As I have stated, I only post polls to counter ya'all's polls to prove ya'all's hypocrisy..

Lie #1 -- You post polls when you like what they say, and they are not "only" in response to other polls.

My opinions on polls are well known and there is no reason to repeat myself.. As you often do...

Lie #2 -- There must be some reason to repeat yourself because you are the most repetitive poster on this blog. Your stated "opinion on polls" is well known because you repeat it all the time (see Lie #1 above), but your rhetoric and reality are two different things.

Speaking of polls..

I recall how ya'all gleefully pointed out the poll that had Trump at 37% approval rating..

Who is "ya'all"? I didn't gleefully point out that Trump had a 37% approval rating so your "recall" either lies again or needs serious attention since it's mistaken.

I now point out how Trump's approval rating has jumped to 45% and ya'all ignore that poll..

Lie #3 -- I don't ignore polls.

As I said.. Ya'all's hypocrisy regarding polls is well-established..

See Lie #2 wherein you state you don't repeat yourself.

This is simply more proof..

Oh, it's simple alright... on that we can agree. :)

With the notable exception that you gleefully touted the poll you liked yet posted zero links. :)

As I have stated, I only post polls to counter ya'all's polls to prove ya'all's hypocrisy..

My opinions on polls are well known and there is no reason to repeat myself.. As you often do...

Speaking of polls..

I recall how ya'all gleefully pointed out the poll that had Trump at 37% approval rating..

I now point out how Trump's approval rating has jumped to 45% and ya'all ignore that poll..

As I said.. Ya'all's hypocrisy regarding polls is well-established..

This is simply more proof..

The funny thing is, Hillary's poll numbers are WORSE than Trump's.....

The really funny thing is how CW pegged you exactly right:

You, on the other hand, exhibit exactly the behavior you are now ascribing to others. Poll says GOP (or Trump) is up? You gleefully tout it and post links. Polls say GOP/Trump is down? "Polls can't be trusted!"

I mean, seriously. Get a grip. Because if there's anything that proves confirmation bias around here, it is your refusal to believe any poll you don't like, while boasting about the ones you do like. That, plain and simple, IS confirmation bias. Deal with it, pal.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/12/20/gops-swamp-creature-of-a-tax-bill/#comment-112677

With the notable exception that you gleefully touted the poll you liked yet posted zero links. :)

"Trump is the only first-year President to lose the most admired man poll."

Another victory!

I know, right!? All that "winning." *LOL*

Trump is determined to overtake Benedict Arnold. It'll be interesting to see this poll next year. :)

https://twitter.com/VanityFair/status/944613785171501056

Yea... Sure she does.. :D

Do you have ANY facts to support your claim??

ANY facts at all??

Of course you don't...

Also articles about the well-off white republicans who voted DT because, contrary to popular belief, DT voters are not all "working class". There were plenty of people (mostly white) who are doing quite well that voted for DT. But the smarter ones who understand the importance of the rule of law, checks and balances, religious freedom, etc., have changed their minds.

The funny thing is, Hillary's poll numbers are WORSE than Trump's.....

:D

WaPoop did a mock election 6 months after the Trump inauguration.. Not only did Hillary lose the Election (AGAIN) but she ALSO lost the vanity vote!! :D

As I pointed out a few days ago, there is a reason we haven't heard much from the rapist and sexual assaulter enabler..

Because the rapist and sexual assaulter may finally be called to account...

Another butthurt liberal heard from..

Tough Times for Liberals Mean It's Time to Toughen Up
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-26/tough-times-for-liberals-mean-it-s-time-to-toughen-up

When I get bummed or depressed, I just find a youtube video that shows a bunch of screaming and crying snowflakes on 9 Nov 2016 and all of the sudden I am laughing, happy and gay again!! :D

Neil, I lost count... Where am I... :D

It would be interesting (and likely informative) to find out how many people they called that refused to pick up, and how many that picked up responded "get the hell off my gawdam phone!"

"Trump is the only first-year President to lose the most admired man poll."

Another victory!

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton Retain Most Admired Titles

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans once again are most likely to name Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as the man and woman living anywhere in the world they admire most, as they have for the past 10 years. The pair retain their titles this year, although by much narrower margins than in the past. Obama edges out Donald Trump, 17% to 14%, while Clinton edges out Michelle Obama, 9% to 7%.

