ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [466] -- The Wolff Who Cried "Boy!"

[ Posted Friday, January 5th, 2018 – 18:46 PST ]

Welcome back to the weekly political roundup that is Friday Talking Points! We've been on hiatus for the past two weeks, for our annual two-part year-end awards columns (Part 1 and Part 2, in case anyone missed them). So... anything happen while we were away?

Of course it did! Donald Trump played golf for something like a week and a half straight, bringing his total for the year to 91 days spent at one of his own golf resorts. This prompted an amusing reaction from George W. Bush's former chief strategist, Matthew Dowd: "I have a question for the Trump fan club who applauded every time he said Obama played too much golf. if that was a problem, why is it ok that Trump in less than a year has played more golf than Obama did in eight years as President?" Why, indeed. Why was Barack Obama's golfing a serious media story when pretty much every single president has played golf going back to the real aficionados of the sport (Gerald Ford and Dwight Eisenhower, to name two)? Could there be just one thing different between Barack Obama and all other presidents who played golf before him, hmmm? I wonder what that difference could be -- especially now that Donald Trump, another white man, is getting a free pass on the insane amount of time he spends on the golf course.

What's that you say? Trump's golfing wasn't the big story this week? There was, in fact a Wolff at the door, and nobody's certain yet whether Trump lives in a house built of straw(men) or brick (as in: "thick as a...")?

Michael Wolff's new book was a bombshell even bigger than the "bomb cyclone" storm which hit the East Coast this week. Speaking of which, who comes up with these inane new weather terms? And why do winter storms now get names like hurricanes and typhoons? Isn't the word "blizzard" cool enough on its own, for Pete's sake? Hmmph. Of course, getting back on subject, the last name "Wolff" certainly lends itself to all sorts of fun metaphors as well. Our favorite so far -- since the book portrays everyone around Donald Trump essentially having to treat him as a cranky infant, perhaps a good headline would be "The Wolff Who Cried 'Boy!'"? The possibilities for editorial amusement abound, that's for sure. In Wolff's own words:

Reigning over all of this was Trump, enigma, cipher and disruptor. How to get along with Trump -- who veered between a kind of blissed-out pleasure of being in the Oval Office and a deep, childish frustration that he couldn't have what he wanted? Here was a man singularly focused on his own needs for instant gratification, be that a hamburger, a segment on "Fox & Friends" or an Oval Office photo opp. "I want a win. I want a win. Where's my win?" he would regularly declaim. He was, in words used by almost every member of the senior staff on repeated occasions, "like a child."

And that's when they were being nice, mind you. When they were being a tad more honest, they used words like "idiot" and "moron" to describe Trump. These are Trump's senior aides, mind you, and not his political opponents or anything. This has caused much amusement among Trump's actual political opponents, naturally. Joe Biden's former chief of staff tweeted out: "It turns out that Trump's aides have as many different words for 'moron' as the Eskimos do for snow. I wonder why?"

But of course, the juiciest plot in fallout over the book is the growing battle between Steve Bannon and Donald Trump. Now, people are missing a key point in this whole story, we feel. For the most part, the media is reacting as if Bannon was quoted on this stuff last week, or maybe a few weeks ago. This isn't the case, however. Bannon could have been saying this stuff a year ago, or last spring, or whenever. Books take a long time to write, edit, and publish, so it's most likely that these quotes were actually uttered at least six months ago, and yet everyone seems to be glossing over this, for some unfathomable reason.

Bannon's badmouthing Trump and the Trump White House, though, are indeed the main storyline emerging from the book. Trump immediately reacted, issuing a strongly-worded message that flat-out claimed that Steve Bannon "has lost his mind." This was in reaction to the worst of the quotes in the initial release of excerpts from Fire And Fury, about Donald Trump Junior's meeting with the Russians. Bannon's reaction to the meeting: "Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately."

Trump then instructed his lawyers to fire off "cease and desist" letters to Bannon and the book's publisher, darkly warning of lawsuits to come. The publisher reacted by moving up the date of the book's release, just to rub it in. It hit the store shelves today, and so far seems to be flying off them in record numbers.

Bannon, meanwhile, has been ostracized by the Trumpkins. Liberals needing a quick fix of the old schadenfreude have taken to going over to Breitbart News and reading the comments, where Bannon fans and Trump fans are going at each other tooth and nail. Candidates Bannon had been backing (for the Republican primaries) are backpedaling away from him as fast as they can, and one of the big donors behind Bannon, Rebekah Mercer, has seemingly cut off the money flow. Bannon, perhaps realizing the depth of his problem, attempted a little grovelling in an interview: "The president of the United States is a great man. You know I support him day in and day out." Good luck with that, Steve -- or, as Trump now calls him, "Sloppy Steve."

Of course, since the last time we wrote one of these columns was mid-December, all kinds of other things have been happening in the political world as well. The Trump White House seems to be acting frantically in all sorts of directions, probably because the speechwriters tasked with the upcoming State Of The Union speech realized that the list of Trump accomplishments isn't all that long ("1. Supreme Court confirmation, 2. tax bill passed," and that's about it). So there have been a flurry of actions in the past few weeks alone.

Two presidential advisory commissions were disbanded, on HIV/AIDS and the ridiculous voting integrity commission. The courts overturned Trump's transgendered military ban, and so far the White House seems to have thrown in the towel on this legal fight.

Regulations which keep Americans safe and healthy have been chucked out, including rules that protect nursing home residents. Because who needs regulations in a place like that? Profits are obviously the main concern for the public, right?

But the big antiregulatory push has been to the overwhelming benefit of the oil industry. Regulations on fracking developed under President Obama were scrapped, as were regulations on killing migratory birds (who often perish in drilling runoff wastewater). Regulations put in place to avoid deepwater drilling accidents were likewise scrapped, because accidents could never happen in offshore drilling. Speaking of offshore drilling, the Interior Department is proposing allowing oil rigs off of pretty much any American coast the oil companies wish, no matter what the states affected have to say about it. This is enraging even Republican governors, so expect this fight to heat up as the public comment period gets underway. Oh, and the cherry on top was allowing some mining leases right next to a federal natural preserve in Minnesota that just coincidentally (imagine that!) will benefit Ivanka and Jared's own landlord. Funny how coincidences like that happen, eh? Bet their rent won't be raised this year!

Congress returns to Washington with a full plate, as it must strike several deals in the next few weeks. This includes figuring out the federal budget, the debt ceiling, disaster relief funding, the children's health program (CHIP), the FISA spying law, Obamacare subsidies, and what to do about the DACA Dreamers. They're going to hash all that out in the next two weeks, apparently. So of course they won't rush any of it, or anything.

Speaking of Congress, there are some changes to announce. Al Franken is out of the Senate, and Doug Jones has been sworn in, leaving Republicans with only a 51-49 majority. Roy Moore, who lost to Jones, is now being sued for defamation by the former 14-year-old who accused him of child molestation. She doesn't want any money, just an apology. Orrin Hatch will not run for re-election, paving the way for Mitt Romney to grab his seat (metaphorically speaking, of course). And Sherrod Brown's path to re-election just got easier, as his most prominent Republican opponent just pulled out of the race to cope with an unspecified family emergency.

Bernie Sanders got in a funny line, while personally swearing in Bill de Blasio to his second term as New York City mayor, in what was described as a "frigid outdoor ceremony." Bernie scoffed at the weather, stating: "By Vermont standards, this is a warm and pleasant afternoon."

And finally, to end on another amusing note, some Oregon residents are apparently freaking out over the prospect of having to pump their own gasoline. Oregon had been one of two states (New Jersey is the other) which never abandoned full service at the pump -- and where self-service was actually banned. State law is changing to allow the option of self-serve pumps, and some Oregonians are clutching their pearls. The internet, of course, had an absolute field day in response.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Attorney General Jeff Sessions made an announcement this week, mere days after California became the biggest legal recreational marijuana market in the country. Sessions is fulfilling his long-held dream of resuscitating the federal War On Weed, not unlike King Canute ordering the tides to turn back (which we wrote about yesterday).

By doing so, Sessions has proven both himself and Donald Trump, once again, to be nothing short of big fat liars. Sessions, while under oath during his confirmation hearing, said he would respect states' rights on the issue of marijuana. Trump, when asked in a campaign interview in Colorado whether he'd crack down on legal marijuana states, responded: "I wouldn't do that, no. I think it should be up to the states, absolutely."

Sessions has now placed the issue front and center, right at the start of an election year. It can no longer be ignored by politicians from either party. The time to stand up and be counted is nigh. The time for mealy "we should study it further" equivocations is over and done. Which side are you on, politicians; tell me, which side are you on?

So far, the reaction has been impressive -- from both sides of the aisle, to be fair. Republicans from states which have legalized adult use are strongly challenging Sessions, including Colorado Senator Cory Gardner, who is threatening to place a hold on any Senate confirmations to the Justice Department until Sessions changes his tune. Gardiner all but called Sessions a liar to his face: "This reported action directly contradicts what Attorney General Sessions told me prior to his confirmation. With no prior notice to Congress, the Justice Department has trampled on the will of the voters in CO and other states." Republican senators from Nevada and Alaska echoed Gardiner's displeasure, as well as Rand Paul (but just on general libertarian principles, in his case).

Over in the House, GOP Representative Dana Rohrabacher was even more forceful in his response:

The attorney general of the United States has just delivered an extravagant holiday gift to the drug cartels. By attacking the will of the American people, who overwhelmingly favor marijuana legalization, Jeff Sessions has shown a preference for allowing all commerce in marijuana to take place in the black market, which will inevitably bring the spike in violence he mistakenly attributes to marijuana itself. He is doing the bidding of an out-of-date law enforcement establishment that wants to wage a perpetual weed war and seize private citizens' property in order to finance its backward ambitions.

And that's just the Republican response, mind you.

On the other side of the aisle, the Washington Post noted that many Democrats who are considering a presidential run in 2020 have strongly come out against the new Sessions policy. Here's Senator Cory Booker:

History has shown that our deeply broken drug laws disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color and cost us billions annually in enforcement, incarceration, and wasted human potential, without making us any safer. This unjust, backwards decision is wrong for America, and will prove to be on the wrong side of history.

And Senator Elizabeth Warren:

States like Massachusetts have put a lot of work into implementing common sense marijuana regulations. This reckless action by the DOJ disrupts the ability of states to enforce their own drug policies and puts our public health and safety at risk. Congress needs to take immediate action to protect state marijuana laws and the patients that rely on them.

Senator Kamala Harris chimed in:

Instead of wasting money on failed policies like the "War on Drugs," the Department of Justice should be directing federal resources toward working with local law enforcement to clamp down on transnational criminal organizations and the trafficking of guns and human beings.

But we thought Kirsten Gillibrand put the best political spin into her reaction:

Parents should be able to give their sick kids the medicine they need without having to fear that they will be prosecuted. Veterans should be able to come home from combat and use the medicine they need without having to fear they will be prosecuted. This is about public health, and it’s about reforming our broken criminal justice system that throws too many minorities in prison for completely nonviolent offenses.

The battle lines have been drawn, and finally (finally!) Democrats seem to have shaken off their fears of publicly supporting marijuana legalization and/or federal legal reform. This will be the first election cycle that this will be true, at least in such an across-the-board fashion. So Honorable Mention awards all around, for any Democrat that issued a pro-weed statement in response to Sessions this week!

But we won't have to wait for the midterms to see how the issue is already playing out. In the next few weeks, a federal budget deal will be debated. An amendment that few even knew existed is going to be a major part of this, now. This amendment has been federal law for a few years now, but must be renewed each year. It absolutely forbids -- using the congressional power of the purse -- the Justice Department from spending any money prosecuting medical marijuana cases in states where it is legal. If this amendment survives the budget battles, it will put a big crimp on the ability of Sessions to change tactics. So we'll be watching what happens with interest.

But there may be big legalization news even before the budget deal is struck. Two states -- New Jersey and Vermont -- are in a race to see which one will go down in history as "the first state to legalize recreational marijuana in their state legislature." Not every state has direct-democracy ballot initiatives, so in the others this is the only way to change the laws.

