ChrisWeigant.com

Democrats Need To Campaign More On Judicial Picks

[ Posted Tuesday, June 26th, 2018 – 17:21 PDT ]

Gerald R. Ford once famously pointed out that the practical definition of what constituted grounds for impeaching a president (since it is only vaguely defined in the Constitution itself) consisted of whatever a majority of the House of Representatives decided were valid grounds for impeachment (Ford, on the House floor, before he became Nixon's vice president: "The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history"). Likewise, it almost appears self-evident that defining what is constitutional and what is not can be similarly reduced to whatever a majority of the Supreme Court decides is constitutional, at the present time. Dred Scott was constitutional -- right up until it wasn't -- because a Supreme Court had determined it was. It took a shift of opinion on the highest court to reverse this. Again, this should all be pretty obvious to even the most causal observer of American history. Which is why, in fact, the conservative movement has focused so intently on the judicial branch for the past three decades and more. This began at the height of the anti-abortion movement during Ronald Reagan's time in office, and it continues today on the right side of the spectrum. But for some unfathomable reason, liberals have never matched this level of political fervor about judicial appointments. But now the stakes are higher than ever.

Regular readers of this column will know that in 2016, I was a supporter of Bernie Sanders. When he lost the nomination, however, I rejected all the arguments from fellow Bernie supporters about why voting for Hillary Clinton was somehow a betrayal of principle. I would occasionally argue with such friends of mine, but no matter how much they'd explain all of Clinton's faults to me, I had one fallback response: "I'm voting for Hillary because of the Supreme Court. I know full well she could massively disappoint me on any number of other issues, but I trust her to appoint a solid liberal to the Supreme Court, and that alone is enough reason to get to the polls and vote for Hillary. Period."

This argument should sound familiar to those on the right, because they have been making it to each other for many years. In fact, this very argument was extremely potent for Donald Trump himself, because no matter how nervous mainstream conservatives were about Trump on any number of other issues, there was already a freebie Supreme Court nomination hanging in the balance. This was due to some unprecedented political hardball being played in the Senate, as Mitch McConnell defied his constitutional duty and refused to allow Barack Obama's court pick to even be considered.

Such a breach in constitutionality was briefly (and rather mildly) condemned by Obama and the Democratic Party, and then they largely moved on to other subjects. The subject would occasionally come up in the campaign, but it was not all that big a selling point. It really should have been, but Democratic voters had a whole bunch of other subjects on their minds, so it's not that surprising that Democratic politicians focused on other issues as well.

When Antonin Scalia died, I pointed out what a historic chance Hillary Clinton would have had, if she had won. Not only would she get an immediate court pick, but it would flip a seat ideologically (something I had also written about, years earlier). Rather than a court split 4-1-4 (four liberals, one swing vote, and four conservatives), this would have meant a 5-1-3 advantage for the liberals. If the swing vote (Kennedy) retired at any point during the next four years, this could even mean a clear 6-3 advantage by the end of the next president's first term -- a historic power shift on the court, giving liberals a bigger advantage since they had seen since the 1970s. And that, right there, was enough for me to eagerly and happily cast my ballot for Hillary Clinton. Clinton may have had plenty of faults, but I simply could not see her nominating a dud for the Supreme Court.

In the 1980s, the anti-abortion movement decided to play a very long game. So far, this has been wildly successful for them. They have not achieved their ultimate goal (overturning Roe v. Wade), but they have chipped away at it so much that women growing up today face barriers and restrictions towards abortion that women in the 1980s would have been shocked to face. These victories for the anti-abortion movement did not appear out of thin air -- they came into being through working the political system from the bottom up, electing anti-choice candidates to statehouses and governors' mansions across the country, and then having these politicians pass as many restrictive abortion laws as they could think up. At the federal level, the anti-judicial rhetoric was turned up to white-hot levels, which essentially created a litmus test for all Republican presidents to hew to. Judicial appointment had to be anti-choice, period. Court picks were important, and none so important as Supreme Court justices.

This was all exacerbated by both sides under Barack Obama. Republicans in the Senate, also in unprecedented fashion, blocked every Obama judicial appointment possible. Harry Reid was left with a very stark choice, and he finally "went nuclear" and changed Senate rules to allow judges to be confirmed with only a majority vote -- the appointments could no longer be filibustered, up to (but not including) Supreme Court justices. When Mitch McConnell took over from Reid, instead of remaining intellectually consistent with his previous position that going nuclear was a very bad thing and should be changed back to the way it had been, McConnell instead dropped a second nuke, by declaring that Supreme Court judicial nominations could not be filibustered either. Then he defied the Constitution by refusing to act on Obama's nomination, baldly stating that no nomination would move forward until after the next election.

This was the point where liberals should have showed their outrage -- but they mostly didn't. This was where progressives should have been angrily marching in the streets -- but they didn't. For some reason, judicial appointments are seen as an esoteric and not-all-that-important thing by many lefties. Compare how liberals think and talk about judicial picks to how conservatives do, and you'll see there is a serious imbalance in the emotions the subject raises on each side of the political aisle. One side gets incensed when 5-4 decisions don't go their way, and the other barely even reacts.

And so we find ourselves where we are today. June is always the season for major Supreme Court decisions to be handed down, but this year the number of times the court has merely punted is kind of notable. The Cake Wars case was decided on a purely technical issue that had nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim and three gerrymandering cases were likewise punted back to the lower courts with no constitutional resolution. The good news in all of these cases is that this means the fight is not over -- the real constitutional questions raised still have yet to be settled.

But at the same time, the Supreme Court has handed down a number of victories for the Trump administration, including today's ruling on the travel ban. Once again, this was a 5-4 decision, along ideological lines. Liberals will no doubt be angered by this decision, but it provides a key lesson in government and politics. If you count the sheer number of judicial victories from this single case, there were far more of them for liberals than for Trump. His first travel ban was struck down by two federal judges. Trump tried again, and lost again in court. So he tried a third time -- this time after apparently actually seeking some lawyers' advice on how to draft such an order to at least give the appearance of being somewhat impartial to religion (North Korea and Venezuela were added to the list of countries the ban would apply to). Even this attempt failed several times in the federal courts.

Right up until it didn't. Today, the Supreme Court overturned all the other rulings and handed Trump the win. This is the lesson to be learned, for liberals. It doesn't matter how many other judges rule for your side -- if you can't win at the Supreme Court then you can't win, period. Feel-good rulings from lower court judges are fun to celebrate, but they do not provide the final word on constitutionality. The high court does. Which is why it is so important.

If I were a Democratic Senate candidate right now (now there's a scary thought...), I would make this a major talking point in my campaign stump speech. The balance of power in the Senate is razor-thin right now. If control of the chamber flipped, then Democrats could block any Trump nominee to the high court, in a tit-for-tat payback for McConnell blocking Merrick Garland's nomination. "We simply must wait until after the next presidential election" Democrats could say, reminding Republicans of their own argument.

This could be crucially important, because two of the oldest justices on the highest court's bench are a liberal (Ruth Bader Ginsberg) and the swing vote (Anthony Kennedy). If either one of them either decided to step down or became somehow incapable of carrying out their duties, then Trump would get the chance to replace them. This would lead to either a 3-1-5 split on the court, or a clear 4-5 split towards conservatives. If both justices were to step down in the next two years, it could even lead to a 3-6 balance of power.

If there are six solidly conservative justices on the Supreme Court, liberals would be in for decades of losing constitutional cases such as the one decided today. Who knows what previous decisions such a lopsided court would decide to revisit? Even if they left precedents like Roe v. Wade alone, they would be setting all kinds of new precedents, with a decidedly conservative outcome.

That should scare Democrats down to their bones, but somehow the subject never really seems to come up. Judicial picks are seen as the icing on the cake when winning presidential elections. Sure, they're a nice thing and all, but they're not a real motivating factor in the voting booth or anything.

The problem with this line of thinking is that judicial appointments are a big motivating factor for the other side -- and have been, for over 30 years. Democrats are late to this party, and it shows. In recent times, Americans have come to view the court as somehow naturally balanced between four conservatives and four liberals, with one designated swing vote. This is nothing short of historical chance, though -- there is no tradition that says this balance of power must continue indefinitely. And in reality, Justice Kennedy may vote with the liberals on certain individual subjects, but overall he's got a pretty conservative view of the law. He stays with his own side a lot more than he swings, in other words.

Kennedy's advanced age, though, means that sooner or later the swing seat will be open. That will be a pivotal moment for the next two decades (at the very least) of American politics. Will we have a 5-4 liberal court, or a 4-5 conservative court? Democrats should realize the importance of this upcoming challenge, and they should make the case to their voters with fervor. "Give us a Senate majority and we promise to shut down any Trump Supreme Court pick!" should be an applause line during any Democratic Senate candidate's campaign speech. "The next Supreme Court pick will determine American politics not just for the next four years but for the next twenty years!" should likewise be a big selling point for any Democrat running to defeat Trump in 2020.

Hillary Clinton didn't stress this much in her presidential campaign. Her campaign had a lot of problems, in fact. I did not see eye-to-eye with her on any number of issues. Nonetheless, I enthusiastically voted for her. Because one thing I was fairly certain of was that I would approve (whether mildly or wholeheartedly) of any Supreme Court pick she would come up with. The stakes were high, and seeing Donald Trump get to make these picks was a horrendous concept to even contemplate. But I also knew that not a whole lot of other Democratic voters saw things in such stark terms. The Supreme Court was pretty far from the minds of many who voted for Clinton, many who stayed home and didn't vote, and even many who voted for Jill Stein as a protest vote.

That needs to change. Democrats have got to realize the importance of the balance of power on the Supreme Court outlasts any one president's other legacies. We must deal with the result for decades. Judicial picks should be a much bigger motivator on the left than they currently are. The other side already knows how important this is, and Democrats really need to catch up, unless they want rulings like today's to continue for decades to come. It's that important.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

191 Comments on “Democrats Need To Campaign More On Judicial Picks”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Democrats have got to realize the importance of the balance of power on the Supreme Court outlasts any one president's other legacies. We must deal with the result for decades. Judicial picks should be a much bigger motivator on the left than they currently are. The other side already knows how important this is, and Democrats really need to catch up, unless they want rulings like today's to continue for decades to come. It's that important.

