ChrisWeigant.com

Progressives Have A Good Primary Night

[ Posted Wednesday, June 27th, 2018 – 16:31 PDT ]

I realize there is bigger news from the Supreme Court today, but since I wrote about them yesterday I'm not going to address Anthony Kennedy's retirement yet. Instead, I'd like to focus today on the latest round of primary election results, specifically from New York, Maryland, and Colorado. Because some big news was made within the Democratic Party last night.

New York's 14th congressional district generated the biggest news, as a 28-year-old newcomer beat a longtime Democratic Party bigwig in a stunning primary upset. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was outspent by incumbent Joe Crowley something like 17-to-1, but she still beat him by a comfortable margin. The district is majority-minority, so perhaps it was merely a matter of time before a person of color replaced an older white male, but nobody really expected it to happen this time around, least of all Crowley. He was fourth in line in the House Democratic leadership, and was even being talked about as a possible replacement for Nancy Pelosi, should she fail to get enough support to become speaker again.

Many are comparing his loss to Eric Cantor's primary loss to a Tea Party candidate, and there are indeed some similarities. Ocasio-Cortez calls herself a Democratic Socialist, and is unapologetic about supporting a whole raft of Progressive policies, from Medicare for all to free college tuition. She definitely ran to Crowley's left, and she beat him handily. Ocasio-Cortez is only the latest Progressive candidate in the mold of Bernie Sanders to advance in the primaries, but this ideological split within the Democratic Party is generally less contentious than the Tea Party-GOP establishment rift. Of course, this will only really become apparent if Democrats take the House or Senate back, because factionalism only becomes critical when the party is in the majority and gets to set the agenda.

A lot of people are drawing some fairly sweeping conclusions from this one victory, though. They should be careful, for many reasons. It is always almost impossible to predict a national trend from a single House race, because all the districts are so different in makeup. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be a terrible general election candidate for Democrats in, say, Oklahoma, but she's a great candidate for the New York district she's running in. There isn't even a question of whether she will prove to be "too liberal" for voters in November, because no Republican is going to beat a Democrat in this district (indeed, the national Republicans aren't even bothering to contest this district, because they know it would be a waste of their time and money to do so). So nominating a fire-breathing Democratic Socialist in one of the bluest districts in the country is actually a pretty good fit right now. But it doesn't mean Democrats overall are throwing away chances to pick up swing districts with too-liberal candidates, so that conclusion is a false one to arrive at. Districts are different everywhere, meaning candidates must match their district rather than play out some pundit's prediction of "what's going on across the country," to put this slightly differently.

But the Ocasio-Cortez upset victory is still big news. An entrenched establishment Democrat just got badly beaten -- the first such Democrat to be successfully "primaried" in this election cycle. This doesn't happen very often. Especially since Ocasio-Cortez was so heavily outspent -- proving once again that money doesn't always automatically translate to victory. Sometimes a good and hardworking candidate can overcome a lopsided disadvantage in campaign funds. Which, from all accounts, is precisely what happened here.

The Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party had a good night all around, actually. So far in this election cycle, they've had rather mixed results -- some Bernie candidates have won their primaries, but a lot of others have not. This is probably a good thing overall, because nominating fire-breathing liberals to districts where they are a mismatch would indeed jeopardize the chances of Democrats taking back control of the House. Going back to Howard Dean's famous 50-state strategy, if Democrats truly want to compete everywhere, then they've got to carefully choose their candidates to match the constituencies. Which means Bernie-endorsed candidates will probably see more wins and losses along the way. The shift to a Progressive agenda within the Democratic Party is happening, but it is happening slower in some areas than in others -- which is how it should be, really, if you care more about Democrats' overall chances nationwide than remaining pure to one particular ideology.

Still, last night was a good one for Bernie. In Maryland, former N.A.A.C.P. leader Ben Jealous won the nomination for what will be a very tough governor's race. Maryland is a fairly blue state, but they've currently got a Republican governor. He's done a good enough job there to retain fairly high job approval from Maryland voters, so it'll be tough to beat him in November. Ben Jealous beat out a Democratic Party establishment candidate in a race that was seen as a contest between Progressive energy and enthusiasm versus big money and centrism. Jealous is also an unabashed liberal who believes elections can be won by championing a solid liberal agenda, so the general election race will be a test of moderate Republicanism versus a real Progressive. As such, it will be a race to watch this November. Also of note: Jealous would be the first African-American governor of Maryland, if he wins.

The third big win for Progressives came in Colorado, as Jared Polis picked up the nomination for governor. If he wins, he will be the first openly gay governor elected in American history (there have been others who became governor by succession or appointment, so he won't actually be the "first gay governor"). His win was another one where Progressives beat out well-funded establishment Democrats. Polis is well-known in Colorado politics, and has a very good shot at winning in November in this increasingly-blue state.

What I'll personally be watching in this race is how the issue of marijuana will help Polis. In the House, Polis has been an absolute champion of the marijuana legal reform movement, pushing Congress away from the War On Weed and towards sanity in federal marijuana laws. This makes him an extremely good match for Colorado, since it was one of the first two states to legalize recreational use. The current governor, John Hickenlooper, was against legalization, so this will be the first time Colorado Democrats get a chance to vote for a real legalization proponent for governor (Hickenlooper is term-limited, which made this an open race). The "weed vote" has never really been accurately measured as a force in American politics, but this race could add some data to efforts to do so.

So, in three separate races, Progressives scored big victories last night. All three have good chances of winning in November, although Ocasio-Cortez is the only one who is almost assured a victory. Polis has a good shot at an open seat, but Jealous has a steeper hill to climb to unseat an already-popular incumbent governor, even if he is a Republican in a Democratic state.

One good night doesn't mean a nationwide shift or open warfare among Democratic factions, though. Progressive candidates won nominations for races that they could in fact win in November. This doesn't mean that Progressives will win all their primaries everywhere -- in fact, quite a few of them have already lost, and more will lose before primary season is over. The voters in each district and each state must decide for themselves how far left they wish to tack this time around, and if a candidate is too far left for the voters then it's probably a good thing they lose in the primary rather than blow a general election that a more-moderate Democrat might have won.

There are no easy conclusions to draw from last night that will universally apply across the country, in other words. The Democratic Party's shift to the left continues, but it is a more subtle shift than what the Tea Party did to the Republican Party. Progressives have been winning some races, but more importantly they've convinced the party as a whole to adopt a much more dynamic and forward-looking agenda. Positions that Bernie Sanders held in 2016 were at the time considered by many to be too fringe or too extreme for the party as a whole, but that dynamic has now completely changed. Now economic populism has gained broad acceptance within the Democratic caucus, and most of Bernie's positions can now be said to be mainstream Democratic positions. That is a victory of a different sort than the hostile takeover of the GOP by the Tea Party.

Importantly, the Democrats seem to be coming together around both Progressive and establishment candidates. Beating Republicans is an overarching goal shared by all, to put this another way. Whether that means you might have to vote in your particular district for a candidate who is, for you, either too liberal or not liberal enough isn't likely to keep many Democrats from voting this time around. Progressives had a good night last night, but they've also chalked up plenty of losses during primary season as well. So far, both moderate voters and liberal voters seem to be taking these results in stride, and the chances for big Democratic turnouts in November only seem to be increasing. That's good news for all Democrats, really.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

173 Comments on “Progressives Have A Good Primary Night”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: I realize there is bigger news from the Supreme Court today, but since I wrote about them yesterday I'm not going to address Anthony Kennedy's retirement yet.

    Okay, but just so you know: You are required to do so in the near future. Just kidding... I think. :)

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was outspent by incumbent Joe Crowley something like 17-to-1, but she still beat him by a comfortable margin.

    Did you see her campaign ad? She is a force to be reckoned with. :)

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So a candidate doesn't have to raise equal amounts of money to win.

    It can also be about the kind of money the candidate raises.

    Another example of something actually happening that hadn't happened before and/or wasn't expected to happen.

    Note: while Ocasio-Cortez may represent the Bernie Wing of the party, according to the email from Brand New Congress she is one of their candidates, though I'm sure it is possible she was also endorsed by Our Revolution.

    So having a national organization to support small contribution candidates can help.

    You were right to point out how this may not play out as some might expect or hope in the general election.