Just sayin'

"While I haven't read the article yet, it would be interesting to see if there was an uptick in small contributions in 2017 compared to 2015 and 2013. Maybe that's in the article or the information it is based on."

They did include a graph in the article plotting the number of small donations to House candidates of both parties since 2003. The number for Republicans holds steady throughout the entire period from 2003 to 2017, at about 10,000.

However, the trend line for Democrats begins to change dramatically around 2012, and explodes on an upward trajectory starting in 2015, going from 10,000 in 2011, to 40,000 in 2013 and 2015, and zooming to 160,000 in 2017.

With all the discussion about "One Demand" did anyone see the following article in the Huffington Post?:

Entitled: "An Explosion Of Small Donations Powered Democratic Wins In Virginia House"

"Democratic House candidates received 153,422 contributions of $100 or less in the 2017 elections, compared to 7,332 such gifts for Republicans, the nonprofit Virginia Public Access Project found by analyzing official data."

"Set up a web site that has a map of America. Allow people to zoom in on their state. When they do, have the logos of the top donor companies that pay their senators. Also identify the top people who donate to shady political vehicles, etc."

Opensecrets.org already does this by zip code and map for Congressmen and Senators - but without Nascar iconography.

I've used Opensecrets for years, it is invaluable. I see no need to reinvent this particular wheel at the Federal level. Opensecrets is a good model for anyone trying to document the money stream at state and county levels.

DH-85

"So how much could it hurt to sign up and see if it catches on or if any part of it works?"

I an very reluctant to sign up by using my Email address. I already get enough spam. How can you ensure your customers that they don't have to worry about their addresses being propagated.

Don:

I've been thinking about OneDemand and I think that you can apply incremental pressure rather than demand absolute compliance to the standards you decide to set.

The standards you set were so rigorous that I couldn't sign on as I will vote for the best candidate, and sometimes I might have to be upset that that candidate received more than $250 in donations (hell, I broke that rule myself for two candidates I voted for in 2016, so I'm part of your problem).

So here is my suggestion:

1. Set up a web site that has a map of America. Allow people to zoom in on their state. When they do, have the logos of the top donor companies that pay their senators. Also identify the top people who donate to shady political vehicles, etc.

Make every state look like a Nascar Car.

Then show people the tools you used to identify the funding sources and let them submit research to you for their congressional district. You can create a small army of researchers digging in to the funding and putting logos all over every congressional district in the country.

You can also estimate the amount of funding a Senator receives directly and indirectly and have a "Wall of Shame".

When elections come round your research army can dig into the funding by candidate using the tools you have taught them to use and they can create local "Tables of Shame".

You can aggregate the data by political party, etc. as well. You can also aggregate the data by "logo" and show who is funding locally, by issue and who is trying to just buy as many politicians as they can.

This is a LOT of work to get started (you may only be able to get partial information at first), but if you document your methods and sources you have a chance of being picked up by the media as a reliable source.

I even thought up a name for your website and it is available:

wikicon.com

And here is another little present for you:

http://wikicorrupt.com/

Doesn't it feel so much better to debate and converse than to criticize and deride?

Since 98% of your posts are spent criticizing and deriding "Big Money" Democrats/Republicans or anyone who votes for "Big Money" Democrats/Republicans... which is actually everyone who votes because there's no such thing as a "Small Money" candidate... and criticizing the author of the blog for not genuflecting to your "One Demand" and your multiple other demands, I for one would be curious to know if it felt "so much better" for you, Don.

I'm not trying to be mean about it either, Don, just borrowing that mirror you took out and turning it back in your general direction... as I am wont to do. :)

Y'know, as much as we talk about the influence of Russia on our politics, we ought to pay a bit more attention to the influence of Rupert Murdoch's demon baby news channel on our politics.

I think we'd be discussing it alot if R. Murdoch was a Russian or a Saudi Prince. Perhaps we should someday discuss having limits on foreign influence on our domestic News industry, or at least give the matter as much attention as the British have.

After all, if Fox News is primarily (or even partially!) foreign owned, isn't every minute of airtime spent praising Trump essentially a violation of the Emoluments clause of the constitution?

Political gift from foreign entity: check!

Nice link ... for a conspiracy theorist, that is. Heh.

