LL&P

Lie, Lobby and Purger.

Sorry, I don't do politics, nor religion. There's no point, because there's no right nor wrong, so nothing ever gets resolved.

Nothing ever gets resolved either when trolls who don't "do politics" hang out on a political blog making up lies about other posters and whining about grammar and spelling while assigning feelings and actions to people they know nothing about.

I happily argue economics, but the problem there is, Dems/Libs aren't smart enough to differentiate between economics and politics, so they perpetually infuse their economics with liberal (small 'l') doses of their Liberal (big L) politics, which serves to make their economics irrelevant. Just more of that same old *LOL* (Low on Literacy) thing.

While I realize that's what you believe you do, what you actually do is hang out on the political board and repeat the same bullshit regarding economics over and over ad nauseam in a smug and erudite fashion. When you are challenged on your bullshit, you resort to calling commenters stupid, making up lies about people you don't know, and whining about typographical errors and grammar.

So we've "resolved" you don't "do politics" and that you believe yourself to be an economics genius while you're essentially nothing but a smug and erudite troll who's basically here to insult people and get your jollies inventing lies about other commenters. :)

Re "You could even 'thrown' (typo?) some politics into your rants too and become relevant." No, actually, that's the OPPOSITE of "relevant"!

Sorry, I don't do politics, nor religion. There's no point, because there's no right nor wrong, so nothing ever gets resolved.

I happily argue economics, but the problem there is, Dems/Libs aren't smart enough to differentiate between economics and politics, so they perpetually infuse their economics with liberal (small 'l') doses of their Liberal (big L) politics, which serves to make their economics irrelevant. Just more of that same old *LOL* (Low on Literacy) thing.

Kick (aka *LOL*, for Light on Literacy) blathers ever on, but nobody gets too worked up over it, we just consider " whence it came!

Wrong again, Stucki. There's this old man with the initials of "Can't Remember Shit" who trolls this political blog whining about grammar lames and making up lies about other commenters. He gets plenty worked up about grammar, but he only grades the comments of those who disagree with his smug bullshit.

(She's too dumb to know the 'from' is included within the 'whence', just as 'to' is included within 'whither'.

Wrong again, old man, and getting yourself all worked about grammar enough to make shit up about people you know nothing about says more about you than it does about anyone else on this blog.

She thinks Shakespeare would have written, 'Whither goest thou to?'

Wrong again, old man. Is there anything else regarding grammar that you got yourself so worked up about that you felt you needed to continue digging and inventing more of your bullshit about the commenters on this blog? You could even thrown some politics into your rants too and become relevant. :)

She thinks Shakespeare would have written, 'Whither goest thou to?'

Welcome once more to the moron club - you just wrote it for the second time, *LOL*

Wrong again, new member; I've written it way more times than two. What kind of moron would presume or fabricate about how many times I've written something? I guess that makes you a member of the moron and the bullshitter clubs, right? How will you divide your time? <--- rhetorical question, no one cares

You mis-quote me (again), I never said even once, much less "repeatedly", that "there are no pricegouging laws". *LOL*. I actually said "There is no law against pricegouging." *LOL* If you're too dense to differentiate between singular and plural case, I cannot help.

So you're still insisting "law" is a singular noun? *LOL* I guess that also makes you a member of the dense club too, right?

There is law against price gouging; it exists in many states and in multiple forms. This has all been covered, of course, and you sound just as stupid to everyone else as you did when we spoke about it then.

Who said it best?

Or perhaps you could state your ideas in full, rather than weasel out of being proved wrong later on.

Price-gouging laws exist. You stated they didn't (or "it didn't"). Reality intervened, proving you wrong.

Admit it like a man, or like a liberal who concedes a point, rather than digging in to an increasingly-bizzaro-world interpretation, as conservative weenies usually attempt to do.

Are you sitting down? Are you ready for my ultmiate insult to your right/leftification of your own obvious error?

Arguing "there is no law" is somehow different than "there are no laws" puts you squarely in the camp of someone you'd probably rather not be compared to. Because, just like Bill Clinton, you are reduced to arguing over "what the meaning of 'is' is."

Ooooh... SNAP!

Heh. Couldn't resist, sorry.

-CW

Your ignorance is legendary on this blog. As I've stated many times, old man, you really should stop digging. :)

Yep...

The problem is that conventional and oh so accurate piece of wisdom, wisdom fully and completely acknowledged Pre-2016 has utterly and completely gone out the window due to HHPTDS...

In the here and now, President Trump gets *ALL* of the blame and *NONE* of the credit..

It's a classic symptom of HHPTDS...

Welcome once more to the moron club - you just wrote it for the second time, *LOL* (That's "Light on Literacy" in your case, right?)

You mis-quote me (again), I never said even once, much less "repeatedly", that "there are no pricegouging laws". *LOL*. I actually said "There is no law against pricegouging." *LOL* If you're too dense to differentiate between singular and plural case, I cannot help. *LOL*

So if indeed the "vernacular of the day" justifies illiterate usage, you're definitely 'vernacular' *LOL*

Your literacy level is evidently on a par with that of your economic literacy.

