrimination, as long as you were asking them to act as an exterminator.

    So, if I want to run for office as a Republican and I go to a Democrat Consultant and hire them to run my campaign, they can't refuse or else they would be guilty of discrimination..

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, if I want to run for office as a Republican and I go to a Democrat Consultant and hire them to run my campaign, they can't refuse or else they would be guilty of discrimination..

    Frankly, if I was a Democratic Consultant and a Republican wanted me to run their campaign I'd say: "Thanks! Pay me up front."

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, if I want to run for office as a Republican and I go to a Democrat Consultant and hire them to run my campaign, they can't refuse or else they would be guilty of discrimination..

    It depends on what the Republican is asking the consultant to do. As you say, s/he is a Democrat Consultant so s/he is selling Democrat Consulting - if that is what the Republican wants, then s/he can offer to buy those services - but what the Republican candidate can't do is ask the consultant to provide Republican consulting because that isn't on the menu. Capiche?

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    If a muslim deli had BLT on the menu, then they can't choose who buys it, but if they don't then you can't force them to make one. Which is probably obvious because they won't have any bacon in their deli. Weak argument, basically.

    Every deli in the city does BLT.. There is absolutely NO REASON why the muslim deli shouldn't do BLT.. I want THAT deli to make me a BLT..

    Because, you see, my goal is NOT to have a BLT.. My goal is to FORCE my beliefs on others who REFUSE to share them...

    Yes... It's a weak argument..

    But it's EXACTLY the same argument that the gay couples are making when they insist to pick out the bakery that furthers their activist agenda...

    327

  85. [85] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I am encouraged that the Republicon Party has at long last taken a position that I can agree with. The FBI is a pack of dirty rats. Now what about all these murderous thug cops? Now that the GOP has seen the light, they'll surely want to join forces with the BLM movement to defeat the corrupt selective "law enforcement" criminal gangsters in this terrible hell hole country. It's a sick, rigged system of lawlessness and carnage.

  86. [86] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    John [85] There have been instances where G-men and local law enforcement acted like thugs, and until the age of portable video recording, it was hard to get some folks to acknowledge it.

    Badly crafted and hastily crafted anti-recording laws are now on the books in many states, but I have every confidence that they will be tested in the courts soon, as will the use (and non-use) of body cams. I can't conceive that the right of a citizen to record a public event occurring right in front of him wouldn't be upheld in some form, lest the establishment be dogged forever by guerilla video.

    But I also think that focusing on lawless cops misses the mark by some degree. I think it might be Eric Holder who said that laws that strengthen the ability of good cops to weed out bad cops might be, long term, a more effective way to combat the problem. Empower good from within. That's what whistleblower laws accomplish.

    After all, when Wall Street is caught out stealing, they don't blame the SEC's accountants and attorneys, they blame the laws that affect their relationship with them.

    Empowering all citizens to record police/civilian interactions would be a step towards leveling the playing field between Us and Them, and transparency laws would improve understanding and accountability between Them and everyone else.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a sick, rigged system of lawlessness and carnage.

    I am guessing you haven't had pleasant run-ins with cops.. :D

    328

  88. [88] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Frankly, if I was a Democratic Consultant and a Republican wanted me to run their campaign I'd say: "Thanks! Pay me up front."

    I wonder if that's what Dick Morris did with Clinton in 1994. Remember that odd event?

  89. [89] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Correction: 1996.

  90. [90] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But it's EXACTLY the same argument that the gay couples are making when they. . .pick out the bakery that furthers their activist agenda.

    Which would have to be a bakery that made and sold rainbow colored cakes in the past, else the gay couple would have no case. Similarly, if advertising for the bakery says: "wedding cakes made to order", the baker might have to explain why baking one cake is any more or less religious in nature than baking another.

    Could, for instance, the baker refuse the order if it included instruction that it not be decorated? Would the baker's presumed first amendment right to refuse the order extend to plain cake?

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale [84] - what a lot of nonsense you spout at times - this is what happens when you try to defend a hopeless position.