Well, you were explaining how much "vulgarity" bothers you, so I thought I'd interject a little truth into the conversation. Sometimes my memory cannot help itself... comes with the years of training in both "theory" and "conspiracy," and it sure trumps (pun intended) being referred to as "deep state" or "establishment." :)

Not going to lie, I thoroughly enjoyed all those walks down memory lane of yours where you post the links containing Michale's love for Robert Mueller. He tried to later say he was just kidding, but he wasn't exactly fooling anybody. He pretty much spews the right-wing talking points out on cue, and I should know since I regularly receive a list of them delivered directly to my inbox. :)

You've always had a penchant for correcting Mopshell, Paula, and me for our comments, and as the three of us have all pointed out at multiple and various assorted occasions in our posts, it's not exactly something you do regularly with the male commenters. This naturally leads anyone with two brain cells to rub together to believe that you're less concerned with the "vulgarity" and "juvenile discourse" and more concerned with playing mother to the other females.

Then too, maybe Mopshell was correct in her assessment regarding this penchant of yours because she certainly didn't mince words when she let it be known a time or two that you seem to want to clear the board of all the other females. Also too, you're not exactly known for practicing that which you preach to the other womenfolk.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/06/comey-needs-to-clear-the-air/#comment-96012

So there's that. :)

It can get very dark and hot in here, you know. :)

Or run for office, someone added later.

Remember, Liz, how unique this little forum is, how having even this much variety of political opinion in a forum in which metaphorical knives are not drawn daily is rarer than catching sight of a Trump cracking a book.

With all of these different points of view about, some sharp elbows are almost inevitable. I consider it fortunate that we've been generally able to keep it all more or less civil.

I think what you're really saying is, "You don't have to yell, I'm sitting right here next to you."

"And don't be vulgar. I hate that."

Chris certainly provides reality-based political commentary and he does indeed call it as he sees it. That won't change, no matter how far into the gutter the comments sections get.

I wish more commenters would follow Chris's example and understand that a reality-based blog doesn't mean that comments need to scrape the bottom with vulgarity and otherwise juvenile discourse. I'm sure that's not the reality Chris has in mind.

Hasn't anyone around here heard the old adage that if you haven't got anything good to say then don't say anything at all?

I hear you... I really do, but have you maybe considered that this is and has always been a blog based on reality wherein the commenters take their cues from the author? CW doesn't endeavor to put lipstick on the pigs that are our President of the United States, Senators, Representatives, and et alia, etc., regardless of their party affiliation or lack thereof. CW just tells it like it is and includes the dirty details/speech/quotes and doesn't try to sugarcoat it, and reality can be... and lately certainly has been... such a witch.

I love this blog because it is [borrowing the most excellent language of its author] dedicated to "reality-based politics," not Utopia or some fantasyland where unicorns fart rainbows and the pixies frolic in the meadow.

I sure shirt hope it never changes. :)

Michale [35]: Here's one for you:

Hillary Clinton - Enough already! Hillary is now just another writer of historical tomes - at best, a star of CSPAN2's "Book TV". There is no chance of her returning to politics in our lifetimes. Continuing to clasp her to your chest like a child's blanket only reflects badly on you. Let it go. Grow up!

I like your response to Michale there Balthy because you are unequivocally correct about his clasping of Hillary to his chest, just like a widdle baby. In that regard, Michale is like Donald Trump and Linus van Pelt... widdle toddlers clinging to their blankies and sucking the thumbs on their teeny tiny little baby hands, said widdle thumbs likely representing a reasonable facsimile of what they'd rather be sucking... you know, what Scaramucci said about Steve Bannon. :)

I think it's funny, though, to watch Michale reinforce near daily the fact that he's totally invested in the Trump Con and spewing back the pathological lies of his Orange Worship. Trump tells the sycophants that the Russia story is made up because Hillary lost the election and people can't get over it, and they eat it up like it's candy and gleefully spew back the BS as if it's gospel because they actually believe the Con's fabrication/propaganda and are drunk on the Kool-Aid of the cult of personality and worshiping at the alter. Pay no attention to the FACT that the IC worldwide with the help of our global allies had been investigating the Trump campaign long before the election.