    Yep.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I just had a thought ... could there be a case for saying that the Gorsuch appointment to the Supreme Court was unconstitutional based on the actions of Mitch McConnell and how a vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland was thwarted?

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know it's all water under the bridge but, I was just wondering if this idea had been discussed at the time. I can't remember.

    Senator Biden always made the point that one of the most important consideration, if not the most important consideration, for voters is who will sit on the Supreme Court.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hillary Clinton didn't stress this much in her presidential campaign. Her campaign had a lot of problems, in fact. I did not see eye-to-eye with her on any number of issues. Nonetheless, I enthusiastically voted for her. Because one thing I was fairly certain of was that I would approve (whether mildly or wholeheartedly) of any Supreme Court pick she would come up with.

    That was the best reason to vote for Hillary.

    It is just one of the many best reasons to vote for Joe Biden, should he win the Democratic nomination in 2020.

  5. [5] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    It wont matter in the slightest, what motivates all you Dems/Libs, be it supreme court picks or whatever, you should know by now that all except you ideological purists are going to vote for whichever candidate Putin backs with sneaky subliminal messages posted on your Facebook accounts, just like they did in 2016!!

    Hooray for social media!

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: But for some unfathomable reason, liberals have never matched this level of political fervor about judicial appointments.

    I have this theory that this is because there are far too many left-leaners and Democrats who are simply too busy appeasing and enabling the gaslighting righties who are busy throwing match after match in their general direction.

    For the last many decades, the righties aim has been to divide and conquer, suppress the vote, and load the courts. The big con is still alive and thriving, however, in the very different yet infinitely recognizable form of Benedict Donald.

    If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won't notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you. ~ LBJ

    CW is absolutely 100% correct. It's high time the left-leaners and Democrats recognized the game plan, stopped walking on eggshells while dodging all the "incoming" from the right and seriously beat them at their own BS. The pendulum always swings back, but it'll swing a lot faster if given a swift kick from the left. :)

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    ** Today's Court Ruling **

    Paul Manafort's motion to dismiss his Virginia indictment, Manafort's challenge to Mueller's appointment: Denied.

    Manafort is set to go to trial in Virginia next month.

    Popcorn ready. :)

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    Manafort is set to go to trial in Virginia next month.

    Popcorn ready. :)

    First the World Cup. Then the Tour de France. Now this.

    I'm going to be buying popcorn by the bushel at this rate. And we haven't even got to the Mueller Report yet!

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Am I the only one here who thinks Trump can be re-elected?

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Then, you'll need more than popcorn.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because, if Trump wins again, the balance on the court could very well be 2-7.

    And, then it'll be a bit too late to worry about balancing the third branch of your government.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Likewise, it almost appears self-evident that defining what is constitutional and what is not can be similarly reduced to whatever a majority of the Supreme Court decides is constitutional, at the present time.

    That's funny..

    I said nearly the EXACT SAME THING with regards to the 2nd Amendment and I was resoundingly attacked for it..

    Funny, iddn't it..

    Well, it's nice to have vindication of my position... :D

    This was due to some unprecedented political hardball being played in the Senate, as Mitch McConnell defied his constitutional duty and refused to allow Barack Obama's court pick to even be considered.

    And we have it on record by our own Balthy, that Democrats should ALSO defy the Constitution and do the exact same thing, if the Dems win the Senate.. :D

    So, it's horrendously bad when the GOP does it, but it's perfectly acceptable when the Dems do it..

    Gotcha... :D

    When Mitch McConnell took over from Reid, instead of remaining intellectually consistent with his previous position that going nuclear was a very bad thing and should be changed back to the way it had been, McConnell instead dropped a second nuke, by declaring that Supreme Court judicial nominations could not be filibustered either. Then he defied the Constitution by refusing to act on Obama's nomination, baldly stating that no nomination would move forward until after the next election.

    Actually, the actions were reversed.... McConnell decided to exercise his constitutional right NOT to advise and consent and THEN went nuclear when the Dems were going to filibuster President Trump's choice..

    f you can't win at the Supreme Court then you can't win, period.

    "If you cannot score and a Woman's Reproductive Rights convention, you simply cannot score."
    -Charlie Bradbury

    :D

    . "We simply must wait until after the next presidential election" Democrats could say, reminding Republicans of their own argument

    So, you also are on record as stating it's perfectly acceptable for the Dems to "defy the Constitution" because the GOP did it first..

    Hokay.. That's fine with me. I won't say dick if the Dems take the Senate (a BIG if in the here and now) and try the same trick..

    OTHER than to remind ya'all that your Democrats are committing the same "horrendous" and "heinous" "crime" that the GOP committed.. :D

    In short, I'll remind ya'all that your Dems are no different than what ya'all accuse the GOP of being..

    As if that point really needs to be made.. :D

    Excellent commentary CW...

    And you are dead on ballz accurate.. Democrats SHOULD be running scared..

    Because it's entirely likely that, by the time the 2020 election rolls around, the SCOTUS will be at a 6-3 split with the advantage going to the GOP..

    And, boy oh boy will you see one happy camper here.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Am I the only one here who thinks Trump can be re-elected?

    Yea, pretty much..

    Everyone else is feeling EXACTLY as they felt on 7 Nov 2016...

    And, on 10 Nov 2020, they are going to feel EXACTLY as they did on 9 Nov 2016....

    Because, if Trump wins again, the balance on the court could very well be 2-7.

    And, then it'll be a bit too late to worry about balancing the third branch of your government.

    Yea.. Like the Palestinians, Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity...

    I just had a thought ... could there be a case for saying that the Gorsuch appointment to the Supreme Court was unconstitutional based on the actions of Mitch McConnell and how a vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland was thwarted?

    No, there is no case to be made..

    Because, the Constitutional power to ADVISE AND CONSENT is also the Constitutional power to NOT Advise and Consent...

    It is just one of the many best reasons to vote for Joe Biden, should he win the Democratic nomination in 2020.

    Plucky.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    It wont matter in the slightest, what motivates all you Dems/Libs, be it supreme court picks or whatever, you should know by now that all except you ideological purists are going to vote for whichever candidate Putin backs with sneaky subliminal messages posted on your Facebook accounts, just like they did in 2016!!

    Hooray for social media!

    "There is mimicry and there is mockery and THAT is definitely mockery.."
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK

    :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    UP NEXT: 1970S-STYLE BOMBINGS, WARNS PROGRESSIVE
    Interrupting meals 'just the beginning' of resistance to Republicans

    http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/up-next-1970s-style-bombings-warns-progressive/

    Yep... That's the new Democrat Party..

    Aren't ya'all soooo proud... :^/

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Primaries bring good news for Trump and Republicans, bad news for divided Democrats
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/27/primaries-bring-good-news-for-trump-and-republicans-bad-news-for-divided-democrats.html

    Like I said, Democrats are going to get pounded in November..

    I know ya'all are thinking that I can't possibly be correct ..

    Which is exactly what ya'all were thinking in the run-up to November 2016...

    And we all know how THAT turned out... :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all DO realize that all this talk of Trump being Hitler and all of Trumps supporters are Nazis is completely counter-productive to ya'all's agenda, right??

    For two reasons..

    1. It makes ANY kind of political progress impossible..

    2. When Trump does something even MORE horrendous, where do you go??

    To elaborate on 1, Democrats are going to NEED Trump supporter votes in the mid-terms... How on earth can you people attack and harass and vilify Trump supporters and then turn around and say, "Hay, we really want you to vote Democrat in November.."... On what planet would that be viable??? You people and your Democrats are demonizing the very people you NEED to win elections.. Where is the logic in THAT boneheaded moronic play???

    To elaborate on #2, accusing someone of being a Nazi is about as low on the personal attacks scale as you can possibly go... When Trump does something much more vile and horrendous (as, in your minds, I am sure he will) where do you go?? I mean, "Trump isn't just a Nazi he's a SUPER DUPER Nazi!!!" Yea.. THAT will win points for intelligence and rational thought.. :^/

    You people and your Democrats are shooting yerselves in the foot and are making ANY Democrat gains in November virtually impossible..

    And the rational, logical thinking people here (the 2 or 3 that are left) know I am dead on ballz accurate on this...

  18. [18] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michael

    Let's make that last part read "dead-on" ballz accurate. The little hyphen make a big difference! Literally, a 'life or death' difference!

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Really, CW?

    Is this what we can expect for the rest of the campaign season- repeating the same old bullshit with another pull and plug article that you have probably written many times over the years?

    Your message will only convince the party faithful. It ignores the very people that Democrats need to win- you know those of us that don't believe what the Democrats say because they are corrupted by Big Money.

    I guess it's time to use the current Democrat strategy on you (but it will have to be here instead of traveling to your house).

    SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speaking of the Senate, what about Menendez?

    157,983 people have sent the Democratic Party a clear message in the NJ primaries that they are not going to accept the same old bullshit. They are just the tip of the iceberg that will stay home or vote for the Republican in November.

    You can keep burying your head in the sand or you can DO YOUR FUCKING JOB and inform these citizens that they DO HAVE ANOTHER CHOICE.

    By ignoring this you are admitting the the Democrats have nothing more than there is no other choice, which is the underlying message of your article again.

    And underlying is still lying.

    And it is those very lies that have made it impossible for any rational citizen to believe anything the Democrats say and a big part of the reason why 40% of citizens don't vote at all and 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential elections don't vote in off year elections.

    Claiming to be a reality based blog is at this point just another lie. It is not based on reality- it is based on the reality you have created in your mind to avoid admitting what the Democrats really are, a party of lying Big Money controlled candidates, not a blog based on the real world.