    I know of plenty of delis that don't have BLT on the menu - I'm sure at some, if I asked, they'd make one up if they had the ingredients, but if they didn't, then hey, it is their deli, they pick the ingredients to stock.

  92. [92] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale - your Republican and Democratic Consultant example sort of blew up on you, didn't it.

    And I'd forgotten about Dick Morris (thanks Balthasar).

  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    Just bought "Collusion" by Luke Harding after listening to him on Russell Brand's podcast.

    https://www.amazon.com/Collusion-Secret-Meetings-Russia-Helped-ebook/dp/B0776YZF4P/

    I'll let you know if it is as good as the reviews say.

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know of plenty of delis that don't have BLT on the menu - I'm sure at some, if I asked, they'd make one up if they had the ingredients, but if they didn't, then hey, it is their deli, they pick the ingredients to stock.

    Hay.. It's their bakery.. they pick the cakes they will and won't make..

    Funny how ALL discrimination that comes FROM the Left is perfectly acceptable to ya'all...

    329

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all can argue all ya want...

    But the simple fact is a person's freedom of religion trumps the convenience of a gay activists pushing an agenda...

    And that is how the SCOTUS will rule...

    Michale [84] - what a lot of nonsense you spout at times - this is what happens when you try to defend a hopeless position.

    Ex-Squeeze me???

    PRESIDENT Trump???

    WHO was "defending a hopeless position"??? :D

    330.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously.. Let's face reality..

    Ya'all have been WRONG about Trump at EVERY turn...

    It's clear from the FACTS who has been defendng a "hopeless" position...

    331

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    I mean, seriously.. Let's face reality..

    Ya'all have been WRONG about Trump at EVERY turn...

    Actually, I've been right about 45 most of the time. He is a serial liar. He is narcissistic, he is unqualified for the job.

    And, after reading the compelling first chapters of the book "Collusion" I'm starting to wonder if he might be a traitor.

    Explosive stuff - reads like a John le Carre spy novel. Carter Page is getting absolutely trashed at this point in the book - I didn't know much about him before, but what a dimwit ... and of course 45 hand picked him.

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hay.. It's their bakery.. they pick the cakes they will and won't make..

    Yes. But if they put a cake on the menu, they don't get to pick their customers. Why is this beyond you? Oh yes, you can't come up with any other argument. Try the "cake is speech" one - SCOTUS might decide it works - hell, four justices already thing we have speaking cakes.

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    PRESIDENT Trump???

    WHO was "defending a hopeless position"??? :D

    You are - he is hopeless in the position he occupies - you keep making this easier for me.

  100. [100] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's their bakery.. they pick the cakes they will and won't make..

    To borrow from an old joke, the difference between a baker and a bigot is that a baker will make a cake for anyone; a bigot will make a cake for anyone but you.

    Again, the measure is, is the cake already on the menu? If so, it's blatant discrimination to deny that cake to a member of any particular gender, religion or creed, or racial group, solely because they belong to that group, regardless of one's own religious belief.

    It seems such a petty thing, to say, "I'll make that cake for you, but not for YOU." That was never a part of the American way. We are (as Murray's character in Stripes observed) a nation of mutts. Americans have come to these shores from every corner of the planet seeking a home where they aren't judged ineligible by religious fanatics, where they can hold any personal credo they wish without fear of rejection or retribution. Many of our ancestors were fleeing exactly that when they came here.

    It is for that reason that, even as we respect the right of every American to practice whatever religion they wish, we have endeavored in recent years to assure that religious intolerance does not infect the public square. Intolerance cannot be deemed to be free exercise of religion because, according to multiple statements by the leaders of all of the great religions, it is not a tenet of any of them. One could quibble with how that shakes out in actual practice, but not with the legal and moral precedent.

  101. [101] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    of course 45 hand picked him.

    One wonders who recommended him to Trump, and why.

    Fun fact: Carter Page was the first foreign policy advisor's name given to the press by Trump!