    While the "weed vote" has never been accurately measured, the small contribution model proposed by One Demand has never been measured at all. 2018 is as goods a time as any to begin measuring so we can find out if it can be a force in our political process.

    The last time I checked, the 60% that support some form of legalization is less than the 80% that want the Big Money out of politics.

    As long as you are putting off articles this week, why not put off articles in favor of an article about One Demand for a day?

    So many other dynamics have changed recently that every possible approach should be explored no matter how impossible it seemed when you first heard about it or even right now.

    Fog may come on little cat feet, but it can disappear in the blink of an eye when exposed to a little sunlight.

    How much longer will you pretend to be a reality based blog while keeping citizens in the dark concerning the opportunity for citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections to take a firm stand against the Big Money interests in 2018 by participating in One Demand rather than waste their vote by not voting?

    "Let the midnight special
    shine a light on me."
    -Credence

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-

    OOOOH...OOOOH....OOOOH!

    Can I require that CW write about One Demand, too?

    Note: You are NOT required to answer. It's really a rhetorical question. :D

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    4

    Can I require that CW write about One Demand, too?

    What is it exactly that you think you've been doing for over two years now?

    Note: You are NOT required to answer. It's really a rhetorical question. :D

    I'm not required to answer? Well then, perhaps CW is not required to answer either or... wait for it... perhaps he already responded. :)

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    Contrary to popular belief... or what I believe to be popular belief... I am not remotely the unyielding and thoughtless person that I've been made out to be. The fact is, I am a highly persuadable person, but I confess that it does take a particular type of persuasion.

    I would wager that CW is no different. :)

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW- Your snap post-election analyses just keep getting better! Nice job with your Supreme Court precognition too.

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    What exactly have I been doing the last two years?

    Have you not been paying attention or did you miss that, too? :D

    I have been asking, requesting, encouraging, suggesting, challenging and persisting in attempting to get CW to address One Demand.

    I may have at times been annoying and/or insulting when being nice did not work.

    But never requiring or even demanding, though I may have a few question whether I should make it a demand.

    I am wagering that CW is different and will eventually come back from the dark side. And I can lose that wager every day until the day when I win and it will be worth the effort even if I never win.

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    ooops
    "...may have a few times questioned..."

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And if CW responded, which is a matter of perspective of a response vs. an adequate response, he is capable of recognizing changing circumstances and dynamics and changing his mind, just as many have changed their minds about many other issues including but not limited to gay marriage, other lgbt issues and legalization of marijuana.

  11. [11] 
    Paula wrote:

    The primaries last night were encouraging - turnout numbers for Dems were up in most places and down for Repubs in several.

    The mid-terms are everything now. Blotus and gang will continue to commit crimes and atrocities right up to the minute they are forced to stop. Repubs will not help. Dems are Sam and Frodo now, clawing our way up Mount Doom and in a few months we will know where we stand. Mueller is a wild card in all this of course, but he's going to have to act soon or he'll wait until after November.

  12. [12] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    I think Liz would approve of the tone of your comment, even if that wasn't your intention (and I'm not trying to imply that it wasn't).

    I would say however, that the Democrats are not Sam and Frodo. I would say they are more like the members of the group that were seduced by and thought they could control and use the ring that controls all the other rings- Big Money.

    One Demand is Sam and Frodo.

  13. [13] 
    Paula wrote:

    [12] Don: No, One Demand isn't Sam and Frodo because One Demand cannot possibly make any difference between now and November. Everyone running has already been fundraising and will be doing even more and they will have already planned how they're going to fundraise and One Demand isn't on their radar.

    The Dems are Sam and Frodo because, however weak or strong, fit or unfit, they are the framework through which DT/Repubs can be defeated, or not. They are doing the climb and they are doing it without One Demand.

    Sorry.

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    8

    Have you not been paying attention or did you miss that, too? :D

    I didn't miss a thing. ;)

    I have been asking, requesting, encouraging, suggesting, challenging and persisting in attempting to get CW to address One Demand.

    When did all this happen?

    I may have at times been annoying and/or insulting when being nice did not work.

    I agree with that.

    I am wagering that CW is different and will eventually come back from the dark side.

    There is generally no "light" or "dark" side, Don, just multiple shades of gray pretty much everywhere... my opinion.

    And I can lose that wager every day until the day when I win and it will be worth the effort even if I never win.

    When you put it that way, then you really can't lose no matter what, can you, Don? Good plan.

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    There are opinions, then there is right and wrong.

    In this case, you are wrong. Sam and Frodo are trying to destroy the ring of power and the Democrats are trying to use it.

    Defeating the Republicans does not defeat the evil the ring represents in this analogy- Big Money.

    I know it is your opinion that the Republicans are the only evil that matters, but you picked a bad analogy for that opinion.

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    There are many shades of grey- perhaps even fifty!

    There are even different ways to spell gray.

    CW is currently residing in the grey area that is almost black. I would encourage him to return to the gray area that is almost white.

    By the way, I have lots of good plans. Have you heard about One Demand?

  17. [17] 
    Paula wrote:

    [15] Don: doesn't matter how you see it. The Dems are in the arena. One Demand isn't.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    crap. wish I'd thought of it sooner.

    I should have put the Democrats are trying to use the ring just like they tried in 2016 with Hillary Gollum Clinton. :D

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Well I would agree that One Demand isn't in the arena.

    CW?

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    On your point that everyone running has already made their fundraising plans, it does not at this point in the campaign cycle make any difference to whether or not the citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections could participate in One Demand in 2018.

    The fact that are are no candidates is at this point a benefit as these citizens that are already registered to vote will only have to register on the website and vote in November. Most have to even invest any money in contributions to candidates.

    And any candidate at any point could make the commitment for the remainder of the campaign and citizens could decide if that was enough to support those candidates with votes or contributions in 2018.

    And since the Women's March was organized in about two months and required much more from citizens than just registering on a website that already exists and voting there is still plenty of time for this to catch on if CW writes about it.

    For example, someone wrote an article about Oprah running for president in 2020. Suddenly, CW and many others wrote articles about Oprah running for president in 2020.

    So CW could write about One Demand, the opportunity to mobilize the 2018 off year non-voters and the Ralph Nader petition.

    Someone else may also write about it and some people may sign the petition and Ralph could then write about it and/or discuss it on his radio hour.

    In just a few months it could attract enough participants to get 5, 10 or even 20% of the vote in 2018.

    Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't happen. But it can't happen if people don't know about it.

    Why do you oppose having this option in the arena for those that may want to participate, even if you don't?

    Why wouldn't it be better if the citizens that would not vote in 2018 participated in One Demand instead of not voting?

    What harm would it cause if they participated in One Demand instead of not voting?

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Supreme Court is going to give progressive politicians material to gin up the masses for a couple of decades. We've seen how the right has used progress to rile up grumpy folks who think the country has changed too much since they were 15 years old. Now we are going to see how riled up the other side are going to be when they see injustices heaped on them by the Supreme Court year after year.

    To CW's point yesterday, people vote for issues they care about. Progressives have not had to worry too much about the Supreme Court with the exception of Citizens United - this is going to change and the howls of rage are going to swing the political makeup of this country for a generation.

    Let's take Roe vs. Wade - at the moment it defines a right to choice for women up to 20 weeks. This has been pared down to the bare minimum in some states, and acts as a baseline to build on in others. There are two possible steps, firstly the baseline could be removed so states could ban abortion altogether if they wanted, while others could keep their current laws in place. The second step, and the one that the religious right are going to (over) reach for will be banning abortion altogether in the U.S.

    The second step will cause pandemonium. Look at Ireland - a country that just recently got out from under a virtual theocracy. The restrictions on women's rights were removed by a large majority. In advanced nations that can provide safe medical care, pushing desperate women into dangerous procedures. Here is a simplified list of the different levels of restriction around the World:

    1. Legal on request

    2. Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, health, rape, fetal defects, and/or socioeconomic factors

    3. Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, health, rape, and/or fetal defects

    4. Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, health, and/or rape

    5. Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, and/or health

    6. Restricted to cases of maternal life

    7. Illegal with no exceptions

    Currently we are at [1] in the above list. If the Supreme Court takes the first step I outlined above then states could choose levels [1] to [7] in the list. If the Supreme Court takes the second step, then they will force all states into level [7].