    This dooms you to repeating the same bullshit which will doom the Democrats to repeating the same mistakes that led to Trump, the many Democrat losses over the years and the Supreme Court we have now.

    The hell with SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!- that is just STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!

    "You are so STUPID!"
    Asian karate guy/ Wheel of Fish host
    -UHF

    Take your head out the sand (note that I did not choose to place your head in a particular body orifice that could also apply), wake up to the real reality and stop perpetuating and rationalizing the party line bullshit.

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It should also be noted that the Wheel of fish host was calling the contestant stupid for picking the box with nothing in it- a perfect analogy for the Democratic Party.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Let's make that last part read "dead-on" ballz accurate. The little hyphen make a big difference! Literally, a 'life or death' difference!

    Touche.. :D

    Thank you for your correction....

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's rather hilarious to hear ya'all rail against McConnell's gambit of exercising his Constitutional right NOT to advise and consent..

    Ya'all's Democrats would have done the EXACT same thing in McConnell's place..

    We know this is a fact because Democrats have been saying they WILL do the exact same thing given the chance...

    :D

    Hoisted by ya'all's own Picard :D

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Regular readers of this column will know that in 2016, I was a supporter of Bernie Sanders."

    While I may have disagreed with you on voting for Hillary in 2016, you were being consistent in supporting Hillary and those of us that voted for Stein or someone else or didn't vote were also being consistent.

    You were warned that we would not vote for Hillary and you took your chances. Why are you trying to repeat the same mistake?

    Bernie supported Hillary in 2016 and then started Our Revolution to continue what he started in 2016.

    You have not continued what you tried in the 2016 primaries even though it had some success and have stuck with the party line propaganda that failed so miserably again in 2016.

    It's not too late to come back from the dark side.

    "Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged."
    -Get Back
    The Beatles

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    While I may have disagreed with you on voting for Hillary in 2016, you were being consistent in supporting Hillary and those of us that voted for Stein or someone else or didn't vote were also being consistent.

    Given the importance of SCOTUS control in furthering the Democrat Party agenda, CW's reason for voting for Hillary is quite logical and rational...

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Obviously the whole North Korea farce is being shown up for what it always was with the rapid upgrade of their reactor, so Trump got conned on that one (who says con men can spot cons - they can't when they actually believe their own lies because they are stupid).

    On the other side of the coin, it is suspected that the Chinese are engineering a rapid downgrade in their currency to reduce or nullify the effects of the tariffs. If I was really cynical I'd think that they are going to gin up fears, and overshoot on the depreciation, while at the same time:

    1. Selling U.S. treasuries to look like they really want to prop up their currency, but causing volatility in the U.S. treasuries market

    2. Telling their large firms to sit on their dollar reserves as they will appreciate in Yuan terms

    So basically we will see in a few months if Un's trip to Beijing was to engineer the plan to play Trump because he is childishly simple to manipulate and his future actions are easy to predict from a strategic perspective. (Trump wants to look good, and undo anything Obama did.)

    We are losing our ability to sway the rest of the World to our will because we have a moron in the White House. The Republicans are as likely to grasp that as Democrats are to understand the importance of the Supreme Court.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:
  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obviously the whole North Korea farce is being shown up for what it always was with the rapid upgrade of their reactor,.

    Facts to prove it??

    Geez, look who I am asking for facts..

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    Geez, look who I am asking for facts..

    Do you read the news?

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you read the news?

    Not Fake News...

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    8

    I'm going to be buying popcorn by the bushel at this rate. And we haven't even got to the Mueller Report yet!

    More indictments to be unsealed before the Mueller Report sees the light of day... state and federal. Womp womp. :)

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    8

    I'm going to be buying popcorn by the bushel at this rate. And we haven't even got to the Mueller Report yet!

    More indictments to be unsealed before the Mueller Report sees the light of day... state and federal. Womp womp. :)

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    9

    Am I the only one here who thinks Trump can be re-elected?

    I am the only one here who thinks this is a complex question fallacy? commonly referred to as a loaded question :)

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    More indictments to be unsealed before the Mueller Report sees the light of day... state and federal. Womp womp. :)

    Facts that proves this??

    No?? Of course not...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny to see ya'all so giddy over Manafort, like a kid on Christmas morning...

    Which is not understandable because the indictments against Manafort have NOTHING to do with Trump OR the Russians.. :D

    It's like being excited when Manafort pled guilty to 5 counts of manslaughter...

    Nothing but Fake News...

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Yes, CW voting for Hillary was logical for him, as my not voting for Hillary was logical for me.

    But sticking with the Big Money Democrats after it failed AGAIN in 2016 rather than continuing to build on the success that was started in the 2016 primaries and trying other approaches based on that success is not logical for anyone.

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (9,11)-
    Have you not been paying attention? Or am I just not a person?

    Why do you think I have been trying to get CW to address One Demand and not keep repeating the same mistakes that led to the election of Trump and all the Democratic losses over the years?

    There is very little difference between having no other choice and having no choice at all. In fact, the first leads to the latter.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those who scoff at the idea of a second Civil War...

    Thirty-one percent (31%) of Likely U.S. Voters say it’s likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years, with 11% who say it’s Very Likely.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2018/31_think_u_s_civil_war_likely_soon

    And just keep in mind..

    ONE side abhors gun ownership and the opposing side is well-armed and well-trained...

    Keep poking the bear, NeverTrumpers... It won't end well for ya'all....

  39. [39] 
    Paula wrote:
  40. [40] 
    Paula wrote:
  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:
  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:
  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    So I am guessing NO FACTS from you today, eh? :D

    You found out what I already knew and was waiting to bitch-slap you with.. :D

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (38)-
    "St. Augustine said an unjust law is no law at all, which means I have a right, even a duty to resist, with violence or civil disobedience. You should pray I choose that latter."
    -James Farmer, Jr.
    The Great Debaters

  45. [45] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    oops "...the later."

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    doiuble oops

    not that latter or the later.

    the ladder.

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    shit. I give up.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the hits just keep on coming!!

    Supreme Court deals big setback to labor unions

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that government workers can’t be forced to contribute to labor unions that represent them in collective bargaining, dealing a serious financial blow to organized labor.

    The court’s conservative majority scrapped a 41-year-old decision that had allowed states to require that public employees pay some fees to unions that represent them, even if the workers choose not to join.

    The 5-4 decision fulfills a longtime wish of conservatives to get rid of the so-called fair share fees that non-members pay to unions in roughly two dozen states. Organized labor is a key Democratic constituency.

    The court ruled that the laws violate the First Amendment by compelling workers to support unions they may disagree with.
    https://apnews.com/0f83c64b1dd249de9ec89ab85235790a/Supreme-Court-deals-big-setback-to-labor-unions

    I almost feel sorry for the Democrats..

    "No, not really. I can't back that up.."
    -Dr Evil

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    I get the point, DH...

    But what "unjust" law are you referring to??

    There are so many the Lefties consider "unjust"....

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Wait a minute.

    Citizens can choose the ladder of One Demand to climb out of the Big Money hole the Republicans and Democrats have trapped us in!

    Must have been a Freudian slip!

  51. [51] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    So, another week gone by with scarcely a single mention of the Dem's/Lib's former favorite political term, "Collusion"!!

    But don't despair Weigantians, I've heard that a couple "Trump Campaign" people pled guilty to littering, and another to lieing to the FBI about which hooker(s) he slept with!! Heay, better than nothin', right???

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    26

    Obviously the whole North Korea farce is being shown up for what it always was with the rapid upgrade of their reactor, so Trump got conned on that one (who says con men can spot cons - they can't when they actually believe their own lies because they are stupid).

    Perhaps we are simply underestimating BLOTUS's self-described ability to know "within the first minute" by just his "touch," his "feel" because that's what he does. ;)

    I think you're right about NK and China too because quite obviously their preparations for dealing with Hair DickTater of America involved so much more than just relying on their self-perceived instincts.

    We are losing our ability to sway the rest of the World to our will because we have a moron in the White House.

    Several morons in the White House... or perhaps we are simply underestimating BLOTUS's self-described ability to hire "only the best people"? No worries, though, as the current staffers make a run for the exits, you just know that their Executive Job Fair advertisement for West Wing positions will draw in a cornucopia of top-notch recruits. ;)

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The unjust law part was just the reason in the movie for the following part. It was that part that was relevant to your comment on civil war.

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    I heard Manafort was searching for a team of lawyers who would present his "fake news" defense to the Court in EDVA, but the handwriting on the wall became clearer to Paulie as he was informed repeatedly that bullshit only works in the court of public opinion. :)

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    It's funny to see ya'all so giddy over Manafort, like a kid on Christmas morning...

    It's even funnier to watch as you flail in your efforts to describe what you "see." :)

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you have access to the WSJ Michale - there are plenty of other sources, but this is a right wing rag you can be assured is trying to make Trump look like a functioning adult:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-still-building-at-nuclear-research-facility-despite-summit-diplomacy-1530100351

  57. [57] 
    neilm wrote:
  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:
  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    When "The Hill" is telling a Republican President that he has been conned, you know that the wool has been firmly pulled over the eyes of some dimwit.

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    Regarding the outcome of the 2020 election, as usual, nobody knows nothing. After 2004 when an obvious idiot who started a war based on lies they knew were lies, I have little confidence in the American voters to get anything right. I'm not picking on American voters only here. Turkish voters just voted in a wannabee dictator. The Russians get all emotional when Putin pulls their strings, and the Brits went all "Little England" in 2016 with Brexit.

    If the economy holds up then it is anybody's guess in 2020. Trump, stupidly (there's a redundant qualification), has started trade wars and bumped up the deficit, so if there is an economic downturn (and this expansion phase has lasted 10 years now) he is going to squarely get the blame from all but the most partisan.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhh yes..

    The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center where the construction took place is a LIGHT WATER REACTOR.... LWRs are suitable for generating electricity, but not suitable for weapons grade material..