In Vermont, they've already set the record for the "first state legislature to pass a legalization bill," which they did last year. The governor vetoed it, but said at the time that he just wanted a few changes. This week, a revised bill passed the Vermont house. Details remain to be worked out with the state senate, but the chances for the bill's passage within the next week or two are incredibly good, and this time the governor seems to be on board with the effort.

However, New Jersey might just beat them to it. Which is where we (finally, sorry for all the digressions) get to the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Because there's one big reason New Jersey might just act incredibly quickly on their own legalization bill:

New Jersey Governor-elect Phil Murphy has pledged to signed [sic] adult use regulation legislation within his first 100 days in office. Murphy, a Democrat, defeated incumbent Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno in part by championing a recreational marijuana law opposed by then-Governor Chris Christie and his administration.

That promise depends on a Democrat-led Legislature agreeing to send Murphy a bill to sign.

Got that? Murphy isn't just a supporter of legalization, and he didn't just passively support it, he actually campaigned on a promise to get it done within his first 100 days. And he won the election (at least partially) on this promise.

There's a big lesson in there for Democrats everywhere: this is now a winning political issue for you and for your party. Gallup reports that national public support for outright recreational legalization has hit an astounding 64 percent. A majority of Republicans even now supports legalization. The time for wishy-washiness is long gone, folks.

Legalizing marijuana for all adults to use is now the mainstream political position. Democratic candidates everywhere would do well to realize this, and follow the brave path blazed by Phil Murphy. No matter if he becomes the first governor to sign such a bill or the second, he has shown Democrats everywhere what a winning issue this can be for them.

And for that, he is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Since he is not yet New Jersey's governor, Phil Murphy does not yet have an official gubernatorial webpage where you can let him know you appreciate his efforts. But Chris Christie's time in office is now measured in days, so it won't be long before this official page appears.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

OK, this whole column is getting monstrously long (longer than usual, even), so we're going to do this one quickly and move on to the talking points.

Purely by chance, Shelly Simonds in Virginia has to be seen as the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Simonds, after a recount of a very close Virginia House of Delegates race, wound up tied with her Republican opponent. A random drawing of names from a bowl determined the winner, and Simonds lost.

So, through absolutely no fault of her own, Simonds has to be seen as the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. If she had won the draw, it would have created a perfect 50-50 split in the chamber, which then would have led to a power-sharing agreement between the two parties in order to function. Her loss left the Republicans with a razor-thin 51-49 majority, which was indeed pretty disappointing to Democrats.

[Since Shelly Simonds lost the draw, she is now a private citizen, and our standing policy is not to provide contact information in these cases. Besides, as we stated, losing the random draw was through no fault of her own.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 466 (1/5/18)

Call us biased, but we've been focusing for the past few days on marijuana. The politics of marijuana, of course (ahem). This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that we reside in California, of course. Nothing at all. I mean, have you ever thought about just... nothing?

Heh. Sorry, we kind of spaced out there for a moment. So to speak.

Seriously, though, we've been an advocate for marijuana legal reform for so long in these pages that nobody should really be all that surprised that we devoted not only two columns to the subject this week (one triumphant over the liberation of California, and one in reaction to Jeff Sessions), but also the entire Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award as well.

For our talking points, we had to take two shots at Trump (just because), but also have largely focused on marijuana politics. Finally Democrats (and even some Republicans) are realizing what a winning issue this can be in politics, due to the massive shift in public opinion in a very short time period. When Barack Obama took office, only 40 percent of the public favored legalization, and zero states had done so for recreational weed. One year into Trump's term, eight states (representing 21 percent of America's population) have fully legalized adult use, and 64 percent of the public approves of the idea. That is a tectonic shift, and the speed with which it happened is breathtaking. So when Jeff Sessions decides he wants to turn back the clock, we feel it is inherent upon Democrats to stand up and be counted. Hence all the talking points suggesting how to do so.

 

1
   I told the sun to do that!

Even for Trump, this one's just laughable.

"Donald Trump just tweeted: 'Since taking office I have been very strict on Commercial Aviation. Good news - it was just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017, the best and safest year on record!' The only problem with him taking credit for this is that the last commercial aviation death actually happened in 2009. What will Trump's megalomania cause him to tweet next? 'Because I was brave enough to look directly at the eclipse, Mr. Sun has risen every single day last year in the East!' Wouldn't surprise me in the least, at this point."

 

2
   Lie-o-meter about to roll over

Thanks to some tireless work, we can put a number on Trump's delusions.

"The Washington Post has updated their page which chronicles all the times Donald Trump has lied during his first 347 days in office. The new total? 1,950 lies, which averages out to 5.6 lies per day. They've even got a graphical presentation of their data, since we all know Trump doesn't like to read stuff. At this rate, it is virtually assured that Trump will top 2,000 lies in his first year in office alone. If he were Pinocchio, and if he were to face west in the White House, his nose would now already be across the Mississippi River."

 

3
   Don't let the door hit you...

Seems more and more House Republicans are reading the tea leaves these days, and not liking what they see.

"House Republicans are falling all over themselves to announce they will not be running for re-election this year. So far, 29 of them have already bowed out -- at a rate that is significantly faster than any other recent Congress. Even GOP committee chairmen are heading for the exits. They obviously foresee a Democratic wave election swamping their chances to hold onto their office, and if the past week is any indication, the number of them deciding to hang up their spurs is only likely to grow in the next month or so, as filing deadlines approach. It's like they need a sign in the House Republican caucus room which says: 'Will the last Republican to leave the House please turn out the lights?'"

 

4
   Legalize it!

Don't criticize it....

"Already this year there are twelve states that may reform their state marijuana laws in defiance of federal law and Jeff Sessions. Michigan and Ohio voters will have the opportunity to legalize recreational marijuana by ballot initiative. Voters in Missouri, South Dakota, Oklahoma (!), and Utah (!!!) will be able to weigh in on legalizing medicinal marijuana. The Kentucky legislature is considering medical legalization, as well. And at least five states -- Vermont, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware may legalize recreational use through their legislatures. It's pretty easy to see where the trend is headed. Ironically, you could now say that anyone who denies that the public is overwhelmingly for radical reform of federal marijuana laws must be smoking some powerful stuff indeed."

 

5
   Weed wins!

This needs to be driven home to the party at large, in a big way.

"Some Democratic politicians have been around since the 1980s, when Nancy Reagan and the Republicans used 'soft on crime' to frighten Democrats away from any sane consideration of reforming marijuana laws. They were very successful at using this as a wedge issue, and Democrats who remember those days have always taken a 'once bitten, twice shy' approach ever afterwards. But back then, public support for outright legalization was below 30 percent. Today, it's almost at two-thirds of the public who wants to see marijuana legalized. The ground has shifted, and any Democrat who doesn't realize it is now going to pay a price at the voting booth. It's very simple to put into two words: weed wins. Weed wins at the ballot box, both on referenda and for politicians who support it. Weed wins, and Democrats who also want to win need to realize it and get on board."

 

6
   Deschedule!

This needs to become the rallying cry at the federal level.

"Ironically, Jeff Sessions might be the one person who does the most for the legalization movement. Because Sessions is so obviously stuck in the past, it makes it painfully clear that any rogue attorney general is still able to wage the War On Weed on his own personal whim, due to federal laws being so laughably outdated. According to federal law, marijuana has 'no accepted medical use.' According to reality, medical marijuana is legal in 29 states, and counting. According to federal law, marijuana is as dangerous as heroin. In reality, this is patently absurd. The only way Jeff Sessions can be stopped from his misguided and outdated crusade is to change the underlying federal law. This is no longer just a theoretical thing -- if Congress doesn't act, then it becomes complicit with any overreach from Sessions and the Justice Department. So take the power away from Sessions entirely! Deschedule marijuana -- move it legally from the list of dangerous drugs, and instead give it to the bureau which currently regulates alcohol and tobacco, where it rightly belongs. If Congress acts, Sessions won't be able to. Period."

 

7
   Wow, like, have you ever really looked?

Like, wow, man. This absolutely takes the prize for most amusing response to the Sessions announcement. From the Twitter feed of the Colorado Senate Dems came the following gem:

We'll give Jeff Sessions our legal pot when he pries it from our warm, extremely interesting to look at hands.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

193 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [466] -- The Wolff Who Cried "Boy!"”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Politicians are in danger of be crushed at the gates to legalize marijuana. After years of cowardly inertia, it seems there is finally some pot in every chicken. Sessions excepted.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    We'll give Jeff Sessions our legal pot when he pries it from our warm, extremely interesting to look at hands.

    Man, thanks for that one CW!

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    GQ playing hardball. We are in a strange place.

    Do yourself a favor, take 10 minutes of your time to read this. And as you are, remember it is from a fashion magazine that can only lose by picking sides in its clientele. This is burning them up!

    https://www.gq.com/story/michael-wolff-white-house-trump-access

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course it did! Donald Trump played golf for something like a week and a half straight, bringing his total for the year to 91 days spent at one of his own golf resorts.

    Ya know... I love the consistency.. Ya'all really slammed Odumbo when he played golf so much...

    Oh.. Wait...

    Why was Barack Obama's golfing a serious media story when pretty much every single president has played golf going back to the real aficionados of the sport (Gerald Ford and Dwight Eisenhower, to name two)?

    OK, now THAT is a legitimate slam against Trump..

    You should lead with that. No, you should STAY with that..

    Because attacking Trump for playing golf when you gave Obama a pass makes you no different than Trump..

    Think about it...

    "The Wolff Who Cried 'Boy!'"

    Umm... Isn't that racist??

    But of course, the juiciest plot in fallout over the book is the growing battle between Steve Bannon and Donald Trump.

    No, the juiciest plot in this is that the author himself states that many of the claims in his book are just not true...

    And many of the people Wolff quoted also point out Wolff's bullshit..

    But, of course, no one here cares about FACTS or REALITY...

    It's all part and parcel to the PTDS ya'all suffer from..

    So, through absolutely no fault of her own, Simonds has to be seen as the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. If she had won the draw, it would have created a perfect 50-50 split in the chamber, which then would have led to a power-sharing agreement between the two parties in order to function. Her loss left the Republicans with a razor-thin 51-49 majority, which was indeed pretty disappointing to Democrats.

    Ha!!! Even the fates go GOP!!! :D heheheehehehehe

    For our talking points, we had to take two shots at Trump (just because),

    Of course.. :D

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Lie-o-meter about to roll over

    Thanks to some tireless work, we can put a number on Trump's delusions.

    Yet the pundits and fan boys who voted for and worship at the alter of the con artist, pathological and serial fabricator that we now refer to as
    Big
    Liar
    Of
    The
    United
    States are falling all over themselves to "fact check" a damn book because they have an issue with... lying.

    Isn't it just so darn precious. *LOL* :)

  6. [6] 
    John M wrote:

    [4] Michale

    "No, the juiciest plot in this is that the author himself states that many of the claims in his book are just not true..."

    Excuse me, but again that was a gross misreading on your part of what was actually said. There is a difference between a disclaimer stating that conflicting claims could not be reliably verified, and outright saying that what you are reporting is patently untrue, but you are reporting what you know for a fact to be a lie anyway. Which of course conveniently overlooks the fact that while the devil may be in the actual details, the veracity of the overall theme was not tarnished at all. But then, that's what you wanted to obscure anyway.

    "Ya'all really slammed Odumbo when he played golf so much...

    Oh.. Wait..."

    Exactly. Why should we criticize Obama? Since, as you just admitted yourself, Obama never actually played golf all that much. Funny how you want us to slam Obama for playing less golf than Trump, Ford, Eisenhower, etc.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Excuse me, but again that was a gross misreading on your part of what was actually said.

    No it's not, but I understand why you would want to spin it that way...

    There is a difference between a disclaimer stating that conflicting claims could not be reliably verified, and outright saying that what you are reporting is patently untrue, but you are reporting what you know for a fact to be a lie anyway.

    Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

    Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

    "significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics"....

    Spin it any way you want, JM, that allows you to make it thru yer day.. :D

    But it's clear that the author is saying that much of the book is bullshit..

    But, as I said, I get it. I understand why you would want to spin it your way, because you *WANT* to believe everything in that book is factual..