    This would be a disaster for right wing politicians as they will lose a galvanizing issue for their voting base and deliver an equal but opposite galvanizing force to progressives.

    I'm cynical and I suspect that the religious right will demand [7] but get a lot less to keep the issue as alive as possible. However if e.g. Alabama is allowed to go full [7], the locals will be a lot more difficult to get ginned up because California is still at level [1].

    Purple states will move up and down the levels as their electorate balances levels of anger pulling in either direction.

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Fix to above:

    In advanced nations that can provide safe medical care, pushing desperate women into dangerous procedures.

    Should read:

    In advanced nations that can provide safe medical care, pushing desperate women into dangerous procedures is not a vote winner (and, of course, is highly immoral).

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    So Don, you think the only reason that One Demand isn't sweeping the nation like wildfire is because CW won't write a column on it?

    Are you pestering other people as well as CW (and Ralph Nader, if my memory serves me)?

    Can you post a list of all the media outlets you are petitioning on a weekly basis to give One Demand publicity, or is it only CW?

    What is CW let's you write a column for a day he can't make it and the outcome is ... well, not wildfire? What is plan B?

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting graphic on workforce participation and opioid prescriptions.

    http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/opiod.png

    Just to annoy Michale, I'll point out that the laziest, most drugged out states are, of course, deep red ones.

    On a serious note, both of these figures could well have some common drivers, and I suspect one is the level of effective government in place. States that believe that all government is bad government, unsurprisingly, are unlikely to have good government.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party had a good night all around, actually.

    Except the Bernie Sanders wing never wins elections.. :D

    So, the FACT is, it was a real good night for the GOP.. :D

    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..

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Beating Republicans is an overarching goal shared by all, to put this another way.

    Spot on CW.

    This is the November Surprise for the Republicans. Of course, many have seen it already which explains the high drop out rate in the House. The blindly partisan can't or won't see it.

    I went on a public walking tour today and the guide was talking about a "spite wall" when one of the hikers, who was from England, mentioned that Trump had built a spite wall in Scotland on one of his golf courses (it turns out to be a 30' tall spite berm, rather than a wall). One of the locals asked the Brit if everybody hated Trump in Britain as well as here, and the whole group laughed. If I didn't hang around Michale I'd seriously suspect that nobody wanted this clown as President and that the whole 2016 election was proof of the multiple branching Universe theory and we are not on the sensible branch any longer.

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    So it looks like Trump is going to use the whole might of the U.S. economy to force the Iran sanctions. This is the first time that the U.S. economy has been weaponized this way, however often in the past it has been proposed.

    The rest of the World will understand that the U.S. can't be trusted to act as adults and will adjust accordingly, removing one of the most potent weapons in our diplomatic arsenal. This will be a long term disaster for America. Trump and his horde seem to believe that America has a right to be the economic and political leader of the World. They are all going to discover that it is far easier to denigrate strength than to build it.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just to annoy Michale, I'll point out that the laziest, most drugged out states are, of course, deep red ones.

    As usual, yer attempt to push my buttons is woefully out of date and flat out WRONG... :D

    Just like you were wrong about the Nork's LWR issue.. :D

    Just like you have been WRONG about everything to date..

    Nice try, Neil..

    EPIC FAIL

    Now, let's talk about that 7-2 GOP SCOTUS that is just around the corner??

    President Trump is well on his way to getting **FOUR** SCOTUS picks during his administration and this country will finally be on the correct track for DECADES to come!! :D

    Of course, I am just laying out all these FACTS to annoy you.. :D

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Republicans (who, remember, control the House, Senate and White House currently) have failed by a humiliating margin to pass their own immigration bills.

    "In a embarrassing defeat, more than 100 Republicans joined Democrats to reject the bill in a vote of 121-301. The measure was designed to meet Trump’s hardline vision of the US immigration system, including funding for a border wall and increased interior enforcement against undocumented immigrants."

    What a farce. This is "Repeal and Replace" all over again, but they didn't even need to "Replace" - all they needed to do was be nasty to brown-skinned people like Trump asked them to and they balked.

    What do you think they are scared of? Could it be something happening later this year?

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Several former law clerks have said that Kennedy, a nominee of President Ronald Reagan, preferred to be replaced by a Republican.
    https://apnews.com/43de809e3c144a1f9048055386394263/Justice-Kennedy-retiring,-giving-Trump-pivotal-court-pick

    Which is exactly as I said before..

    Despite his rulings that favored the Democrat agenda, Kennedy came in to the SCOTUS as a Republican and he will leave the SCOTUS as a Republican..

    And the SCOTUS will remain a Republican SCOTUS for the rest of our lives at least..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Republicans (who, remember, control the House, Senate and White House currently) have failed by a humiliating margin to pass their own immigration bills.

    Yer whining about a "do nothing" Congress!!???

    Yer REALLY scrapping the bottom of the barrel..

    Congress has been "do nothing" as long as Weigantia has existed!! :D

    But, I get it.. You are desperately grasping at ANY straw that will give you at least the slightest barest glimmer of hope.. I get it I really do.. And, if you weren't such a prick about pushing buttons, I might let you have that slight minuscule glimmer of hope in peace... :D

    What do you think they are scared of? Could it be something happening later this year?

    You mean the vaunted Blue Tsunami that has turned into a Red wave??? :D

    Face the facts, Neil. Democrats blew a HUGE lead and has pissed their chances away by attacking and demonizing the VERY voters that they will NEED in November..

    And NOW your Dumbocrats are advocating VIOLENCE and HARASSMENT against those very same voters!!!????

    On what PLANET is that a sound political strategy???

    Democrats are going to lose and lose big in 2018... It's going to be 2016 all over again.. :D

    Don't worry.. I'll be around to remind ya'all how wrong ya'all were.. AGAIN.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    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. :)

    Whew!! Had me worried for a second there.. :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FxP64-NrUaLo%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&key=uqFhlr6FIBZo5iTiSgsqMg&w=800&h=331

    I have to admit though.. President Trump was wrong about one thing..

    *I* am NOT tired of winning!! :D

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Pop Quiz:

    Singapore's per Capita GDP is:

    1. 50% of the U.S.
    2. The same as the U.S.
    3. 50% higher than the U.S.?

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    I do have to give credit where credit is due, however...

    Thank you Harry Reid for making this solid 5-4 GOP SCOTUS court possible.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Singapore's per Capita GDP is:

    As the desperation continues to rise, Neil starts comparing apples and alligators.. :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:
  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    Andrés Manuel López Obrador

    This might not be a politician we know well in the U.S. at the moment, but he is labeled "Mexico's Trump" (and they mean it not as in "Card" but as in "Idiot").

    I almost want him to get elected just to see the alpha male BS when there is the next summit.

    Some of Obrador's policies (as expressed by the loony right wing National Review):

    1. "Mexico has the right to monitor the status of its citizens living illegally in the United States"

    2. "[Mexicans] have a “human right” to enter the United States as they please." He followed this up with the declaration that this is a right “we will defend”.

    3. Obrador also urges his fellow Mexicans to “leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”

    This guy and Trump are a match made in heaven. Can you imagine the number of times per day the right wingers will need to change their diapers if this guy gets in.

    The election is July 1.

    Oh, as an afterword, Obrador is leading the field with 49.6% of the vote, with his next nearest rival at 27.4%

    I can't point to the National Review link because the nannybot stops them, but here are the polls in the Mexican election for your pleasure:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_general_election,_2018#/media/File:Tendencia_hist%C3%B3rica_de_la_intenci%C3%B3n_de_voto.png

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can't point to the National Review link because the nannybot stops them,

    Just use TINYURL to post NRO links.. :D

    Oh, as an afterword, Obrador is leading the field with 49.6% of the vote, with his next nearest rival at 27.4%

    If he wins, he will be the Cartel leader for Mexico..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kennedy’s absence will mark a sea change in American jurisprudence. Without him, the Supreme Court may well rule that women have no constitutional right to abortion access. Courts may chip away at same-sex marriage or overturn it altogether. Voting rights plaintiffs will have little hope of winning their battles against voter suppression. Victims of race and sex discrimination will face much rougher sledding at the court.