    Nice try... But no cigar... :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the economy holds up then it is anybody's guess in 2020

    Whatever you have to tell yerself to sleep at night. :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or, Michale, you could take 2 seconds and do a Google search on the news:

    I have it on good authority that GOOGLE is totally in the bag for the Left..

    Word has it that senior management spent a week crying after Trump was elected...

    Google can't be trusted anymore to give viable results.. I have noticed recently that when I try to search for things that can be construed as anti-Obama or anti-Democrat, I get no viable listings..

  64. [64] 
    Paula wrote:

    [52] Kick: Several morons in the White House... or perhaps we are simply underestimating BLOTUS's self-described ability to hire "only the best people"? No worries, though, as the current staffers make a run for the exits, you just know that their Executive Job Fair advertisement for West Wing positions will draw in a cornucopia of top-notch recruits. ;)

    WH looking to hire Bill Shine, FOX News Co-President who was forced out for Sexual Harassment and cover-ups of same, as Communications Director. He will fit in perfectly if he's fool enough to take the job. DT hires the dregs of society because they best reflect his values and because NO ONE DECENT will go to work there.

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center where the construction took place is a LIGHT WATER REACTOR.... LWRs are suitable for generating electricity, but not suitable for weapons grade material..

    Wrong (as usual) - you really need to check the "feel-good sources" you rely on.

    The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center is North Korea's major nuclear facility, operating its first nuclear reactors. The center produced the fissile material for North Korea's six nuclear weapon tests from 2006 to 2017.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center is North Korea's major nuclear facility, operating its first nuclear reactors. The center produced the fissile material for North Korea's six nuclear weapon tests from 2006 to 2017.

    Not from the Yongbyon reactor they didn't.. It's an LWR reactor...

    As usual, your hysterical fear mongering is factually not accurate...

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    ** Breaking News **

    For many years at his position as co-president of Fox News, Bill Shine was the enabler and sweeper under the rug man who handled the multiple and repeated instances of sexual misconduct perpetrated by Roger Ailes as well as various assorted other executives and on-air "talent" such as Bill O'Reilly. Shine is a very good friend of BLOTUS's late night phone buddy and Mikey Cohen's "third client"... one Sean Hannity.

    After negotiations with Donald Trump, Bill Shine is all set now to become the White House Communications Director.

    That's the rumor anyway. Perhaps they are simply floating the Fox News enabler's name to get a public reaction. Stay tuned.

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    64

    WH looking to hire Bill Shine, FOX News Co-President who was forced out for Sexual Harassment and cover-ups of same, as Communications Director. He will fit in perfectly if he's fool enough to take the job. DT hires the dregs of society because they best reflect his values and because NO ONE DECENT will go to work there.

    Who knew swamp draining would be so complicated? ;)

  69. [69] 
    Paula wrote:

    [68] Kick: Who knew swamp draining would be so complicated? ;)

    Yes, it was always ludicrous that sending a lying criminal to the WH surrounded by other unsavory and criminal types would be the way to clean up...anything. But you can't fix stupid and you can't make ppl honest who profit off of dishonesty.

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not from the Yongbyon reactor they didn't.. It's an LWR reactor...

    Wrong. They have a LWR reactor at Yongbyon, but it is only part of the facilities and it is also the site where they produced their bomb material. This is a simple fact for anybody to look up. Michale is desperate, because even the WSJ is calling BS on Trump's NK deal.

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    60

    If the economy holds up then it is anybody's guess in 2020. Trump, stupidly (there's a redundant qualification), has started trade wars and bumped up the deficit, so if there is an economic downturn (and this expansion phase has lasted 10 years now) he is going to squarely get the blame from all but the most partisan.

    After all the lip service given to Trump's wonderful economy by him and the useful idiots... factored in with Trump's tax cut and Trump's trade wars... how do you suppose BLOTUS would be able to pass off blame for an economic downturn on anyone or anything else?

    And how about that inverted yield curve and what history tells us about that, Neil?

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrong. They have a LWR reactor at Yongbyon, but it is only part of the facilities and it is also the site where they produced their bomb material

    But NOT from that reactor..

    I get it, Neil.. I really do...

    Democrats have been bitch-slapped tremoundously this week. From having your Demcorat "Rock Stars" advocate violence and harassment against Trump supporters to being handed a Tri-Fecta defeat at the SCOTUS..

    SO I understand why you would want to deflect and latch onto ANYTHING to try and keep yer chin up.. :D

    But, the Yongbyon facility is now dedicated to the LWR reactor to generate electricity.. This is in anticipation of sanctions being suspended so that the Norks will be able to get their infrastructure up and running..

    You luse, Neil.. :D Just like you always do with you replace facts and reality with spin and Party slavery.. :D

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, another week gone by with scarcely a single mention of the Dem's/Lib's former favorite political term, "Collusion"!!

    But don't despair Weigantians, I've heard that a couple "Trump Campaign" people pled guilty to littering, and another to lieing to the FBI about which hooker(s) he slept with!! Heay, better than nothin', right???

    Heh...

    "It's funny cuz it's true.."
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:

    Some really bad numbers being racked up for durable goods - so much for the tax break for the American consumer - the little money they might have got is being sucked up in higher inflation and increase energy costs.

    https://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/adv/pdf/durgd.pdf

    This clown can't even give away money and stimulate the economy. These numbers are pre-tariff/trade war. The military spending is masking even worse domestic numbers when you dig into the report.

    The country is finally getting back on its feet, and people who haven't been able to participate in the booming stock market since 2008 were finally getting some of the wealth. This has the potential to be a real kick in the teeth for regular America. We need to change the tax laws to support the middle class and we need to stop this pointless trade war now.

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    "There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea," Trump tweeted on June 13 the day after his meeting with Kim... "No longer - sleep well tonight."

    Ten days after tweeting that there was no risk from Pyongyang, Trump notified congress regarding the "extraordinary threat" of the nuclear weapons of North Korea.

    So who you going to believe, America... Trump or Trump?

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    So who you going to believe, America... Trump or Trump?

    Yer gonna believe whatever serves your hysterical Anti-America agenda.. :D

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some really bad numbers being racked up for durable goods - so much for the tax break for the American consumer - the little money they

    Yea.. And President Trump's tax plan just is gonna give "crumbs" to American workers.. :D

    Gods, things as so spiteful and petty around here.. :D

  78. [78] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    Why doesn’t One Demand show up in any of the first 5 pages of the online searches I have run on Google, Bing, or Yahoo? Nothing in the news, no announcements of meetings, no press releases on candidates you are backing...nothing! Hell, I can’t even find your website in the returns. I warned that it was too similar to On Demand (which makes up the majority of the returns I am getting), but even when I remove “On Demand” your political movement seems to be suffering from serious constipation — actually, it seems like this organization is all in your head. You seem to have done absolutely nothing to get your organization publicity... other than to hound CW to do more work for your group than apparently you are willing to do! Seriously, why would CW want to give you 10 minutes in the national spotlight when you haven’t bothered to get yourself one minute in any local spotlight? Hell, an ad in Craig’s List would be a huge step up from what I have found. Give CW a reason to consider your group as being “news worthy” for Christ’s sake. Yes, we need to get big money out of the campaign process, something that most people agree on, but what would CW even write about on how your group is changing that? You have done nothing for CW to report on. I can’t find any success stories. I can’t find any testimonials or letters of support from any political figures or groups. Why aren’t you promoting your own organization?

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    In case you were wondering who got the money Trump gave away when he added $1.5T to the deficit, take a look at buybacks and dividends in 2018 from the attached report.

    Buybacks increase share price because they remove shares from the market. Here is a simple model that explains them:

    Company A: Market Cap = 10M shares x $10.00/share = $100M

    Company A buys back 1M shares, but is still worth $100M, so the share price is now $100M/9M shares = $11.11/share

    So the share price has jumped 11.1%, not because the company is worth more, simply because each share has a bigger slide of the total pie.

    So we have a situation where Trump has allowed vast amounts of money to be repatriated into U.S. companies with the tax break, they have used this money to buy back their shares ... but the market is flat. If there hadn't been any buybacks the market would probably have dropped.

    Trump can't even give away our money and do anything useful.

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:
  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: 79..

    Like I said.. So pissy and petty... Sad...

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why doesn’t One Demand show up in any of the first 5 pages of the online searches I have run on Google, Bing, or Yahoo? Nothing in the news, no announcements of meetings, no press releases on candidates you are backing...nothing!

    No! He has a film out:

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/live-film-my-one-demand-blurs-reality-and-fiction-at-toronto-s-luminato-1.2438176

    Give credit where credit isn't due (i.e. like Michale with Trump).

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, getting back to the topic at hand..

    How do ya'all like the SCOTUS Tri-Fecta that the GOP just scored against the Dims?? :D

    "Lovin' Every Minute Of It"
    -Loverboy

    :D

  84. [84] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So who you going to believe, America... Trump or Trump?

    Yer gonna believe whatever serves your hysterical Anti-America agenda.. :D

    GREAT! You finally have realized that Trump’s agenda is hysterically Anti-American! While it is definitely a joke, I’m not sure I’d call it “hysterical”.

  85. [85] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    credit where credit is due. that was funny.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ

    You just LOVE putting words in people's mouths don't you..

    At least when you are not attacking political opponent's grandchildren...

    You obviously took Mad Maxine's words to heart when she said to "push" Trump supporters..

    Doesn't say much for your character... Or in this case, lack thereof... :^/

  87. [87] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Re Trump "giving away money", in the form of tax reduction.

    Only in Dem/Lib-speak is failing to confiscate part of what a company produces/earns described as "giving them money"!!!

    The government does not take 100% of what you earn, but I'm willing to wager serious money that you don't consider the part you are allowed to keep to be a case of "the gov't giving you money", have I got that right?

    Well, hard as it may be for you to fathom, those are identical situations. The only difference is your double standard.

  88. [88] 
    neilm wrote:

    Only in Dem/Lib-speak is failing to confiscate part of what a company produces/earns described as "giving them money"!!!