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hey Michale, just because I like showing you that you jump to conclusions and get things wrong, here are three top delis in the city that don't have BLTs on their menu.

    You're welcome:

    https://www.katzsdelicatessen.com/menu_and_local-delivery

    https://www.barneygreengrass.com/pages/sandwiches

    http://www.2ndavedeli.com/menus/dine-in-take-out/

  103. [103] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm just about 1/2 way thru "Collusion" - it is compelling reading. The author is a respected British journalist, and I expect he will be personally attacked for writing this book.

    A lot is going to depend on how you view his credibility, because if 1/2 of what he claims happened turns out to be validated by Mueller, there are going to be fireworks.

    If his book is completely accurate then Mueller will have to be closed down by 45 before he finishes his investigation, and the Republicans better hold both houses in 2018 to stop any further investigations happening.

    https://www.theguardian.com/profile/lukeharding

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    I've just finished the chapter on Flynn. He is a bit of a nut - and not too bright, it seems. He was a signal's officer who must have known that his calls to Russian contacts would be intercepted by the FBI, yet not only colluded on sanctions, but then lied about it. This is what got Sally Yates most concerned - the Russians knew he was lying, and thus had the leverage to blackmail the U.S. National Security Advisor - what a Christmas present for them.

    45's defense and continued support of Flynn (you know, the "great guy" stuff) is regarded in the intelligence community as fear of what Flynn knows about 45 or his family's involvement with the collusion on sanctions.

    Also the background on how Russian Intelligence works and the way they cultivate "useful idiots" and compromise foreigners puts 45's continual praise for Putin in a damning light.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are - he is hopeless in the position he occupies - you keep making this easier for me.

    That's your opinion... But it's an opinion that is borne of Party slavery and, as such, that has to be taken into account when estimating the validity of the opinion...

    And, after reading the compelling first chapters of the book "Collusion" I'm starting to wonder if he might be a traitor.

    Ahhh so now yer a fan of the Russian Collusion bs now, eh? :^/

    I had such hope for you..

    Explosive stuff - reads like a John le Carre spy novel.

    There is a reason for that. Because it's fiction... DuH.....

    332

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, the measure is, is the cake already on the menu? If so, it's blatant discrimination to deny that cake to a member of any particular gender, religion or creed, or racial group, solely because they belong to that group, regardless of one's own religious belief.

    It's also blatant discrimination to force Trump supporters out of a coffee shop.. Yet you don't have a problem with that kind of discrimination....

    THAT's my point..

    It is for that reason that, even as we respect the right of every American to practice whatever religion they wish, we have endeavored in recent years to assure that religious intolerance does not infect the public square. Intolerance cannot be deemed to be free exercise of religion because, according to multiple statements by the leaders of all of the great religions, it is not a tenet of any of them. One could quibble with how that shakes out in actual practice, but not with the legal and moral precedent.

    And when the SCOTUS rules in favor of the baker, then there WILL be a legal precedent set..

    And it won't be good for the gay community..

    THAT (also) is my point..

    So, despite yer straw man arguments, you DON'T address my points so, therefore, I can only conclude that you concede my points as factually accurate...

    333

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, I've been right about 45 most of the time. He is a serial liar. He is narcissistic, he is unqualified for the job.

    Your TRUMP IS TOAST predictions have ALL been wrong..

    ALL of them.. WRONG...

    So, don't try and put yer "HOPELESS" sign on me.. :D ya'all are the ones who are so ruled by yer PTDS ya'all can't think straight.. :D

    I would have thought that pointing out that ya'all are acting WORSE than Republicans acted under Odumbo would actually mean something to ya'all..

    But you are such in the grip of ya'all's PTDS you don't even CARE that ya'all are acting WORSE than Republicans..

    THAT should be a cold hard slap in the face......

    334

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump wins again!!! :D

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQtZUgqV4AAkwbe.jpg

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former Arizona cop acquitted in shooting was a failed actor, report says
    Fox News

    A former Arizona Police officer acquitted last week of a murder charge in the 2016 fatal shooting of an unarmed man outside a hotel room was a failed actor before his law enforcement career, TMZ reported Sunday.