    But, even the author acknowledges that it's not..

    Exactly. Why should we criticize Obama? Since, as you just admitted yourself, Obama never actually played golf all that much.

    I admitted no such thing and I will thank you for not putting words in my mouth..

    . Funny how you want us to slam Obama for playing less golf than Trump, Ford, Eisenhower, etc.

    And funny how you justified it with Ford and Eisenhower, but yet you don't give President Trump the same consideration...

    If you want to slam Trump for being a hypocrite on the golf issue, that's fine. That's factual..

    But ya'all are slamming Trump for playing golf and THAT makes ya'all as much of a hypocrite as Trump...

    But you can't see that because you are blinded by your PTDS

  8. [8] 
    John M wrote:

    [7] Michale

    "And funny how you justified it with Ford and Eisenhower, but yet you don't give President Trump the same consideration..."

    Show me any statement where I justified Ford and Eisenhower playing golf? Any? Crickets.... I thought so.

    Whatever gets you thru your day. Blinded by your own bias much?

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Show me any statement where I justified Ford and Eisenhower playing golf? Any? Crickets.... I thought so.

    Whenever it was mentioned during the Odumbo years about Odumbo playing golf, CW would point out about Ford and Eisenhower playing golf..

    YOU stayed silent which, by ya'all's own rules, gives assent to the claim...

    Once again, ya'all make the rules.. I simply kick ya'all's ass by them. :D

    Whatever gets you thru your day. Blinded by your own bias much?

    Says the proven and documented sufferer of PTDS... :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it's not only me and the author who is saying that Wolff's book is bullshit..

    Other people mentioned in the book have also disputed claims made about them.

    Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whom the book said warned Trump that he may be under surveillance from British spies, issued a statement describing the claim as "categorically absurd" and "simply untrue."

    Anna Wintour, the longtime Vogue editor, also dismissed the claim that she lobbied Trump to be his ambassador to the UK as "laughably preposterous."

    I get it.. Wolff is saying what ya'all want to hear and THAT ALONE is what guides ya'all...

    Facts??? Ya'all don't need no stinkin' facts...

    If it's against Trump, ya'all will bite, hook, line and sucker....

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    call me crazy, but i think bannon being virulently anti-trump is a point in donald's favor.

  12. [12] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While I am all for legalization, it will not be an issue that will make me vote for a candidate that is unsuitable in other ways. For example, I did not vote for Phil Murphy.

    While being on the trending side of legalization may be a "winning" issue for Democrats, it won't be for America if the Dems just use it as a cover for the real problem with the Democrats- their addiction to Big Money.

    If 64% of the public and 51% of Republicans supporting legalization is enough reason to say to politicians "Which side are you on, politicians;tell me, which side are you on?" and "The time to be stand up and be counted is nigh. The time for mealy "we should study it further" equivocations is over and done.", then certainly 80% of the public and around 60% of Republicans wanting the Big Money out of politics seems to meet the standard set for demanding that politicians take a side.

    It at least merits discussion. So please, CW, continue the conversation started in "GOPs Swamp Creature of a Tax Bill" that was possibly derailed by the holidays, picking up with my response in comment 37.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wolff seems to be playing the P. T. Barnum role at the moment... hoping to cash in on the gullible, while admitting it's false, hoping to avoid legal repercussions. Barnum openly admitted his shows were often fakes... but still made $$$ from those too stupid to notice or care.
    -clbrown

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    call me crazy, but i think bannon being virulently anti-trump is a point in donald's favor.

    Did you just actually give President Trump a point??

    You ARE crazy!!!

    Who are you and what have you done with the REAL nypoet!!!????

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    call me crazy, but i think bannon being virulently anti-trump is a point in donald's favor.

    ANd what's even MORE hilarious is that NOW Bannon is the new BFF of Weigantians... :D

  16. [16] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Sloppy Steve is just so 4th grade. He's more like Festering Zit Steve. Our semi-literate Tangerine Nightmare is fortunate that the Trumpthugs are proudly illiterate.

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It really is no wonder that Rant Paul (R) got beat up by some old man.

  18. [18] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I'm really just not into all that impeachment talk. I want our money-laundering orange Russian spy to fire Sessions first. Besides, with Pence up to his neck in espionage, we wouldn't even get the pleasure of Mother as FLOTUS. We'd end up with Pinhead Ryan if he lasts long enough.

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    15

    ANd what's even MORE hilarious is that NOW Bannon is the new BFF of Weigantians... :D

    ^^ An entire work of fiction. ^^

    I call out bullshit when I see it. :)

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    ^^ An entire work of fiction. ^^

    Just like Wolff's book.. :D

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    3

    Do yourself a favor, take 10 minutes of your time to read this.
    ***
    https://www.gq.com/story/michael-wolff-white-house-trump-access

    GQ!? Neil is right... worth every minute. This guy totally nails it: Sometimes you need a rat to catch a rat.

    How now, a rat? Dead for a ducat, dead! ~ William Shakespeare, Hamlet

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    20

    Just like Wolff's book.. :D

    Have you even read Wolff's book? I am guessing not. I have read the book, and it is NOT an entire work of fiction. If it was, the blurb he wrote at the front that the Always Trumpers are clinging to would also be a lie. :)

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have read the book, and it is NOT an entire work of fiction.

    Whatever you have to cling to.. :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Other people mentioned in the book have also disputed claims made about them.

    Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whom the book said warned Trump that he may be under surveillance from British spies, issued a statement describing the claim as "categorically absurd" and "simply untrue."

    Anna Wintour, the longtime Vogue editor, also dismissed the claim that she lobbied Trump to be his ambassador to the UK as "laughably preposterous."

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

    The author himself "casts SIGNIFICANT DOUBT on the RELIABILITY of the specifics contained" in the book...

    Ya'all only believe it because it's what you want to hear...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's try that one again.. :D

    Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

    The author himself "casts SIGNIFICANT DOUBT on the RELIABILITY of the specifics contained" in the book...

    Ya'all only believe it because it's what you want to hear...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    The author himself "casts SIGNIFICANT DOUBT on the RELIABILITY of the specifics contained" in the book...

    That might be too complex a sentence structure for ya'all's hysterical bigotry...

    What it means is that the specifics contained within the book are bullshit...

  28. [28] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Not sure why anybody needs to read Wolff's book. The basic facts and overall generalities of the nature of Trump and his administration are so well known that the details and specifics can be safely and confidently inferred. No need to waste your time reading it just to make Wolff rich, which I see as his motivation in writing it.

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    23

    Whatever you have to cling to.. :D

    Oh, look! A Trump sycophant and cockholster is calling me clingy. *LOL* :)

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    28

    No need to waste your time reading it just to make Wolff rich, which I see as his motivation in writing it.

    OMG! You mean somebody wrote a book to make money?! That's the problem with all you Dum/Libers, you hate and don't understand how capitalism works.

    Did y'all like that? That was my impression of Stucki. ;)

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    No need to waste your time reading it just to make Wolff rich, which I see as his motivation in writing it.

    Well I've just finished reading the book.

    CRS - if you are looking for new insight into 45 and his minions, then you are right to save your money. From your prior posts about the parties and your distain for them, all the book does is provide more fuel for the same fire.

    As for making Wolff money - well that is covered in my comment yesterday - this book will probably act as a trigger for more to come. However my friend, a lawyer, told me that most of the rest of the cast of characters will be under far more severe secrecy laws and will find it more difficult to write anything.

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    Fire & Fury - more thoughts:

    The book traces the fortunes of three warring parties in the White House:
    1. Javanka - the NY Elitists
    2. Priebus - the establishment Republicans
    3. Bannon - the interlopers and destroyers

    If I had to guess, I'd say the book sympathized most with Bannon - he comes out as funny, smart and prescient (e.g. he predicted the lifespan of "The Mooch" almost to the day). Some of Bannon's quotes about other players and decisions a simply hilarious.

    The eventual "winners" are the NY Elitists, who are as dumb as mince. They engineered the Comey firing which has been called the dumbest thing ever to happen in the White House. "The Geniuses" as Bannon mockingly refers to 45's grown up kids, are panicking and one quote which makes me thing that Bannon at least proof read this book before publication is:

    "The daughter will take down the father," said Bannon, in a Shakespearian mood.

    You may find, like me, you start this book laughing at how stupid the core characters are, and end up sad for them, and sad for what they are going to put the country though as their demise plays out (yes, I know Michale, 45 is toast prediction #umpteen thousand).

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    31

    However my friend, a lawyer, told me that most of the rest of the cast of characters will be under far more severe secrecy laws and will find it more difficult to write anything.

    How so? Considering the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Asking for a friend. :)

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Bannon's take on firing Sessions:

    "I [Bannon] told him if Jeff Sessions goes, Rod Rosenstein goes, and then Rachel Brand [next in line after Rosenstein]"

    "An Obama guy will be acting attorney general."

    45 thinks he can get Rudy Guiliani or Chris Christie to replace Sessions, but Bannon doesn't think they have any chance of being confirmed. All the while the acting AG will be protecting Mueller and probably overturning Sessions rulings on e.g. marijuana, etc.

    It will be interesting to see if "The Geniuses" panic again and get the old man to fire Sessions in the hope that the replacement will fire Mueller - an action that might eclipse the dumbest move ever to that date in the White House - the firing of Comey.

    Also, after 45 announcing that his personal finances are a red line, no prospective AG is going to get approved without going on record as saying that they will look into all avenues of investigation, including the president's personal finances.

  35. [35] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Egregious economic ignorance. Capitalism is about employing 'capital' (people's savings) in order to Make THINGS, not "money"! No capital involved in writing a book, especially a book that is the literary equivalent of checkout-stand scandal mags. However, I have no objection to Wolff profiting from his efforts, as long as I don't have to contribute.

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    How so? Considering the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Asking for a friend. :)

    I'm going to his daughter's baby shower this evening - I'll ask him.

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Did y'all like that? That was my impression of Stucki. ;)

    You needed to work in the word "ignorant" in - it is almost CRS's signature word. It references the complete contempt that he holds for us all in his Libertarian Ivory Tower from which only he can clearly see the real world.

    One day I hope to understand "The Fountainhead" well enough to get the keys to the Ivory Tower so I can look down on you all as well. I may even dye my hair (singular) bright red in anticipation!

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    32

    The book traces the fortunes of three warring parties in the White House:
    1. Javanka - the NY Elitists
    2. Priebus - the establishment Republicans
    3. Bannon - the interlopers and destroyers

    Excellent summary, sir.

    "The daughter will take down the father," said Bannon, in a Shakespearian mood.

    Bannon is absolutely a rat, but he's not an entirely stupid rat, and he certainly knows that "all the president's men" will have to choose sides. Perhaps he has simply chosen to choose wisely. Yes, it does sometimes take a rat to catch one. ;)

    You may find, like me, you start this book laughing at how stupid the core characters are, and end up sad for them, and sad for what they are going to put the country though as their demise plays out.

    Shakespeare would have had a field day with the likes of this... no doubt.

    What if my house be troubled with a rat
    And I be pleased to give ten thousand ducats
    To have it baned?
    ~ William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

  39. [39] 
    Paula wrote:

    [3] neilm, [21] Kick: Yep the GQ article nails it. Really good.

    And look how he did it. He did it by sleazily ingratiating himself with the White House, gaining access, hosting weird private dinners, and then taking full advantage of the administration's basic lack of knowledge about how reporting works. Some of the officials Wolff got on tape claim to be unaware that they were on the record. Wolff denies this, but he's very much up front in the book's intro about the fact that he was able to exploit the incredible "lack of experience" on display here. In other words, Wolff got his book by playing a bunch of naive dopes.

    Thank God for that. Wolff has spent this week thoroughly exploiting Trump and his minions the same way they've exploited the cluelessness of others.

    Karma.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Ohh look!!! A book that says EXACTLY what I want to hear!!! What??? Author says it's BS!??? I DON'T CARE!!!! It's EXACTLY what I want to hear!!!!"
    -Weigantians

    Sad.... Pathetically sad...

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

    Other people mentioned in the book have also disputed claims made about them.

    Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whom the book said warned Trump that he may be under surveillance from British spies, issued a statement describing the claim as "categorically absurd" and "simply untrue."