    CRS - who is going to pay for the deficit that Trump is running up to give tax breaks to the wealthy and companies?

    The U.S. taxpayer - that is who.

    So cut the BS that this is "their" money - when we are not spending billions on unnecessary planes and tanks and subsidizing big Ag and a whole lot of other industries you can moan about them being taxed to pay for the needs of our country.

    Libertarians are so juvenile - they are so smug but have yet to understand even the basics about economics. Go back and join your local High School "Ayn Rand Glee Club for Smug Republicans".

  89. [89] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    At least when you are not attacking political opponent's grandchildren...

    Oh how cute, you think I consider you an “opponent”! Bless your heart!

    And my comment was that I hoped Karma treated your grandchild better than what you were wishing on immigrant children seeking asylum. If that’s an attack on your grandchild, then quit being a hate-filled bigot. Show kindness, karma pays you back in kindness.

  90. [90] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    That's a new one.

    There are many reasons why One demand does not show up on google searches, get any press coverage, have any supporters or candidates or had any success.

    One reason is that no one knows about it. Some people at other sites where I occasionally comment have signed the Nader petition, one of the many other things I do and have done besides comment here. So there are some people that have responded positively and there may be more.

    I also write and submit articles to many publications but the few responses explained that they wanted people that had previously been published or written about by someone else. Similar to the few answers I got from the people I tried to get to write about One Demand.

    In fact, I wrote and submitted an article this morning in between commenting.

    You cannot say that something won't succeed because it hasn't succeeded yet if it hasn't been tried yet. It just doesn't make sense, especially when many trends point in the direction of something like this being able to succeed.

    CW claims a reality based blog. The 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections are real people.

    Ignoring this real possibility of mobilizing these citizens in 2018 is not reality based, especially when ignoring this in 2014 (others, not CW because I did not contact him until 2015) led to the results of 2016.

    There is no guarantee it will catch on or work if it does catch on. But ignoring it again in 2018 will guarantee the same results in 2020 and beyond.

    But all you can do is repeat the same old excuses.

    But as long as we are discussing it, do you have the courage to honestly answer these questions:

    How would it not be better if those that would not vote in 2018 participated in One Demand in 2018 instead of wasting their vote by not voting?

    What harm would it cause if the citizens that would not vote in 2018 participated in One Demand instead of wasting their vote by not voting?

    Those are simple and reasonable questions that should not be too much of an effort to address.

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    The government does not take 100% of what you earn, but I'm willing to wager serious money that you don't consider the part you are allowed to keep to be a case of "the gov't giving you money", have I got that right?

    The government gives me a lot of things - roads, schools and education for American kids, research grants that keep our technology ahead of the competition, a safety net for the desperate, protection from aggressors, pensions and medical care for seniors, to name just a few. They also spend more money than they take in so, whether any of us like it or not.

    I'm guessing you are the recipient of a lot of my tax dollars in the form of social security and medicare - am I right?

    Let's see how fast you become a raging democrat if a Libertarian/Republican government decide to keep paying for a bloated military, keep giving subsidies to well connected industries, but know 50% off your pension and put you in subsidence level health care. Who is the real hypocrite here?

    And BTW, I expect to have to fund my own pension and a large part of my healthcare because your generation ran up huge deficits that me and my kids, and most of the people around here are going to have to pay off.

  92. [92] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mike Godwin (as in "Godwin's Law" i.e. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches.") has amended his law.

    He's concerned that people are insulting Hitler by comparing him to Donald Trump.

    ;)

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    And BTW, I expect to have to fund my own pension and a large part of my healthcare because your generation ran up huge deficits that me and my kids, and most of the people around here are going to have to pay off.

    Yea, Democrats had NOTHING to do with that, right??

    This is exactly why it's impossible to take ANYTHING you say seriously..

    Because it's ALL based on NOTHING but Party slavery...

  94. [94] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yea, Democrats had NOTHING to do with that, right??

    Stop being silly Michale - this had nothing to do with D or R - this was about generations - can you grasp that some things are party independent?

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stop being silly Michale - this had nothing to do with D or R - this was about generations - can you grasp that some things are party independent?

    Oh bullshit...

    You only say that when the Democrats have the majority of the blame..

    When the Right is at fault, you are ALL about R v D...

  96. [96] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Libertarians "have yet to understand even the basics of economics", says the savant who defines the phenomenon of 'inflation' as "rising prices", and then says the cause of the phenomenon is - yep - "rising prices"!!!

    But do NOT despair!! You finally got something right when you answered your own question about "Who's gonna pay for the deficit that Trump is running up?"

    Based on previous discussions of economic principles, I was seriously worried that you were going to say 'the tooth fairy', but in tthe end you came through with 'The U.S. Taxpayer." Congrats!!!

  97. [97] 
    Paula wrote:

    UNLESS HE's DYING: Anthony Kennedy deserts America - hands it off to the traitors. May he go down in ignominy; may he be scorned for what's left of his disgraceful life.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    YES!!!!!!!

    VACANCY AT SUPREME COURT
    KENNEDY STEPS ASIDE
    CONTENTIOUS FIGHT LOOMS

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-retiring-from-supreme-court.html

    The Democrat Party is TOAST!!!

    Say goodbye to Roe v Wade

    WOOT!!!!!

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    UNLESS HE's DYING: Anthony Kennedy deserts America - hands it off to the traitors. May he go down in ignominy; may he be scorned for what's left of his disgraceful life.

    Ahhhh The sweet sound of tolerance, love and respect..

    And then Paula bleats out her hatred, intolerance and bigotry...

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats and NeverTrumpers are taking a HUGE beating!!!

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people...

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooooooo Balthasar....

    Didn't you say that Kennedy/RBG will hold off til AFTER the midterms??? :D

    Looks like ya scroo'ed the pooch on THAT prediction..

    President Trump get's ANOTHER SCOTUS pick.. :D

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dems Melt Down Over Kennedy Retirement
    The DNC rules committee was on a live call when the news broke that Justice Anthony Kennedy would retire at the end of July.

    https://ntknetwork.com/dems-melt-down-over-kennedy-retirement/

    Really tough week for NeverTrumpers..

    And it's only Weds....

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:
  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    Libertarians "have yet to understand even the basics of economics", says the savant who defines the phenomenon of 'inflation' as "rising prices", and then says the cause of the phenomenon is - yep - "rising prices"!!!

    We measure inflation using the CPI. Try to keep up.

    Your definition moans on about money supply - but we just had three rounds of Q.E. and guess what? No inflation.

    You'd think even libertarians could learn a simple lesson like that, but like communists, they have fixed ideas and a bizarre set of expectations about human behavior that we expect from the Glee Club crowd in High School, but is just sad in grown adults.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    What a different world it would be if the DNC hadn't scroo'ed over Bernie for the sure-to-lose Hillary Clinton, eh??

    Mind boggling...

  106. [106] 
    neilm wrote:

    Say goodbye to Roe v Wade

    You really think the Republicans are going to give you little people what you vote for?

    They will keep you in suspense on abortion, and gin up your emotions on brown-skinned people because that is what gets you to trot out and vote for tax cuts for the rich.

    Overturning Roe vs. Wade will bring back horror stories from ER and the morgue and be the biggest vote generator for Democrats in decades, while demoralizing the dim fairly quickly when they see their sisters, aunts, daughters and mothers dying from dangerous procedures.

    Aren't you the one that goes on and on about how you can't legislate human behavior?

  107. [107] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    How would it not be better if those that would not vote in 2018 participated in One Demand in 2018 instead of wasting their vote by not voting?

    What harm would it cause if the citizens that would not vote in 2018 participated in One Demand instead of wasting their vote by not voting?

    Well, if they are supposed to vote for only One Demand candidates, it would not be much different. What does One Demand offer that would entice a person who wasn’t motivated to vote in the past to suddenly see the value in casting their vote? Why would any candidate risk their campaign by signing up with One Demand?

    You cannot say that something won't succeed because it hasn't succeeded yet if it hasn't been tried yet. It just doesn't make sense, especially when many trends point in the direction of something like this being able to succeed.

    You don’t have ANY success. Hell, FAILURES would be a step up from having NOTHING to show. You want attention given to your idea in order to get people involved. You might as well claim that everyone who wrote themselves in as a write-in candidate was actually an One Demand voter... they just didn’t realize they were part of a movement.

    What is your tax ID number? Do you have any minutes from your board’s meetings? If I were only to have one demand of a candidate in order for them to gain my support, that they only accept small donations is not going to be that demand! A candidate who is pro-choice, supportive of civil rights for all, and supports focusing on updating our infrastructure, but has a couple of large donors supporting them and won’t sign on with One Demand isn’t going to lose my vote to a candidate that signs up with One Demand but opposes all of those issues I support. That is what you are asking people to do.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    LIBERAL MELTDOWN OVER JUSTICE KENNEDY RETIREMENT
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/liberal-meltdown-over-justice-kennedy-retirement/

    I think, next to 9 Nov 2016, this has been the best day of my civilian life in the last few decades.. :D

  109. [109] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    The CPI, as its name indicates, measures 'Consumer Prices'. It only functions as a stand-in measure of inflation for pathetic simpletons who can't comprehend the dfference. But don't despair, the fraternity of economic simpletons includes most people, and all Dems/Libs!

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula [97],

    There are many places across the internet(s) where a disgraceful comment like [97] but, CW.com is most decidedly not one of them.

    Think before commenting.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:


    Andrew Cohen
    ?
    Verified account

    @JustADCohen
    Follow Follow @JustADCohen
    More Andrew Cohen Retweeted NBC Politics
    For starters, abortion rights are more imperiled now than at any time since Roe v. Wade. And there is no reason to think there won't be a rollback of gay rights, either, with Kennedy gone.

    Can't argue with this guy's logic...

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Why shouldn't Mitch McConnell hold off on confirming the next justice of the Supreme Court until after the people have spoken in four months;

    Justice Kennedy's retirement has just made the midterms this year every bit as important as any presidential election.