    Philip Mitchell Brailsford, 27, was cleared of criminal liability last Thursday in the shooting death of Texas man Daniel Shaver.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/11/former-arizona-cop-acquitted-in-shooting-was-failed-actor-report-says.html

    NOT GUILTY

    336

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to write and admit: Trump is winning. In the brief space of a week, he won a brief court fight to shove Mick Mulvaney to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mulvaney wasted no time in unhinging a spate of consumer protection rulings, regulations, and personnel hires made during the Obama years.

    His SCOTUS pick, Neil Gorsuch, eagerly cast a vote to impose the Muslim travel ban. His EPA head, Scott Pruitt, delivered a couple million acres of public monument land in the West to oil, gas, and coal industry developers. Trump busily continues to pack the federal judiciary with a parade of ultra-conservative, strict, constructionist Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia clones.
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sadly-trump-is-winning_us_5a2b1110e4b022ec613b823f

    There ya go, people... Trump is winning.. HuffPoop says it so ya'all HAVE to believe it's true.. :D

    Hoisted By Yer Own Picard :D

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    FRIDAY WAS ONE of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN, with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation’s largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened.

    Three distinct and separate news media platforms confirmed the date of the email and EACH platform said they have MULTIPLE separate and distinct confirmations of the SAME date...

    So if we extrapolate that each media source (3) each had 3 separate independent confirmations of the date, that means that *NINE* people independently and THOROUGHLY separate from each other *ALL* read the date wrong in the EXACT SAME MANNER..

    Do you see why it's impossible to take ya'all seriously??

    You pass off the most ridiculous bullshit as fact....

    Proof positive that ya'all are in the grips of PTDS...

    338

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    In 1990, when liberal journalists still had some sense of obligation to the truth, Michael Kelly wrote the following for GQ:

    As [Carla] Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound [Sen. Ted] Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on [Sen. Chris] Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd's lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room.

    The incident above took place in 1985 at the restaurant La Brasserie in Washington, D.C., where Loh and Gavigilio both worked as waitresses. Everyone in Washington knew about it, including Sen. Claire McCaskill. Here is what McCaskill had to say about Kennedy's behavior upon his death in 2009:

    This man was so much more than his image. While his vision soared, the power of his personality and the magnet of his intellect drew his colleagues to the table of compromise. It was there he did his best work. His love for the little guy and his affection for the underdog influenced everything he did. And importantly, his sense of humor and contagious laughter made him real and approachable in spite of his power and privilege.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/no_one_ever_drowned_in_roy_moores_car.html#ixzz50xkxLaNd

    Oh yea.. Democrats surely have a moral leg to stand on NOT!!

    339

  113. [113] 
    neilm wrote:

    Getting desperate Michale?

    45 must be a winner, you keep telling yourself.

    What are the three pieces of legislation that have passed (you know, the point of Government) that made a difference to you?

    My guess, things that upset other people that you don't like because all you seem to have is your glee at other people's sadness.

    Like the family of the guy shot by the cop. I'm sure the cop followed protocol, but gloating about that is a bit sad, n'est-ce pas?

  114. [114] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nikki Haley is playing the long game. When the stain of 45 is finally washed off the Republican Party she will be one of the few with executive experience and be able to point to actions such as calling for an investigation into 45's sexual attacks.

    Smart lady. The U.N. is a fairly safe place as well. Sure she has to defend that asinine Jerusalem announcement, but nobody thinks that was her idea - it is obviously Sheldon Edelsen and Chuck Shumer. Plus being pro-Israeli is another long term feather in her cap - in 10 years everybody will have forgotten that except the people she reminds behind closed doors.

  115. [115] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Yeah, that First Talking Point again, "Democrats respect women." Not a day goes by without an 'Abuser du Jour', damn near every one a prominent movie/television/entertainment type, and every one an odds-on Democratic "Woman Respecter".