    Anna Wintour, the longtime Vogue editor, also dismissed the claim that she lobbied Trump to be his ambassador to the UK as "laughably preposterous."

    And yet, to see you people lap this admitted BS up???

    Sad.... Pathetically sad...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ta think I used to actually respect ya'all's intelligence and integrity....

    What a fool I was....

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    We'll see over time how accurate Wolff has been.

    The whole book could be untrue. Some specifics could be inaccurate. Or the whole thing could be on target and some of the embarrassed parties might be duplicious in their denials.

    This is the problem for 45 and his minions - nobody really trusts anybody else. They were brazenly using leaks to attack their opponents, so many of Wolff's sources were the main protagonists themselves, including the grand clown in the center who whines to his "buddies" in evening phone calls with no expectation of secrecy (who isn't going to tell their spouse, who then tells their best friends, etc.).

    The core parties are media obsessed - Jared even paid $10M for the NY Observer to put himself in the news for Pete's sake.

    I expect a lot of "informed" analysis from a lot of people who haven't even read the book. You know, the experts who know all about "Collusion" even though they haven't read it either.

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    42

    What a fool I was....

    Don't sell yourself short, cupcake. What with your history and all, you've always been a fool. :D

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    What a fool I was....

    Don't do yourself a disservice ... you aren't going to change, so it isn't just the past ;)

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    37

    You needed to work in the word "ignorant" in - it is almost CRS's signature word.

    Oops. My bad... which I intend to remedy at my earliest convenience.

    It references the complete contempt that he holds for us all in his Libertarian Ivory Tower from which only he can clearly see the real world.

    M'kay. But is it possible that he's ignorant and not exactly seeing it quite as clearly as he thinks he is? :)

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    C.R. Stucki
    35

    Egregious economic ignorance.

    We accept your admission.

    Capitalism is about employing 'capital' (people's savings) in order to Make THINGS, not "money"!

    On what planet are you living where a book is NOT a thing?

    No capital involved in writing a book, especially a book that is the literary equivalent of checkout-stand scandal mags.

    But, Stucki, you were whining about people not needing to purchase the book, you know, the "asset." I guess you're just ignorant of everything involved in the production and selling of a book, you know, that tangible "thing" that the people you were whining about are purchasing. And just to expound on our earlier lesson, that "asset" in the form of a "book" is sold in both tangible and nontangible form.

    However, I have no objection to Wolff profiting from his efforts, as long as I don't have to contribute.

    Poor, ignorant Stucki. No one is forcing you to "contribute," but I regret to inform you and Benedict Donald and the Trump pundits and sycophants that the more you whine, moan, and give lip service to the rat's book, you are indeed contributing to the buzz that drives the demand and causes an increased production of books... you know... the "THINGS." :)

  48. [48] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    You seem to be unable to differentiate between 'writing' and 'publishing', but don't let it bother you. It's only the tip of your iceberg of ignorance.

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:

    The great thing is that Wolff apparently has tapes! We'll see pretty quickly how far naysayers will go to contest his version of the events.

    Separately: a friend of mine did a request for the book at his local library - he is #579 on the library's waiting list.

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    48

    You seem to be unable to differentiate between 'writing' and 'publishing', but don't let it bother you. It's only the tip of your iceberg of ignorance.

    Don't you just love it when ignorant people twist themselves into a pretzel in order to disagree with you? Take Stucki here, for instance. He was whining about people not needing to "make Wolff rich," so I did my best impression of him and accused him of NOT understanding and hating capitalism.

    So, Stucki, please let us all know how people "make Wolff rich" unless the book he was "writing" wasn't then subjected to "publishing" and mass production in multiple tangible and intangible forms and made available for them to purchase in order to "make Wolff rich"?

    Good luck, you ignorant fool. :D

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    49

    The great thing is that Wolff apparently has tapes! We'll see pretty quickly how far naysayers will go to contest his version of the events.

    I know, right! And based on the some of the contents of the rat's book, I am guessing that Mueller has them too. The rat reports that the former spokesman for Trump's private legal team quit in the summer of 2016 because he believed a statement dictated by the president aboard Air Force One may have obstructed justice.

    "Mark Corallo was instructed not to speak to the press, indeed not to even answer his phone," Wolff writes. "Later that week, Corallo, seeing no good outcome — and privately confiding that he believed the meeting on Air Force One represented a likely obstruction of justice — quit."

    Lordy, I hope there are tapes. ~ James Comey

  52. [52] 
    Paula wrote:

    [51] Kick: Lordy, I hope there are tapes. ~ James Comey

    Yep!

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    The rat reports that the former spokesman for Trump's private legal team quit in the summer of 2016 because he believed a statement dictated by the president aboard Air Force One may have obstructed justice.

    OK, there has to be a problem here - 45 only had access to AF1 in 2017.

    You mean "summer of 2017" right?

    Also, do us all a favor, find a source for the key point you are making, e.g.:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40678397

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick[50],

    he'll understand, just replace "rich" with "productive"

    JL

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wolff's phony tabloid book has been debunked,

    And what's REALLY hilarious is that it was debunked by Wolff himself!!

    I think Drowbert called it when he said that Wolff had to point out the bullshit of his book to prevent hisself from being sued...

    Now, whenever anyone comes after Wolff for the bullshit, all Wolff has to say is, "I SAID it was bullshit!!!"

    But the hysterical NeverTrumpers won't care.. They lap it up solely and completely because it's what they want to hear...

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    The great thing is that Wolff apparently has tapes! We'll see pretty quickly how far naysayers will go to contest his version of the events.

    Yea.. He has TAPES of BANNON saying blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You people are so frakin' stoopid, you will believe ANYTHING, as long as it's anti-Trump..

    You'll even believe a moron like BANNON!!!????

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  58. [58] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trumps lawyers sent Bannon a Cease and Desist order concerning the things he is quoted as saying in the book.

    Does Trump REALLY want Bannon testifying under oath to what all was said between them while Bannon was working in the White House and in Trump Tower???

    That would seem like a really BAD idea, if you asked me!

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    You seem to be unable to differentiate between 'writing' and 'publishing', but don't let it bother you. It's only the tip of your iceberg of ignorance.

    Oh snap!! :D

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    We'll see over time how accurate Wolff has been.

    "We'll see over time how successful Hillary will be"

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You just don't get it....

    Wolff himself said his book is bullshit... We don't NEED "over time".. We KNOW it's bullshit because the author himself SAID it was bullshit..

    DUUUHHHHHH

    You need to find your other brain cell, because the one you got ain't pullin' the load, dood... :D

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    That would seem like a really BAD idea, if you asked me!

    "I'll take that under advisement, cowboy. HIT IT AGAIN!!"
    -Hans, DIE HARD

    I was going to with something pithy, but I like you, Russ..

    :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary spent 40 years of her life preparing to be President Of The United States..

    And she LOST to a man who, only a year before, picked up politics as a hobby!!

    Gods, you can just imagine the butt-hurt!!! :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, she went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star to President of the United States on my first try!! I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!"
    -President Donald Trump

    Yeop.... MAJOR butt-hurt.. :D

    Gods, it's great to be an American, isn't it!?? :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's genius is that he knows he can't please everyone, so he doesn't even bother to try.

    What he does do is trigger his opponents into being the most vile, petty, intolerant, hateful, moronic assholes that they could possibly be.

    Like many here in Weigantia....

    He can do it with just using two hands on a glass of water, or creating a nonsensical word or saying he's a genius.

    Immediately, they behave like the zoo monkeys, picking up their crap and flinging it to and fro.

    The result??? Swing voters think to themselves, "What is WRONG with these people!" and vote Trump... :D

    THAT, people.... is pure genius...

  65. [65] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Michael Wolff's "Fire and Fury" has won the 2018 American spinoff of the venerable, yet still wildly popular, All-England Summarize Proust Competition. *

    Much like the UK original, the challenge of All-American Summarize Donald Trump Presidency is to distill a long, convoluted, contentious, yet enticingly familiar public character assessment into a seamless 15 second presentation, delivered once in swimsuit (electronic media) and once in evening dress (book).

    Most contestants simply fall apart on stage, but this year, both press and public seem to agree...Wolff ran away with it.

    * http://www.montypython.net/scripts/proust.php

  66. [66] 
    TheStig wrote:
  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    I know you keep knocking Wolff's book, but I'm, like, really smart, and a very stable genius and I think its core premise is true.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know you keep knocking Wolff's book, but I'm, like, really smart, and a very stable genius and I think its core premise is true.

    "Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages."

    The facts clearly show, no.. You DON'T think....

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages."

    Can you quote that note in context please.

    Or are you just making it up?

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    So do you doubt that 45's family and closest allies in the White House don't think he is an idiot?

    You know Wolff has tapes, right?

    Wolff may be a sleazy gossip monger, but he isn't stupid - he has told the world he has tapes of many of the quotes, and many of them know they said they think 45 is an idiot in his presence, thus 45's lawyers must be calling all of them and telling them not to sue Wolff because if they do all those tapes become public record.

    This is beyond hilarious, and is the real stinger in the book for 45 and his minions.

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    So here is the real question for you, Michale:

    How come one of the most litigious people in the world isn't suing Wolff over libel?

    Well NBC have a thought about this:

    The real reason that Trump probably will never sue is this: Reciprocal discovery.

    The discovery process is designed to enable the parties to uncover evidence from an adversary through the disclosure of documents and records, and can require sitting for a (transcribed) deposition. The rules are to be "liberally construed" to authorize "extremely broad" discovery. Parties to a lawsuit may force disclosure from the other side of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.

    If Trump did sue over the book or former adviser Steve Bannon's statements in the book, the discovery process of a lawsuit could result in ruin for both sides. Any defendant could get a court order for Trump to disclose virtually anything tangentially related to the lawsuit. It's not worth the risk.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/why-trump-won-t-sue-stop-wolff-bannon-or-tell-n834961

  72. [72] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Neilm-

    Or are you just making it up?

    I would call it an intentional lack of reading comprehension.

    This is the money quote from the article Michale posted but evidently refused to read:

    "Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

    "Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

    This is in the preface to Wolff's book.

  73. [73] 
    Paula wrote:

    [72] Bashi: And the spigot's response to your post will be extremely telling. He will either continue to repeat the obvious "out of context" dishonest rightwing talking point you've just refuted OR he will dodge it altogether (simply skipping it) OR he will try dissing your source OR he will do a "what aboutism" (a dodge) or he will move the goalpost OR he will return with a quote from some other rightwing hack who does one of the above and claim it as a definitive refutation. Or 10 quotes from 10 rw hacks. OR all of the above.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    OSCAR REGRETS: ACADEMY QUESTIONS WEINSTEIN BAN
    https://pagesix.com/2018/01/06/academy-members-now-regret-banning-weinstein-so-hastily/

    Typical liberals..

    "Maybe what Harvey did wasn't so bad....????"
    -Left Wingery...

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    [72] Bashi: And the spigot's response to your post will be extremely telling. He will either continue to repeat the obvious "out of context" dishonest rightwing talking point you've just refuted OR he will dodge it altogether (simply skipping it) OR he will try dissing your source OR he will do a "what aboutism" (a dodge) or he will move the goalpost OR he will return with a quote from some other rightwing hack who does one of the above and claim it as a definitive refutation. Or 10 quotes from 10 rw hacks. OR all of the above.

    Yunno, Paula.. For someone who claims to block my comments, I am sure living rent free in your head!!!

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    The simple *fact* is, Wolff's book is bullshit.. He himself ADMITS that it is bullshit...

    He only wrote it to make money off gullible hysterical NeverTrumpers like ya'all.....

    And ya'all fell for it hook line and sucker..

    :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww right.. It's game time...

    JAGS ARE GOING TO THE SUPER BOWL!!!!!!!

    :D

  77. [77] 
    Paula wrote:

    I'd say he chose the skip-dodge, followed by the "re-assertion" of previous disproven claim, with the dollop of "irrelevant link" being used to try to move the discussion off his disproven claim.

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    And ya'all fell for it hook line and sucker..

    Well, is seems you have been the one protesting most, plus the book, if it has done nothing else, has driven a wedge between 45 and Bannon.