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why shouldn't Mitch McConnell hold off on confirming the next justice of the Supreme Court until after the people have spoken in four months;

    Because the Senate doesn't PICK the SCOTUS nominee, the POTUS does...

    The POTUS pick won't change...

    ustice Kennedy's retirement has just made the midterms this year every bit as important as any presidential election.

    True, it's gonna be a real horse race now.. :D

    Considering all the divisions and the hatred that is dragging the Dem Party down, the GOP is still going to prevail..

  114. [114] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because the Senate doesn't PICK the SCOTUS nominee, the POTUS does...

    My question did not concern who gets to pick a nominee. Of course, the president picks the nominees.

    I will await your answer to my question.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    My question did not concern who gets to pick a nominee. Of course, the president picks the nominees.

    Your question is not relevant.. McConnell held off on Obama's pick so the Next President could pick the Justice...

    If McConnell holds off until after the election, NOTHING will change.. President Trump will pick the nominee and a GOP Senate will advise and consent..

    There is absolutely no reason not to advise and consent immediately...

    If the Dems had a snowball's chance in hell of taking the Senate, there might be logic to your request..

    But the Senate is firmly in GOP hands for the mid-terms. Even CW has conceded as much..

    So there is no reason to wait and very good reasons NOT to wait..

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Boy it got awfully quiet here..

    I haven't seen this much depression since 9 Nov 2016... :D

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Got to hand it to CW...

    When he gets prescient, he doesn't fool around!! :D

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, my question was relevant and deserved an answer.

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why can't a current president pick a SCOTUS nominee?

  120. [120] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [97]

    Gotta disagree with you there. Kennedy has no obligation to stay on the court any longer than he feels up to doing the job. He was put on the court by Reagan, and has been very conservative in decisions on campaign finance and cases involving corporations. His views on LGBQT issues are actually based on strong conservative values that today’s “conservatives” choose to ignore if it doesn’t effect them directly.

    His majority opinion in the Citizen’s United case ignored historical evidence that clearly showed that allowing unlimited money in elections results in wide-spread corruption. Heck, the first law that Citizen’s United overturned was law that was created in direct response to the corruption caused by mine owners buying off every level of Montana’s state government from the early 1900’s!

    I thank Kennedy for his many decades of service to our country. While I didn’t agree with him always, I could appreciate the logic in his opinions...except for Citizen’s United!

  121. [121] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yer gonna believe whatever serves your hysterical Anti-America agenda.. :D

    Thank you for that bit of self-introspection and admission on your part. I suppose it was only a matter of time before you finally opened your eyes and realized the fact that it was Your Orange Worship who was regularly and repeatedly sending mixed messages to the American people and you "clued in" to your reality. :)

  122. [122] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ[120],

    Very well said.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why can't a current president pick a SCOTUS nominee?

    You confusing me..

    The current President WILL pick the SCOTUS nominee...

  124. [124] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The last current president was not allowed to pick his nominee.

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    The last current president was not allowed to pick his nominee.

    Because THAT was a Presidential Election year and McConnell felt that the NEW President should pick the Justice..

    There was NO WAY that McConnell could have predicted that Trump would win, so there is NO WAY you can ascribe nefarious intentions to McConnell...

    He honestly believed that the new POTUS should pick the Justice and he fully expected that it would be Hillary..

    The fact that it wasn't was a stroke of sheer luck. Nothing more..

    I am SURE that, when Trump won, McConnell was like, "I'll be dipped in shit!!!" :D

  126. [126] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me rephrase that. The last current president picked his nominee but the Senate leadership refused to allow his confirmation to proceed.

    Stop confusing me, Michale!

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    86

    Russ
    You just LOVE putting words in people's mouths don't you..

    Translation: The poster who regularly invents fake quotes is whining about someone commenting about something he actually posted.

    Boo hoo.

  128. [128] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because THAT was a Presidential Election year and McConnell felt that the NEW President should pick the Justice..

    Well this is very, very important midterm election and the new senate should decide to confirm or not.

    Same logic, Michale.

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me rephrase that. The last current president picked his nominee but the Senate leadership refused to allow his confirmation to proceed.

    That is addressed in comment #125

    Isn't today a GLORIOUS day!?? :D

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's raining.

    But, there is a good chance for a rainbow ...

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well this is very, very important midterm election and the new senate should decide to confirm or not.

    Same logic, Michale.

    Not even close.. The onus is on who PICKS the Justice, not on how advises and consents.

    And, as I pointed out, there ain't a snowball's chance in hell that the Dems will take the Senate..

    So, there is absolutely NO LOGICAL reason to wait..

    The new Justice will be sworn in by September...

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    RGB will likely be the next to retire due to advance age..

    Word is the "Wise Latina" Sotomayer may also retire due to poor health...

    That gives President Trump FOUR picks for the SCOTUS!!!

    A 7-2 split in favor of the GOP is a very real possibility in President Trump's second term...

    I am just giddy with excitement over that. :D

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    88

    CRS - who is going to pay for the deficit that Trump is running up to give tax breaks to the wealthy and companies?

    Oh, oh... I know. The guy living in Podunk, Idaho, whining about the price of honey at his local supermarket who doesn't believe in global warming because where he lives he hasn't seen any weather changes in nigh on a decade. *grin*

    What do I win for getting this correct?

    So cut the BS that this is "their" money - when we are not spending billions on unnecessary planes and tanks and subsidizing big Ag and a whole lot of other industries you can moan about them being taxed to pay for the needs of our country.

    Yes, sir, exactly right, and although I would be the first one to extol the virtues of our modern day armory because I never met a tank that I didn't like, those big fancy war toys are decidedly a drain on the budget of America.

    Libertarians are so juvenile - they are so smug but have yet to understand even the basics about economics. Go back and join your local High School "Ayn Rand Glee Club for Smug Republicans".

    I would wager he doesn't believe those clubs even exist anywhere in the world since there wasn't one at the Podunk, Idaho high school where he graduated somewhere around the mid century mark. :) *grin*

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Plans to Name Kennedy Replacement ‘As Quickly As Possible’

    President Donald Trump said he will begin the search to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy immediately and plans to make a nomination “as quickly as possible.”

    Republican leaders signaled they would move rapidly to seize the opportunity to create the most conservative court in generations. But with the swing vote on the court at stake and fresh memories of Republicans’ election-year blockade of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Democratic leaders indicated they would resist.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-27/trump-says-search-for-kennedy-replacement-to-begin-immediately

    Yea.. What are they gonna do?? Throw temper tantrums.. :D

  135. [135] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    There you go again.

    While I was not wrong that they were easy questions to answer, I was wrong to think you might actually answer them instead of recycling more excuses to avoid the issue.

    First of all, as explained repeatedly the majority will be writing in their own name in 2018 as there will be few candidates to vote for.

    As also explained these are citizens that are registered and do vote in presidential elections but do not vote in off year elections. One reason they might not vote is they don't like the choices offered.

    One Demand offers these citizens an opportunity to change the options for 2020 by simply taking a few minutes to register at the website and voting and to build a national organization to support small contribution candidates.

    As previously explained a candidate from a third party or independent candidate could see this an opportunity to get 10-20% of the vote in 2018 instead of the usual 1-2% and build on that in 2020.

    A current major party candidate in a district gerrymandered for the other current major party could see this as an opportunity to flip the district.

    The "you don't have any success" does not address the statement you are pretending to answer. Is it lack of comprehension or just the baffle them with bullshit type of answer?

    One more time for the memory impaired. The small contribution commitment is just the starting point, just as whatever issue(s) that are important to you are the starting point for you. I have never said people should vote for a small contribution candidate for that reason alone and ignore the candidate's position on other issues.

    And what part of these are people that have already rejected the choices offered in 2018 do you not understand? It DOES NOT MATTER for the purpose of this discussion what it takes to get YOUR vote.

    Come on. You can do better.

    Try again and actually answer the questions instead of recycling previously answered excuses to avoid answering the questions.

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    I said it above and I'll say it again..

    When you get PRESCIENT, you don't fool around!!! :D

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    While I was not wrong that they were easy questions to answer, I was wrong to think you might actually answer them instead of recycling more excuses to avoid the issue.

    Hi, this is Weigantia-2018...

    Welcome...

  138. [138] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (137)-
    Yeah, I know.

    To be honest, I didn't really expect a real answer but I do like to encourage and give people the opportunity to do the right thing.

    (Nod, nod, wink, wink, CW!)

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did I mention I am loving every minute of it??

    https://youtu.be/bohVV_KlSHw

    :D

  140. [140] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Just happen to have Eurotrip on and I'm sure Scotty would support One Demand but- Scotty doesn't know.

  141. [141] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale: At least when you are not attacking political opponent's grandchildren...

    More gaslighting and goading from the trolling wing of Weigantia.

    Russ: Oh how cute, you think I consider you an “opponent”! Bless your heart!

    I agree with Russ, and I would add that a gaslighting troll is never an "opponent," since they are just looking to gaslight and troll... hence the name "gaslighting troll."

    And my comment was that I hoped Karma treated your grandchild better than what you were wishing on immigrant children seeking asylum. If that’s an attack on your grandchild, then quit being a hate-filled bigot. Show kindness, karma pays you back in kindness.

    Everyone knows you didn't attack his grandchild, Russ, including the "gaslighting troll." He's just hoping that if he repeats this bullshit enough times that people will believe it. It's a form of gaslighting wherein you play the perpetually aggrieved victim and hope that everyone buys into the bullshit... very much like the Trumpian manta of "fake news" and "no collusion."

    While that bullshit might work for Trump with those of lesser minds, obviously, it's not going to work for the trolling types here who have made the incorrect conclusion that the majority on this board shares their level of intellect. :)

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh!!! Oh!!!!

    I know!!! I know!!!

    Ya'all can start spewage about Russian Collusion!!! :D

    THAT will make ya'all feel better.. :D

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

    "Khan... I am laughing at the superior intellect.."
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    :D

  143. [143] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    91

    And BTW, I expect to have to fund my own pension and a large part of my healthcare because your generation ran up huge deficits that me and my kids, and most of the people around here are going to have to pay off.

