ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Trump Hits New Polling Low

[ Posted Monday, December 11th, 2017 – 18:29 PST ]

I originally wrote "Trump Hits New Low" as this article's title, but then realized that it was far too generic a headline. After all, Trump hits new lows all the time, in many shocking and unusual ways. A sitting president endorsing an accused child molester to sit in the U.S. Senate, for instance. So I clarified it, since this is a more qualitative thing -- Trump has indeed hit a new all-time low in the polls. As of this writing, his daily job approval average (as calculated by Real Clear Politics) is a dismal 37.3 percent. Trump's job disapproval also hit a record high, to now stand at 57.9 percent. This is also (not surprisingly) the most he's ever been underwater in the polls -- a negative gap of 20.6 points.

To briefly put these numbers in some historical perspective, during Barack Obama's entire two terms in office, he only slipped below 40 percent for a single day. On December 13, 2013 -- when Obama was suffering from two simultaneous political blows (the government shutdown in October and the disastrous rollout of the new Obamacare website) -- Obama was only at 39.8 percent average job approval, while 55.9 percent of Americans disapproved of the way he was doing his job. That was Obama's worst day ever, since for the entire other eight years of his presidency, he stayed above 40 percent approval. Trump is now two or more points worse than that, in both directions.

George W. Bush didn't do so well, of course. But even Dubya stayed above 40 percent for his entire first term. It wasn't until November of 2005 that Bush sank down to 38 percent approval. Bush continued to slide downwards, hitting bottom the month before Obama was elected in 2008, when he only had 25.3 percent job approval, and 69.3 percent disapproval. So things could indeed be worse for Trump. He's still 12 whole points above Bush's worst showing.

Trump's job approval ratings, though low, have been rather consistent throughout the second half of 2017. Which means that his recent downward slide might just bounce back up again next week. This is the danger of paying too much attention to daily averages rather than concentrating on larger trends, of course.

Trump, during late spring and early summer, saw his job approval stay fairly steady, hovering right around 40 percent, while his disapproval stayed close to the 54-55 percent range. At the end of July (or the beginning of August, depending how you see it), Trump's numbers took a hit, and since that point his approval numbers have stayed almost entirely within the 38-40 percent range. He has only broken out of this two-point spread three times since the end of July.

Right after Trump's response to the Charlottesville violence, he dropped to his lowest point ever (before today) in the second week of August, bottoming out at 37.4 percent approval. But his numbers came back up within a week.

In late September, Trump managed a ten-day spike in approval, all the way up to 41.7 percent, in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey (Texas) and Irma (Florida). But this quickly dropped back below 40.0 percent, likely as a result of Trump's inaction after Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico.

Since then, Trump only had one single day below 38.0 percent, on November 15, when he dropped to 37.9 percent (before climbing back up again the next day). Other than that, Trump has continued to stay within the 38-40 percent range.

Trump's job disapproval numbers mostly mirrored this trend. In September, while Trump was briefly doing better, his disapproval dropped to a low of 52.4 percent. But in November, his disapproval hit an all-time high (until today) of 57.4 percent.

By early December, Trump had once again recovered somewhat. His approval was back up to 40.0 percent by the third of the month, but then his numbers seemed to fall off a sharp cliff, with a steep drop to today's 37.3 percent. That's a major loss -- down 2.7 points within a week.

The trend could get worse for Trump, obviously. But he could also bounce back (at least slightly), to the point where he's not charting daily all-time lows. If the trend continues, it is tough to say precisely why public opinion is now breaking against Trump. Is it the fact that the more that people learn about the GOP tax plan, the more they hate it? Perhaps the #MeToo movement is causing American voters to rethink how they treated Trump's accusers? Or is Trump's support of Roy Moore (which was really only made official about a week ago) dragging him down? Will a Moore victory really help -- or actually hurt -- Trump's standing with the public?

Why this is happening now, and whether it will continue or Trump will bounce back, is really anyone's guess. It's been an eventful time in Washington, but the same could be said for any period back to July, really. The whole fluctuation in the past few weeks could even be nothing more than the shifting way Real Clear Politics determines the window for which polls they include in each day's rolling average (they have no clear rules, it seems, for how old a poll has to be before it drops off). Maybe Trump's numbers were artificially high at the start of the month, or maybe they're artificially low now -- either could be true, really.

Looking at individual polls, however, shows that Trump's approval number may actually be artificially high right now. Today's average contains eight different discrete polls, all from the past week's time. Six of them agree that Trump is now somewhere in a range between 34 percent approval (Pew) and 37 percent (Reuters). The other two are outliers, with Rasmussen giving Trump 42 percent approval and the Economist/YouGov poll showing Trump at 43 percent. So two polls show an average of 42.5 percent, while the other six polls put it at 35.5 percent. That's a rather large gap, obviously. What it means is if the two Republican-leaning polls start to reflect a true shift in public opinion (one that the other six polls are consistently showing), then Trump's average job approval could easily drop below 37.0 percent (or even lower) in the next week. This is possible because both polls are always active, Rasmussen on a rolling-daily-average basis, while the Economist/YouGov reports weekly. So unlike other static polls, we won't have to wait a month to see if they'll change to reflect a new reality.

There's a larger issue that bears attention as well -- is Trump actually dragging the whole Republican Party down? Party affiliation numbers show a definite trend in this direction. Last year at this time, 42 percent of people polled identified (either strongly or weakly) with the Republican Party. At the same time 44 percent of people (strongly or weakly) identified with the Democratic Party -- a pretty even split between the two. Now, however, Democrats have not changed their minds, as the same 44 percent of the public still self-identifies with the Democratic Party. But only 37 percent of people now say that they're Republicans (or even "lean Republican") anymore -- a drop of 5 points, leaving Democrats 7 points ahead. From an article on this trend:

"Democrats' edge has expanded this year mainly because of a decline in Republican affiliation," Gallup's Jeffrey Jones wrote. "A year ago, 44% of Americans identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, the same percentage as now. However, Republican identification and leaning is five points lower than it was a year ago."