    This retirement sets up a huge battle in the Senate, where Republicans hold a slim majority. Trump is nearly certain to pick a doctrinaire conservative approved by the Federalist Society, the group that has selected most of his lower-court appointees. Republicans abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees during the fight over Justice Neil Gorsuch, so Democrats cannot blockade Trump’s pick. It seems inevitable that Trump will eventually get his candidate on the court. Once there, he or she will have an opportunity to overrule myriad liberal precedents and reshape constitutional law for decades.
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/justice-anthony-kennedy-retires-paving-way-for-trump-to-reshape-supreme-court.html

    This really isn't going to be the EPIC battle in the Senate that Left Wingers hope it will be.. Thanx to Harry Reid, Democrats are completely impotent to do anything about it..

    As long as President Trump sticks with the pre-determined list he has, the SCOTUS will become firmly GOP...

    And no amount of whining and crying and violence and harassment from Lefties will change that simple fact..

    It truly is a beautiful day in the neighborhood.. :D

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    If he wins, he will be the Cartel leader for Mexico..

    Ooh ... you've started already. This is going to be so much fun.

    Promise me you'll give me a weekly update on how much the right-wing echo chambers you inhabit lose their biscuits over Obrador :)

  42. [42] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump's only question for his SC nominees:

    "Can I pardon myself?"

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Promise me you'll give me a weekly update on how much the right-wing echo chambers you inhabit lose their biscuits over Obrador :)

    So, you want me to post MORE often???

    OK, but remember.. YOU asked for it.. :D

    heh

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, you want me to post MORE often???

    No, I want you to post once per week. I thought I'd made that clear: a weekly update ;)

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, Kennedy's retirement cements 2nd Amendment protections for the remainder of all of our lives and likely beyond..

    That alone is a good reason to have a smile on my face the rest of the day.. :D

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, SCOTUS undermined Unions. Nasty beasties.

    We now have a lunatic "businessman" with no understanding of the EPA picking a new SC judge.

    Here's how this works:

    1. Businesses aim to run at a profit.
    2. Thus they try to maximize revenues and minimize expenses (let me know if I'm going too fast for you here CRS?)
    3. They hire/promote managers to maximize profits
    4. The managers have to respect the laws of the land, e.g. dangerous chemical disposal rules.
    5. Shareholders vote on the efficacy of management by buying or selling shares.
    6. The managers will be replaced if they aren't maximizing profits.
    7. If the chemical disposal rules are eliminated because the SCOTUS deems them unconstitutional the managers know that their competition will lower expenses by dumping the dangerous chemicals somewhere cheap, let's say next to an elementary school (the better places will be snapped up first).
    8. Kids will start to get sick and die
    9. The right wing will be happy at last because they are getting government out of the way of free enterprise

    Isn't this fun?

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I want you to post once per week. I thought I'd made that clear: a weekly update ;)

    Well, the way I read it, you want me to ADD another topic to my posting repertoire... :D

    I dunno if I can oblige ya.. I am a very busy guy.. :D

    On another note, I think ya'all miss the forest for the trees with regards to the Kennedy retirement..

    As CW pointed out, NOTHING motivates voters like a SCOTUS... It's entirely likely that the SCOTUS is what gave President Trump his win.. Certainly one factor amongst many, but a factor nonetheless.. The entirety of the Right, INCLUDING NeverTrumpers, will now flock to the polls to ensure greater Republican majorities in the House and Senate..

    And Blue Senators from Red States will feel an IMMENSE pressure to vote for President Trump's pick or else be cast out in favor of the Republican candidate..

    So, Kennedy's retirement is a HUGE boon for the Republicans going into the mid-terms..

    This is the reality of Kennedy's retirement..

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, SCOTUS undermined Unions. Nasty beasties.

    Yep.. Unions had a purpose but now they are nothing but criminal organizations who have outlived their usefulness..

    SCOTUS ruling sets right what once was wrong..

    "Who gave you the right to go bungling around in time, putting right what I made wrong?!"
    -Evil Al, QUANTUM LEAP

    :D

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    Anybody who thinks [46] is fantasy should look at a few examples, here's one:

    https://qz.com/1200214/a-houston-company-dumped-cancer-causing-chemicals-into-a-neighborhood-storm-drain/

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale [47]

    I'm hungry. I vote for somebody that promises to feed me. I get fed. There is another election, and I'm not hungry any longer, but the food I got was taken from my neighbor who is now hungry.

    Who is going to vote in the next election?

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny.. During the Gorsuch nomination, I seem to recall telling Democrats that their best course of action would be to support Gorsuch, who they grudgingly admitted was a viable nominee and keep their nuclear filibuster dry for the NEXT nominee which will be so much more important..

    I said, at the time, that "yea", GOP could simply eliminate the filibuster like they did with Gorsuch.. But they would have a different climate and, if Trump would be as bad as the Dims claimed that he would be, then a filibuster MIGHT prevail on Trump's second nominee..

    But Democrats didn't listen and now they are faced with the EXACT scenario I outlined all those many months ago..

    A pick that will DEFINITELY and DEFINITIVELY change the make-up of the SCOTUS..

    And Democrats are COMPLETELY IMPOTENT to stop it..

    They were warned that this would happen..

    And now it has...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who is going to vote in the next election?

    People who want to see the SCOTUS move FURTHER to the Right and the people who want to slow down that inevitable movement.. :D

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    People who want to see the SCOTUS move FURTHER to the Right and the people who want to slow down that inevitable movement.. :D

    Doubtful. You are about to get clocked in the face by the pendulum swinging back if you don't duck Michale.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Doubtful. You are about to get clocked in the face by the pendulum swinging back if you don't duck Michale.

    Yea... And Hillary had a 98.8% chance of becoming POTUS... :D

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yea... And Hillary had a 98.8% chance of becoming POTUS... :D

    Exactly! How confident are you that Trump will win in 2020? 98.8%?

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is absolutely no doubt that the Dems will fail to take the Senate...

    Over 20 Dem Senators are up for grabs.. Most of those in Red States..

    You really have to appreciate their dilemma... If the vote FOR President Trump's nominee, their base will crucify them and they lose..

    If the vote AGAINST President Trump's nominee, their constituents will crucify them and they lose...

    So, I think you need to be realistic about things...

    The ONLY way the Senate can go is a bigger GOP majority..

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exactly! How confident are you that Trump will win in 2020? 98.8%?

    Probably closer to 120%.. :D

    And, since I was right before, no reason to think I won't be right again.. :D

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    And, since I was right before, no reason to think I won't be right again.. :D

    Sure. That is exactly how the World works.

    Say it with me..

    SENATOR ROY MOORE

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/12/07/maybe-al-franken-should-run-again/#comment-111874

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    Now that the conspiracy against Soon To Be Senator Roy Moore has been exposed, I am prepared to accept ya'all's concession that ya'all were wrong and I was right. :D

    Michale - just before being wrong.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/12/07/maybe-al-franken-should-run-again/#comment-111877

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    Congress approved funding for the Southern Border Wall...

    So, President Trump gets to make another mark in the WIN column.. :D

    Michale on 7/28/17 proving to everybody, yet again, that he is always right about everything.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/07/27/the-stupidest-press-conference-ever/#comment-106413

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    Tell me when you get tired of me winning Michale ;)

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tell me when you get tired of me winning Michale ;)

    If you insist.. :D

    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

    }*hugs*{ :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    SENATOR ROY MOORE

    The only reason Moore lost is because the Democrat was a better Republican than Moore.. :D

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    In other Trump Financial news:

    U.S. Steel (NYSE:X) is one of the largest potential beneficiaries of protective tariffs Trump announced.

    How has its stock been doing?

    A: Up 50%
    B: Up 25%
    C: Down 25%

    (Hint: This is Trump we are talking about, you know, the reverse Midas touch guy, who turned four of his daddy-funded businesses into bankruptcy all by himself.)

    (Answer: C)

    (And BTW Singapore's per capita GDP is 50% higher than the U.S.)

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting possibilities for the November midterms..

    The GOP will pick up a minimum of 4 seats..

    If everything goes the GOP (unlikely, but possible) the GOP picks up 9 seats..

    If McCain dies, another POTUS friendly Senator will be sworn in.

    That will give the GOP a filibuster-proof Senate and will allow President Trump nearly free reign in pushing the America First agenda...