    To paraphrase a famous quote, With 'respecters' like that, women don't need abusers!!!

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like the family of the guy shot by the cop. I'm sure the cop followed protocol, but gloating about that is a bit sad, n'est-ce pas?

    No.. The fact that the cop was charged to appease public opinion is what is sad...

    340

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    To paraphrase a famous quote, With 'respecters' like that, women don't need abusers!!!

    You win the 'Net for the day with that one... :D

    341

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Getting desperate Michale?

    Why should I be desperate???

    Trump is President and will be until 20 Jun of 2024... :D

    Happy Days Are Here Again.. :D

    342

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    College enlists Care Bears to comfort stressed-out students

    A dorm for honors students at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst recently put up a display featuring Care Bears characters offering advice for "grumpy or stressed" students.
    "Make time for FUN!" the display advises, adding that "laughter is the best medicine."

    A dorm display at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst is using Care Bears to help students who feel “grumpy or stressed.”

    “Feeling grumpy or stressed? Let the Care Bears help!” the display states above a large, hand-drawn rainbow adorned with bit of advice for students.
    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10254

    The future leaders of the world.. :^/

    "I weep for the future..."
    -Maitre' de, FERRIS BEUHLERS DAY OFF

    343

  120. [120] 
    neilm wrote:

    No.. The fact that the cop was charged to appease public opinion is what is sad...

    No, the cop was charged because the legal system charged him.

    We didn't know if he was a thug with a gun or a good cop. The legal system did its job and justice prevailed.

    Wanting to let all cops walk away from every incident free of suspicion is why we have bad cops - they know they can get away with it. It is why the cops I know want the bad ones to be weeded out, and want justice to be seen to be done.

  121. [121] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why should I be desperate???

    I don't know - why are you posting "look at me I'm winning" comments continually? Do you just like gloating, or are you scared?

  122. [122] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yeah, that First Talking Point again, "Democrats respect women."

    If you have dirty laundry, you can clean it or you can pretend it doesn't stink.

    It is only Republican politicians and voters that seem to think they are the only people in the country that don't stink.

    Have you ever considered you might be wrong? I mean, just once?

  123. [123] 
    neilm wrote:

    However, CRS and Michale, please keep defending Moore and 45, vilifying the women who accuse them of sexual attacks, and claiming that only Republican politicians really care about women. It really helps, and thanks for your service to the Democratic cause ;)

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    FoxNews is reporting that Roy Moore is down by 10 points..

    Wouldn't it be a HOOT if the Dumbocrats forced out Conyers and Franken for NOTHING!!!!! :D

    344

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, the cop was charged because the legal system charged him.

    No, the cop was charged because the legal system is mob rule..

    We didn't know if he was a thug with a gun or a good cop. The legal system did its job and justice prevailed.

    Yes it did.. Which doesn't change the fact that he was only charge to appease the unruly mob..

    Just like Zimmerman, just like Wilson, just like Tessig... etc etc etc

    Wanting to let all cops walk away from every incident free of suspicion is why we have bad cops -

    No one is advocating that.. When you have a cop like that one in South Carolina, charges are warranted BASED ON THE FACTS...

    But in the cases that I mentioned and so many more, charges are pushed SOLELY on the basis of an unruly mob..

    I don't know - why are you posting "look at me I'm winning" comments continually? Do you just like gloating, or are you scared?

    WHy are you posting all of the TRUMP IS TOAST comments continually???

    Are you gloating or are you scared?? :D

    Have you ever considered you might be wrong? I mean, just once?

    Have you???

    345

  126. [126] 
    neilm wrote:

    Have you ever considered you might be wrong? I mean, just once?

    Have you???

    I'm middle-of-the-road, basically all I do is consider if I'm wrong.

    It is only extremists that see things in black and white and think they are always right.

  127. [127] 
    neilm wrote:

    FoxNews is reporting that Roy Moore is down by 10 points..

    Don't get too excited, Michale, Moore might win yet. Senate race polls have an average error rate of 6%, plus this is an off schedule election with a lot of bizarre factors.