Said the moron who repeatedly insists there are no "price gouging" laws. *LOL*

Only morons write "from whence".

Welcome to the moron club, Stucki... you just wrote it.

Actually, that phrase is found in multiple texts from the time period I was speaking about. It's probably too difficult a concept for you, but it's called "using the vernacular" and can be found in texts from that time period and beyond... which texts include the King James version of the Holy Bible and works by Shakespeare, Dickens, Dryden, etc. I was referring to Mother England/Britain and simply chose to speak the vernacular of the day when doing so, but surely no one here would expect your ilk to comprehend such a concept such as word usage.

If you'd prefer to discuss grammar and spelling issues versus actual political ones, I will be happy to grade your comments for literacy and misspellings and encourage all the commenters on the blog to follow your lead... NOT. :)

Presidents get credit for a good economy and blame for a bad economy, and truth be known, they don't generally have a damn thing to do with either one.

President Trump was WRONG!!!!

TECH STOCKS SMASH RECORDS
https://www.yahoo.com/news/asia-stocks-dip-rally-focus-back-fundamentals-003909123--finance.html

I am NOT getting tired of winning!! :D

Where is all the economic Armageddon that the hysterical NeverTrumpers promised us???

In other words, it’s possible that voter ID laws still have an impact on elections, but the original study just doesn’t have the data to prove it.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14909764/study-voter-id-racism

And another Left Winger bullshit fantasy myth debunked...

:D

Your literacy level is evidently on a par with that of your economic literacy.

Only morons write "from whence".

But on policy, the Democratic record looks even worse. Trump’s rhetoric continues to fuel feelings of unmoored chaos, but the markets continue to soar, the job market grows, and we’re not in the middle of any serious foreign-policy crisis. In 2016, CNN Money warned, “A Trump win would sink stocks.” Nope. Pelosi warned that Trump’s tax cuts were mere “crumbs” that would amount to nothing. Nope. Hollywood celebrities warned about the significant possibility of global thermonuclear war. Nope. Democrats promised a dystopian hellscape. Instead, they got an economy so good that the New York Times ran a piece headlined “We Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are.”
https://tinyurl.com/yd93w8vj

Time ta face reality, NeverTrumpers...

President Trump is kicking the NeverTrumpers' ass six ways from sunday....

But on policy, the Democratic record looks even worse. Trump’s rhetoric continues to fuel feelings of unmoored chaos, but the markets continue to soar, the job market grows, and we’re not in the middle of any serious foreign-policy crisis. In 2016, CNN Money warned, “A Trump win would sink stocks.” Nope. Pelosi warned that Trump’s tax cuts were mere “crumbs” that would amount to nothing. Nope. Hollywood celebrities warned about the significant possibility of global thermonuclear war. Nope. Democrats promised a dystopian hellscape. Instead, they got an economy so good that the New York Times ran a piece headlined “We Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/democrats-might-ruin-their-midterm-chances-jobs-economy-strong/

Time ta face reality, NeverTrumpers...

President Trump is kicking the NeverTrumpers' ass six ways from sunday....

Since the hysterical NeverTrumpers believe that it is perfectly acceptable for Obama's FBI to plant spies in the Trump campaign.......

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/04/the-scandal-on-the-other-foot/

Ya'all won't have a problem with Trump's FBI to plant spies in the Sanders or Biden or Joe Blow campaigns in 2024...

Right???

This is exactly why it's so easy to shoot down the hysteria of the NeverTrumpers...

Their ENTIRE argument is solely based on a partisan agenda...

All you have to do is layout that exact same agenda in a logical and rational manner that completely exposes that agenda and they are left floundering and sputtering, "Well...er.. uh... That's different!!!"

You simply hoist them on their own Picard and watch them melt away.. :D

They failed. Praise God they failed. They richly deserve this failure and the public humiliation that accompanies it. But there are more bullies waiting in the wings to try and successfully accomplish what Mullins and Craig failed to do. We must remain vigilant. The First Amendment lives another day, but its long-term prospects remain in doubt.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/31408/walsh-gay-couple-masterpiece-cakeshop-case-matt-walsh?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=dailywire.com&utm_term=68758&utm_content=2246441

Any day that the bullies lose and the good guys win??

It's a good day indeed...

Yep.. Blue Tsunami is turning Red....

What a hoot!!! :D

California Democrats are going to GUARANTEE that the GOP keeps the House.. :D

"No, you know what!? It IS funny!! It's a hoot that you don't get this!"
-Tony Stark, AVENGERS AGE OF ULTRON

:D

. I remember that Obama had a tough situation at the time: he didn't want to slight either of his popular associates who had both served him well and loyally.

Oh PLEASE....

Biden served Obama well and faithfully, tis true..

But Hillary!!???

She phoned in as SecState having failure after failure after failure..

She embroiled and embarrassed Obama in mess after mess after mess...

The ONLY reason that Obama backed Hillary is because his base demanded it..

It was her turn, after all...

Presidents have great latitude to "break" laws that apply to us mere mortals...