    Yea, this summer is gonna be a wild ride!! :D

    Interesting to note.. This election will be the first time I vote GOP in a Senate race... :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    (Hint: This is Trump we are talking about, you know, the reverse Midas touch guy, who turned four of his daddy-funded businesses into bankruptcy all by himself.)

    And yet, polls that YOU swear by (when they say what you want to hear) say that the majority of Americans approve of President Trump's handling...

    That doesn't seem to support your opinion, Neil...

    How come?? :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:
  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Promise me you'll give me a weekly update on how much the right-wing echo chambers you inhabit lose their biscuits over Obrador :)

    Mexico goes to the polls this weekend. 132 candidates have been killed since campaigning began, per one count
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/americas/mexico-political-deaths-election-season-trnd/index.html

    It stands to reason, Neil.. If the Cartel allows this candidate to live, it's apparent that this is the Cartel's candidate..

    CHIEF: "I don't care, Max.. You're choosing Hymie as your best man!!"
    KOAS: "They finally picked the guy we want!!"

    -GET SMART, The Worst Best Man

    :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Feds to begin distributing grant money to non-sanctuary cities
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/27/feds-distributing-grant-money-non-sanctuary-cities/

    Courts ruled that, if you don't support Federal LEO in immigration matters, you don't get to suck off the government tit...

    Another win for President Trump and patriotic Americans...

    I am STILL not getting tired of winning.. :D

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK I am gonna try and cut ya'all some slack today.. I have TVs coming out my ass and I really have to organize things for the weekend..

    Please don't drag me back in.. I do actually need to work once in a while.. :D hehehehehe

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm (23)-
    Yes. CW is THE ONLY reason that One Demand has not caught on.

    In fact, everything that is wrong with the world (and several worlds we don't even know about yet) is directly attributable to CW's inaction on One Demand.

    And yes, as implied in your comment, when someone is persistent trying to get someone else to address an issue that the person does not address, it is the persistent person that is in the wrong.

    I appreciate that you want to contact all the other media that I have contacted to encourage them to cover One Demand, but please just start with CW for now and maybe the Nader petition.

    What is plan B? Gosh, I haven't thought that far ahead. It is inconceivable that it would not catch on and have 90% participation within hours of CW writing about it.

    I'll have to get back to you on that.

  72. [72] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [64]

    "How has USS stock been doing?" "Down 25%"

    It took me less than 30 seconds to discover that over the last month USS stock has declined from a high $37.5 to $34.5, a decline of $3/share, which computes (by the 'old math' of my school yrs) to 12$.

    Pathetic how some folks here can't deal with simple math!!

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    When you get back here, your first order of business will be to correct the last bit of

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/06/26/democrats-need-to-campaign-more-on-judicial-picks/#comment-121443

    What are you trying to do to me?!

  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [72]

    You need to read the details. Do you think I made the 25% number up (I rounded it down from 25.84% for nice round numbers).

    So, let's see, whose calculation do we agree with:

    A. Stock Times News
    B. A guy who thinks CPI isn't a measure of inflation

    (Hint: A. No, seriously A. I mean it is obvious, A.)

    http://stocksnewstimes.com/stockwatch/154145/guide-to-day-traders-united-states-steel-corporation-nyse-x/27/12/17/32/

  75. [75] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm (23)-
    Let me now provide a real answer to your comment just in case you didn't catch on to the sarcasm in comment 71.

    Is that the best you can do?

    That I am claiming CW is the only reason that One Demand has not caught on is just made up bullshit.

    You can't possibly be stupid enough to believe that making stuff up to avoid addressing the issue at hand is going to fly.

    Let's check out my options. I could keep trying to get CW, Ralph and others to address One Demand or I could not continue to try to get CW, Ralph and others to address One Demand.

    One option has a possibility of getting One Demand into the public discourse and one option doesn't.

    It makes no difference what else I do to try to get One Demand into the public discourse when the issue at hand is whether or not CW should write about it or at least address it in the comments or contact me directly about why he won't write about One Demand.

    Again with the bullshit to avoid addressing the issue at hand. Just another false equivalency argument.

    If CW writes about One Demand or offers me a guest column and it doesn't explode instantly there is no need to go to plan B because that is what is expected in plan A.

    You don't need to blow up a dam with enough explosives to bring it down instantly. A small charge can start a trickle that can grow and undermine the structural integrity of the dam and then suddenly become an avalanche of water.

    That is what is described in my comments, not the bullshit you are spouting to avoiding addressing the issue at hand.

    It is beneath you. It is even more disgraceful than the name calling.

    Man up and address the issues at hand.

  76. [76] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    A. I wouldn't know anything about "Stock Times News", never heard of 'em, but I happened to have TD Ameritrade on my screen when you posted, so I clicked on "USS over last 30 days, and up popped the numbers I posted. I didn't even have to do the calculation, so I'm betting most folks would go with Ameritrade.

    B. The "I" in "CPI" is NOT 'inflation', it's 'Index" (meaning 'measure')!!! The CPI measures (as its name indicate) "consumer Prices", nowhere in that name is the word 'inflation', and your problem is, you're too ignorant to understand that those terms are NOT synonymous!

  77. [77] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    BTW-
    The article I wrote and submitted yesterday was to Smerconish.com , in case you want to help by contacting them and encouraging them to publish the article.

    It is titled "A Golden Opportunity at the Midnight Hour- An open letter to Ralph Nader"

  78. [78] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Should you consider publishing a guest column as neilm suggested, I could send send you a copy of the article submitted to Smerconish.com to have on hand if they do not publish it first.

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, why not publish here, yourself ... in the comments section?

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You asked me before why McConnell should move on a SCOTUS pick with a mid-term election so close...

    Elena Kagan, August 2010....

    When you get back here, your first order of business will be to correct the last bit of

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/06/26/democrats-need-to-campaign-more-on-judicial-picks/#comment-121443

    What are you trying to do to me?!

    Not sure what you mean.. I was trying to point out ignorant and hypocritical Democrats who loved Kennedy when he did things they like, but attack him and vilify him in the most disgusting ways when he does things they don't like..

    And distinguish those hypocrites from those Lefties here in Weigantia who are more reasonable...

    If that message didn't come across as intended, my sincerest apologies...

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pity the Democratic senators such as Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.), who are running for reelection in states Trump won by double digits. Their political survival depends on being perceived as centrists, and they will now have to spend months campaigning while caught in the crossfire of a liberal-conservative battle royal over a Trump-nominated Supreme Court justice. Vote yes, and their liberal base will be apoplectic; vote no, and their pro-Trump constituents could revolt.

    For all these reasons, Trump’s appointee is likely to be confirmed. If that happens, Trump will have led one of the most consequential conservative presidencies in modern American history. Not only is Trump expanding the conservative Supreme Court majority, he is also moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will preside for decades. Imagine if it were Clinton making all these appointments. The consequences for human life, religious liberty, the Second Amendment and limited government would have been disastrous.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/to-the-voters-who-picked-trump-with-the-courts-in-mind-you-did-the-right-thing/2018/06/27/cf194204-7a53-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bcbb8a40f2d7

    I don't envy those Dem senators.. They are stuck between the proverbial rock and the proverbial hard place...

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Schumer Hadn’t Insisted On Filibustering Gorsuch He’d Be In A Much Better Position Now
    https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/27/schumer-hadnt-insisted-filibustering-gorsuch-hed-much-better-position-now/

    Exactly.. In their hysterical need to be all Anti-Trump, Democrats let their hysterical hatred and bigotry screw up their the long game..

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, read that comment again, especially the last sentence where you typed 'does' instead of 'doesn't'

    I think you should get Chris to fix it. I have a reputation to uphold, you know ...

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chuck Schumer made a terrible miscalculation in filibustering a qualified, bulletproof nominee like Neil Gorsuch when he was not changing the balance of the court. Now that the swing vote is up, a simple majority will decide the Kennedy seat. Dems have no options.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, read that comment again, especially the last sentence where you typed 'does' instead of 'doesn't'

    I think you should get Chris to fix it. I have a reputation to uphold, you know ...

    OHMYGODS!!!!

    Shit, Liz.. Sorry, sorry a thousand sorrys....

    I was looking at the wrong comment..