    We'll know tomorrow night.

    Plus, Franken and Conyers have nothing to do with Moore - they are part of the Democratic Party cleaning house. The Republicans have their own house cleaning to do (45 for starters).

  128. [128] 
    neilm wrote:

    We are seeing the fear on the right regarding the Mueller investigation growing.

    The last time 45 fired the lead of the Russia investigation it backfired on him. Badly.

    History shows that this is the pattern (Nixon/Cox, Grant/Henderson, 45/Comey).

    This is "playing the man, not the ball" and it is the media and public pressure that demand an independent investigation, so a replacement has always been appointed shortly thereafter.

    45 is sufficiently venal, and the Republicans sufficiently desperate for tax cuts for the wealthy, and scared of the Fox News base, that it might take a swing election in 2018 to force the issue.

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Plus, Franken and Conyers have nothing to do with Moore - they are part of the Democratic Party cleaning house. The Republicans have their own house cleaning to do (45 for starters).

    Bullshit...

    Franken & Conyers are the Democrats attempt to establish the moral high ground..

    They will fail unless they put Kennedy and CLinton in their right place...

    If Moore DOES lose tomorrow, look for Franken to rescind his resignation...

    We are seeing the fear on the right regarding the Mueller investigation growing.

    No... The hysterical NeverTrumpers are seeing fear on the right..

    It's nothing but wishful thinking..

    346

  130. [130] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [122]

    You have NEVER heard me "defending Moore and 45". That's pure BS. I don't much get involved with personalities or ideologies. I mostly try (invariably in vain) to point out where 'Democratics' who suffer from misconceptions of how the real world works (that's all of 'em) go astray on how the gov't should be run.

  131. [131] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    45 is sufficiently venal, and the Republicans sufficiently desperate for tax cuts for the wealthy, and scared of the Fox News base, that it might take a swing election in 2018 to force the issue.

    It most certainly will. I've been gaming out possible outcomes of the Mueller investigation, and they all look bad:

    1. Mueller presents his proof, gets giant Raspberry from Trump and Republicans, who refuse to bring the matter to the House floor, effectively killing any attempt at impeachment until after the midterms. Democrats don't do as well as expected in the midterms, and the matter dies until it is raised during the 2020 election, by which point most folks have forgotten about it.

    2. Mueller presents proof of collusion, but spares Trump of direct involvement. Trump pardons his son and a few others and declares the matter over.

    3. Mueller presents proof of collusion, including Trump himself. Ryan, under seige, relents to impeachment proceedings, but halfheartedly. Trump fights tooth and nail, threatening the careers of any Republican who dares to vote against him, and vows to ruin Ryan. The House impeachment vote is delayed until after the midterms.

    4. Mueller reports, and the House does nothing until 2018, when Democrats take over and begin impeachment proceedings, which get dragged out over the course of a full year. By 2019, cable news is reporting on 'impeachment fatigue', and it becomes clear that everyone has retreated back into ideological camps. The House finally votes out Articles of Impeachment along party lines, but the Senate drags its feet, setting up the 2020 election to be a referendum on Trump.

    5. Regardless of what Republicans do about Mueller's report, Democrats take power of both House and Senate in 2018, and impeach Trump by late 2019. Pence takes office, pardons Trump, appoints him Vice President, then resigns.

  132. [132] 
    neilm wrote:

    You have NEVER heard me "defending Moore and 45". That's pure BS.

    You are right. My apologies.

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why you hysterical NeverTrumpers see things that don't exist..

    Ya'all are fed a steady diet of bullshit..

    CNN confesses to ANOTHER Anti-Trump bullshit claim...

    CNN Walks Back Jeff Sessions-Russia Bombshell

    CNN has quietly walked back more of their “bombshell” reporting on the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, and this time it’s a story relating to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ security clearance forms.