NBC's Dante Chinni got a more detailed breakdown of the shift. Women are 5 points less likely to identify as Republicans relative to last November. White women are 7 points less likely to.

This tends to give some credence to the idea that #MeToo might have something to do with this shift, to say nothing of Roy Moore.

Whatever happens next, though, Donald Trump today hit a new all-time polling low of only 37.3 percent of the public approving of the job he's doing, and a whopping all-time high of 57.9 percent who disapprove. Trump seems to be chasing an ever-shrinking base of support among his most fervent supporters. He certainly isn't reaching out to anyone else at this point. But even this base seems to now be fraying. After staying largely within a 2-point range for most of the second half of the year, Trump's numbers may settle in to a new and lower range. If this trend continues much further, Trump will reach the threshold where for every one person who thinks he's doing a good job, there will be two people who don't. He's still got some distance to go to get there, but it's looking more and more like a distinct possibility.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

96 Comments on “Trump Hits New Polling Low”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    CW: The pattern I've observed for RealClear's handling of polls is this:

    1. Remove duplicate polls from the list, keeping the newest one
    2. Average the last 10.

    So the age of the polls can vary - from days to weeks depending on the polling activity and the frequency of the 10 most frequent polling company.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    of the 10th most frequent polling company.

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, a couple of program notes here...

    First, the thermometer at the top has been updated, after a flurry of donations over the weekend. Keep those cards and letters coming, folks!

    :-)

    Second, tomorrow's column is quite likely to be late. I still haven't decided whether to write before the election results are in or afterwards, in a snap reaction column. At this point, I'm leaning towards the latter, so you have been warned.

    That's it for now, I'll try to get to answering some comments later. This time of year, external life sometimes intrudes on the weekends, sorry...

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [1] -

    It's not that hard and fast, from what I've seen. Sometimes there are as few as 5 or 6 polls in the average, sometimes a dozen or more. They drop off somewhere around the two-week mark, usally (the ones that are taken once a month), but not strictly. Sometimes the mix only has one week's worth of polling, sometimes it has almost a month's worth.

    Where you draw the line matters, so they are able to manipulate the averages (usually only within a point or so), but they do so kind of lightly, only occasionally obviously.

    That's been my experience, anyway.

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    CW [4] - you are right - only 8 polls are shaded (and thus I assume included in the average). And a perfunctory search doesn't uncover any "methods" section - bit remiss of them if they want to be taken seriously.

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting article that refers to Simone de Beauvoir seminal work "The Second Sex" - smart lady!

    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/roy-moore-s-white-female-voters-are-part-long-history-ncna827976

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    538 and HuffPo plots look roughly the same as RealClear's. Trump has been trending down for his first year, no end in sight. RealClear doesn't correct for house bias, so there is a bit of a bias waveform in their plot because pollsters tend to follow a consistent collection schedule. The only virtue I see in RealClear's curve fitting is simplicity.

  8. [8] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Women are 5 points less likely to identify as Republicans relative to last November. White women are 7 points less likely to.

    I thought that when it came to GOP supporters, “white” was always implied.

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [5] -

    I've actually sent them emails asking what their drop-off policy is, but they never responded. Opaque isn't great when it comes to polling (or "poll-of-polls" averages) methodology, in general...

    TheStig [7] -

    There's more "noise" as well. I kinda like noise, personally, but many others prefer more smoothing, I am aware. After all, noise allows me to write articles like this one, right?

    :-)

    The real benefit to RCP was originally something nobody else provided -- an easy-to-read graph which allowed for historical research. Each day's data is readable, by date, back to the beginning. That counted for a lot, when I decided to use RCP (back in, like, early 2008).

    ListenWhenYouHear [8] -

    Yeah, well, that's why I copied the whole quote... heh...

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Speaking of polling, what do you make of the Fox News Poll that shows Jones ahead by 10 points? From the article on the FN website:

    "Greater party loyalty plus higher interest in the election among Democrats combined with more enthusiasm among Jones supporters gives him the advantage.."

    I know that Fox likes to scare the hell out of its viewers, but that's, like, almost cruel.

    On the other hand, over at FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver explained that the Fox poll might be more accurate than others that show Moore with a commanding lead. At the end of the article, however, Silver writes that he thinks that "Moore will probably win narrowly", but adds that if the right set of things go wrong for Jones, "Moore could still win in a landslide".

    To further stir the muddy water, Silver says of Jones: "Jones’s chances are probably somewhere in the same ballpark as Trump’s were of winning the Electoral College last November (about 30 percent)." This could happen, Silver says, if "two things to go right for him: He needs a lopsided turnout in his favor, and he needs pretty much all of the swing voters in Alabama", otherwise, no.

    But this has been a year in which you could pretty much predict anything and have a 50/50 chance of seeing it happen, so we'll see. It's a popcorn nite tonight!

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, I think it's so cute that ya'all pay attention to polls... :D

    It's abundantly clear that the ONLY "poll" that Trump supporters use is the one at the ballot box..

    So, all the polls that ya'all love to quote ONLY reflect the choices of those who don't support President Trump..

    353

  12. [12] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's abundantly clear that the ONLY "poll" that Trump supporters use is the one at the ballot box..

    Must be, because they keep asserting that their policies are popular, when they really aren't.

    As in, "Everybody loves the GOP tax plan."

    Someone isn't reading polls, that's for sure.

  13. [13] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, how did Trump supporters read the 'polls' in Virginia and New Jersey last month?

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, how did Trump supporters read the 'polls' in Virginia and New Jersey last month?

    I dunno.. How did Trump supporters read the polls in Virginia and New Jersey last month???

    We KNOW how Hillary supporters read the polls in Nov of 2016... :D

    355

  15. [15] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    We KNOW how Hillary supporters read the polls in Nov of 2016..

    Probably very much the same way that the GOP read the polls in Virginia in 2017, save that there wasn't any evidence of a Russian propaganda campaign in Virginia.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    save that there wasn't any evidence of a Russian propaganda campaign in Virginia.