While it's true that law enforcement will turn a blind eye to crimes committed by those in power, friends/family, etc., no one has "latitude" to "break" or is above the law in this country or from whence we came... Mother England/Britain. No one.

Obama proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.. He said he has to obey the law when it comes to immigration and the Dreamers, but then he went ahead and broke that law via an EO....

Question 1: Are you just woefully misinformed and actually believe all the BS spoon-fed to you by Trump and/or right wing propaganda media or are you purposely lying here? Trump lied repeatedly when he claimed Obama signed an EO and broke the law, and even after he was informed it wasn't true, he kept right on lying about it multiple times.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/09/donald-trump/obama-hedged-didnt-say-he-lacked-legal-right-daca/

Question 2: Are you going to follow Trump's lead and continue to lie about this issue now that you've been informed it's a lie?

Because he could...

Nope. Fact check. He didn't. :)

Until such time as that way is followed, the POTUS is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Country..

It's kind of a contradiction to make a claim that Obama broke the law and then turn around and "put it another way" and insist that the POTUS is the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Country." What part of the Constitution did you pull that from? Perhaps you simply pulled it from "somewhere else."

The Office of the Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, and it has evolved over time into the head of the Department of Justice, a.k.a. the "chief law enforcement officer."

If one is going to kill the king, one must KILL the king..

The founders saw no need to kill the "king," just declare their independence from him and list in no uncertain terms why they were doing so. The foundational principle of their Declaration of Independence was that the colonists were British citizens and as such were entitled to the rights and privileges granted to them by the Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights of 1689, which documents established that the King was not above the law. :)

We're done here.

That Obama failed to 'make things easier' for Joe. I remember that Obama had a tough situation at the time: he didn't want to slight either of his popular associates who had both served him well and loyally. Obama did withhold his endorsement of either until Biden made his final decision - which took 12 weeks to make, by the way. That's pretty supportive, actually, given the shots that Hillary was already taking from Republicans (and others) by then. It was at about that same time, you might remember, that she was, for instance, subjected to an 11-hour marathon grilling by the Benghazi committee.

Moreover, contemporaneous accounts of Biden's decision do not list 'tepid support from Obama' among the reasons that Biden didn't run, because that was not a concern.

So there is no reason to doubt Obama's loyalty to Joe. I don't believe that Joe would either.

Certainly, you would agree, that a sitting president has it in his power to make things easier for his vice president to succeed him.

What, pray tell, is unsubstantiated about that!?

That's probably not the most unsubstantiated thing said here today, but it's close. Are you too going to start running down Obama just like you have Clinton, because the Republicans (and the Russians) will happily talk alot of smack about both on your behalf if you'd like. Or are you just down on Democrats not named Biden?

I remember when Biden was considering (and considering, and considering) whether or not to run in 2015. I don't recall Obama weighing in, either pro or con. I'm sure that had he decided to run, Obama would have supported him. He did, after all, choose Biden and not Hillary to succeed him in the first place.

There's been a lot of self-serving revisionism about the Clintons going on lately. To remind you, Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since Truman (65%). His highest approval rating, during the impeachment, was 73%, a number that Trump could only dream of. Moreover, despite all of the best efforts of the GOP, he managed to leave the country with a booming economy and a budget surplus.

Hillary's best approval numbers have come at times when she was actually in office: 67% as first lady, 65% after her first term as Senator, and 69% as her term as Secretary of State was winding down. Moreover, her poll ratings among Democrats have been consistently higher, and more dependable: her approval rating among Democrats was 79% just before the 2016 election, and was off just one point, to 78% a year later, despite all of the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing by the left in the wake of her electoral college defeat.

But the Clinton's approval rating has sunk to new lows among Republicans, to just 5%, in part because for many of them - Trump included - the 2016 election never ended. They're still running against Hillary, and apparently intend to keep running against her for as long as they can. Bill too, is a convenient punching bag for them, as long as he sticks around to take the blows. That doesn't mean that they deserve it, only that, out of office, they have less time and ability to defend themselves against accusations that are mostly fiction anyway.

Wherever your low opinion of Clinton comes from, it still isn't very common among anyone who actually voted for her, which was, as everyone knows, a majority of the electorate by 5 million votes.

A lot of folks think that she'd have been a great president, yours truly included.

No, actually, it was Biden's turn ... for more reasons than I can hope to enumerate here.

I just heard that a mere 162 items will be withheld as attorney-client privileged from the federal investigators in the case against Trump's lawyer of 2 decades, Michael Cohen. If this is true... ouch.

So if no one has committed any crimes that might be found in any of the several million other items of evidence obtained by investigators, there is simply no reason whatsoever to lie under oath and commit a crime in order to cover up crimes that have not been committed. Simple. :)

Yes, he (Obama) could have...

And yes, Biden had a MUCH better chance to win than Hillary had...

The problem for the Left is that, it was Hillary's turn after all...

That's what happens when Democrats put purity over competence...

And they are making all those same mistakes in the run-up to the mid-terms...

Progressive purity is the litmus test...

Given Biden's circumstances at the time, Obama could have made things much easier for him to run, without a doubt.

We'll never see Trump do that. :)

Indubitably.