    CW, please please PLEASE change the "does" in line:

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

    .... to "doesn't" in comment

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/06/26/democrats-need-to-campaign-more-on-judicial-picks/#comment-121443

    Sorry, Liz.. A horrible HORRIBLE typo....

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Loooooong sigh.

    APPLE-ogies accepted. :)

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry, I couldn't resist, Michale ...

    Apologies accepted. And, don't worry if Chris can't fix it. No real harm done.

    Now, didn't you say you were going to give us a break today? :)

  88. [88] 
    Paula wrote:

    [20] Don: Why do you oppose having this option in the arena for those that may want to participate, even if you don't?

    I'm not against the option. I'm not "for it" in the sense that you have never convinced me it will work. But that's not the same as opposing it.

    But your saying that also irritates me in that it is a form of manipulation - it is dishonest. Most of your responses to people's saying, for the 900th time, to get off your ass and do the work instead of posting whines here about how we aren't doing it for you - are dishonest manipulations.

    Separately, the fact that you keep wanting Ralph Nader to do anything also indicates your finger is nowhere near the public's pulse.

    Nader is no longer influential and, indeed, he is despised by most of the Dem/Prog left. Few people care what he has to say about anything.

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    THE CIVIL WAR IS UPON US

    The Democrats just kicked out their fourth-ranking House member in favor of an avowed socialist who wants to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Seriously?

    This, along with the increasingly heated rhetoric comparing ICE and Border Patrol agents to Nazis (yes, these kids are totally illiterate and never learned one minute of history), suggests this civil war is going to only get worse.

    Or just listen to the loudmouth leaders of the Democratic Party today, actually arguing that the president of the United States somehow does not have the authority — let alone constitutional responsibility by oath — to make sure America’s enemies do not infiltrate our country so that they can wage some barbaric jihad against American citizens.

    Yes, this civil war is upon us.

    Ask House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who is still recovering from an assassination attempt by a disaffected Bernie Sanders supporter who plotted to kill dozens of members of Congress for being Republican.

    Yes, this civil war is upon us.

    And when you look around at Democratic leaders applauding and encouraging the open harassment of political opponents out in public, you know things are only going to get worse.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/27/new-civil-war-already-upon-us/

    It's going to get a LOT worse before it gets better...

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, I couldn't resist, Michale ...

    Apologies accepted. And, don't worry if Chris can't fix it. No real harm done.

    I feel really bad about that. My fingers just got ahead of my brain. Hopefully, CW can rectify that egregious bone head error I made...

    Now, didn't you say you were going to give us a break today? :)

    Yea, I am taking a beer-break.. We got a heat index of 102 today and I have to retreat to my work shop (an awesome 74 degrees :D) for lunch.. I'll be out of ya'all's hair again momentarily...

    :D

  91. [91] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    I don't see what difference it would make if I put an article here in the comments. It would not be anything that I haven't already posted here at one point or another.

    That is not the purpose of the comments section here.
    It is also not the issue at hand.

    I have provided many reasons why CW should address One Demand, but never got a complete discussion from CW on why he won't. The times he did attempt to address it he did not address what One Demand is, he misinterpreted and/or misrepresented what One Demand is and then did not continue the conversation when I pointed that out.

    But the issue issue at hand now is not just the overall idea of One Demand and whether CW addressed it all- it is the current opportunity to mobilize the 2018 off year non-voters to participate in One Demand instead of wasting their vote by not voting in 2018.

    It has been explained in previous posts how little effort it would require for these citizens to participate at this point in the campaign cycle.

    When CW wrote that it was six months to election day I pointed out this new dynamic and how this opportunity will not be available again until 2022.

    I pointed out how this was ignored in 2014 and how it contributed to the results in 2016.

    CW has not addressed any of this since then, so he has not addressed this AT ALL no matter what you think of his previous attempts to blow off One Demand with excuses based on misinterpretations and misrepresentations instead of reasons based on what One Demand actually is.

    And just like Trump was able to issue an executive order that he could have done all along, CW could, with a few strokes on his keyboard address these very real people in an article, the comments section or directly with me.

    And anyone commenting here could easily address the issues I am raising instead of finding excuses to avoid the issues at hand.

    As I said to neilm, avoiding the issues at hand is even more disgraceful than the name-calling whether it is from the commenters or from CW himself.

    You want a better comment section?

    Show everyone else how to have a conversation on a subject and address the issues at hand.

    Don't cop out with the same old "It's CW's decision what to write about" dodge.

    Say whether YOU think CW should write about or not write about it and why.

    Say whether YOU think the 20-30% of off year non-voters are real people or not and whether someone claiming a reality based blog should address those people if you believe they are real.

    Say whether YOU think it is possible if CW wrote about One Demand that some people might actually think it was a good idea and would decide to participate.

    Say whether YOU think that these non-voters participating in One Demand would be better than these citizens wasting their vote by not voting in 2018, and if not explain why not.

    Say whether YOU think it would cause harm if these citizens participated in One Demand instead of not voting, what that harm would be and why One Demand would be responsible for that harm.

    Lead by example.

  92. [92] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula (88)-
    More made up bullshit to avoid the issue at hand. Again.

    If you don't oppose people having the option, then you would have no problem with CW writing an article about it so we could find out if it could appeal to people?

    If so I will not repeat that you are opposed to One Demand and apologize for the misinterpretation.

    I hope that will will reciprocate and not repeat the dishonest portrayal that that I do not do anything to try and promote One Demand. I have provided many examples of other things and there are many things I have done that I have not posted here.

    And as pointed out many times previously- that is not anything but a false equivalency argument to avoid the issue at hand as to whether or not CW should address One Demand.

    Avoiding the issues at hand is more disgraceful than the name calling.

    See comments 75 and 91 and address the issues at hand instead of recycling already answered excuses.

    You can do better. All of you can.

  93. [93] 
    John M wrote:

    Regarding the Supreme Court, I have to point out here that Michale's glee could very well come back to bite him in the ass one day.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that sets the number of Supreme Court Justices at NINE. That is totally up to Congress.

    In fact, historically in the past, the Supreme Court has had as few as 7 Justices and as many as 10 Justices.

    There will be a Democratic Congress again. Just like there will be a Republican Congress again. There is nothing preventing a Democratic Congress from say, increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices to 11, and then packing those seats with Liberals.

    As for Michale's predictions, again I would caution, don't count your chickens before they hatch. Say it with me again Michale, Senator Doug Jones.

    Or as Trump put it "Be careful what you wish for." It's not only the right wing who carries guns. The radical Left also knows how to make bombs too.

    Your rhetoric and gloating are part of the problem Michale. You might very well wish into existence what you keep saying is a danger.

  94. [94] 
    Paula wrote:

    [92] Broken-Record-Don:
    If you don't oppose people having the option, then you would have no problem with CW writing an article about it so we could find out if it could appeal to people?

    I don't oppose it. I don't CARE about it. But CW has made his choice and I'm tired of you refusing to accept it. I also understand why he made that choice, because you have failed to make your case, not once, but literally hundreds of times.

    I can't stop you from whining and repeating failed arguments. I can weigh occasionally which I am doing, and now I'm done. It's a waste of time.

  95. [95] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    John [93]: Your rhetoric and gloating are part of the problem Michale. You might very well wish into existence what you keep saying is a danger.

    In this case John, the problem isn't Michale. As signs of the blue wave have grown, Rightie consultants have been telling Fox News and other partisans that nothing less than overheated and apocalyptic rhetoric would get their voters to the polls in November.

    What they're hoping for right now is for anyone, anywhere to threaten to take someone's guns away, so that they can scare the bejeesus out of those poor fuckers too, and run a full-spectrum wingnut campaign, as they did in 2016. Trust me, if they can't find a quote from Maxine Waters or John Lewis to that effect, they'll make something up, as sure as I'm sitting here.

    This, for them, is modern politics. They do not care, in the modern environment, whether the soft middle tilts in their direction or not. Those folks are more than made up for by the wingnuts who have suddenly become a part of the mainstream of Trump World.

    [SPOILER ALERT - if you're still binging WESTWORLD you might want to skip the next analogy..]

    Like Delores in Westworld, Trump has killed off all of the robots that aren't completely with him, and is herding the rest toward the Valley Beyond - a place where reality will never seep in to disturb them.