    No evidence that Russian propaganda changed a single vote in the Presidential election either..

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

    356

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "After all, noise allows me to write articles like this one, right?"

    Ssshh....you'll give the secret away! :)

    The RCP popularity track is the Dow Jones Industrial Average of American Politics.

    In an age of cheap computational power, why does THE DOW still use just 30 companies which must be re-jiggered periodically? It's not that hard to use all price weighted stocks being traded. You could use a smart phone app to do the job. It would still be George Jetson's job....press the button every morning. Why does the DOW persist? TRADITION!!! From the musical "Swindler on the Roof."

    Not that the DOW is worthless. It's like a weather vane on a barn.

    7:59 local time and I've completed my rant of the day.

  18. [18] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No evidence that Russian propaganda changed a single vote in the Presidential election either..

    And you know that, how? Thousands of facebook and twitter ads, millions of bots and retweets. Fake news items everywhere. You think that had no effect at all?

    Does anyone else know that millions of dollars worth of targeted advertising has no effect? Are wealthy donors and fundraising campaigns being told that their money is being spent for naught?

    Why, that means all campaign ads are WORTHLESS!

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you know that, how? Thousands of facebook and twitter ads, millions of bots and retweets. Fake news items everywhere. You think that had no effect at all?

    Because if there was even the SLIGHTEST SCINTILLA of remotely relevant piece of evidence to support it, ya'all hysterical Trumpers would be screaming it hysterically to high heaven...

    IN this case, absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence...

    357

  20. [20] 
    TheStig wrote:

    18- It doesn't matter if it changed a single vote. A covert operation by a foreign power attempted to influence the US Presidential Election. Did Trump, now President Trump, or his campaign, conspire with this foreign power. That is the salient legal question.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did Trump, now President Trump, or his campaign, conspire with this foreign power. That is the salient legal question.

    And the facts prove unequivocally that the answer is NO...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump seems to be chasing an ever-shrinking base of support among his most fervent supporters.

    Of course the FACTS say different... :D

    360

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    Because if there was even the SLIGHTEST SCINTILLA of remotely relevant piece of evidence to support it, ya'all hysterical Trumpers would be screaming it hysterically to high heaven...

    Firstly, the hysterical wingnuts on the right are screaming that there is nothing going on - why are the politicians and the media on the right attacking Mueller - a respected Republican so shrilly at the moment?

    Secondly, you want to see the evidence and the speculation all laid out for you? Read "Collusion" by Luke Harding.

    The Russians extended their propaganda activities to the U.S. and leveraged social media - Facebook continues to uncover accounts based on Russia and the posts promoted with Roubles. Tweet bots are being uncovered. The theft from the DNC is clearly a Russian operation. Wikileaks moved their servers to Moscow and is basically a FSB controlled operation. Deutsche Bank, the Russian State/Mafia and 45's business operations are mired in billions of laundered money and 'unusual' loans.

    The whole thing stinks. And now that Mueller is getting close, 45 and the right wing are trying to close him down.

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    Did Trump, now President Trump, or his campaign, conspire with this foreign power. That is the salient legal question.

    Well the new evidence coming out indicates that 45 has a lot of difficult questions to answer.

    The fanboys can stick their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la" all they want, but unless somebody stops Mueller then will at least get some questions asked that need to be asked. Then we will see if we can get truthful answers from an organization that is led by a man who lies constantly.

    The problem for 45 is the physical evidence, the financial transactions, the emails, physical meetings, etc. In 45 favor are the use of offshore accounts to obscure the owners of the money, and how it was moved from person to person between the offshore accounts, etc.

    Basically, as I stated at the very start, it is all about the financial transactions - 45 was only involved with the Russians originally because the NY financial industry refused to lend to him any longer because he kept going bankrupt and stiffing them.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "I kinda like noise, personally, but many others prefer more soothing, I am aware. After all, noise allows me to write articles like this one, right?"

    You allow yourself to write articles like this one.

    It reminds me of the 12 year old kid in the Jackie Robinson movie that joins in with the crowd and calls out the N word before Pee Wee Herman puts his arm around Jackie Robinson.

    I prefer less soothing. It's time for you to stop being the 12 year old and stand up and put your arm around One Demand.

    To stand up against the demon of the moment (the sexual harassment, Trump is bad) is just going with the crowd and is false bravado when what we need (standing up to Big Money) is ignored.

  26. [26] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    As I've stated before, Americans cast their votes based on two criteria, No.1, 'pocketbook' issues, and No. 2, political ideology.

    All you libs respond to the effect that such simply cannot be true, because if it were, that would imply that $billions are spent on campaign ads mostly in vain.

    What your responses/rebuttals all amount to is a belief that most voters are irrational, meaning that they often vote in ways that would in effect contradict their own beliefs, prejudices and interests.

    I will promise to give up on my theory and admit I was wrong in my analysis of the reality of the situation on the day that ANY SINGLE ONE OF YOU WEIGANTIAN LIBS confesses that he/she actually switched his/her OWN vote away from pocketbook and/or ideological issues based on campaign advertising.

    Eagerly awaiting hearing your confessions!!!

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Secondly, you want to see the evidence and the speculation all laid out for you? Read "Collusion" by Luke Harding.

    The book that you said reads like fiction?

    No thanx.. :D

    The whole thing stinks. And now that Mueller is getting close, 45 and the right wing are trying to close him down.

    Any facts to support that claim??

    ANy facts at all??

    No???

    Of course not..

    362

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    Campaign advertising is not intended to influence voters to switch their vote. It is designed to influence the media that receives the advertising money.

    This way the media has an excuse to only cover the Big Money candidates because the Big Money candidates are the only ones with enough money to have a chance to win.

    The Big Money prices the competition out of the market.

    And until citizens realize that they can use their votes to price the Big Money candidates out of the market in the voting booth the charade will continue.

    And CW will keep writing "articles like this" and the team players will keep maintaining the divisions the Big Money interests create, foment and exploit to keep us fighting with each other instead of working together against them.