Yea.. Cuz something ILLEGAL is the **ONLY** reason why someone would lie...

I didn't use the word "**ONLY**" and you're missing the point.

I guess that means Bubba's affair with Lewinsky was "illegal" because Bubba lied his ass off about it..

This type of straw man bullshit deflection to "Bubba" is pretty much all you've got; that's why you talk about him incessantly and him being holed up in the woods in a cabin wouldn't matter.

Your whataboutism and deflection to all things Hillary and Bill Clinton and Barack and Michelle Obama does not change the written law "occifer." :)

I guess Hillary's email server was "illegal" because Hillary lied her ass off about it..

It wasn't illegal... stupid but not illegal. Those are two different things.

I guess Odumbo's TrainWreckCare was "illegal" because Odumbo lied his ass off about it...

Straw man argument number 3 still doesn't change the written law.

Some people don't have more than 2 brain cells to rub together and are consumed by partisan bigotry....
Just to state the obvious... yunno... FACTS....
:D

I agree, and it's those people who do the most deflecting, whataboutism, and projecting. You are the most partisan on this board who brings up polling the most... all whine whining about bigotry and polling. You are also the one who claims to know the law... "occifer." :)

:D

I guess that means Bubba's affair with Lewinsky was "illegal" because Bubba lied his ass off about it..

I guess Hillary's email server was "illegal" because Hillary lied her ass off about it..

I guess Odumbo's TrainWreckCare was "illegal" because Odumbo lied his ass off about it...

Some people don't have more than 2 brain cells to rub together and are consumed by partisan bigotry....

Just to state the obvious... yunno... FACTS....

:D

My understanding is the president is sort of above the law.

Wrong. No one is above the law, not even "sort of."

Congress is the judge/jury for the president and the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” are whatever congress says it means.

Fact. So anyone telling you the president has to commit a crime to be impeached is lying or misinformed or both.

Yes, Liz, it's very illegal. Otherwise, they'd have no reason to lie about it multiple times... including under oath... just to state the obvious... you know... facts. :)

I know that was hard for you, Bashi.. :D

We have the Clintons to thank for Trump.

On one level I agree with that, but on a whole 'nother level, I realize it's way more complicated, and I know you know that... just like you knew I knew.

The good news is: Trump too shall pass... and when he does, it'll be painful like a kidney stone, like Nixon, and the Republicans and their ilk and the "useful idiots" will claim he was a Democrat. :)

Partially...

We also have Obama to thank for Trump for BACKING Clinton over Biden...

Can you answer a question or participate in a discussion without bringing the 44th president into the mix?

The best answer I can come up with is to ask if ya'all could have answered a question or participated in a discussion about Obama without bringing up Bush...

It's the exact same answer...

You see, Liz.. What you have to understand is, even if the Trump campaign got dirt on Hillary from the Russians, it's NOT illegal..

Hell, HILLARY got dirt on Trump from the Russians..

No one here seems to have ANY problem with that...

And why??

Because it's ALL about Trump.. He beat Hillary in a free, fair and legal election..

And ya'all simply can't accept that....

That is what this is ALL about...

Nothing more...

Or the Clintons. It's simple deflection, and they are united in their hatred and their hypocrisy. They insist Bill Clinton has committed rapes for which he has never been charged... let alone convicted... while insisting that Donald Trump and company are "innocent until proven guilty" when several of them have already plead guilty.

The Clintons nor the Obamas will ever be allowed to rest until they are no longer useful to Fox News and their ilk and the "useful idiots" who repeat their mindless BS while refusing to acknowledge facts.

Donald Trump's lawyers admitted in January in a letter to Robert Mueller and company that Trump had indeed dictated the press release wherein he lied about the reason for the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort, Kushner, and multiple Russians... the meeting with Russians Trump Sr. had claimed to know nothing about.

Question: So why was Trump Sr. dictating a statement about a meeting he said he knew nothing about?

Answer: He wasn't... he knew about the meeting with Russians to obtain dirt on his opponent and lied about it.

All that goalpost moving is heavy lifting... sooner or later you lay down your burden and plead guilty... or you die in prison. It's a rather easy choice, and that's why so many of them have already chosen it. :)

They have done too much damage to be consistently in front of a camera.

If the Clintons had ANY loyalty to anyone but the Clintons, they would find a dank dark cabin in the middle of Knowhere and just live out their days...

Hillary has taken so much momentum from the Blue Wave and Bubba totally decimates the #MeToo movement...

The best thing for the GOP is to have Bubba and Hillary front and center til the mid-terms..

RED TSUNAMI :D

You Dems/Libs are perpetually trying to criminalize everything and anything you don't like.

I'm not a Dem/Lib and never will be no matter how many times you type it.

You'd cheerfully declare me "illegal" if you thought anybody would enforce it.

Poor, Stucki... still flailing in your attempts to apply traits and feelings to multiple persons on this blog that you know nothing about. As I have said before, please stop emoting your personal "feelings" all over the place and applying them and/or projecting them onto others.

Re " . .Donald Trump who will likely die in prison for multiple crimes." Sorry, being an asshole/cum/moron is just like "price gouging", there's no law against it no matter how much you think there ought to be!!