    You have to ask yourself why 45 would fall for the story in the book about Bannon calling Don Jr. treasonous unless 45 himself believed it to be true?

    And if 45 believes it to be true, doesn't that mean he fell for it hook, line and sinker?

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    53

    OK, there has to be a problem here - 45 only had access to AF1 in 2017.

    You mean "summer of 2017" right?

    Great catch! Yes, I totally meant summer of 2017, when Donald Trump was returning from overseas on Air Force One and insisted that the meeting held at Trump Tower be misrepresented to the press/American people as a discussion about adoptions while his lawyer recommended against it and to report the facts.

    So if they did nothing wrong as they keep insisting, then why keep telling lie after lie and then moving the goalposts... |_| ---> ... in order to cover it up?

    No one met with any Russians. |_| --->

    Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer, but it was about Russian adoptions. |_| --->

    Don Jr., Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, and others met with multiple Russians including a lawyer, banker, and money launderer and a guy who informed Don Jr. via email that was sent to other campaign participants explaining: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Don Jr. replies, saying: "Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." Don Jr. expresses zero misgivings about meeting with someone who has information obtained as part of a Russian government operation aimed at getting his father elected POTUS. |_| --->

    "There is no collusion" ad nauseam. |_| --->
    "But collusion isn't a crime."

    ******

    Say it with me, ladies and gentlemen... "conspiracy" and "coverup." And, of course, it is a crime. If it wasn't, there'd be no reason for George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn to plead guilty to lesser crimes and cooperate with Mueller. :)

    Also, do us all a favor, find a source for the key point you are making, e.g.:

    What!? I thought I did include a link. Okay... re-do:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/trump-spokesman-mark-corallo-left-over-obstruction-concerns-wolff-book-claims.html

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    62

    And she LOST to a man who, only a year before, picked up politics as a hobby!!

    Wrong again and so ignorant. You seem completely oblivious to the fact that Donald Trump ran for president on the Reform ticket in 2000 and has talked about running for president for decades. I understand that Your Orange Worship keeps lying about winning on his first try because stupid people are prone to believing whatever bullshit they're spoon-fed or Don the Con spews on a regular basis, but there's simply no excuse for the kind of ignorance that burns like the stupid you will find in Trump sycophants and Always Trumpers.

    Gods, you can just imagine the butt-hurt!!! :D

    It really isn't hard to imagine your butt-hurt, but I'd prefer that you didn't keep talking about it over and over like a broken record. If all the self-admitted players, cockholsters, obedient bleating sheeple and mouthpieces for Benedict Donald like yourself would stop believing everything on Trump's Twitter feed and every lie coming out of Trump's serial fabricating blowhole and bending over and taking it, perhaps your pain would stop and you could move on with your life and stop talking about your personal problems. :D

  81. [81] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Holy Shnikes...

    You leave CONUS for a couple of weeks and read the local papers (en espanol y Portugese) and enjoy the fact that Trump is not to be heard only to come home to this....

    Now on the other hand America is so great we don't get a mention except as part of the gossip section in El Diario as part of the weekly round up of the Trump tweets.

    That pesky upstart China on the other hand really seems to be picking up some steam with infrastructure investments and RCEP, with several Central and South American countries are pretty keen to get in on RCEP now that TPP is dead.

    While TPP left much to be desired, and I am on record as having major issues with the IP and the ISDS portions, it really was no reason to throw the country out with the bath water. I guess it was, like, some genius level stuff to pull out completely....

    Yeah, totally MAGA...

    Making
    America
    Go it
    Alone

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    54

    he'll understand, just replace "rich" with "productive"

    LOL :)

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    Just in case anybody else hasn't seen this already:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/05/trump-gorilla-channel-parody-326374

    The fact that people could find this believable about 45 is testament to two things:

    1. Michale is right, people want to believe the worst about 45
    2. 45 is such a clown that even extreme satire rings true

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    83

    I knew it was satire when they called it the "Gorilla Channel" when it quite obviously should have been the "Orangutan Channel" since it's widely known that Trump requires that his name and face be added to briefings in order to hold his interest. ;)

    http://www.freakingnews.com/Donald-Trump-s-Birth-Certificate-Pictures-116867.asp

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:
  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    I'd say he chose the skip-dodge, followed by the "re-assertion" of previous disproven claim, with the dollop of "irrelevant link" being used to try to move the discussion off his disproven claim.

    So, when you said you were blocking me, you were lying..

    Typical Dumbocrat...

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    Your Orange Worship and Man-Baby's Twitter response to all the Trump sycophants, pundits, and snowflakes who are now taking issue with those who would dare to question the sanity of the President of the United States:
    _____________________

    Donald J. Trump?
    @realDonaldTrump

    I am starting to think that there is something
    seriously wrong with President Obama's
    mental health. Why won't he stop the flights.
    Psycho!
    1:23 AM - 16 Oct 2014

    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/522664117438775296?lang=en
    _____________________

    Then remember how Obama spent several days thereafter tweeting like a toddler trying desperately to prove that he wasn't an ignorant fool, referring to himself as "like smart" and "stable genius," taking issue with libel laws in the United States, alluding to needing censorship, and whining incessantly like a little bitch because somebody hurt his little feelers?

    Right... me neither. :)

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    A perfect illustration of the hysterical moronic-ness of the Humans Cause Global Warming fanatics..

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/85e7beac662a0b49ba07416784025f27f6c7537eda159ebe7ab4f3b83e214a46.jpg

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    Is there anything President Trump CAN'T do!!! :D

    * Spell
    * Punctuate
    * Say anything negative about Putin because of kompromat

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, time for a serious discussion... Hysterical NeverTrumpers need not apply.. That leaves out, with one or two exceptions, everyone here.. :D

    Should President Trump make a deal with Democrats, Dreamers for the wall??

    I am of two minds on this...

    First off, almost anything is worth getting our southern border secure... Plus, if i am being honest, I would take great joy in rubbing it in the faces of hysterical NeverTrumpers' faces that their Dumbocrats gave President Trump his wall...

    On the other hand, is it worth what is tantamount to amnesty???

    Plus there is the consideration that Democrats simply cannot be trusted... Reagan trusted the Democrats and gave them amnesty and got stiffed by Democrats on border security..

    I guess I would be most comfortable with the deal, amnesty for the wall, if President Trump insists that the wall gets built FIRST and then the process for amnesty is started...

    No wall, no amnesty...

    If President Trump were to take this approach, I would support him on it...

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. Michale is right, people want to believe the worst about 45

    Of course I am factually accurate.. Bout time you admit it.. :D

    2. 45 is such a clown that even extreme satire rings true

    Which simply refers back to #1....

    Hysterical Trumpers WANT to believe it's true and they will go to extreme lengths to fuel that belief..

    Even so far as to put all their faith in a book that even the AUTHOR says is bullshit...

    But what ya'all ignore is the FACT that President Trump was elected in a free, fair and legal election.. That means there are tens of millions of Americans who voted and support President Donald Trump..

    Oh sure, you can attack and denigrate those supporters.. It worked out for ya'all SO WELL in 2016, so I suggest ya'all definitely take that approach in 2018.. :D

    All ya'all have is hate and intolerance...

    Ya'all are the SPITTIN' IMAGE of exactly what ya'all accuse Trump supporters of being...

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    Five years ago today in Twitter history:
    _____________________

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    “Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.” - Samuel Goldwyn

    3:42 PM - 8 Jan 2013

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/288762655290847233
    _____________________

    The "very stable genius" has spoken. Believe him! :)

  93. [93] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Gotta admit, Kick may be utterly ignorant of economics, but he does seem to understand Trump. Not a single person in the entire world who actually is a genius, or even qualifies as "smart", would ever proclaim such on his own behalf!

  94. [94] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hysterical Trumpers WANT to believe it's true and they will go to extreme lengths to fuel that belief

    Well, I agree with that, even though I'm surprised you have finally come round to reality.

    Hysterical Trumpers also believe that 45 isn't a serial liar even though there is a super abundance of evidence (almost 2,000 lies since the inauguration for Pete's sake).

    Hysterical Trumpers also don't read books but are experts in every page ;)

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    Should President Trump make a deal with Democrats, Dreamers for the wall??

    Yeah, he gets Mexico to pay for the wall like he promised and I'd agree to that.

    45: "Whose going to pay for the wall?"

    Believers: "Mexico"

    45: "I can't hear you"

    Believers: "MEXICO!"

    How's that working out, Michale-the-Believer?

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Return to the Mirror Universe....

    Nice ST:ENTERPRISE tie in ST:DISCOVERY had in the mid-season premiere...

    Discovery is really getting so good, the CANON issues don't much bother me anymore...

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    How's that working out, Michale-the-Believer?

    It's working out great so far.. :D

    Once things get rolling, it will be easy to make Mexico pay for the wall... Start docking Mexico's aid unless we see some tangible effort by a RESPONSIBLE government..

    May take a few decades to do it, but hay... Not much different than a mortgage... :D

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gotta admit, Kick may be utterly ignorant of economics, but he does seem to understand Trump.

    Victoria??? She's a girl....

    Not a single person in the entire world who actually is a genius, or even qualifies as "smart", would ever proclaim such on his own behalf!

    Yea... Brilliant people are NEVER egotistical... :D

    Are you sure you aren't from the afore mentioned Mirror Universe?? :D

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, he gets Mexico to pay for the wall like he promised and I'd agree to that.

    Do you know how the government "gets" people to pay back GI Bill loans when they are delinquent??

    Think about it.. It'll come to you.. :D

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, he gets Mexico to pay for the wall like he promised and I'd agree to that.

    Soooo...

    You don't have ANY problem with the wall???

    You just want to make sure Mexico pays for it..

    Kudos, Neil... You are one step closer to being a Trump supporter... :D

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    A small levy on the billions in Western Union remittances from the US to Mexico should cover it nicely as well.. :D

    Between that and the foreign aid to Mexico the US generously gives every year, that wall will be paid down in no time! :D

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, looks like the Democrats are going to run a Winfrey/Johnson ticket in 2020...

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  103. [103] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    The wall is mostly a hopeless cosmetic effort to restrict immigration. It constitutes anti-immigration "theater", the exact equivalent of the "security theater" function Homeland Security performs at airports. And the expenditure of $billions on a wall would not significantly alter that situation.

    If we really don't want Mexican/Latin Am immigrants, we could solve the problem in a minute by making it illegal to hire them. Perhaps that means we really do want them???

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    The wall is mostly a hopeless cosmetic effort to restrict immigration.

    I disagree.. California put up a borderwall and illegal immigration was reduced by 92%...

    If we really don't want Mexican/Latin Am immigrants, we could solve the problem in a minute by making it illegal to hire them.

    It already is.. But it's not enforced..

    You are correct.. Faithful enforcement of those laws WOULD reduce illegal immigration considerably...

  105. [105] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    You telling me 'Kick' is the pseudonym of a person of the feminine persuasion??? Well, THAT explains the economic ignorance problem!! Shoulda known!

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    You telling me 'Kick' is the pseudonym of a person of the feminine persuasion??? Well, THAT explains the economic ignorance problem!! Shoulda known!

    OOOOOOooooooo yer gonna burn for that one!!!! :D

    hehehehehehe

    Funny...

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats eye Trump impeachment as midterm election strategy
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/08/will-democrats-run-on-impeachment-in-2018-midterms-dont-count-it-out.html

    Oh please please PLEASE run an ANTI-TRUMP-NOTHING-ELSE stragety in 2018, Dems..

    PLEASE.....

    NOTHING will guarantee a larger GOP majority than that... :D

  108. [108] 
    neilm wrote:

    You don't have ANY problem with the wall???

    If 45 can get Mexico to build a giant wooden rabbit and pay for it, I couldn't care less.

    I don't think the wall will make much difference to illegal immigration.

    For example, over 50% of illegal immigrants flew into the U.S. then overstayed their welcome. But they tend to be whiter than the ones that walk across the border, so for some reason not so important.

    CRS is right, perp walk 2-3 CEOs and 90% of the problem will disappear. It would take one quarter, a small ICE team and then ICE could be significantly shrunk and most of the agents laid off.