Now I ask you: What kind of LEO with two brain cells to rub together could look at the preponderance of the widely known evidence of the facts in this case yet still buy into, fully vest, and spew back daily the Trump propaganda?

So let them all ever cling to their blankies and suck on their "reasonable facsimile" thumbs. The more Michale posts about November 2016 and parrots Clownfish Von Trump and his utter nonsensical fabricated tripe, he won't then be able to pretend like he doesn't care about what happens to Poor Donald and/or that he's not fully invested in the outcome of the Mueller investigation. :)

Or, what about just ignoring things you detest and save your writing energy for comments that move the ball forward?

And, whatever happened to just having a little good-hearted and good-natured fun as we debate the issues.

Surely we don't think it's fun to trade insults and engage in other games of one-ups-manship at the expense of an enjoyable conversation about the things Chris writes about that matter and that deserve a robust discussion among people of good will and thoughtful disposition ...

In a previous thread you accused me of "criticize or deride rather than debate or converse" in relation to your idea. The reality is I and a few others have tried to debate and converse with you only to encounter a stubbornness so deep that I have encountered mules vastly more amenable than you. Look, you have come to a forum that most of the participants should be sympathetic to your ideas and have turned just about everyone, evidently including CW, against you. Does this not sink in to your thick skull? When your only ally is Michale, that should be a giant glowing sign you are going about things horribly wrong. And lets face it, Michale could give two shits about your idea. He is only your ally because the rest of us are arguing with you and he thrives on chaos and discord.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that big money in politics is a distant second to the real reason for the existence of One Demand. You want Don Harris's Magic Idea to save the world. Cue: angelic music. This is all about ego. It has to be your idea and only your idea completely untainted by anyone else's suggestions. You are truly the reincarnation of Don Quixote...

Now what I would love to see is someone else take the bare bones of your idea, add in many of the suggestions we have all made and create an organization that might actually address the problem. In the discussions about One Demand and it's predecessor there is the outline of a dam good political site that I think could be both popular and effect real change. But it's become pretty evident that it's not going to be you.

All of the mean-spirited comments around here is really not doing anything good for this excellent blog.

What do you say we all - those of us who are capable, that is - try harder to shed light as opposed to just more heat on the issues we are here to discuss ...

You know, disagree without being disagreeable, as they so often say but rarely do.

Oh pullleeezzee....

A commenter on here once threatened to expose my personal information unless I changed my commenting habits and style... And she reminded me of her threats as recently as the last commentary...

Oh, boo hoo. You are such a poor little victim.

So here's what happened. I said that if you continued to post lies about me that I would post the truth about you. You post a lie about me; I'll post the truth about you. It's not a difficult concept.

You lie a lot on these boards about people. That's the truth. You just make up whatever BS you want and lump everyone into the category of "ya'all" and let if fly. So I gave you fair warning that if you're going to keep posting lies about me, I'm going to post the truth about you. You were kind enough to supply your personal information contained in links along with your wife's name and where you lived long, long ago on this blog.

Aaannnnnnnd since you're always whining about needing proof... here you go:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/01/07/what-to-expect-from-the-114th-congress/#comment-55910

I am limited to one link per comment box. Should I continue posting the plethora of links to your personal information which you supplied on this blog? Please let me know. In the meantime, please continue to whine about somebody exposing your personal information when you are the one who did that to yourself. :)

DH-64

"until someone like CW writes about it so more people can get involved and/or someone like Ralph Nader decides to help."

In the world of grantsmanship, NOBODY owes you ANYTHING. Your job is to persuade a skeptical audience to lend or give you money and/or professional credibility. Do not use business plan software, it makes you look like you don't know what you are doing.

Your website is down, but as my memory serves, you simultaneously demeaned your own credentials and experience while asking for other peoples' money and endorsements. Why would you expect this sales pitch to work? Charity?

Every successful first business plan I have ever seen took about a year of very hard work to write. Business plan first, web site to promote it later.

Major donors doesn't necessarily mean donors with lots of money to donate. It could and should mean people who have major credibility to lend to your cause.

Enough with your increasingly frantic arm waving! You are getting attention, but it is not good attention.

If you want to start a dialog about OneDemand, with CW, or anybody else, you need to go to back to square one and write a nonprofit business plan addressing the following elements in detail:

Organizational Structure

Financial Plan

Here is a helpful website, there are many others.

https://www.thebalance.com/why-do-i-need-a-business-plan-for-nonprofit-2502272

Do this before you get you get your website up and running again...so that your website has teeth, not just flapping gums.