There are multiple laws against "price gouging," Stucki, but lucky for you and Trump, being an ignorant "asshole/cum/moron" isn't a crime. :)

There are 5 guilty pleas so far. How many admissions of guilt to a crime does it take to convince a former "police occifer" that laws have been broken. Do tell. :)

I dunno about you but I find that laughable to the point... PAST the point of absurdity...

You Dems/Libs are perpetually trying to criminalize everything and anything you don't like. You'd cheerfully declare me "illegal" if you thought anybody would enforce it.

Re " . .Donald Trump who will likely die in prison for multiple crimes." Sorry, being an asshole/cum/moron is just like "price gouging", there's no law against it no matter how much you think there ought to be!!

You know what I mean, Kick.

Bill and Hillary need to come to terms with the fact that their political days - in any real public sense - are over!

Once a president, always a president and first lady. This applies regardless of party affiliation, and the camera and attempts to create news will follow regardless.

They have done too much damage to be consistently in front of a camera.

But, I know you know that.

There is somebody somewhere who believes that about all of them, regardless of party affiliation. I know what you're saying, but I don't think the press allows any of them their peace until the day they are laid to rest; that's what I meant. :)

Absolutely..

But when Obama is relevant (for example to show the hypocrisy of the NeverTrumpers) then he is relevant..

Considering how much Obama (and ya'all incidentially) brought Bush into the discussion 2009-2016, I don't think my few references to Obama, post his shellacking, is anything to complain about...

But that is my, admittedly, biased opinion :D

You know what I mean, Kick.

Bill and Hillary need to come to terms with the fact that their political days - in any real public sense - are over!

They have done too much damage to be consistently in front of a camera.

But, I know you know that.

Made more so by the fact that it is 1000% true and correct...

President Trump could single-handedly bring a full and just peace to the Middle East and single-handedly de-nuclearize and unify the Koreas..

And everyone here (NEN) would STILL find a way to attack him and his orange skin and his small hands and other immature 3rd grade attacks..

Go ahead.. Tell me I am wrong...

Given the fact that the Clintons have screwed up so much for so many - forgive me if I can't bear to count the ways - why do they find it so hard to go away?

Go away to where, Elizabeth? Whether you like them or not, the Clintons are an ex-president and first lady of the United States who will "go away" the day they die. Same with Melania Trump. Same with Donald Trump... who will likely die in prison for multiple crimes.

We can't have Americans thinking that President Trump is actually doing great things for this country, now can we?? Democrats would get TOTALLY DECIMATED in the mid-terms if that happened!! :D

Well, that is the saddest commentary possible on Chris's blog.

:-(

I agree...

But there is too much hate and intolerance for that discussion to EVER have a chance...

Democrats never want to fix the problem. They only want to fix the blame...

Republicans aren't much better...

Thank the gods for President Trump...

Why, the law, of course..

Presidents have great latitude to "break" laws that apply to us mere mortals...

Obama proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.. He said he has to obey the law when it comes to immigration and the Dreamers, but then he went ahead and broke that law via an EO....

Because he could...

Let me put it in another way...

There is a specific course of action outlined in the US Constitution on how to bring the POTUS to justice if he commits a crime...

Until such time as that way is followed, the POTUS is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Country..

If one is going to kill the king, one must KILL the king..

What the NeverTrumpers have now is laughable...

2+ years of investigating and we STILL don't even know if a crime has been committed..

I dunno about you but I find that laughable to the point... PAST the point of absurdity...

I'm just wondering how the two of you can write posts like that while your fellow citizens in Puerto Rico are still suffering so.

A better discussion would be what should be done to make sure the US is better prepared to take care of its citizens when the next natural or man-made disaster strikes ...

I'm just wondering how the two of you and write posts like that while your fellow citizens in Puerto Rico are still suffering so.

A better discussion would be what should be done to make sure the US is better prepared to take care of its citizens when the next natural or man-made disaster strikes ...

Of course it was.. It was against a Democrat after all..

Oh, but he has ALREADY proven to be a disaster for American foreign policy

Yea.. That's your claim.. But the FACTS say different...

Of course it all fits Putin's agenda perfectly.

"Please tell Vlad that he is going to have to give me some space to win this election. After I win, I can be more... flexible.."
-Barack Obama

'nuff said..

Maybe the 4,645 dead citizens in Puerto Rico are something the GOP is proud of.

Considering it was bad Democrat-style governing that caused those deaths, the GOP has nothing to do with it..

Face the facts, Balthy...

You have been WRONG about everything to do with President Trump since he announced his candidacy...

WRONG.. WRONG... WRONG...

Now the Democrats are setting themselves up to get their asses handed to them AGAIN in the next election..

I admire your capacity for self-delusion.. :D It's mind-boggling..

The rape charge was spurious. The rest happened more than 20 years ago. I've moved on, just as Roseanne ought to, I guess.

I want to concentrate on the REPUBLICAN President who I said was going to be a disaster and has proven to be anything but.