    Where do you think the real problem with immigration control is?

    The wall?

    You keep believing Michale.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think ...

    Once again.. We are in complete agreement... :D

  110. [110] 
    neilm wrote:

    OOOOOOooooooo yer gonna burn for that one!!!! :D

    I think Kick and the rest of us can spot a cheap little troll when we see it.

    Disappointed CRS turned out to be so weak minded.

    Not particularly surprised however, s/he had been very vocal on their own expertise on economics never could explain anything or demonstrate any errors in anybody else's points.

    Sad.

  111. [111] 
    neilm wrote:

    I don't think ...

    Once again.. We are in complete agreement... :D

    One more of Michale's deflections when left in the intellectual dust.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think Kick and the rest of us can spot a cheap little troll when we see it.

    I think when you get called on the FACTS you resort to cheap name-calling and childish personal attacks...

    Facts support my thoughts and not yours.. :D

    One more of Michale's deflections when left in the intellectual dust.

    Says the guy who resorts to name-calling and personal attacks when his ass is intellectually kicked.. :D

  113. [113] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think when you get called on the FACTS you resort to cheap name-calling and childish personal attacks...

    It is a fact that women are ignorant about economics, Michale?

  114. [114] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale is still ducking the value of the Wall vs. holding CEOs and ranch owners responsible for hiring illegal immigrants.

    Instead he wants to spend billions of our tax money on border control - walls, more ICE agents, lawyers, etc.

    Enforce the laws of the land first, Michale. Your panties are in a knot over sanctuary cities, but you don't want effective enforcement of your own types.

  115. [115] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [111]

    Says the guy (?) to whom "It never occurred that price inflation is actually overwhelmingly the result of currency inflation"!!!, something that for most folks falls into the same category as 'the sun rises in the east', and 'self-proclaimed geniuses usually are actually dolts"!!!

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is a fact that women are ignorant about economics, Michale?

    I made no claim on that one way or the other...

    Michale is still ducking the value of the Wall vs. holding CEOs and ranch owners responsible for hiring illegal immigrants.

    Really??

    Because it's clear I said above "You are correct.. Faithful enforcement of those laws WOULD reduce illegal immigration considerably..."

    Once again, the facts totally refute your BS fact-less claims..

    Enforce the laws of the land first, Michale. Your panties are in a knot over sanctuary cities,

    I never even mentioned sanctuary cities. You did..

    Once again, we have your hysterical bullshit and we have MY facts...

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Says the guy (?) to whom "It never occurred that price inflation is actually overwhelmingly the result of currency inflation"!!!, something that for most folks falls into the same category as 'the sun rises in the east', and 'self-proclaimed geniuses usually are actually dolts"!!!

    You gotta understand something about Neil and the other Weigantians..

    Their thoughts are *TOTALLY* ruled by their Party slavery..

    They have no independent thoughts of their own.. The Party supplies ALL their thoughts...

  118. [118] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oops, make that reference on my [115] read [110], not [111].

  119. [119] 
    John M wrote:

    [35] C. R. Stucki

    Egregious economic ignorance. Capitalism is about employing 'capital' (people's savings) in order to Make THINGS, not "money"! No capital involved in writing

    Too bad then that what most right wingers tout as our "entrepreneurial" class are actually company CEO's and traders on Wall Street who are far more interested in making "money" rather than "things." Otherwise things like dividends to shareholders and stock prices would not take on such importance in their minds to the exclusion of everything else.

  120. [120] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Is there anything President Trump CAN'T do!!! :D"

    Apparently not. Since he can be just as illiterate as you apparently are.

  121. [121] 
    John M wrote:

    [97] Michale

    "Once things get rolling, it will be easy to make Mexico pay for the wall... Start docking Mexico's aid unless we see some tangible effort by a RESPONSIBLE government.."

    Yeah, that's the ticket! instead of actually making Mexico pay for it with THEIR money, we'll make them pay for it with AMERICAN money that we simply withhold from giving them. Same thing with remittances. Why make them pay for the wall with MEXICAN money created inside MEXICO, when we can do it with AMERICAN money made inside the UNITED STATES instead! Only in TRUMP WORLD does that perfectly LOGICAL sense!

  122. [122] 
    Paula wrote:

    [110-111] neilm: Yep!

    Meanwhile, a happy tale about a nazi being exposed by students and losing his job: http://www.newsweek.com/alt-right-maryland-teacher-gregory-conte-fired-after-identity-white-773708

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently not. Since he can be just as illiterate as you apparently are.

    Yea, that's the PARTY UBER ALLES explanation..

    For those NOT enslaved by Party ideology, the answer is quite different..

    Ya'all got yer asses kicked and now yer whining like little biatches with butt-hurt... :D

  124. [124] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M.

    Another egregious mis-reading of the realities of economics.

    Wall St traders are NOT 'making money' (in the sense of manufacturing it), they are providing a SERVICE, (which, along with 'goods', is the other half of making THINGS which people can consume to improve their lives), and obviously they do so in the hope that their efforts will produce a profit, which leads to the near-universal misunderstanding of damn near everybody about the nature of 'money' and 'making money'.

    Don't feel bad if this stuff is over your head, it's also over damn near everybody else's head, although I never could understand why.

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, a happy tale about a nazi being exposed by students and losing his job: http://www.newsweek.com/alt-right-maryland-teacher-gregory-conte-fired-after-identity-white-773708

    Dumbocrat's response to that is a NAZI-chic selfie

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS44S_RXcAAeIQw.jpg

    Dumbocrats... What morons....

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, a happy tale about a nazi being exposed by students and losing his job

    Dumbocrat's response to that is a NAZI-chic selfie

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS44S_RXcAAeIQw.jpg

    Dumbocrats... What morons....

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't feel bad if this stuff is over your head, it's also over damn near everybody else's head, although I never could understand why.

    Because their Party slavery won't allow them to acknowledge facts and reality..

    That's why they felliate the author of an Anti-Trump book, even though the author himself says that the book is bullshit...

  128. [128] 
    John M wrote:

    [85] Michale

    So if I simply post a link to a map showing summertime temperatures in the USA, that would be equally as valid as proof in SUPPORT of global warming right? Ok, GOT IT!

  129. [129] 
    John M wrote:

    [124] C. R. Stucki

    "Don't feel bad if this stuff is over your head, it's also over damn near everybody else's head, although I never could understand why."

    For someone who keeps saying that, you sure have a poor understanding of the use of colloquial English or the venacular as in the phrase "making money" as it is widely understood by everybody else. Perhaps you should go back and do a review of English grammar?

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    So if I simply post a link to a map showing summertime temperatures in the USA, that would be equally as valid as proof in SUPPORT of global warming right? Ok, GOT IT!

    You mean, like when Odumbo pointed to glaciers melting in summer as "proof" that Humans Cause Global Warming is real???

    You don't get it, JM... You have absolutely NO FACTS to stand on.. All you have is spin and Party slavery...

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    For someone who keeps saying that, you sure have a poor understanding of the use of colloquial English or the venacular as in the phrase "making money" as it is widely understood by everybody else. Perhaps you should go back and do a review of English grammar?

    Like I said..

    *NO FACTS*.. Just Party slavery and immature personal attacks..

  132. [132] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [128]

    If you think an understanding of the principles of Economics can be had by studying English (and PARTICULARLY "colloquial English"), that no doubt explains why you have none. Colloquial English most likely FOSTERS misunderstanding of most things.

  133. [133] 
    John M wrote:

    [124] C. R. Stucki

    "Wall St traders are NOT 'making money' (in the sense of manufacturing it), they are providing a SERVICE, (which, along with 'goods', is the other half of making THINGS which people can consume to improve their lives), and obviously they do so in the hope that their efforts will produce a profit, which leads to the near-universal misunderstanding of damn near everybody about the nature of 'money' and 'making money'."

    By your own "definition" of "capitalism" that you used earlier, (Capitalism is about employing capital, people's savings, in order to make THINGS, not money) which is what I was addressing, a "service" does not fall under "capitalism" as it is NOT a "tangible" "manufactured good."

    Suddenly it was you who changed the meaning of what you said previously, so that providing a SERVICE becomes the other half of making THINGS. Yet another example of moving the goalposts.

    Wall Street Traders are not "creating" money that did not previously exist. They are taking a percentage of that money for the service of moving or transferring that money around, period.

  134. [134] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS hasn't demonstrated that s/he has a clue about economics, capital markets, currencies, etc.

    All we get is how smart s/he is and ignorant everybody else is. Classic troll behavior.

    Boring.

  135. [135] 
    John M wrote:

    [131] C. R. Stucki

    I never said it would help with economics. I said it might help you with understanding what other people are saying, instead of simply projecting your own ideas into what you thought they said.

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    I never said it would help with economics. I said it might help you with understanding what other people are saying, instead of simply projecting your own ideas into what you thought they said.

    Understanding ya'all's Party slavery explains PERFECTLY where ya'all are coming from...

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    All we get is how smart s/he is and ignorant everybody else is. Classic troll behavior.

    Boring.

    All we get from ya'all is name-calling and NO FACTS....

    Telling....

  138. [138] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [133]

    Says the guy (again) who has demonstrated that the extent of his understanding of financial derivatives is that they are simply a manifestation of Wall St greed, and the same guy who admits that it never occurred to him that price inflation is the result of currency inflation (unwarranted expansion of the money supply)

    Rest my case.

  139. [139] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [137]

    You have not proved any insight or understanding yourself. Just that you think I don't know what I'm talking about.

    Try to understand the difference.

    Nobody is impressed with your understanding of economics, capital markets, etc. because you don't demonstrate any understanding - only your opinion of everybody else.

    I don't expect anything, because, frankly, if you ever did put anything on the record you would be open to questions and counter points that might expose your lack of knowledge.

    Thus you are trolling, and it is boring. And sad. But mostly boring.

  140. [140] 
    neilm wrote:

    Two full time trolls on the board - Michale and CRS.

    Michale at least pays-for-play (what was your number this year Michale?)

    CRS is just trying to be smart by smug little comments that he things gets a rise from us.

  141. [141] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [139]

    By that criterion, however invalid, I'm doing great, right?

  142. [142] 
    Kick wrote:

    I don't expect anything, because, frankly, if you ever did put anything on the record you would be open to questions and counter points that might expose your lack of knowledge.

    The ignorant old fool already exposed himself by supplying enough information that revealed his identity. Ignorance, sophistry, and fabrication are just a few of the things the trolls on this board have in common. :)

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thus you are trolling, and it is boring. And sad. But mostly boring.

    And yet, you still keep trying to prove him wrong.. :D

    And you FAIL every time.. :D

    Two full time trolls on the board - Michale and CRS.

    Those who make personal and immature personal attacks have no argument.. :D

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ignorant old fool already exposed himself by supplying enough information that revealed his identity.

    Once again, Victoria threatens the DOX instead of having a valid rebuttal argument...

    Typical....

  145. [145] 
    neilm wrote:

    By that criterion, however invalid, I'm doing great, right?

    You are a star, CRS!

    :)

  146. [146] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Re You don't expect anything 'cause you think I'm afraid to be contradicted or proven wrong.

    Do you expect me to volunteer something out of the blue? If you want me to explain something you don't understand, you need only ask. I've no fear of being contradicted or proven wrong. Go ahead and suggest/ask, but make it concrete, I don't debate ideology, religion, etc, where there's no right or wrong.

  147. [147] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, since you ask:

    1. What is inflation?
    2. What are CDSs? CDOs?
    3. Do you think Bitcoin is a fad that will crash?

  148. [148] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, since you ask:

    1. What is inflation?
    2. What are CDSs? CDOs?
    3. Do you think Bitcoin is a fad that will crash?

  149. [149] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I wonder if Hillary would be willing to do the audiobook for Fire & Fury?

  150. [150] 
    John M wrote:

    [148] ListenWhenYouHear

    "I wonder if Hillary would be willing to do the audiobook for Fire & Fury?"

    How about Alec Baldwin doing it as Trump? This could be fun! Any other suggestions?

  151. [151] 
    John M wrote:

    [148] ListenWhenYouHear

    "I wonder if Hillary would be willing to do the audiobook for Fire & Fury?"