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    I should also add, in case it wasn't clear, that while campaign advertising is not designed to influence most voters to switch their vote, it is designed to create and re-enforce the impression in the minds of voters that there are only the two Big Money choices.

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    I will promise to give up on my theory and admit I was wrong in my analysis of the reality of the situation on the day that ANY SINGLE ONE OF YOU WEIGANTIAN LIBS confesses that he/she actually switched his/her OWN vote away from pocketbook and/or ideological issues based on campaign advertising.

    A couple of things - most of the people who bother to engage in politics at the level of reading this site and posting on it are pretty well settled in their views - this includes the "libs" and the "RWNJs" (if you want to use pejorative terms, we'll see how you like yours, if you prefer left-leaning and right-leaning we will probably both be happier).

    Thus why would you expect somebody on this site to change their views on one particular campaign ad.

    The target for the social media posts are the people who don't submerge themselves in politics every day - and the posts are not overtly political, but issues oriented. If you can turn a moderate gun rights person into an extreme 2nd Amendment defender, then you've manufactured a reliable Republican voter. Alternatively if you can convince a middle-of-the-road voter that the Republicans are all nasty little bigots, you've got yourself a Democrat.

    This is the game being played, and the collateral damage is an increase in the divisions in our society.

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm-
    I hope RWNJs isn't Revolting Weirdos from New Jersey. :D

  32. [32] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    "Did the Trumpers conspire with this foreign power? That is the salient legal question?"

    Who exactly defines that that is the "salient legal question"?

    All you guys think that getting dirt on your opponent from an evil enemy source simply GOTTA be illegal. WRONG!

    It's not even true that the Russian intervention, whether it be from stolen emails or campaign ads, EVEN CAMPAIGN LIES, can be proven to have had any influence on the outcome on the election, and even if it could be proven, THERE AIN'T NOTHIN' YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

    Dems/libs simply can't believe that they were not cheated, so they're grasping at straws looking for relief from the moron-in-chief - ain't gonna happen!

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    The appeals are emotional - look at Michale's oeuvre - it is a fascinating look into the mindset of a weak-minded individual caught up in the right wing bubble (no offense Michale ;).

    There are plenty of "feelies" on both sides of the aisle - and Michale likes to point at the over sensitive on the left, particularly in our tertiary education facilities at the moment. And he has a point, but he fails when he extrapolates one individual to 100M people.

    From a pocketbook perspective, the picture isn't much better. People feel good about a President/Party when the economy is doing well. When their neighbor loses his or her job they get concerned, and when they lose their job they get angry and bitter and blame the occupant of the White House.

  34. [34] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [30]

    I claim that you CANNOT "turn a moderate gun-rights supporter into an extreme . . . .etc.", because he ALREADY
    IS ONE!

    That is the very epitome of my "political ideological" basis for casting votes.

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    All you guys think that getting dirt on your opponent from an evil enemy source simply GOTTA be illegal. WRONG!

    If the material was illegally stolen, then yes.

    If a foreign government is trying to pick a winner in our election, you are OK with that? That is your business, but the law sees things differently.

    There are four laws that overlap on this:

    1. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
    2. U.S. Code § 1346 - Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
    3. Public corruption laws
    4. General anti-coercion federal election law

    However the good news is we have a top Republican legal expert who is honest looking into this (name: Mueller). The even better news is that he was also the longest serving FBI Director since Hoover.

    So we'll find out in good time - either via Mueller's investigation or in the investigations launched by the Democrats when the pendulum inevitably swings and there is a Democratic House and/or Senate.

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    I claim that you CANNOT "turn a moderate gun-rights supporter into an extreme . . . .etc.", because he ALREADY
    IS ONE!

    Not in my experience. Most other gun owners I know support the right to responsible access to firearms, but want universal checks, registration and guns kept out of the hands of the violent, known criminals and children.

    You may be surrounded by "gun nuts" but most of my friends are part of the majority:

    Background checks for private & gun show sales: 85% in favor

    Preventing mental illness patients from access: 80%
    Federal database to track sales: 67%

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Watching the pendulum swing is getting old and is unproductive (see chart on Nader petition at change.org).

    By the way, that isn't really a pendulum- it's a noose.

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    By the way, that isn't really a pendulum- it's a noose.

    Fair enough, but what is your plan to make things better? I know the process (One Demand) but how are you going to light a fire under an apathetic public?

    On the right they use "they're going to take your guns away", "they want to kill babies", and "all us Christians will have to go to Mosques and worship Allah, and forget about Christmas" to motivate their base.

    On the left we have "they are all bigots", "they are going to kill Social Security" etc.

    The political junkies mostly agree with your diagnosis and the basic idea of your solution (limit the amount one person can donate and eliminate the big money), but the only currency that counts is people's votes and campaign finance reform isn't anywhere on anybody's radar.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Who exactly defines that that is the "salient legal question"?

    All you guys think that getting dirt on your opponent from an evil enemy source simply GOTTA be illegal. WRONG!

    EXACTLY....

    Dems/libs simply can't believe that they were not cheated, so they're grasping at straws looking for relief from the moron-in-chief - ain't gonna happen!

    EXACTLY times 1,000,000,000

    The hysterical Left Wing simply CANNOT comprehend that the American people wanted President Trump over President Hillary Clinton..

    So they have to invent Russian interference as if it was some boogeyman..

    I would bet you 1 billion dollars that, had Hillary won, the Democrats wouldn't have said dick about Russian interference..

    You get it..

    They don't....

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm-
    The Democrats and Republicans are doing a good enough job of lighting the fire themselves. The problem is that people have to figure out for themselves they are getting burnt.
    All I can do is offer an alternative when they are ready on their own and keep after people like Ralph and CW to inform citizens about the opportunity.
    It's like the old joke How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
    Just one, but it takes a long time and the light bulb has to want to change.

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And 80% of citizens, including a majority of Republicans, say they want the Big Money out.