Oh, but he has ALREADY proven to be a disaster for American foreign policy, or does the wholesale shedding of valued alliances and a nascent trade war not bother you? Of course it all fits Putin's agenda perfectly. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. All of the 'shithole countries' he talks about seem to think so.

Or maybe you're thinking of Trump's domestic policies, like allowing his cabinet secretaries to fly around like billionaires on the taxpayers dime, gut environmental protections, loosen regulations on sketchy behavior by bankers, and reduce health care coverage for millions. Maybe you're thinking of his $1 million-dollars-per-day trips to Mar-a-lago, or million-dollars-per-day security at Trump tower. Maybe the 4,645 dead citizens in Puerto Rico are something the GOP is proud of.

Winning!

It's interesting that the righties frequently use Martina McBride's song about domestic violence as if it's about patriotism when it's not. It's a song about a woman burning down the house of her abuser... with him in it... and her becoming free of him. Fact.

TRANSLATION: I am going to ignore and let slide the rape, sexual assaults and sexual harassments of the DEMOCRAT President. NONE of that is any big deal.. I want to concentrate on the REPUBLICAN President who I said was going to be a disaster and has proven to be anything but...

Gotcha, Balthy.. {wink, wink}

Is POTUS above the law?

Depends...

"Yeah alcoholism and diabetes are considered to be "diseases", but the cause of them is "It makes me feel so good (booze)/it tastes so good (sugar) that I don't have the will power to abstain", right???

On that system, robbing banks could be classified as a "disease", because "I love to spend money, and don't have the will power to resist"!"

WOW, just WOW. Are you seriously that ignorant???

To chalk up a serious disease with a real physical cause to just a failure of "willpower?" That's like saying everybody who gets cancer because of the faulty genes they inherited are equally responsible because they didn't choose their own parents carefully enough. Makes about as much sense doesn't it?

No one gets diabetes just from eating sugar. You do know it's usually because of a physical inability of your pancreas to make enough insulin, right? That has nothing to do with willpower.

The same with alcoholism. It's because an alcoholic's body physically processes alcohol differently so that it becomes an addictive substance.

Again, I will ask you, why do Reps/Cons seem to go out of their way to be needlessly cruel and vindictive towards the less fortunate and think they can actually solve problems like homelessness, poverty and illness through persecuting the very people they say they are trying to help?

And the stupid, stupid tariffs.

Because there is simply no self-respecting Brit who would ever want to be referred to as "like France." :)

Clinton said he had apologized “to everybody in the world” for the 20-year-old episode but acknowledged he had not spoken directly to Lewinsky about the affair.

“I’ve never talked to her,” Clinton said. “But I did say, publicly, on more than one occasion, that I was sorry. That’s very different. The apology was public.”

Clinton also noted that there had been negative consequences for him related to the episode, which led to his impeachment by the House but acquittal by the Senate.

“Nobody believes that I got out of that for free,” he said. “I left the White House $16 million in debt. “
__________________________________________________

When we're done discussing this 20-year old scandal, let's discuss the multiple charges of sexual abuse alleged against the current president, and then the multiple allegations of impropriety in office made against the current president which include (at a minimum) violations of the emoluments clause, violating multiple campaign financing laws, money laundering, and treason/collusion with the Russians.

Good to see some justice and common sense prevail - Barr gets the boot and Bee gets the laughs she deserves. I found her show very amusing, but I'd have used the word "P#$$y" - I mean, that's the Presidential term after all, so the right wing boo-hoo artists can't complain about that.

I know, right!? It's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when the Twit-in-Chief, his mouthpieces, and those particular righties who wore t-shirts containing the same vulgar term along as well as t-shirts with multiple other choice terms to describe Trump's opponent are now taking issue with identical language being used to describe Ivanka.

Have you ever seen the movie 'Fanny'? The remake with Leslie Caron is the one to watch!

Is POTUS above the law?

Let freedom ring, let the white dove sing
Let the whole world know that today
Is a day of reckoning.
Let the weak be strong, let the right be wrong
Throw the stone away, make the guilty pay
It's Independence Day.
-Martina McBride, INDEPENDENCE DAY

The gift... to Republicans.. that keeps on giving.. :D

Freedom rings!!!!!

We may not agree on a whole helluva lot, but I do like the way you think.. :D

Yeah alcoholism and diabetes are considered to be "diseases", but the cause of them is "It makes me feel so good (booze)/it tastes so good (sugar) that I don't have the will power to abstain", right???

On that system, robbing banks could be classified as a "disease", because "I love to spend money, and don't have the will power to resist"!

Not only possible, but well documented...

But on the plus side, he WAS a legend in his own mind..

Obama — Just Too Good for Us
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/opinion/sunday/obama-ben-rhodes-world-as-it-is.html

If President Trump is as bad as you say... If he is Mark Pellegrino Incarnate... If he is the worst of the worst of the worst of the WORST human being ever to have slimed across the face of the planet...????

WHY are his poll numbers comparable to Odumbo's???

I mean, ya'all live by your polls...

If President Trump is as bad as you say... Why are his poll numbers really not much different than Odumbo's???

One of two possibilities exist..