    Here's another. How about Obama doing the voice over?

  152. [152] 
    John M wrote:

    [148] ListenWhenYouHear

    "I wonder if Hillary would be willing to do the audiobook for Fire & Fury?"

    How about all the women who have accused Trump of sexual harassment? They could all take turns reading passages.

  153. [153] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    143

    Once again, Victoria threatens the DOX instead of having a valid rebuttal argument...

    And once again and as always, YOU LIE. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to dox the ignorant fools that are stupid enough to make comments wherein they volunteer their personal information all by themselves.

    Pointing out the level of the ignorance of a board troll and the FACT that they fabricate on a regular basis is all the proof I need at the moment, but I am certainly amenable to posting the links to your comments wherein you reveal your identity if you'd like more "valid rebuttal argument." :)

  154. [154] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    I'd have thought you'd be fully aware of most of that from previous discussions, but hey, I aim to please.

    1. The classical and historical definition of inflation, up until perhaps 50 yrs ago, was "An unwarranted increase in the money supply, resulting in general price rises." (The "unwarranted" meant 'out of proportion to the current level of GNP, (we now call it GDP) economic output, or comparable measures).

    As a result of the extraordinarily and unprecedentedly (for the U.S. at least) high level of monetary inflation caused by fighting wars with newly-printed money rather than taxation in the decade of the '60's, which produced unprecedented high levels of price inflation, the term pretty much evolved in popular understanding from the cause (monetary inflation) to the effect (price inflation), an unfortunate result because it led to near total ignorance of the reality of what was actually happening.

    2. CDS's ("Credit Default Swaps") are essentially insurance policies against the risk of bond default, with the very important distinction that the sellers are (or at least were) willing to sell such insurance to people who had no financial interest/ownership in the underlying equities, thus rendering them a prime vehicle for financial speculation (aka gambling, for Dems/Libs).

    2. CDO's (Collateralized Debt Obligations) are bonds created by bundling/packaging hundreds/thousands of retail mortgages to be offered for sale to retail investors, banks mutual funds, etc.

    3. I don't even have a guess.

  155. [155] 
    John M wrote:

    [148] ListenWhenYouHear

    "I wonder if Hillary would be willing to do the audiobook for Fire & Fury?"

    Yet another. Get each one of Trump's ex-wives to do it. I am sure Ivana and Marla would be thrilled.

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet another. Get each one of Trump's ex-wives to do it. I am sure Ivana and Marla would be thrilled.

    This is what passes for intellectual discussions around here..

    No wonder we have President Trump.... :^/

  157. [157] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    121

    Yeah, that's the ticket! instead of actually making Mexico pay for it with THEIR money, we'll make them pay for it with AMERICAN money that we simply withhold from giving them. Same thing with remittances. Why make them pay for the wall with MEXICAN money created inside MEXICO, when we can do it with AMERICAN money made inside the UNITED STATES instead! Only in TRUMP WORLD does that perfectly LOGICAL sense!

    Now, now, John M, the Trump sycophants and uneducated morons have bought "all in" to the utter nonsensical bullshit that withholding American taxpayers' money from Mexico would be the equivalent of making Mexico pay for the wall because their Orange Worship said it would.

    Then people like you have the temerity to come along and state the completely obvious, revealing how utterly stupid they are and their total inability to reason... AND you're only going to confuse them. :)

  158. [158] 
    John M wrote:

    [155] Michale

    "Yet another. Get each one of Trump's ex-wives to do it. I am sure Ivana and Marla would be thrilled.

    This is what passes for intellectual discussions around here..

    No wonder we have President Trump.... :^/"

    Exactly. If you wanted intellectual discussion, then you should have elected Hillary! BWHAAAAAAAA! :-)

  159. [159] 
    Paula wrote:

    Dictator Wannabe Blotus has his lawyers send a cease and desist letter to Fire & Fury Publishers. The publisher - a patriot, unlike Blotus and his traitorous supporters - responds with a "we will not be intimidated and here's how the Constitution works" statement.

    That's where we are today: a Putin-d!ck-licking orange man trying to suppress a book because it makes him look bad, and a publisher telling him to pound sand.
    Kudos to John Sargent, President of Macmillan Publishers.

  160. [160] 
    Paula wrote:

    Also of note: Congressman Ed Royce (rep) packing it in. All that winning is so motivating!

  161. [161] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    158

    I know, right! Elizabeth McNamara from the firm Davis Wright Tremaine, representing the rat Wolff and his publisher Henry Holt really eviscerates them too. Excerpts from the letter:

    * "Though your letter provides a basic summary of New York libel law, tellingly, it stops short of identifying a single statement in the book that is factually false or defamatory," McNamara wrote. "Instead, the letter appears to be designed to silence legitimate criticism. This is the antithesis of an actionable libel claim."

    * "The law treats sources like Mr. Bannon as adults, and it is Mr. Bannon's responsibility — not Henry Holt's or Mr. Wolff's — to honor any contractual obligations," the letter explained, calling Harder's argument "a perversion of contract law" that "[n]o court would support."

    * One weakness that Wolff did appear to have stems from an admission in his prologue that some of his sources contradicted each other, and in some cases lied, leaving him to piece together what he believed to be the truth. An analysis of what that could mean can be found here, but McNamara defended this, saying:

    ... Mr. Wolff responsibly tells his readers his approach to confronting the well-established reality that many in this administration, most prominently the President, routinely traffic in verifiably false statements. Thus, Mr. Wolff explains how he attempted to reconcile conflicting accounts. [emphasis mine]

    http://ussanews.com/News1/2018/01/08/patently-ridiculous-michael-wolffs-lawyer-rips-trump-legal-threat-to-shreds-in-response-letter/
    _______________________

    There's a copy of the entire letter posted at the link above if anyone is interested in the painful truth facing Trump in his efforts to silence and American citizen.

    Say hello to the First Amendment... ain't karma a witch? :)

  162. [162] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [153]

    2) CDS - i.e. you mean a way of transferring risk?

  163. [163] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [153]

    1) We have had a huge increase in money supply with Q.E. I, II, III, etc.

    Why haven't we had price increases?

  164. [164] 
    Kick wrote:

    [158] Paula

    Wolff's lawyer totally eviscerates Trump's argument too. I posted a link to an article that posted the entire correspondence, but the filter ate it. :)

  165. [165] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [153]

    1) Can you point us to a history of the word "inflation" in economics and show the migration in meaning from focusing only on the cause (inflation of money supply) to the effect (price increases)?

  166. [166] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS - what is the inflation rate today and how is it measured? Why isn't it measured using money supply? If it should use money supply, which supply figures? M1? M2?

  167. [167] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS: Inflation

    One of the old texts I looked up uses the term "inflation of prices" (bottom of page 564, see link below).

    It seems very pedantic to limit the meaning of inflation up to the 1960s to mean only the cause (inflation of money supply) when in 1894 the term was in use with respect to prices.

    Dictionary of Political Economy, Volume 1
    edited by Sir Robert Harry Inglis Palgrave, 1894

    https://books.google.com/books?id=byjUAAAAMAAJ&dq=dictionary%20of%20economics&pg=PA564#v=onepage

  168. [168] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS: It is this level of ignorance of the simple term inflation itself, i.e. thinking that in our lifetimes the meaning has significantly changed, that completely destroys any credibility you have on any economics subject at all. And in fact, if you are a man as Michale assumes, it is no surprise, as this arrogance is a condition of your gender and explains your perpetual ignorance on all other subjects as well.

    Unfair?

    See: http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/01/05/ftp466/#comment-113539

    ;)

  169. [169] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK Michale, I know you think I'm just a knee jerk liberal democrat card carrying member of the left wingery, so I'm going to find one thing per week (you can remind me) good to say about Trump (see - I used his brand name instead of 45). I'll start with two since it is the second week of the year.

    #1 Here is something that I think Ann Coulter got right a couple of days ago:

    Close Trump friend Tom Barrack told the author Trump isn't just crazy but also stupid. Coulter said Americans don't care, he was elected to deliver on immigration, trade, and "no more pointless wars."

    I think she is right. And, even though I strongly disagree, at least the TPP action was what he said he was going to do.

    #2 I think Donald Trump was onto something when he said during the first presidential debate that “we’re in a big, fat ugly bubble.”

  170. [170] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS - you know I'm only yanking your chain. I think your definitions for inflation, CDSs and CDOs are fine.

    Why don't you drop the "I'm intelligent and you are all ignorant" attitude and maybe we can find interesting things to discuss.

    Michale is a lost cause, but he's my friend so I put up with a lot from him, and I expect the reverse is also true.

  171. [171] 
    Kick wrote:

    nielm
    167

    #2 I think Donald Trump was onto something when he said during the first presidential debate that “we’re in a big, fat ugly bubble.”

    https://youtu.be/4xn9jLy_TB4?t=59s

    Listen to the blowhard, Neil, and please tell me what you think BLOTUS is going to do about it except blame Barack Obama when it bursts? The good news is that Trump has claimed the stock market as his own now... so there's that. :)

  172. [172] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Neilm

    Not so much a case of "Intelligent vs. ignorant", more like 'Knowledgeable vs ignorant'. I've spent a lot of time and effort studying this kind of stuff, and seem to have more interest or maybe aptitude for it than most people. Sorry if that offends you, but not sorry enough to let people justify their ideological/philosophical leanings with bogus economic justification for irrational political conclusions.

    Not sure how within the parameters of a political blog, we're going to find non-political, non-economic topics that constitute "interesting things" to discuss, unless you happen to be a fisherma, Oops, SORRY, fisherPERSON!

  173. [173] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry if that offends you

    Frankly sad that you think you have nothing more to learn because you've already decided you know more than everybody on this board.

    On you.

  174. [174] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    173

    Frankly sad that you think you have nothing more to learn because you've already decided you know more than everybody on this board.

    On you.

    Exactly right. :)

    I'm still waiting for Stucki's explanation of how Wolff writing a book in order to "make Wolff rich" is not "about capitalism." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the concept that intellectual property is indeed a THING that can be produced and sold to the masses. Part of the production of the intellectual property is not only the book binding, etc., but also ... indeed... the creation of that intellectual property, which is commonly referred to as "writing."

    Capitalism is "production for exchange" driven by the desire for personal accumulation of money, and it's really NOT all that complicated a concept unless you're trying to make it seem that way. So Stucki declaring that capitalism is about making "THINGS, not 'money'" might actually qualify as the dumbest thing I have read on this blog. We've had the argument twice now, wherein I have to explain to Stucki that intangible things can be produced and sold for profit; however, he doesn't seem to be grasping the concept. Perhaps his intellect is simply firmly planted in last century concepts.

    Best take care, Stucki, to remember the elementary aspects of things combined with 21st century innovations rather than focusing so hard on your trolling that you forget. :)

  175. [175] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Sorry, I don't see how it is you justify making that giant leap from the fact that I very likely DO know more about the handful of specific things we have discussed on this forum, which happened to be within my area of interest and expertise, to the conclusion that I therefore "think I have nothing left to learn".

    I can think of a considerable number of things to be known in the world other than the three economic subjects of inflation, CDS's and CDO's. For instance, we've never even discussed raising geraniums, nuclear physics, nor ancient Chinese pottery!!!

    Unable to follow your reasoning in arriving at your totally unjustified conclusion.

  176. [176] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    175

    I can think of a considerable number of things to be known in the world other than the three economic subjects of inflation, CDS's and CDO's. For instance, we've never even discussed raising geraniums, nuclear physics, nor ancient Chinese pottery!!!

    You ignorant doddering old fool, did you forget that this is a political forum? If you'd like to troll people about how ignorant they are about flowers and pots, you're in the wrong place. :p

    Yep... you've quite obviously got a bad case of CRS disease. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Your initials suit you.

  177. [177] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    John M,

    Yet another. Get each one of Trump's ex-wives to do it. I am sure Ivana and Marla would be thrilled.

    We missed the most obvious choice....Putin!

  178. [178] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    When a 'capitalist' employs capital, land and labor
    to produce something that people can consume (goods or services) and those goods and services are worth more than are the resources he consumed in the production thereof, we (economists) say he has earned a "profit".