Neil, remember how you were looking forward to Comey's testimony last Monday??

Michale [ Friday, May 26th, 2017 at 01:31 PDT ]

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/23/newspaper-war/#comment-101076

Now I'm patiently looking forward to Mueller's testimony - I anticipate it will be even better :)

sheeyaa right....

Michale [ Thursday, May 25th, 2017 at 16:17 PDT ]

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/23/newspaper-war/#comment-101035

Any chance you'll take you own advice and stop trying to undermine Mueller?

Replace Mueller with Comey and look in a mirror, and your statement becomes accurate.

You're welcome.

Actually, having Mueller appointed is the BEST thing that could have happened to President Trump...

Michale [ Friday, May 19th, 2017 at 01:30 PDT ]

Mueller, a loyal Republican, will be able to re-open the NOT-45 Email scandal, find out why Obama ordered surveillance on Trump and his campaign and why Susan Rice ordered the unmasking of Americans in fragrant violation of the law... :D

o, here we have a LOYAL and DEVOTED Republican with a blank check and carte blanche to go ANYWHERE and investigate ANYONE...

I can picture Director Mueller's first meeting with President Trump..

"Don't worry, Mr President.. Yer in the clear. Now, with this blank check I have, let's see what we can dig up on the Democrats, shall we?!?"

Michale [ Friday, May 19th, 2017 at 01:53 PDT ]

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/18/scandalpalooza/#comment-100271

How's that working out for you?

I bet it won't be for lack of trying...

But ya gotta hand it to Hillary... There is a reason why she has laid low the last couple months.. :D

619

Michale [36], please try not to make personal remarks.

Yeah, Michale! I'll second that. :)

Oh pullleeezzee....

A commenter on here once threatened to expose my personal information unless I changed my commenting habits and style... And she reminded me of her threats as recently as the last commentary...

Where was your desire to "not have personal remarks" then???

Like I told you, the way things are here is totally and unequivocally of ya'all's making....

Ya'all established the rules and then you complain to me when I play by them...

618

Already hedging yer bets, eh Balthy?? :D

But I don't recall Mueller "turning" on Hillary...

Michale [35]: Here's one for you:

Hillary Clinton - Enough already! Hillary is now just another writer of historical tomes - at best, a star of CSPAN2's "Book TV". There is no chance of her returning to politics in our lifetimes. Continuing to clasp her to your chest like a child's blanket only reflects badly on you. Let it go. Grow up!

Thank you for that.. Best XMAS present ever! :D

I'll remind you that you once said that, because Mueller is a Republican, that he would turn on the Democrats, particularly Hillary. That sure happened.

Most Honest Person: Robert Mueller

I'll remind you of that when Mueller completely exonerates President Trump... :D

Ya'all will turn on Mueller so fast.... :D

I mean, look at Comey.. Ya'all hated him, then loved him, then hated him, then loved him... All within the span of a few weeks...

Ya'all (NEN) are completely consistent in yer hypocrisy... :D

So basically you're going to remain ever clinging to your standard deflection coupled with your requisite whataboutism and phone in the cut-able and paste-able argument that you are no different than those on this comment board that you routinely troll and deride with the same tired schtick and repetitive commentary that infers and implies that they are the dumbest people on the planet because they disagree with your political conspiracy theory BS spewed daily from the depths of depravity located within the right-wing bubble floating along blissfully unaware somewhere in the outer reaches of the alternate reality?

OK, I accept your concession that yer a flaming hypocrite.. :D

Fair enough...

And, in return, please try to refrain from wishcasting and stay within the realm of reality..

Deal??? :D

And the lie that you support is that there is no difference between the two. Your doctrine would claim to be against big money, yet when every Democrat in the House and Senate stand and vote against the big money corporate tax cuts, you stand mute, and give no credit, where credit is certainly due.

You mean, like ya'all did with Odumbo???

So basically you're going to remain ever clinging to your standard deflection coupled with your requisite whataboutism and phone in the cut-able and paste-able argument that you are no different than those on this comment board that you routinely troll and deride with the same tired schtick and repetitive commentary that infers and implies that they are the dumbest people on the planet because they disagree with your political conspiracy theory BS spewed daily from the depths of depravity located within the right-wing bubble floating along blissfully unaware somewhere in the outer reaches of the alternate reality?