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So the issue is on the people's radar- it's the solution that is unavailable to them because people like Ralph and CW keep dismissing One Demand as an insignificant reading when I put the One Demand blips up on their radar screen.

  43. [43] 
    John M wrote:

    [32] C. R. Stucki

    "All you guys think that getting dirt on your opponent from an evil enemy source simply GOTTA be illegal. WRONG!"

    Actually, and I don't know why you PERSONALLY keep MISSING this, maybe it's just because all you conservatives have BLINDERS on when it comes to this ISSUE, but what you cited is not even the major POINT.

    What's gotten Michael Flynn and all those involved in the Trump campaign into major trouble, besides LYING, is the possibility that in EXCHANGE for dirt on Hillary Clinton, and disinformation that would help Trump and hurt Democrats coming from Russian sources during the election, a deal was struck to drop sanctions on Russia, a quid pro quo, which is VERY ILLEGAL. Either that, or the Trump organization would GET FINANCING through the Moscow offices of DEUTSCHE BANK for real estate properties both in New York and Moscow, and to Keep either the Trump organization, or Jared and Ivanka Kushner's company solvent, using laundered Russian money.

    Now that Mueller is following the money, that's what's got the Trump supporters running scared.

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    Dems/libs simply can't believe that they were not cheated, so they're grasping at straws looking for relief from the moron-in-chief - ain't gonna happen!

    This is so sad. If you are right, then Mueller will tell us that it is a big nothingburger.

    What are you all so worried about? It is being run by a Republican, for Pete's sake. If this was a Democrat being investigated by another Democrat you'd be screaming your heads off.

    Let Mueller do his job. All you need is to be as confident in your certainty he didn't do anything wrong.

  45. [45] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M

    OK, I guess that remains to be demonstrated. And I have to wonder, are those things illegal for the losers, or only for the winners?

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    I would bet you 1 billion dollars that, had Hillary won, the Democrats wouldn't have said dick about Russian interference..

    I'd take that bet. All the collusion was done by 45 and he would have been kicking up a fuss right now - maybe on "Loser TV", so the Democratic presidency would happily have a special investigator looking into 45's family's ties to Moscow.

  47. [47] 
    John M wrote:

    [39] Michale

    "Dems/libs simply can't believe that they were not cheated, so they're grasping at straws looking for relief from the moron-in-chief - ain't gonna happen

    The hysterical Left Wing simply CANNOT comprehend that the American people wanted President Trump over President Hillary Clinton..

    So they have to invent Russian interference as if it was some boogeyman..

    I would bet you 1 billion dollars that, had Hillary won, the Democrats wouldn't have said dick about Russian interference..

    You get it..

    They don't...."

    Again Michale, see 43 above.

    No INVENTING a boogeyman about it.... Despite all your right wing hysterical protests, sometimes the slime lurking in the darkest corners turns out to be more than just shadow play when a light is shined on it....

    It is so OBVIOUS, WE GET IT, and YOU DON'T

    Also, When a man barely gets 46% of the vote, and barely squeaks by in the electoral college by the thinnest of margins....that's NOT EVEN A MANDATE, let alone an endorsement....

  48. [48] 
    John M wrote:

    [45] C. R. Stucki

    "OK, I guess that remains to be demonstrated. And I have to wonder, are those things illegal for the losers, or only for the winners?"

    WIN OR LOSE, illegal is still illegal, it DOES NOT MATTER.

    And, if you are trying to raise that false equivalency about Clinton and uranium and the Russians, that has already been proven to be a BIG nothing burger. Not when she personally didn't profit from it, it was an international transaction involving a Canadian company, had to be approved by at least nine federal agencies, of which Clinton's State Department was only one voice among many, and the Russians would STILL NOT even HAVE a license to export any uranium to Russia even after all of that. Not to mention that the bulk of the money donated to the Clinton Foundation, came from someone who sold ALL of their stakes in the company 18 months BEFORE Clinton became Secretary of State and THREE years BEFORE the deal even took place.

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    So they have to invent Russian interference as if it was some boogeyman..

    You do understand that the Russian interference was being investigated four months before the election by Comey's FBI? And that, while Comey was quite willing to talk about the fact that Hillary was under investigation, he never let on that 45's family were under scrutiny (probably because there was evidence they were still at it and he was collecting even more evidence). This was one of the pints that the right wing seems to have conveniently forgotten, even after Comey got grilled by the Democrats about it.

    You also seem to have forgotten that the CIA, NSA and FBI stated with confidence, again before the election, that Russia was interfering and trying to tip the outcome against Hillary.

    It is you that doesn't "get it" because if you "got it" you're happy little fantasy world where 45 is an innocent victim of a Democratic witch hunt would fall down.

    And remember who appointed Mueller? The Republican administration's DOJ.

    Maybe you believed 45 instead of the FBI, NSA, CIA, and already public evidence in May of this year, so it is funny to watch you suddenly get cold feet about his investigation.

    Obviously you (Michale) have no special insight - you are just following the right wing talking point like the good little sheep you are - so your sudden concern about the investigation reflects the panic from 45's gang now Mueller is going after the Deutsche Bank records.

    Why don't you take 30 minutes and look into the activities of DB's Moscow office and the other money laundering convictions they have gotten - you'll see exactly why you are being prodded to get angry about Mueller.

    As I stated from the beginning, I think 45 is too stupid to have actively been involved in collusion, but it looks like his kids might have been and told him and he was too stupid to tell them not to.

    However his property deals have been very suspicious for a long time, especially his relationship with DB.

  50. [50] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    OK, so the whole world knew that "Russia was interfering and trying to tip the outcome against Hillary."

    I presume that meant hacking the DNC emails and buying ads on social media. I doubt that that is even illegal, but if it is, I'd suggest we prosecute them to the fullest degree! You ought to suggest that to Mueller.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    What's gotten Michael Flynn and all those involved in the Trump campaign into major trouble, besides LYING, is the possibility that in EXCHANGE for dirt on Hillary Clinton, and disinformation that would help Trump and hurt Democrats coming from Russian sources during the election, a deal was struck to drop sanctions on Russia, a quid pro quo, which is VERY ILLEGAL.