    In May, CNN reported that Sessions had failed to disclose meetings he had with the Russian ambassador when he was a senator. Justice Department officials told CNN that Sessions had not listed those meetings on a security clearance form, even though the form says to list “any contact” with the “foreign government” or its “representatives” in the past seven years.

    CNN framed the non-disclosures as more evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump team, writing, “He has come under withering criticism from Democrats following revelations that he did not disclose the same contacts with Kislyak during his Senate confirmation hearings earlier this year.”

    At the time, Sessions said he was told by the FBI not to list meetings “connected with his Senate activities,” but CNN’s legal expert denied those claims.

    “A legal expert who regularly assists officials in filling out the form disagrees with the Justice Department’s explanation, suggesting that Sessions should have disclosed the meetings,” CNN asserted.

    The CNN report led to breathless coverage by the rest of the legacy media, who painted the non-disclosures as a Trump official trying to hide problematic meetings with the Russians.

    However, CNN admitted early Monday that FBI emails prove that Sessions’ explanation for the non-disclosures is accurate.
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/11/cnn-walks-back-jeff-sessions-russia-bombshell/

    And President Trump wins another round!! :D

    Go ahead, people. Keep believing all the Fake News coming out of the Leftist MSM...

    It just makes my laughter and my gloating so much more fun... :D

    347

  134. [134] 
    neilm wrote:

    I mostly try (invariably in vain) to point out where 'Democratics' who suffer from misconceptions of how the real world works (that's all of 'em) go astray on how the gov't should be run.

    It is in vain because you are not selling your proposals. If you assume, like Michale, that this is just a party based tit-for-tat contradiction forum then the whole point of posting here is in vain.

    But I think you'll find that most are open to ideas. Michale tends to denigrate the conversation and the rest us us just try to wind him up as it costs him $0.25/comment at this time of the year and it is good for CW, but the point is an exchange of ideas.

    There are some third rails for me, I'll admit. Denying climate science just isn't a rational position. Evolution the same. Announcing that one group of Americans are immune from sexual predators is another - both from evidence and probability theory.

    However explaining why you think Obamacare needs improved and offering viable ideas is very interesting. Blanket condemnations, a la Michale, coupled with name calling is puerile, but we put up with him or install the "Michale blocker".

    We are facing a changing America where there is increased inequality that is being driven, for the most part, along education lines - the well educated are thriving, the poorly educated are seeing their future diminish. One solution is larger government - take more money from the rich and give it to the poor. Another is less government - try to free up business so the pie grows and everybody gets more.

    Both of these approaches have strengths and weaknesses - Europe offers a better social contract, but at the cost of lethargic growth and innovation - it isn't an accident that Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon were born on the West Coast, or that Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent appeared in China.

    But maybe there is a better way - instead of larger government vs. smaller government, how about smarter government? We have tools at our disposal that are changing our society immeasurably - why can't we harness these tools to create a smarter, more open, richer, society that creates more winners?

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mostly try (invariably in vain) to point out where 'Democratics' who suffer from misconceptions of how the real world works (that's all of 'em)

    Word.....

    348

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I think you'll find that most are open to ideas. Michale tends to denigrate the conversation and the rest us us just try to wind him up as it costs him $0.25/comment at this time of the year and it is good for CW, but the point is an exchange of ideas......

    ..... but only wthin the narrow confines of our ideology and Party slavery...

    There... Fixed it for you.. :D

    349

  137. [137] 
    neilm wrote:

    ..... but only wthin the narrow confines of our ideology and Party slavery...

    You're projecting again Michale. There are different approaches to thinking. Yours tends to be zero sum, with a predisposition to bow to authority and focused on differences - other people approach things differently. So when you are confronted you expect the person to behave as you do, but I'm not your mirror opposite.

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're projecting again Michale. There are different approaches to thinking. Yours tends to be zero sum, with a predisposition to bow to authority and focused on differences - other people approach things differently. So when you are confronted you expect the person to behave as you do, but I'm not your mirror opposite.

    Now THAT's projection..

    I am open to ANY idea, no matter how ludicrous and ridiculous...