    Amen, brother. DOBA :)

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno..

    Since the Democrat "Rock Star" has called for violence and harassment against Trump supporters..

    How far with Dems go to block GOP Senators from traveling to the Senate to approve Kennedy's replacement???

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    110

    There are many places across the internet(s) where a disgraceful comment like [97] but, CW.com is most decidedly not one of them.

    Well obviously it is because you just read it here.

    First Amendment rights, Elizabeth. We are using them while we still have them.

  146. [146] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks for missing the point, Kick.

  147. [147] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (147)-
    When someone is good at something they stick with it!

    (Just exercising my first amendment rights) :D

  148. [148] 
    Paula wrote:

    [120] Listen: When they overturn Gay Marriage I'll look forward to your glowing comments about Kennedy and his right to retire at this critical point in our history.

    Roe V. Wade will go down and a whole bunch of other things they have cued up.

    Kennedy was the deciding conservative vote on several things that will be seen, later, as bad. But not always. The next guy will be a 100% Scalia-scumbag.

    They will probably overturn elections so that DT can be dictator-for-life. But they'll be "civil" about it and that's what counts.

    Kennedy's tombstone will read: He Handed the Country to Traitors.

  149. [149] 
    Paula wrote:

    [145] Kick: She makes me tired.

  150. [150] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    crap. hopefully some comment caught in the filter will be added so that 147 will be the right number.

  151. [151] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    146

    Thanks for missing the point, Kick.

    You sure do post that comment a lot, particularly when a poster disagrees with anything you have to say, but I'll let you in on a little secret... and by "little secret," I mean something that's overwhelmingly obvious: The majority of your comments are not generally the least bit complicated.

    No offense, but approximately 90% of your posts are seeking to censor other posters, while the other approximately 10% are of the condescending and enabling variety so not at all that difficult to comprehend. :)

  152. [152] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    145

    She makes me tired.

    I suspect she makes a lot of other posters tired also... redundancy will do that; although I for the life of me cannot fathom why she believes it is her duty to police the board. Is there something I missed?

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    First Amendment rights, Elizabeth. We are using them while we still have them.

    While you try to deny them to those you disagree with..

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is there something I missed?

    Oh, most definitely..

    The way things USED to be in here prior to your arrival...

  155. [155] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    147

    When someone is good at something they stick with it!
    (Just exercising my first amendment rights) :D

    So Don is under the mistaken impression that people are missing his simple little point too?

    ***** Spew alert. *****

    I can't stop laughing. :)

  156. [156] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    153

    While you try to deny them to those you disagree with..

    More projection from Michale... shocker! :)

    Now who was it who promulgated rules for the entire board wherein posters would be banned according to his wishes and then set out to recruit his enabler to come to his aid to enact his list of demands?

    Pity the gaslighting and goading not working so much for you around here anymore, iddn't it? :)

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, to recap...

    Democrats have been vilified and castigated for advocating and committing acts of violence and harassment against Trump supporters...

    Democrats lost in the Texas Gerrymandering case..

    Democrats lost in the California abortion cases..

    Democrats lost in the Travel Ban case..

    Democrats lost in the Union/Dues case...

    Seems to me that Democrats have been bitch-slapped to hell and back.. :D

    Scratch that.. They HAVEN'T come back yet..

    Because President Trump gets ANOTHER SCOTUS pick.... :D

    What a beautiful week this has been!!! :D

  158. [158] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    154

    Oh, most definitely..

    The way things USED to be in here prior to your arrival...

    These boards are archived in their entirety. If you miss the "way things USED to be in here," you are free to go read the archives... you and everyone with a keyboard and an Internet connection. :)

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    These boards are archived in their entirety. If you miss the "way things USED to be in here," you are free to go read the archives... you and everyone with a keyboard and an Internet connection. :)

    As usual, you completely miss the point.. It has to be willful with you...

    https://youtu.be/U_A8bFsBKTs

    "Ya gonna cry??? Ya gonna squirt some?? Yea, yea.. yer gonna cry.. Thought so..."

  160. [160] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    You have your opinion that you do not miss the point, I have my opinion that you often do.

    This is as case of different people drawing different conclusions from looking at the same thing.

    But anyone can go back and look at the archives and draw their own conclusion. I am confident that any objective observer would agree with me that you often miss the point, though it may often be just a ploy to avoid addressing the point and not total lack of comprehension.

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula and Kick.

    I am trying to make this a fun and better place to be - for an intelligent exchange of ideas and for a muscular debate on the issues. All of which can happen without asinine name-calling or calling a supreme court justice's life disgraceful.

    Why don't the both of you try to work with me on this?

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    159

    As I suspect is the case with the majority of posters on this board, I don't click on any of your links. Enjoy hunting them up and posting them, though. :)

    As usual, you completely miss the point.. It has to be willful with you...

    I am not constrained to point out that the only one who misses the points you believe you are making is probably yourself. :)

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why don't the both of you try to work with me on this?

    Oh!!! Oh!!! I know!!! I know!!!

    Because they hate... And they want to ensure that everyone hates as much as they do..

    They want to insure that Weigantia is a nothing more than another Left Winger bastion of hate and intolerance and bigotry....

    But we won't let that happen... :D

  164. [164] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    160

    You have your opinion that you do not miss the point, I have my opinion that you often do.

    Well, I'll let you in on a little secret, Don (and this one really is a secret... up until now). I actually agree with about 90% of what you post. Seriously. You and I just have a slight difference of opinion on your way of going about what you're doing and/or trying to do.

    This is as case of different people drawing different conclusions from looking at the same thing.

    Probably less than you know.

    But anyone can go back and look at the archives and draw their own conclusion. I am confident that any objective observer would agree with me that you often miss the point, though it may often be just a ploy to avoid addressing the point and not total lack of comprehension.

    I am tricky that way, Don. Comes from years of training. :)

  165. [165] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You are as much part of the problem here as any of us and you seem to relish in trying to make things harder than they need to be. :(

  166. [166] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    161

    I am trying to make this a fun and better place to be - for an intelligent exchange of ideas and for a muscular debate on the issues.

    Censorship regarding opinions that pertain to extremely current events is a surefire way to discourage muscular debate on this issues. For instance, Russ saw what Paula wrote and replied back with his opinion. I enjoyed it.

    All of which can happen without asinine name-calling or calling a supreme court justice's life disgraceful.

    If you believe a supreme court justice's life is disgraceful, then voicing that opinion can lead to muscular debate... could it not? You must allow people to vent and move on.

    Why don't the both of you try to work with me on this?

    I cannot speak for Paula, but I will say I enjoy reading her posts regarding political issues and do not wish to see her posts constantly censored by you. She has a unique way with words that I would not wish to see expunged and/or censored in order to appeal and/or cater to the tender sensibilities of others. :)

  167. [167] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not censorship, Kick ... just common decency.

  168. [168] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I understand this place may be beyond hope and you're right about one thing, Kick, in that it may very well be time for me to move on.

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    I understand this place may be beyond hope and you're right about one thing, Kick, in that it may very well be time for me to move on.

    Don't do that, Liz..

    Don't let them win...

  170. [170] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've already lost.

  171. [171] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    167

    Not censorship, Kick ... just common decency.

    Is it common decency, though, Elizabeth?

    UNLESS HE's DYING: Anthony Kennedy deserts America - hands it off to the traitors. May he go down in ignominy; may he be scorned for what's left of his disgraceful life.

    Although I certainly have no intentions of revealing my identity, I will happily divulge that I am not Anthony Kennedy, and I would wager that there is no other poster here who is... in fact... Anthony Kennedy.

    So how would that not be censorship to allow Paula to post regarding the aforementioned Mr. Kennedy? May he rest in peace... oh, wait... he's not dead... he only retired. :)

  172. [172] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, Kick, it's a lack of common decency.

  173. [173] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you understand what I mean when I say common decency?

  174. [174] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I don't mean move on from this thought-provoking blog and Chris's excellent pieces, just from most of the comments.

    Can't get rid of me that easily. :)

  175. [175] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    173

    Do you understand what I mean when I say common decency?

    Did you understand what I meant when I said your posts are not really all that complicated?

  176. [176] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me spell it out ... referring to a supreme court justice - or, anyone for that matter - when wishing scorn on the rest of his disgraceful life is the opposite of human decency.

    One can voice their concerns about the actions of Justice Kennedy without wishing him scorn for the rest of his disgraceful life.

    Comments like that don't belong anywhere but, certainly not here.

  177. [177] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    176

    Let me spell it out ... referring to a supreme court justice - or, anyone for that matter - when wishing scorn on the rest of his disgraceful life is the opposite of human decency.

    So you wish to expunge comments regarding a United States Supreme Court Justice that do not meet with your definition of "human decency"?

    Well then I rest my case... your issue is censorship. :)

    One can voice their concerns about the actions of Justice Kennedy without wishing him scorn for the rest of his disgraceful life.

    I'm not sure I would agree with your characterization above that Mr. Kennedy's life has been "disgraceful" so I have two choices. I can either attempt to censor your language or have a muscular debate regarding your comment like Russ chose to do.

    So which one is it that you prefer to do and have chosen to do so unabated for years wherein Paula is concerned?

    Comments like that don't belong anywhere but, certainly not here.

    So I will say again, you wish to censor Paula's comments, while I enjoy them immensely and wish you to stop trying to censor her. Case closed.

  178. [178] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    GOOD GOD KICK - IT WAS PAULA WHO SAID THAT ABOUT JUSTICE KENNEDY!!!

    I'M DONE WITH YOU.

  179. [179] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    BTW, it's called COMMON human decency for a reason.

    I hope you can recognize common human decency when you see it ... and when you don't.

  180. [180] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    178

    GOOD GOD KICK - IT WAS PAULA WHO SAID THAT ABOUT JUSTICE KENNEDY!!!