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    Broken record, Paula. Avoiding the issue again.

    TOO FUCKING BAD if you don't like that I refuse to accept a non-answer as an answer or just being completely ignored.

    You can weigh in whenever you want with bullshit to avoid addressing the issue at hand to make yourself feel better, but pretending that you are weighing in the on the issue at hand when you are avoiding is you wasting your own time.

    And it is disgraceful. Worse than name-calling.
    And proves that you are not capable of a counter argument because if you had one you wouldn't waste your own time avoiding the issue if you could actually address it.

    You were done before you ever started.

  97. [97] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthy-
    Imagine how surprised the Republicans will be when they get to the place where reality won't disturb them and find they have to share it with the Democrats.

  98. [98] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    As for me making my case or not, just because you say I didn't make my case doesn't make it true.

    But go ahead, make your case for why I haven't made my case. Oh wait, that's right- you can't because in order to do that you would have to actually address the issues at hand and not avoid addressing the issues.

    And you can't possibly know why CW has chosen to avoid addressing the issue any more than I can. Or are you really CW posing as a commenter?

    Only CW can know why he won't address One Demand and the issues at hand and why he is keeping it to himself.

    But we can speculate until he ends his disgraceful behavior of not responding.

    My best guess is he has seen that the bullshit he would use (which is what his previous comments were) does not work when the rest of you use it and he has nothing else. So he is just trying to run out the clock on 2018.

    If that is the case, all I can say to that is the same that I say to the rest of the chickens here- what courage!

  99. [99] 
    Paula wrote:

    [95] Balthasar: The crazy righties want a race war. They've said it. They want the excuse and they want official backing.

    Repubs are scoundrels and traitors but they value their own skins and don't really want shooting to start because if it does other people will shoot back and their (Repub) precious hides may get caught in the crossfire.

    Repubs want America's good guys to be afraid of Trumpnazi thugs - to remain submissive out of fear of the brownshirts.

    The question hanging is how many Trumpnazis will actually start shooting - the vast majority of them are keyboard terrorists who are physical cowards. But some are armed and crazy and vicious.

    Separately, history shows that repressed people eventually blow up. I would argue Dems have been repressed for years but especially since DT and are reaching the boiling point. Repubs have stated outright they don't represent Dems and, in fact, will do everything in their power to hurt Dems. Literally.

    But there are more of us than them.

    Repubs (those who aren't idiots) know this and know they're skating on thinner and thinner ice. But the idiot Repubs don't have the sense God gave rutabegas and they are actively fomenting violence.

    And none of us know how this story ends. But I will say this, Dems have legitimate reasons to feel themselves to be in danger and the instinct for self-defense is powerful.

  100. [100] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "...the vast majority of them are keyboard terrorists who are physical cowards."

    As opposed to those keyboard terrorists that don't even have the courage to address an issue with their keyboards?

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regarding the Supreme Court, I have to point out here that Michale's glee could very well come back to bite him in the ass one day.

    Of course, it COULD happen..

    But, when looking at the FACTS and REALITY, the ONLY thing that has come to bite someone on the ass is that Harry Reid's use of nukes have TOTALLY scroo'ed the Democrats..

    They are COMPLETELY impotent to stop or slow President Trump's SCOTUS pick.. :D

    There will be a Democratic Congress again.

    Unlikely in our lifetimes..

    Your rhetoric and gloating are part of the problem Michale.

    And ya'all's rhetoric and gloating has NOTHING to do with the problem??

    Yer very transparent, JM.. :D

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    In this case John, the problem isn't Michale. As signs of the blue wave have grown,

    For example????

    Yes, I am asking you for FACTS...

    You got any??

    No you don't..

    As a matter of FACT, there are signs that the blue wave is disappearing..

    Socialist candidates who want to abolish ICE are winning your primaries.. Candidates that have absolutely NO CHANCE of winning in the election..

    Republicans are going to pick up 6 seats in the Senate, possibly as many as 10.....

    The SCOTUS is going to be 6-3 in favor of the GOP within 6 months...

    Spin all you want, Balthy...

    But the fact is Democrats have had their worst week since the 2016 Election...

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another great has passed..

    RIP Harlan Ellison..

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    B. The "I" in "CPI" is NOT 'inflation', it's 'Index" (meaning 'measure')!!! The CPI measures (as its name indicate) "consumer Prices", nowhere in that name is the word 'inflation', and your problem is, you're too ignorant to understand that those terms are NOT synonymous!

    Who'd've known. Oh yes, everybody. The CPI is the most commonly used measure of inflation. This is finance 101 and isn't even up for discussion in normal circles.

    How accurately CPI measures inflation is definitely up for discussion, but that drifts into some deep realms beyond the common discourse. Mish Sherlock is all over this discussion if you are interested (you'd like him, he's a libertarian, or at least expounds libertarian views) over on mishtalk: (https://www.themaven.net/mishtalk)

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Five people were killed and an unspecified number of people were injured in a shooting Thursday afternoon at the Capital Gazette's building in Annapolis, Anne Arundel County officials said. Police have the sole suspect in custody.

    Police and EMS units arrived within 60 seconds of the shooting, something officials credited with saving lives.
    http://www.wbal.com/article/322207/124/5-dead-others-gravely-injured-in-mass-shooting-at-capital-gazette

    Let's give a shout out to first responders..

    HOOOOOOOO AAAAAAAA

  106. [106] 
    neilm wrote:
  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    Five people were killed and an unspecified number of people were injured in a shooting Thursday afternoon

    Five more people die that would probably be able to go home to their families tonight if we had gun laws like normal countries do.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Five more people die that would probably be able to go home to their families tonight if we had gun laws like normal countries do.

    Perhaps.. But the guns that you want to ban weren't used in this shooting..

    So, once again, the gun laws you want would not have changed ANYTHING in this shooting..

    Unless you are advocating a total gun ban.. Which you have stated in the past you are not..

    So, which is it??

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    I had an opportunity to use my weapon when a pitbull attacked my grandson outside our house last night..

    If Democrats had their way, they would prefer my grandson be mauled to death... :^/

  110. [110] 
    Paula wrote:

    [107] neilm: Yes, another mass murder by a white man.

    [98] Don: But go ahead, make your case for why I haven't made my case. Been there, done it, not gonna do it again.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    [107] neilm: Yes, another mass murder by a white man.

    And, once again, the racist speaks.. :^/

  112. [112] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Let's just admit that we can't control guns and approach the problem from a different perspective- even though that is something I usually avoid doing.

    It is people that are getting shot- so let's outlaw people. If there are no people they can't get shot.

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

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

    Oh, please. Who in the world could you possibly think you are fooling with this? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

    I am not constrained to point out that if "common decency" toward political figures was honestly an issue with you, then you would have naturally littered this board with a multitude of posts for those various assorted times too numerous to list where Your Orange Worship didn't show "common decency" toward a political figure. Oh, where was your outrage? Silence gives assent, right? :)

    You and Elizabeth and your utter nonsensical whining about "common decency" and "perverse attacks" regarding an itty bitty opinion on a political chat board after all the animated and colorful insults that you've hurled at any "hysterical Left Wingery" politician who happened to be the subject of the news of the day? And how about your comparisons of the posters on this board to the "scumbag shooter" and claiming Weigantians condoned it? You literally blamed the posters on this board for the actions of someone none of us knows and went off on a tear about Bernie Sanders that was notable for its lack of "common decency."

    “I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.”
    -Bernie Sanders

    Yea???

    Were you so sickened that you condemned all the violence against Trump supporters??

    Were you so sickened that you condemned a Left Winger play that acted out the bloody assassination of President Trump???

    With all due respect, Sanders...

    FRAK you...

    You Left wingers have absolutely NO PROBLEM with violence until such time as it is politically correct TO have a problem with violence...

    The time to condemn this kind of violence is BEFORE it happens, Sanders...

    Where was your condemnation then???

    {{chhhirrrrrrpppppppp}} {{ccchhhiiirrrrrpppppppppp}}

    Yea, that's what I thought...

    Frakin' useless luser....

    So Bernie is a "frakin' useless luser" is fine and dandy with you, yet you want to sit in judgment on your moral high horses over what Paula said about Mr. Kennedy. Cry me a river.