1. I am right and polls are shit..

2. Ya'all are wrong about President Trump..

Heads I win, tails you lose.. :D

Yea.. That is EXACTLY what ya said when President Trump imposed tariffs in Jan....

NOTHING happened... :D

Like I said.. Ya'all STILL have a PERFECT record on being WRONG about everything President Trump.. :D

The poll is usually phrased, "If the Congressional Elections were held today, would you vote for a Democrat or a Republican?"

Six months ago, Democrats lead that poll by over 20 points...

Today, Republicans lead that poll by 1....

My feelings on polls are well known.. They are all bullshit..

But hysterical NeverTrumpers SWEAR by polls all the time.. At least the polls that say what they want to hear... :D

OK, so.. What you are saying is that, when things are bad, it's Bush's (R) fault..

When things are good, Trump (R) doesn't get the credit.. Then it's because of Obama (D)..

Congrats, Balthy.. You have finally discovered transparency.. :D

The 'Trump economy' will develop in a minute, when the effect of the new Tariffs begins to kick in.

Ya'all have been screaming that for months now.. When does this finally happen??

I am glad to see that ya'all are maintaining your PERFECT record of being absolutely wrong about everything to do with President Trump.. :D

I honestly think that there's some sort of game going on among righties where they get points for using Hillary's name in a post, with extra points garnered for associating the name with an obscure subject.

For example, this one was about Trump taking credit for the Obama economy. Michale gets 2 points for his pointless mention of Hillary in this context.

The 'Trump economy' will develop in a minute, when the effect of the new Tariffs begins to kick in.

Even I would take issue with a couple of things:

1.) "I fully understand that ideology. It always distills to the basic liberal premise that the more productive have an obligation to support the less productive/unproductive," - That's not just a "liberal" premise. It's also part of the basic teachings of Jesus and Christianity.

2.) "and Reps/Cons have no quarrel with that so long as the less less productive/unproductive are limited to the very old, the very young, the incapacitated, etc." - Alcoholics, which you single out, should be included among this group, since alcoholism IS a chronic disease like diabetes, etc. and therefore should NOT be held against someone, just like any other disability.

3.) "Where we differ is that Dems/Libs want the "less productive/unproductive" category to include the lazy, the unmotivated, the incompetent, the alcoholics, etc." - What Reps/Cons keep failing to realize is that no system is 100 percent perfect. A certain small percentage of the lazy and unmotivated etc. are AlWAYS going to get benefits too. That doesn't mean the rest should be penalized for that small percentage. Why must you constantly pit the "deserving" against the "undeserving?" That suits no good productive purpose whatsoever. Unless your true goal of course is simply to justify denying assistance to everyone.

A better question might be is why do Reps/Cons always have such a big beef against the poor that they are constantly making war against them?

Also, if you don't think the poor can have what little meager wealth that they do have siphoned off from them by unscrupulous rich for the rich's own benefit at the expense of the poor, perhaps you should go back and read about the relationship between Bob Cratchit and Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol. There's a reason why the word Scrooge became an adverb to describe someone as well as a proper name.

Yeah, I hear that. It's Obama's "You didn't build that", right?

Truth is, the more productive in realiy DID "build that", it's the less productive that did not.

However, you're surely aware that the less-productive drive on the same roads, send their kids to the same schools, etc, right? So give me your thoughts on the question, What is it differentiates the more productive from the less productive????

Never met Ayn, nor read her book(s), but I get the idea. However, I'm not the one living in the dream world of economic unreality, that be you.

P.S. I'm all in favor of "god governance", in spite of being agnosstic.

You do understand how corporate taxation works, right? You do understand how we pay for all those services you suddenly seem so deem important. If your business is in debt to the infrastructure and society’s frameworks, you should be paying for it. This is where libertarians are so childlike, they think everything society provides them has no cost and so they dont owe anything to society for god governance.

Ask any CEO of any large multinatonal if they would rather

1) pay more taxes and have god infrastructure, the rule of law, particularly property law, and low or
2) pay less taxes, have poor transportation, losses due to broken contracts with little recourse, and have to pay bribes to get pieces of paper to allow them to ldo business

They’ll take option 1 every day of the week. Time to grow up, you may be in your 8th decade, but simple economics and governace probably is t beyond you. Just stop channeling Ayn Rand and you’ll be amazed how much you can really understand about the world.