    As long as it's delivered in a fair, impartial, LOGICAL and RATIONAL manner, let's talk...

    But when it's nothing but hysterical PTDS???

    When many of ya'all have to create SAFE SPACES so you are not exposed to new ideas??? And such SAFE SPACES are ENCOURAGED by all???

    Well, it's clear who is stuck in the narrow confines of Party slavery....

    *I* have no Party.... :D

    Give you a perfect example..

    Can you concede that you MIGHT be wrong and that Trump will be a great President along the lines of JFK???

    Nope... You cannot even CONCEDE the possibility...

    Narrow minded.... LOCKED by Party Slavery....

    350

  139. [139] 
    neilm wrote:

    *I* have no Party.... :D

    Really. Sadly, you are only fooling yourself.

  140. [140] 
    neilm wrote:

    A good way to understand why everybody is partly or mostly wrong about everything.

    https://www.safalniveshak.com/circle-of-competence-what-and-why/

    And the advice ... read, read, read.

    It turns out you will find answers in books - all that the "school of hard knocks" teaches you is a tiny part of the World with little relevance elsewhere. Experience is a slow teacher. But if you can learn to learn then you can gain real knowledge a lot faster from other peoples' wisdom. If you don't learn how to learn, then you are doomed to learn from experience - slow and painful.

  141. [141] 
    neilm wrote:

    No matter what happens tomorrow, the rest of America has to do better than Alabama. I'd hope that, outside of maybe a couple of other nearby states, Moore would be so far off in the running that tomorrow would be a formality.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    No matter what happens tomorrow, the rest of America has to do better than Alabama.

    I agree... If Alabama elects a Dumbocrat tomorrow, America HAS to do better than Alabama...

    Really. Sadly, you are only fooling yourself.

    I know that's what you have to tell yourself..

    Because the alternative is that I am as right now as I was on 7 Nov 2016...

    And THAT is just too much for you to handle...

    351

  143. [143] 
    neilm wrote:

    Because the alternative is that I am as right now as I was on 7 Nov 2016...

    You know you have the wrong date, right?

    November 8th.

    Go read the link in [140].

    Trust me, we all can do better.

  144. [144] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Carrier Plant Story Perfectly Describes America

    Everybody was pleased for the workers at the Carrier plant last year, even if the political sideshow was obnoxious and the cost was paid by Indiana's taxpayers (although, maybe some of them weren't thrilled).

    UTC, the parent company, also announced a new facility in Connecticut.

    Sadly, the deal cut by the then President-elect did not cover all the jobs - only 800 (another 300 were never in jeopardy - they were admins and engineers).

    But the good news is that new facility in Connecticut. Could the laid off Indiana workers up sticks and move East?

    Well at this point you may be asking yourself: Why are UTC moving a factory to Mexico from relatively cheap Indiana and opening a facility in high tax, expensive Connecticut.

    Well of the 1700 jobs at the new CT plant, 350 are Ph.D.'s, and the rest are highly paid engineers.

    We need an education revolution in this country. Is it ridiculous to think that we can get 90% of our kids though tertiary education with valuable degrees that get jobs that buy a World class living?

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know you have the wrong date, right?

    No, I had the right date..

    I knew I was factually accurate on 7 Nov...

    8 Nov just proved it to the rest of you.. :D

    352

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trust me, we all can do better.

    Yes, we can..

    The problem is that ya'all insist that the Republicans start first and then ya'all will hold your Democrats accountable..

    Like charity, accountability begins at home..

    Clean ya'all's house first..

    THEN ya'all will have a moral breadbox to stand on..

    354

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Mysterious Death of a Cyberbullied Porn Star
    August Ames, 23, was found dead, hanging in a park after she was attacked by an online lynch mob. Her death should be a lesson to all those in the adult industry—and beyond.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-mysterious-death-of-a-cyberbullied-porn-star

    Remind me again of the "tolerance" of the Left Wingery??

    I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS to the contrary...

    361

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea.. That's what I thought...

Comments for this article are closed.