    "I need you to relay to Vladimir that I need some space from him so I can win the election. After that I can be more flexible.."
    -Hussein Odumbo

    Funny how you didn't care about that then, eh???

    Once again, I prove beyond ANY doubt that ya'all simply DO NOT have a moral leg to stand on when it comes to Trump or Russia..

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [50]

    Hacking emails is illegal. Knowingly handling stolen goods is illegal.

    But let's face it, there is a reason why you and I are not the special prosecutor. Fortunately we have a good one with expertise and experience and a proven record as a straight shooter. And he is also a Republican, which I think is a good thing because I'm willing to accept an honest American, even if I don't share all his political views. He is an American first, then a Republican, despite Michale's trashing of his character (Michale imagined that Mueller would have a conversation on the first day with 45 about how to go after Hillary and ignore the Russian interference).

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out how ya'all ridiculed Romney when he claimed that Russia was our number 1 geopolitical foe..

    Oh how ya'all laughed...

    So, you see why it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to take yer Russia hysteria seriously..

    Because it's a FACT that it is borne SOLELY and COMPLETELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY from nothing but Party slavery....

    Ya'all don't care about Russia.. You just want to beat PRESIDENT Trump over the head with because he had the unmitigated GALL to totally devastate YOUR champion in a fair, free and legal election...

  54. [54] 
    John M wrote:

    [50] C. R. Stucki

    "I presume that meant hacking the DNC emails and buying ads on social media. I doubt that that is even illegal..."

    Buying ads is certainly NOT illegal, unless you can make a case for libel, defamation, incitement or support and comfort of a terrorist act, etc. But hacking definitely IS illegal. Does that even really need to be stated??? The FBI going after hacking of the Defense Department, various corporations and banks, etc. It's considered similar to breaking and entering and stealing property, even though it's physically virtual and involves informational property instead.

    "You ought to suggest that to Mueller."

    Now you are just being snarky.

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    Funny how you didn't care about that then, eh???

    Because it isn't the same. Man you are getting desperate. Just relax. You are SO sure that we "don't get it" but your panic levels are skyrocketing.

    Chill. Mueller is an honest man with the skills to find out as much of the truth as is possible.

    You'd almost think that you believed the NSA, FBI and CIA's assessment and were worried that Manafort and Flynn were already testifying for the prosecution the way you keep going on about it.

    Pass the popcorn, CW.com is getting as entertaining as the White House. To paraphrase, "I love the sight of fear from Republicans in the morning" ;)

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS and Michale - if you are losing sleep over the Mueller investigation, then UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES read "Collution" by Luke Harding.

    I repeat DO NOT READ THIS BOOK IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT 45 LYING ABOUT THE RUSSIANS!

    (Sorry for the all caps, but this is an emergency broadcast.)

  57. [57] 
    John M wrote:

    [51] Michale

    "I need you to relay to Vladimir that I need some space from him so I can win the election. After that I can be more flexible.."
    -Hussein Odumbo

    "Funny how you didn't care about that then, eh???"

    FALSE EQUIVALENCY. But whatever helps you get through this, eh Michale???

    Or do you simply NOT understand when concrete actions are actually undertaken and real world money actually trades hands, for specifically stated and laid out purposes, i.e. sanctions, influence peddling, real estate etc., versus some vague philosophical promise of better relations in the hope that I win an election sort of thing? Surely someone who wrote "The Art of The Deal" would grasp that???

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out how ya'all ridiculed Romney when he claimed that Russia was our number 1 geopolitical foe..

    I didn't. Putin has been engineering a mafia state for a decade. I watched with mounting concern when he worked his way round the term limits and killed Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. The Economist has been raising concern about the direction of Russia for a long time.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because it isn't the same.

    OF COURSE it's the same....

    The *ONLY* difference is one fits your Party slavery and one doesn't...

    Chill. Mueller is an honest man with the skills to find out as much of the truth as is possible.

    Until he says "NOPE, Nothing to see here" and THEN he will be the most incompetent man on the planet..

    Don't bother denying it because THAT is exactly what ya'all did with Comey...

    Pass the popcorn, CW.com is getting as entertaining as the White House. To paraphrase, "I love the sight of fear from Republicans in the morning" ;)

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night...

    Fact is Mueller has found NOTHING that even remotely indicates that Trump colluded with Russians. You yourself said how unlikely that it happened..

    Now you read a John LeCarre novel and now yer as hysterical as everyone else...

  60. [60] 
    John M wrote:

    [53] Michale

    "I am also constrained to point out how ya'all ridiculed Romney when he claimed that Russia was our number 1 geopolitical foe.."

    Russia is NOT. China IS. Russia is number TWO.

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    Fact is Mueller has found NOTHING that even remotely indicates that Trump colluded with Russians. You yourself said how unlikely that it happened..

    How do you know? That is the point, we are waiting to see what comes out. There is rampant speculation (why is Mueller cutting deals with Flynn and Manafort unless they can give him bigger fish), but I don't know. You don't know. Even CRS who is smarter than all us "libs" and needs to school us on basic economics and government doesn't know.

    Mueller knows.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn't. Putin has been engineering a mafia state for a decade.

    ANd did you speak up here when everyone was ridiculing Romney??

    No, you did not.. So, it's easy to say, but the facts clearly show you went along with everything Odumbo said...

    You see, here's your problem..

    As sure as you sound that Mueller is going to find something and Trump is going down??

    You sounded EXACTLY the same sure when you said Hillary was going to win the election.

    You were SOOO SURE then and you turned out to be wrong..

    Why should I believe you when you are the SAME "SOOO SURE" now???

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    FALSE EQUIVALENCY. But whatever helps you get through this, eh Michale???

    Of course you would SAY that..

    But the fact is, it's EXACTLY the same.. You don't CARE if a POTUS works with Russia to undermine the US...

    You just care if it's a POTUS with a -R after their name...