Well, okay then, we accept your admission that you resemble the comment at [30]. Nice bit of introspection and self-awareness on your part. :)

About that Turncoat of the Year award ...

Didn't the same three senators vote for the tax cut/reform bill that eliminates what essentially underpins the Affordable Care Act?

Turncoats, indeed!

Yeah, Michale! I'll second that. :)

As for the meaning of charisma and who is charismatic, I would never attach such terms to Trump. Mostly because I find him to be a revolting character and completely unsuited, if not unfit, to be an American president.

I don't see that there is any good reason to portray him as anything but who he really is.

Michale [36], please try not to make personal remarks.

According to the American Iron and Steel Institute, which tracks shipments, steel imports were 19.4 percent higher in the first 10 months of 2017 than in the same period last year. That surge of imports has hurt American steel makers, which were already struggling against a glut of cheap Chinese steel.

What a clown show.

..and he won't be able to dummy up fake medical reports the next time, now that Walter Reed's medical staff has taken over his health care.

Yep. Alot less. Waaaaay less. Moving on...

Michale [35]: Here's one for you:

Hillary Clinton - Enough already! Hillary is now just another writer of historical tomes - at best, a star of CSPAN2's "Book TV". There is no chance of her returning to politics in our lifetimes. Continuing to clasp her to your chest like a child's blanket only reflects badly on you. Let it go. Grow up!

BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I shouldn't laugh...

It's sad because you actually BELIEVE that crap yer spewing....

You lost.

Trump is President...

Hillary will NEVER be President..

Grow up and get over it....

I guess the sarcasm was lost on you ...

You mean, like ya'all did with Odumbo???

Michale: As did Obama... A point of fact you have made clear on more than one occasion.. :D

Yes, yes, and yes! Trump lies through his false teeth as "fake news" spews through fake tan man's blowhole like verbal golden showers... fake hair, fake face, fake painted orange clown and real con. *LOL*

So Obama and Trump have both lied, and apples and oranges are alike because they grow on trees and have seeds. /sarcasm off

The false equivalency from the Trump sycophants in order to justify the pathological lying Don of the Trump crime family is a "thing" to behold. Why, oh why, do they decry liars and hypocrites yet worship at the alter of the cult of personality of the phoniest blowhard, con artist, and self-dealer on the planet? Trump will... no doubt in my mind whatsoever... be the future recipient of one of CW's "Turncoat" awards for what he's done in his unquenchable quest for praise and wealth. Benedict Donald.

Trump needs the gullible to believe it's all "fake news" because he knows the story ain't good, the goalposts are heavy and can only be moved so far, and winter is here along with indictments and more coming. Who knew money laundering, RICO, and the obstruction/cover-up could be so complicated? :)

That's the point that all of ya just simply don't comprehend...

612

There are many additional example...

608

You can't even come up with 10 Obama lies, while reputable news organizations have chronicled over 1600 from your Dear Leader. False equivalency, much?

Sure, if you want to reduce it to a mere numbers game..

Basically you are saying that Democrats are better because they lie less...

Not quite the ringing endorsement you think it is.. :D

607

As did Obama... A point of fact you have made clear on more than one occasion.. :D

I also challenge you to provide even 100 lies from Obama's first year in office. I'll even make it easier for you -- tell me even 10 or 20 provable lies Obama told, during his first year. I dare you.

You can't even come up with 10 Obama lies, while reputable news organizations have chronicled over 1600 from your Dear Leader. False equivalency, much?

Heh.

-CW

PS. And please, enlighten us all what exactly you would have said if Obama had promised a Gold Star father $25K and then stiffed him until the media noticed, because I'm REAL interested in your answer to that. And your silence, earlier this year, on how Trump did the same. So much for "supporting the troops," eh?

Sheesh.

-CW

This didn't fit into any other category, but this was the column I got the most amusement out of re-reading in the annual review. Still makes me chuckle:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/04/06/taser-unswiftly-changes-name/

:-)

Enjoy, if you missed it when it originally ran!

-CW

Name them. If any, they're pretty much few and far between, and of a very low level. Otherwise, all I see is a whole lot of rampant speculation...