As some of you may or may not know, I'm transatlantic, being born in the UK and living in Canada, lo these many years...All this fuss over a word from a language that is forever undergoing change. The English language, being that which belongs to the English, isn't spoken today as it was even a century ago (as anyone with even the slightest exposure to that most cruel of all writers, Charles Dickens, can attest,) it changes and morphs with the times and common usage. Even within the UK, every region has its own dialects, inflections and 'novelty' words and phrases. For instance, we hailed from the ''Rhubarb Triangle''an area generally regarded as the area that lies between Leeds, Bradford and Wakefield in the Riding of South Yorkshire, our accents are considered neolithic by the rest of Britain for being almost Chaucerian in it's refusal to adapt and conform. For us, the word cunt falls into the widest most welcoming group of all words, the 'adverbial function.' It's a word so commonly used that it's rarely taken harshly and more frequently used to describe and define a feeling or thought. While working in professional kitchens in the late eighties, Chef would routinely christen the new cooks, S. Cunt, or Scunt for short. The new guys quickly figured out that Chef wasn't being mean or rude when he'd burn himself, stub his toe or lose a digit to a blunt parer and let loose a string of obscenities directed at some inanimate object that had the temerity to cross him, usually with 'cunting' thrown in every second word. We have a wonderfully named city on the Yorkshire-Lincolnshire border, no doubt everyone has it's geographical reality seared into their subconscious hind-brain as a place to never to wind up, dead or worse...Scunthorpe. The wretched inhabitants of this city have taken their misfortune in good stride down through the years, they are a constant source of amusement, they go about their existence creatively shrugging off their shame with new and interesting ways to make outsiders feel like the shame is theirs for even thinking there's a cunt in Scunthorpe. The benighted 'Scunthorpers' have some of the most colourful, not to mention, breathtakingly lewd soccer chants in all of England and their graffiti has all the subtlety of a brick hurled through a stained glass window. But I digress, the point I'm labouring toward is this, the word has taken far more abuse than it really should have. Given its recent 'bad press' by those unfeeling and marginal know-it-alls, to whom the etymology of this syntactic powerhouse is a mere blur on the way to moral indignation...I give you this.

https://thec-wordandwhatitmeans.weebly.com/history.html

PS, I'm offended by the word ''Fanny,'' all decent English people are, as far as we're concerned, 'fanny' is well below cunt on the expletive attributive totem pole. However you folks disarmed and gentrified that most offensive of slurs is beyond me. However, its cavalier and egregious insinuation into daily use is a topic for another day.

LL&P

Tax cuts do not 'give money to people' as you imply ("shareholders and the very rich", as you specify). Tax cuts allow people who have EARNED money (regardless of who they happen to be or their financial circumstances) to KEEP more of what they did earn than they would otherwise be able to keep if the taxes were NOT cut, right?

Of course you deplore that fact, because the corollary of that is that there is thereby less money to redistribute to the people who did NOT earn it, right?

I fully understand that ideology. It always distills to the basic liberal premise that the more productive have an obligation to support the less productive/unproductive, and Reps/Cons have no quarrel with that so long as the less less productive/unproductive are limited to the very old, the very young, the incapacitated, etc.

Where we differ is that Dems/Libs want the "less productive/unproductive" category to include the lazy, the unmotivated, the incompetent, the alcoholics, etc.

Tax cuts do NOT "transfer money from the poor to the rich", because the money in question belonged to the rich in the first place. You can't transfer money from the poor to the rich for tha obvious reason that the poor DON't HAVE ANY MONEY TO TRANSFER, right?

Economists are slowly ratcheting up expectations for growth through the end of the year, with widely followed measures putting the second quarter at between 3.6 percent and 4.8 percent.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/the-us-economy-suddenly-looks-like-its-unstoppable.html

It's funny because ObamaNomics said that 2.5 growth was the best it's going to get and is the "New Normal"...

Looks like President Trump demolished that way of thinking!! :D

The "Blue Wave" has suddenly become a couple sweat drops coming off of Hillary Clinton during her WAAAA WAAAAA I Wanted To Be POTUS!!! IT WAS MY TURN!!! tour.... :D

The BIG BLUE WAVE.... drip... drip....drip....

LL&P

My point is that the excuses given by Republicans for why all the tax cuts need to go to shareholders and the very rich is so obviously nonsense that it takes a belief in a nonsense kind of economics philosophy.

Comeon dude, give me a gawdam break! How many times have I explained to you that productivity involves the creation/production of real wealth (as opposed to monetary wealth), defined as "goods AND SERVICES".

Not only the military, but ALL ewmployees of ALL levels of government do not create goods, but they do create services. Likewise all doctors, all teachers, all lawyers, all law enforcement, all firefighters, don't normally create goods, but they DO provide services in exchange for their monetary income.

1. Everybody in the military - they don't create wealth, they just spend it.
2. All the retirees who didn't cover the cost of their government retirement and medicare costs
3. Kids in school
4. Police
5. Firefighters (both like military, wealth destroyers)

Once we've had an explanation as to why we should stop taxing the people who have most benefitted from everything our military, police, and firefighters have done, let's chat about taxes. And once we've heard how just about everybody in the country over 25 is going to cover the costs of their own medical and retirements costs we can chat about cutting education.

This "wealth creator" and "earners" vs. "non-earners" drivel needs to be addressed when it comes up. Too many morons spout on about "taxing the job creators" but can't explain why, when we already have record employment numbers, we need to help only the "job creators" at the expense of everybody else.

That number was 4,645. If this story is any more than Rightie mythology, the administration still has 4,644 more Puerto Rican deaths to explain.

And yet another agenda item for Congress to address, if they ever find their way out of Trump's colon.

The non-earners are our kids and grandchildren. If we don't pay our way then we are running up debts for those "non-earners".

Once you've explained why we are adding trillions more onto the money you are stealing from them, you can then get on your high horse.