    This is fact...

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    And remember, my initial assumption was that the Russians were too smart to trust 45 or his family in anything that required keeping a secret or not inadvertently leaving evidence about.

    I assumed that any dirty tricks were being handled by Manafort who has a track record in Ukraine of working with Russian aligned interests and seems to have contacts high up in the Russian government.

    Manafort offered to work for 45 for free. That isn't his style, so one of the things that Mueller probably wants to know is if Manafort was being paid by somebody else to work on the campaign, and if so who, and if so why?

    Maybe the Russians are dumber than I thought, or maybe they expected 45 to lose then they could use him to undermine Hillary's legitimacy with his oft repeated claims that the system was rigged.

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    ANd did you speak up here when everyone was ridiculing Romney??

    No, you did not.. So, it's easy to say, but the facts clearly show you went along with everything Odumbo said...

    What facts? You are making things up. When did I ever ridicule Romney's position on Russia?

    These are more "Michale Facts" - things you'd like to be true because they fit your inner story line.

    Show me what the "facts clearly show" or admit you can't (I predict Michale will not return to this line of thinking.)

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh, and on that "Romney was prescient" about Russia argument:

    BLITZER: But you think Russia is a bigger foe right now than, let’s say, Iran or China or North Korea? Is that — is that what you’re suggesting, Governor?

    ROMNEY: Well, I’m saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world’s worst actors. Of course, the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran. A nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough.

    CNN, March 26th, 2012

    and

    BLITZER: The last time you and I spoke in an interview, you told me that Russia was America's No. 1 geostrategic foe. Do you still believe that?

    ROMNEY: There's no question but that in terms of geopolitics -- I'm talking about votes at the United Nations and actions of a geopolitical nature -- Russia is the No. 1 adversary in that regard. That doesn't make them an enemy. It doesn’t make them a combatant. They don't represent the No. 1 national security threat.

    CNN, July 2012

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe the Russians are dumber than I thought, or maybe they expected 45 to lose then they could use him to undermine Hillary's legitimacy with his oft repeated claims that the system was rigged.

    OR...

    Maybe everything you THINK You know is total bullshit..

    Like it was on 7 Nov 2016...

    That's the ONE thing you simply can't get around..

    You were so so SO blatantly wrong...

    Isn't it possible you can be so so SO blatantly wrong again???

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Care to make a prediction about the Alabama election?? :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Big media’s sad and extremely horrible week
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/11/big-medias-sad-and-extremely-horrible-week/

    This is why it's impossible to take ya'all seriously...

    Because ya'all actually buy into the bullshit and refuse to accept that it IS bullshit...

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    As I expected, Michale has suddenly lost interest in showing me the "clear" facts that support his argument about me ridiculing Romney.

    He was right once over a year ago, and even his amazement hasn't abated - he can't stop obsessing about it.

    Well done Michale - your wild prediction worked out. Now, since you are so much better at predicting the future that everybody else, who will win in Alabama today and whose going to be in the Superbowl ... or did you just get lucky once?

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    Big media’s sad and extremely horrible week

    So let me get this straight, you are believing the media and so telling us that we shouldn't believe the media.

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:

    Care to make a prediction about the Alabama election?? :D

    Sure, I think it is 50/50

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Or do you simply NOT understand when concrete actions are actually undertaken and real world money actually trades hands, for specifically stated and laid out purposes, i.e. sanctions, influence peddling, real estate etc., versus some vague philosophical promise of better relations in the hope that I win an election sort of thing?

    Isn't it amazing how ALL your "facts" totally and completely line up PERFECTLY with yer Party slavery??

    I mean, what are the odds of that?? That *EVERY* fact that exists in the world totally and unequivocally syncs with your Party ideology....

    That you believe that should be a tip off as to how deluded you are... :D

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moore will win Alabama and the Jags will win the Super Bowl.. :D

  75. [75] 
    neilm wrote:

    Who will be in the Superbowl, not who will win.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jags and someone else.. :D

  77. [77] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Isn't it amazing how ALL your "facts" totally and completely line up PERFECTLY with yer Party slavery?

    Contrary to GOP belief, "facts" is not just another term for 'minions'. They don't 'line up', they just 'are'.

    For instance, nearly every republican I met two years ago was sure that it was a 'fact' that Hillary's email server was hideously unsecure, and that surely the Russians had already hacked it.

    That was the basis for all of those investigations (and almost quaint now that we've seen how Trump 'handles' classified info, particularly around Russians).

    As it turns out, Hillary's private email server was about the only one in Washington that WASN'T hacked by Russians. Go figure.

    So, Benghazi = nothing, email scandal = nothing, Uranium One = nothing, and her health is still fine. What was that about Dems chasing bogeymen again?

  78. [78] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oh, and by the way, not a single scandal touched Obama in eight years, despite, I'm sure, the efforts of every Republican operative in D.C. Not one.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    As it turns out, Hillary's private email server was about the only one in Washington that WASN'T hacked by Russians. Go figure.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    Oh, and by the way, not a single scandal touched Obama in eight years, despite, I'm sure, the efforts of every Republican operative in D.C. Not one.

    And not a single scandal has "touched" President Trump...

    My gods, you are SO blinded by your Party slavery and bigotry....

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    And not a single scandal has "touched" President Trump...

    Well the scandals aren't about who touched 45, rather the opposite at the moment ;)

  81. [81] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    First the touching by politicians created scandals and now the scandals are touching back?

    There's something to be said for being out of touch, I guess.

    Waitress: Hey, watch where you're sticking that thing.
    Barff: It's got a mind of it's own. I can't do a thing with it.
    other waitress: What'll ya have?
    Barff:I'll have the cleavage.
    -Spaceballs

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    Balthazar [77]

    This is the problem of skeptical people dealing with the tin-foil-hat crowd.

    The tin-foil-hat crowd are certain they are right, and the skeptics are never sure of anything.

    It is analogous to the saying "a lie can travel around the world before the truth can get its boots on".