-CW

No, there has been leaks.. While they may or may not be attributed directly to Mueller (Comey was a leaker, why not Mueller) there are definitely leaks coming from Mueller's team...

606

Refresh your browser. New thermometer will appear! And thanks!

Also: Shoot me an email if you get a new email address working, and I'll send you a personal thank-you note, I promise.

:-)

Getting ever closer to this year's goal... hope to hear reindeer hoofs on the roof this weekend...

Heh.

-CW

We're SO close to our goal, so we're hoping that Santa leaves some final year-end donations under our tree this year to push us over the goal line!

:-)

-CW

Whenever you begin to think the worst of Comey, just remember two words: Bill Clinton. The former president is at the root of what Comey had to do.

One last thought: if you email me (from some throwaway free email account at a library or friend's computer or something) and let me know the amount, I can include it in the thermometer! Just a thought... put the keyword "LizM" in the subject line, and I'll see it....

:-)

-CW

My guess is it'll be the XXVth. The process is so much quicker, and we may require that speed...

:-)

I'm VERY interested to see if Steyer takes on DiFi, personally...

As for email, the one I sent essentially just said "I'm still here!" so no real loss. Hope you get connected again soon, I know what it's like to be cut off like that -- it sucks!

-CW

Yeah, I worry about that. As I also worry about Trump's legacy. I saw what happened to Ronald Reagan (for anyone interested, please read Tear Down This Myth! for details...) and the construction of an alternate reality legacy, but Trump's doing it in real time, so I can only imagine what will emerge after he's gone. In three years or seven....

Obamacare is fixable, but you're right, time is running out. Elect a Democratic House and Senate next year, and it may be saved. That's how I see it, at any rate...

LizM [2] -

Short answer: yes.

:-)

Michale [3] -

OK, I was following along until your last cite. There haven't actually been leaks from Mueller, there have been rumors. Big difference, even if it seems like splitting hairs. Compare Mueller to Ken Starr - not even close.

Glad to see you liked the Trump awards... I do try to be even-handed...

LizM [4] -

Short answer: yep.

LizM [5] -

Short answer: nope.

Heh. This is fun!

LizM [6] -

Nah, we need more Bob Mueller. But I'm betting we'll get that, next year. He seems a shoo-in for the same award, in 12 months' time...

Heh.

-CW

When will the time be right for impeachment?

When you first asked, I sent you an email. But it seems you're having problems in that regard too, so here goes:

I haven't moved, so the same snail mail address will work. I love donations on paper just as much as I do through electrons!

:-)

Anyone else wishing to use checks or money orders, please also let me know and I'll send you an email with my snail mail address...

-CW

Yep.. Yep.. Yep... :D

Because, like him or not, Donald Trump is easily the Most Charismatic. Think about it -- Trump fires off a tweet, and the media world explodes. The obsession with the tiniest thing Trump says or does has all but consumed politics from the moment he rode down the Trump Tower escalator to announce his candidacy (and bash Mexicans).

And bash illegal immigrants...

Fixed it for you... Yer welcome... :D

So choosing the Fairest Rap was pretty easy. Trump lies. Like a rug.

As did Obama... A point of fact you have made clear on more than one occasion.. :D

We almost gave the award to the Washington Post and the New York Times for engaging in an old-fashioned newspaper war -- over who could expose more scandals from the Trump White House. They scooped each other time and time again, only to be outscooped in return. This was heartening for anyone who cares about the future of journalism, to put it mildly.

And the fact that most were either fake news or totally lame (Trump had two scoops of ice cream!!!) makes no difference?? :D

So while he has shunned the public spotlight all year long and refuses to feed the media beast by selectively leaking,

Which is out and out BS because there are nearly daily leaks about Mueller's Anti-Trump team...

Other than the minor nitpicks, great awards.. :D

Now, I owe, I owe so off to work I go.. :D

605

As for the runner up in the biggest winner category, Obamacare ... it may be a tad premature as it is apparent to anyone who understands how healthcare insurance works that the Affordable Care Act is now on track for a slow death.

Speaking of which, it's going to be a rough holiday, especially without email. That being said, I would still like to contribute to the Holiday Fund Drive and want to be sure that I can use the same snail mail address as before ...