    Of course it was, but then you repeated it multiple times... and repeated it and repeated it and repeated it... thus making it a hard sell if you wished to convey that you had a problem with using it.

    As an aside... there's really no need to shout your responses because "common decency."

    Did you miss my point that if "muscular debate" was actually your issue, that rather than trying to censor her for the 1000th time, you could have chosen to respond to her issue in the manner that Russ did?

    I'M DONE WITH YOU.

    Oh, good. Could you possibly extend that same courtesy to Paula and cease and desist in your repeated efforts to censor her? She is correct that it's tiring. Allow yourself to stop doing it, please.

  181. [181] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    It appears from my perspective that Liz is not suggesting censorship, but is suggesting self-censorship, self-control or something that is a little of both.

    It could be that the tone of Paula's comments are tiring for Liz.

  182. [182] 
    Paula wrote:

    Kick: Thanks for all the kind remarks!

    Liz: Buy more smelling salts. Block me if it makes you feel better - my life is definitely better since I re-blocked the M-troll.

    Or whatever. But your tut tutting to me is exactly as effective as your pleas to the M-Troll to play nice.

    As for making this a more fun place -- I get it. But I'm watching my country descend into fascism and it isn't FUN. Bring that up again AFTER the criminal-in-chief is gone - if we survive until then. Then we can have a courteous discussion about "common decency" - which has been abandoned by the GOP and DT and their barbaric followers.

    As for Justice Kennedy? Gloves.Are.Off. My country is under siege and that bastard said to the Nazis coming over the border: "Let me help you". And, you know? Sometimes for people in key places, one act of treachery overwhelms everything else they've ever done. That's the price you pay when you hold positions of great power and take actions that have immense consequences. That's why people (Americans anyway) have heard of Benedict Arnold.

  183. [183] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    181

    It appears from my perspective that Liz is not suggesting censorship, but is suggesting self-censorship, self-control or something that is a little of both.

    Censorship, self-censorship... you're making my point, Don.

    It could be that the tone of Paula's comments are tiring for Liz.

    I would wager that if Liz is able to read the contents of a post she is equally able to read the name of the poster that is conveniently located in the top left-hand corner of every comment box and move on.

    If she is unable to restrain her eyes, then there is always the Tamper Monkey device of Charles Brown Esquire that will easily perform the task for her and... le voila... problem solved.

    Of course, she is also free to continue her attempts at censorship regarding political issues, but I obviously wish she would cease in her constant and repetitive attempts to censor Paula's views in that regard because I enjoy them immensely. :)

  184. [184] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    182

    Kick: Thanks for all the kind remarks!

    You're welcome.

    As for Justice Kennedy? Gloves.Are.Off.

    I would wager that Mr. Kennedy has very tiny hands. Of course, I am joking.

    My country is under siege and that bastard said to the Nazis coming over the border: "Let me help you".

    Yes, ma'am... as well as the communists who as we speak endeavor to destroy our democracy.

    And, you know? Sometimes for people in key places, one act of treachery overwhelms everything else they've ever done. That's the price you pay when you hold positions of great power and take actions that have immense consequences. That's why people (Americans anyway) have heard of Benedict Arnold.

    Yes, ma'am, and it's for an equally heinous reason that I have and will always refer to Donald J. Trump as "Benedict Donald." Stay tuned.

    She can easily skip your posts rather than constantly and incessantly attempt to censor you. Michale goads and gaslights her to censor the posters he doesn't like, and she obliges him and enables his gaslighting and attempts to control the dialogue. He doesn't really wish to discuss issues; he wishes to gaslight and troll the entire board as well as individual posters. Is it any wonder people leave this board on a regular basis when Michale won't allow them to dialogue? It's an issue of "control;" otherwise there wouldn't be the constant prattling on and on about having the "upper hand" and "letting them win."

    It's not a contest; it's a political chat board. Let there be more political speech and less gaslighting and attempts to thwart everyone's attempts at political dialogue. Sheesh!

    Just my 2 cents... okay, maybe 2-1/2 cents. :)

  185. [185] 
    Paula wrote:

    [184] Kick: It's not a contest; it's a political chat board. Let there be more political speech and less gaslighting and attempts to thwart everyone's attempts at political dialogue. Sheesh!

    Yep!

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let there be more political speech

    yes.. Let there be more political discussion and less gross and perverse attacks..

    Liz is right, Paula is completely out of control and you are running a close second..

    Weigantia has always been a spirited and lively place..

    You and Paula and your kind has made it mean and nasty..

    What you call "censorship" is nothing more than a plea for some common decency..

    Liz may be more vocal than most, but at least she doesn't threaten to DOX commenters and commenters' families..

    [Editor's note: The above comment has been edited by request of the original poster. "Does" was changed to "doesn't" (in bold, above) which changes the meaning of the entire sentence.]

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny..

    When Kennedy was ruling the way Demcorats wanted him to rule, he was the cat's meow.. He was a Dem hero..

    When Kennedy makes a decision that you ignorant Democrats (ya'all know who you are) don't like then he is vilified and demonized and attacked and even his manhood is questioned..

    It's scumbags like those who are the problem here in Weigantia... They should really just leave because they serve no purpose here other than to cause strife..

  188. [188] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    186, 187

    Liz is right, Paula is completely out of control and you are running a close second..

    Pot-kettle :)

    What you call "censorship" is nothing more than a plea for some common decency..

    She is constantly hounding Paula about language while ignoring your posts where you routinely refer to others as "scumbags."

    Pot-kettle :)

    Liz may be more vocal than most, but at least she does threaten to DOX commenters and commenters' families..

    Freudian slip? Pot-kettle. Do as I say, not as I do. No one has to "dox" your family nor ever claimed they would and would never have need of that; you've taken care of that quite nicely and on multiple occasions ad nauseam. You want to whine to somebody about it? Check your mirror.

    It's funny..

    When Kennedy was ruling the way Demcorats wanted him to rule, he was the cat's meow.. He was a Dem hero..

    When Kennedy makes a decision that you ignorant Democrats (ya'all know who you are) don't like then he is vilified and demonized and attacked and even his manhood is questioned..

    Now, now... "common decency." You're hurling out personal insults against posters that go against the rules you invented so you could have people silenced off the board; people will think you're a hypocrite and really don't mind personal insults.

    You obviously haven't got a clue what "demonized" means, and I made a joke about Kennedy's hands so obviously you must blow that out of proportion because gaslighting is what you do here.

    It's scumbags like those who are the problem here in Weigantia... They should really just leave because they serve no purpose here other than to cause strife..

    Yes, Michale... it is totally transparent and everyone "gets it" that your aim is to have posters banned from the board. That ploy is obvious. Get over yourself. Would you like some more cheese with your whine?

    Please keep hurling out the personal insults toward other posters and prattling on and on incessantly about hypocrisy while whining endlessly about other posters' lack of "common decency" and promulgating rules for everyone else while you carry on with your regular name calling and obvious gaslighting and trolling BS as usual. :)

  189. [189] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks, Chris.

  190. [190] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [2] -

    Unfortunately, there's no constitutional remedy for "one branch refuses to do its job"...

    Kick [6] -

    Great LBJ quote. Hadn't heard that one in a while, and it's a good one to remember. Just had to say that.

    Kick, neilm [7, 8] -

    And please remember, that'll only be the first of his trials. Wonder how prison life is treating him? Even in a country club prison, it's got to be a shock from where he was previously...

    LizM [9] -

    Nope. Anything is possible in US politics, even a Trump second term. But we're way too far away to even think about it yet...

    Michale [12] -

    Dunno what you're complaining about, that's the view of SCOTUS and the Constitution I've always maintained. It is whatever 5 of them say it is, period. At least for the time being...

    As for that McConnell bit you quoted, I think you missed a point. The first nuke I spoke of was Harry Reid getting rid of the filibuster on federal judges. At the time, McConnell decried it to the skies as (as you put it) "horrendously bad" but then when he took control of the Senate, it wasn't just peachy with him, but he went a step further (in other words, doing exactly what you just denounced Dems for doing). The whole Merrick Garland thing happened a lot later... you're mixing your arguments...

    I won't say dick if the Dems take the Senate (a BIG if in the here and now) and try the same trick

    Hoo boy, I gotta bookmark this comment, so I can remind you of it later!

    :-)

    C. R. Stucki [18] -

    BWAH hah hah! Now THAT was funny!

    Plus, I loves me some pedantry about punctuation...

    :-)

    Don Harris [19] -

    Let's reword that a bit:

    Really, DH?

    Is this what we can expect for the rest of eternity- repeating the same old bullshit with another plug-your-obsession article that you have not probably but definitely written many times over the years?

    Your message will only convince those you've already convinced. It ignores the very people that you need to convince- you know those of us that don't believe in one man's monomania.

    There! Much better!

    ListenWhenYouHear [78] -

    Amen.

    :-)

    Michale [115] -

    I've conceded nothing of the sort. The Senate will be an uphill climb, that's for sure, but it's not out of the question. Anything can happen in 4 months, please remember...

    Michale [136] -

    Sometimes I get unlucky, and the news obliterates the article I just posted. Sometimes, however, I get lucky and the news just makes it all more important.

    Got lucky this time around, but certainly can't claim any foresight of what was going to happen...

    LizM [168] -

    Surely not "beyond hope"! You would indeed be missed if you left, by me at any rate...

    :-)

    [174] -

    Even so, you'd be missed in the comments...

    Paula [182] -

    I totally get your point about this not being fun. It's serious stuff, no doubt. And it provokes an emotional reaction. I didn't have any problem with your original comment -- scorn and disgrace is not the same thing as violence, which is where I personally draw the line...

    "Are we having fun yet?"
    -Zippy The Pinhead

    LizM [189] -

    You're welcome! The meaning changed so much, it was a worthy correction to make...

    OK, that's it... I'm gonna go watch Colbert now...

    -CW

  191. [191] 
    Paula wrote:

    [190] Chris: Thanks.

Comments for this article are closed.