    When an author writes a book and people buy it, economists say he has realized "earnings", basically equivalent to the wages that the capitalist's employees earn.

    If you want to refer to wage and salary type earnings, such as the writer's income as "profit", as many laymen and certain borderline morons on this forum are want to do, feel free.

  179. [179] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    178

    Having worked in both manufacturing and publishing, you are so full of shit. That may be your ivory tower view, but down in the trenches you have a creative, that can be a writer or product designer(s), then you have implementation which is usually an engineer or graphic designer followed by production. And in most cases each of these rolls have teams rather than individuals. There is very little difference between a book, car or any other marketable product, just a different balance of the work load for the different rolls. And a very similar process exists for digital goods.

    I think I have figured you out. Long ago I argued and followed the arguments of the Ron Paulites and their devotion to the Austrian school of economics. You are showing the same behavior. I have no doubt you have studied economics extensively but it seems you have devoted yourself to a single school and can't seem to grasp the limitation thereof. Schools of thought, whether economics or philosophy or any subject really, like to have very rigid definitions of terms in order to help explain the overall theory. Your mistake is to assume that rigid definition is universal and works with other schools of thought within the same subject and it just doesn't.

    The question is: what economic school of thought are you devoted to? Beyond the anti-liberal pompous bullshit and the need to inflict your personal definition of terms, you have not really said much on the subject of economics...

  180. [180] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    BB

    So do you have anything beyond a personal attack to make there, like a specific point?

    Are you trying to tell me that economists of any school whatsoever normally equate the "incomes" or "earnings" of authors with the "profits" of entrepreneurs, for purposes of economic analysis?

    If you're so phuqueing dumb that you think author's incomes constitute 'profits' in the economist's sense simply because they are 'money coming in', you need to find somebody else to insult.

    However, don't think you have to hold back on account of that. If you're bent on revealing yourself publicly as the officious asshole you seem to be, have at it.

  181. [181] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    C. R. Stucki,

    First, you are the one who started out with the insults with the "liberals can't understand" BS. Are you really going with half the population, including Ph.Ds in many subjects including economics can't understand what you are talking about? Really? Tell you what, drop the pomp and I'll bring in more decorum. YOU started this.

    Second, what is the difference between bringing in a contract product designer and a writer in your economic theory?

    However, don't think you have to hold back on account of that. If you're bent on revealing yourself publicly as the officious asshole you seem to be, have at it.

    Just following your lead...

  182. [182] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    BB

    So, you equate me telling you that "liberals can't understand" (something I doubt I ever exactly said, although admittedly likely something comparable) with you telling me I'm "full of shit"??? "Liberals can't understand" is hardly even an insult, and for damn sure, not a personal insult.

    No, you're NOT "following my lead", but if you want to back off from the ad hominem in favor of more "decorum', I'm totally agreeable, but you may have to shed whatever hypersensitivity leads you to interpret "liberals can't understand" as a personal insult.

    Re your question, "What is the difference . . ." My point is that writers are normally self-employed, not even employees of the publishing house. The publishing house definitely qualifies as a capitalist venture, whose net income (if in excess of overhead and expense) is "profit" in the sense of normal economic analysis. The income of the self-employed author, regardless of how much it is, is not normally considered "profit" for purposes of economic analysis, because his gross income and net income are all the same thing.

    (And for gawdsake, PLEASE don't tell me he has to cover the expense of his computer. Pretend he writes his prose longhand on old newspapers.)

  183. [183] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    "Liberals can't understand" is hardly even an insult, and for damn sure, not a personal insult.

    Yes it is. Calling an entire class of people stupid is definitely an insult and I held back the profanity to quite some degree from my initial reaction.

    No, you're NOT "following my lead", but if you want to back off from the ad hominem in favor of more "decorum', I'm totally agreeable, but you may have to shed whatever hypersensitivity leads you to interpret "liberals can't understand" as a personal insult.

    You first. To a liberal, "liberals can't understand" is a text book ad hominem. And I'm probably not the only one here who took it as such. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. You insult me, right back at you.

    The income of the self-employed author, regardless of how much it is, is not normally considered "profit" for purposes of economic analysis, because his gross income and net income are all the same thing.

    How is not just being pedantic with terminology? I've been in plenty of manufacturing situations where contract, that is self employed, designers and engineers are brought in to work on a product. Why are classically designated "artists" treated different under your economic theories?

  184. [184] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    178

    Nice try, Stucki, but you've simply mischaracterized what I said... as you so often do... in order to keep up your bullshit argument wherein you actually stated that capitalism is about making "THINGS, not 'money'"... your exact words.

    When an author writes a book and people buy it, economists say he has realized "earnings", basically equivalent to the wages that the capitalist's employees earn.

    If you want to refer to wage and salary type earnings, such as the writer's income as "profit", as many laymen and certain borderline morons on this forum are want to do, feel free.

    Okay, first, since you're always such an asshole about terminology, it's NOT "are want to do"... it's "are wont to do." If you're going to lecture everyone on terminology, then surely you won't mind my pointing that out.

    Second, we here accept your admission that you're a "borderline moron," but we would actually go further and classify you as a fucking* moron since it was you... in fact... who described the money Wolff was making as "profiting":

    Capitalism is about employing 'capital' (people's savings) in order to Make THINGS, not "money"! No capital involved in writing a book, especially a book that is the literary equivalent of checkout-stand scandal mags. However, I have no objection to Wolff profiting from his efforts, as long as I don't have to contribute. ~ C. R. Stucki {emphasis mine}

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/01/05/ftp466/#comment-113468

    The fact is, you were whining about people buying Wolff's book and him writing a book in order to "make Wolff rich," and I did my best impression of you and stated that you Dum/Libers hated and didn't understand capitalism... and then you started your pretty standard bullshit, which I quoted above. I'm still waiting for your answer as to what planet you're living on where a book is not a "THING."

    Bashi is exactly right in saying your bullshit is "just being pedantic with terminology," and therein lies your problem, Stucki. You spend so much time spewing poo and bending yourself into a pretzel hounding people on this blog, calling them "ignorant" and continually moving the goalposts, pointing your finger and trolling, that it was only a matter of time until you twisted yourself up so far that your finger is pointing squarely in your own direction and implicating yourself.
    _______________

    * Please note the correct spelling is "fucking"... not "phuqueing." If you're going to curse and also continually take issue with terminology, Stucki, at least have the decency to spell the words correctly, otherwise you'll appear hypocritical, petty, and fucking illiterate. :)

  185. [185] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Authors do not generally manufacture books. Authors write the text, and the actual books are manufactured/produced by publishers. I realize that's way too technical for the average shithead ignorant bitch, but try to grasp the concept best you're capable.

    If you weren't such a foul-mouthed quasi-illiterate ass hole, you'd know that "phuqueing" is a Mongolese word pronounced 'few-KAY-ing', not "fucking". It of course translates into English as 'fucking'!

    And if you weren't too retarded to look it up, you'd know that 'profit' and 'profiting' have dual definitions, the one commonly utilized by laymen, er I mean 'layPEOPLE' so you can't scream 'sexism,, and another, more technical, employed by professional economists in the process of economic analysis.

  186. [186] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    185

    Authors do not generally manufacture books. Authors write the text, and the actual books are manufactured/produced by publishers.

    More deflection from you? The subject you keep avoiding is your statement that capitalism was about making "THINGS, not money," and I'm still waiting for your answer to what planet you're living on where a book is not a thing. You were talking about people buying Wolff's book to "make Wolff rich," and I did my best impression of you and claimed you hated and didn't understand capitalism. Whereupon you started your typical hair-splitting exercises trying to prove it had nothing to do with capitalism.

    I realize that's way too technical for the average shithead ignorant bitch, but try to grasp the concept best you're capable.

    Blah, blah, blah... all that garbage there does is let me know that you're an angry old man. Thank you for letting me know; it is ever so helpful and not remotely unexpected. :)

    If you weren't such a foul-mouthed quasi-illiterate ass hole, you'd know that "phuqueing" is a Mongolese word pronounced 'few-KAY-ing', not "fucking". It of course translates into English as 'fucking'!

    You mad bro? *LOL* I regret to inform you, however, that "Mongolese" is not actually a real word. I can see why you'd actually screw this up because of "China/Chinese," but no. Insisting that a word is "Mongolese" is like claiming that "bueno" is "Mexicanese" or "Spanishese"... Duh.

    I'm guessing you maybe meant "Mongolian," which hasn't generally used the Latin/Roman alphabet for about eight decades but is written using the Cyrillic alphabet.

    http://www.omniglot.com/writing/mongolian.htm

    While I understand you can't exactly use Cyrillic in CW's comment section, claiming that others should be able to recognize your bastardized "Mongolese" [not a word] cursing is quite a load of nonsensical bullshit... even for you. Anyway, for future reference, "Mongolese" is NOT a word... perhaps you were just too retarded to look it up.

    And if you weren't too retarded to look it up, you'd know that 'profit' and 'profiting' have dual definitions, the one commonly utilized by laymen, er I mean 'layPEOPLE' so you can't scream 'sexism,, and another, more technical, employed by professional economists in the process of economic analysis.

    Once again and for effect, Bashi is absolutely correct: "How is it not just being pedantic with terminology?" We accept your admission that you're a "moron"... you can pick your own descriptive adjective, but I'd still seriously consider you go with "fucking moron"... in whatever language you choose... since you twisted yourself into a pretzel insisting that my use of the term "profits" in my comment was meant to be the technical use, which is utter nonsense, while naturally claiming that your use of the term wasn't.

    You seeing your problem yet? Because I can assure you from the comments I've read that Neil and Bashi are seeing it, and I'd wager that most likely everyone else here is seeing it very clearly with the exception of you. :)

  187. [187] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Kick-

    While I understand you can't exactly use Cyrillic in CW's comment section

    Well, lets just test that out:

    Mongolian word for fucking is: ??????????

  188. [188] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Yup, you are right. The Cyrillic shows up in both the reply box when copied over and in the preview but only question marks when posted...

    Well, at least we learned something in this thread. Heh...

  189. [189] 
    Kick wrote:

    Bashi
    188

    Yup, you are right. The Cyrillic shows up in both the reply box when copied over and in the preview but only question marks when posted...

    I found out when I was "speaking" Russian one day. I spoke it beautifully into my voice recognition software, and it looked wonderful written in the comment box... until I posted it.

    Izvini! Prosti!

    Well, at least we learned something in this thread. Heh...

    Da. Odnogo jazyka nikogda nedostatocno. :)

  190. [190] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Re "Too retarded to look it (Mongolese) up."

    There was nothing to "look up", dimwit, I coined it, as in 'invented'. If you weren't so brain-dead, you'd recognize when people are 'putting you on', as the saying goes.

  191. [191] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    190

    There was nothing to "look up", dimwit, I coined it, as in 'invented'. If you weren't so brain-dead, you'd recognize when people are 'putting you on', as the saying goes.

    Oh, look... an angry old man with declining mental faculties calling me "brain-dead"... such precious projection and painfully slow on the uptake. It's a rather unfortunate fact that the trolling types on this blog seem to share the characteristics of reading comprehension issues as well as the propensity to spew "invented" BS. As I already stated in my comment:

    "claiming that others should be able to recognize your bastardized "Mongolese" [not a word] cursing is quite a load of nonsensical bullshit... even for you."

    Let us all know what part of the statement "not a word" has confused you and which one of the words "nonsensical bullshit" you need explained and spoon-fed to you like a toddler.

    Several of us in the comments section had you and your pedantic bullshit pegged exactly right; thank you ever so much for your written admission, and we're going to go with "fucking moron" for you, Stucki, because it quite obviously suits you. :)

  192. [192] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    yeah, you got that right fumducker (look it up, it's another Mongolese idiom, along with 'phuqueing'), and heavy on the "OLD"!

  193. [193] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    193

    yeah, you got that right fumducker (look it up, it's another Mongolese idiom, along with 'phuqueing'), and heavy on the "OLD"!

    You can stop trolling, Stucki, and endeavor to be a human now. You've flung enough "invented" pedantic poo and shoveled enough dirt already that it's deep enough for your impending burial should the need arise. :)

Comments for this article are closed.