    Facebook and Twitter are lie acceleration mediums in a world that didn't need it to be any easier to propagate a lie already. We aren't teaching scientific thinking well enough, and until we do we are going to lose ground to societies that are more in touch with reality.

    I mean we have a climate denier in the White House and another running our house science committee.

    It is almost impossible to tell if these people are just greedy for campaign donations are too stupid to understand simple science, but the end result is the same.

    Until we have an electorate that can think, we are doomed to idiots like 45, Lamar Smith, etc.

    They always have a new conspiracy to peddle and assume that anything they don't like is a conspiracy as they are unable to understand reality, or the boundaries of knowledge.

    Plus the Dunning-Krugers runs deep so you can't reason with them. They think they are the experts even though they have no qualifications or relevant experience - for many of them they think they are the experts because they have no qualifications or experience - they think that being good at one thing means they are good at everything. If you ever hang out with Doctors (I went to Medical School) you see a lot of this behavior. (My personal finance friend has a lot of trouble with medical professionals who simply have to learn basic investing the hard way.)

  83. [83] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [54]

    If I recall correctly, the "informational property" stolen by the Russians from the DNC was that the behind-the scenes Dem power brokers were all backing Hillary in the Dem primaries, in collusion against Sanders.

    Raises the question, of what use was that to Trump? If Trump didn't steal it, and he didn't profit from it, what is Mueller gonna declare to have been illegal??

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Raises the question, of what use was that to Trump? If Trump didn't steal it, and he didn't profit from it, what is Mueller gonna declare to have been illegal?

    There ya go again, bringing FACTS into all the Never Trumper hysteria....

    Facts aren't welcome amongst the PTDS crowd...

    It's like bring a cop to an LSD Party....

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Until we have an electorate that can think......

    exactly as we tell them to think

    There.. Fixed it for you...

    Yer welcome

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    Raises the question, of what use was that to Trump?

    It created a huge split in the Democratic voters and help suppress Bernie voters from voting for Hillary.

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    exactly as we tell them to think

    There.. Fixed it for you...

    Dude, you are the one that posts screeds of the latest right wing propaganda on this site.

    You don't even bother to synthesis anything and examine it - up in bold it goes.

    You've stopped counting by the way, I have you at 377.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dude, you are the one that posts screeds of the latest right wing propaganda on this site.

    Otherwise known as FACTS.....

    You've stopped counting by the way, I have you at 377.

    I am covered to 400... But thanx for keeping track... :D

  89. [89] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [86]

    OK, so even if it's true that Sanders voters stayed home, to the benefit of Trump, it's at best an indirect benefit conferred upon him by a third party. Can't possibly be anything illegal about that, even if he publicly asked the Russians to do it on TV, the way he asked them to hack Hillary's emails.

    Tell Mueller to indict Putin, seeing as how he was the only one who committed a crime. Problem there is, Millions of hackers are perpetually hacking everything, and not a single one ever gets prosecuted.

  90. [90] 
    neilm wrote:

    Tell Mueller to indict Putin

    Mueller knows what he is doing - he is an expert in the law, I'm not.

    Other experts in the law have identified four statues that 45 can be prosecuted under (I listed them earlier, but I'll repeat here):

    1. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
    2. U.S. Code § 1346 - Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
    3. Public corruption laws
    4. General anti-coercion federal election law

    These are for the election activities, but as you probably already know, it is usually the cover up activities that get politicians in the most trouble - Clinton for lying (there is no law against sex with a consenting 22-year-old).

    As I've stated repeatedly however, I think that the anti-money laundering statutes are going to be of most concern to the White House - especially if they've been trying to cover their tracks and make mistakes.

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    The nonpartisan Alliance for Securing Democracy and monitors approximately 600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence operations. These have been pushing out 20,000 to 25,000 tweets every day. They push extreme left-wing and extreme right-wing positions.

    Among the top content shared by the Russian-linked accounts on Tuesday, Dec. 12, was votejudgemoore.com, a URL redirecting to the Alabama secretary of state’s website.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller knows what he is doing -

    COmey knew what he was doing too..

    Until what he did, the hysterical Left Wingery didn't like.. Then Comey had to be destroyed..

    Until Trump fired him.. Then Comey was the darling of the Left..

    My gods, man, how do you keep all the hypocrisy straight???

    Ok, past my bed time.. I'll wake up early to congratulate Senator Moore.. :D

  93. [93] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    You are the living embodiment of “projection”! You claim to back law enforcement but trash Mueller’s investigation based on what I can only assume is your fear that Trump is actually a worse person than you already know that he is.

    You are intelligent, and many of your arguments are based on rational points, but then you jump behind a ridiculous claim that is clearly not true and try to steer the conversation away from the real topic. It’s very obvious that anytime you attack everyone else for being party following zombies, for having no moral leg to stand on, or point to something some democrat once supposedly did as proof of some point that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that you cannot defend whatever it is that Trump did that is being discussed. Its a very Stephen Colbert-esque like character... minus the funny.

    It’s a shame that you refuse to speak honestly on here regarding his actions, because I’d love to hear your actual thoughts on some of these issues instead of having to skim over the Deflect & Project pile that you insist on spewing.

  94. [94] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    To everyone -

    I've just posted a placeholder column:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/12/12/alabama-votes/

    so we can comment on the AL vote results coming in on a fresh thread.

    Later, I will write a column with my reactions to whomever wins and post it in the same place (erasing the placeholder text).

    Just wanted to let everyone know...

    -CW

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    It’s a shame that you refuse to speak honestly on here regarding his actions,

    I could say the same thing about ya'all..

    All you have is spin...

    You have an LEO background. You KNOW what Trump said in that access hollywood video is NOT a confession of any sort..

    Yet you allow the bullshit to perpetuate...

    If you want to look at someone who refuses to speak honestly.... Just look in a mirror..

  96. [96] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Aaaaaand, Trump's down to 37.0 / 58.1 in RCP's rolling daily average... sub-37 here we come!

    Heh.

    -CW

Comments for this article are closed.