    Anyone... anyone on this board... would have to have a serious case of Alzheimer disease or a flaming case of "Can't Remember Spit" in order sit on their moral high horses in judgment of anyone else on this board. Must the posters on this board constantly remind you that the entirety of this board is archived? How long does anyone here think it would take for me to find several more instances on top of instances of your lack of "common decency"?

    You want to blame Paula for your disgust with Bernie Sanders? You want to blame me? Knock yourself out. You're simply delusional. The both of you need to come down off your high horses and get off Paula over a post wherein she expressed her disgust regarding a current event. Seriously!

    Common decency? "Common decency" would be exactly what Russ did and respond to her post or move on to the next post. You don't like her posts? Skip them. You don't like my posts? Skip them. I would wager a seriously large chunk of Benjamins that the poster who is blocked the most via the utilization of Charles Brown Esquire's most excellent Tamper Monkey device is... in fact... "Michale" or "michale"... easy money.

    Elizabeth's constant admonishment of other posters claiming the moral high ground while she says whatever she wants when she feels like it... cry me another river. Want an example?

    So, let me get this straight ...
    Comey is abdicating his responsibility because he doesn't publically respond to and refute every GOD-DAMNED ASININE THING TRUMP SAYS!?

    Have I got that right? Because, if that's the case, y'all are in for a very, very long Trump administration, no matter how long it actually lasts.

    And, y'all have my sympathies because, things are far worse in your country than I could have ever imagined.

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

    Which of us would you prefer to blame for Elizabeth's lack of "common decency" in the above post? Perhaps both of us?

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

    Liz is your enabler in your attempts to silence the other posters on this board. You and Liz say whatever you want, whenever you want yet constantly admonish other posters... particularly Liz admonishing Paula ad nauseam... regarding what she is allowed to post. Get over yourselves.

    Weigantia has always been a spirited and lively place..

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

    Oh, woe is you. I understand your problem, I really do. It must be infinitely painful for you to have come across a couple of posters that you can't run off in the manner you've run off a multitude of the other posters who wouldn't post to suit you. You've even bragged on multiple occasions about the posters you've run off and stated that I'd be no different than them.

    Just recently the reality must have finally hit you squarely in the face that you're not going to be able to run either of us away. Must whine and moan incessantly and leave the board until the posters I don't like are no longer here. Nope. Not going anywhere. Did you think you fooled anyone with that whining stunt? Then coming back with your promulgated rules in an attempt to have posters banned whining about personal insults and then popping over to the other page to hurl some more. Insults don't bother you. Who did you think you were fooling with that?

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

    So you two didn't like what Paula said about Anthony Kennedy? Boo hoo... cry me a river... world's smallest violin... etc.

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

    You're delusional. I said if you didn't stop posting lies about me that I would post the truth about you. I said come down off your high horse because somebody knows who you are and can keep you honest. [Dude, everybody knows who you are... you posted it.] I never said I would post your personal information. Indeed, who would ever need to do that when you in your infinite "LEO" wisdom had already done that multiple and repeat times already. Hello? Seriously! You told this story multiple times how you met your "trophy wife"... LOL... when you arrested her. You provided several other stories too numerous to list on multiple occasions, and when you continued with your regular "fake quotes" and trolling of regular made up BS, I simply ran with what you posted.

    Bashi knew exactly what I was doing. I was punching your buttons... using merely what you'd already shared with the entire world and giving it right back at you.

    Do you honestly think I care what you say about me on this board when I use an alias? Yes, sir... a total alias. You keep posting my alias incessantly as if it means a damn thing while I laugh gleefully at your stupidity. What if I'm not even a female? What if I chose to claim that when you assumed I was male simply in order to watch the tenor of your insulting posts hurled regularly in my direction take a turn in an entirely different direction? All this... mind you... while you are preaching and whining incessantly regarding "hypocrisy" and "bigotry."

    I love my country; I love its history and know its history, and I have huge chunks of the United States Constitution memorized. I love this website and the articles, particularly the ones about history; it is the most excellent thing I have stumbled across in a very, very long time, and I will continue to support it and post on it as long as I am allowed. I try to discuss politics here while you and your enabler routinely take active measures to interrupt the dialogue of myself and other posters on a regular basis and brag about how you'll run me off like everyone else you've run off. Stop doing that, please.

    So to recap:

    * Stop trying to censor other posters with your utter asinine complaints about "common decency" while you prattle on and on saying whatever you please.

    * I love this blog and will continue to support it and attempt to post my political views in between your repeated attempts to troll the entire board and control the dialogue.

    * If you don't like my posts, you are free to skip over them or block them with Tamper Monkey... thank you Charles Brown, Esq. We miss you, Please come back.

    * Bashi is absolutely correct. You got played; now get over it.

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    Bullshit. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

    Prove it. Show me the comment where you addressed the issue at hand instead of avoiding it.

    It's not in this comment thread.

    Where is it?

    Just more of the thin blue lying.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Let's just admit that we can't control guns and approach the problem from a different perspective- even though that is something I usually avoid doing.

    It is people that are getting shot- so let's outlaw people. If there are no people they can't get shot.

    Yer very close to the solution..

    We need to address the PEOPLE part of it and ignore the tool used..

    As is well documented, people use a variety of tools to kill people..

    There is simply NO WAY to ban all of them..

    So, the *ONLY* solution that makes ANY kind of sense is to address the PEOPLE who commit these horrific acts..

    But Democrats won't do that because it violates their SJW agenda where they protect and support the criminal and denigrate and attack the victims..

    Remember James Hodgkison??

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula-
    Bullshit. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

    Just more of the thin blue lying.

    A lesson her and her cohort have yet to learn...

  117. [117] 
    neilm wrote:

    Unless you are advocating a total gun ban.. Which you have stated in the past you are not..

    So, which is it??

    You know my policy suggestion - responsible gun ownership - everybody wants it except gun manufacturers who would lose sales to unstable people.

    Gun manufacturers pay the NRA and shills. The NRA buys our politicians, the shills gin up the emotional.

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    21

    The Supreme Court is going to give progressive politicians material to gin up the masses for a couple of decades. We've seen how the right has used progress to rile up grumpy folks who think the country has changed too much since they were 15 years old.

    I know, right?

    Now we are going to see how riled up the other side are going to be when they see injustices heaped on them by the Supreme Court year after year.

    Oh, yes.

    Neil, I won't quote your entire post and your list, but I just wanted to tell you it is absolutely flawless. Spot on. :)

  119. [119] 
    Paula wrote:

    Police are guarding the NYTimes in response to the shooting in MD. They evidently feel journalists have been targeted and if it turns out the murderer in MD is a Trumpnazi there is going to be hell to pay. Scumbag Milo Yiannopoulos http://www.ktvu.com/news/milo-yiannopoulos-texts-about-gunning-journalists-down-2-days-before-capital-gazette-shooting

    Blotus ran to his helicopter at WH and wouldn't answer questions about the shooting BECAUSE AS POTUS HE IS A USELESS PILE OF DUNG. Not that anything he would say should be believed or would help anyone. But he's such a total coward.

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know my policy suggestion - responsible gun ownership - everybody wants it except gun manufacturers who would lose sales to unstable people.

    And HOW do you find the "unstable people"?? You have to forgo privacy rights and social justice crap..

    Are you willing to do that??

    Of course not.. You prefer to ban the tool which has PROVEN to be absolutely useless..

    You have just proven you don't WANT "responsible gun ownership".. You want a ban..

    And THAT will never happen.. Especially now since the SCOTUS has become firmly and unequivocally pro-2nd Amendment..

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Police are guarding the NYTimes in response to the shooting in MD. They evidently feel journalists have been targeted and if it turns out the murderer in MD is a Trumpnazi there is going to be hell to pay.

    And if he turns out to be another James Hodgkison??

    Of course you won't even acknowledge that fact...

  122. [122] 
    Paula wrote:

    [114] Don: Prove it. Show me the comment where you addressed the issue at hand instead of avoiding it.

    Months ago, more than once, and sod off you entitled windbag. I don't have to lift a finger for you.

  123. [123] 
    neilm wrote:

    There is simply NO WAY to ban all of them.

    This is an all-or-nothing argument.

    There is no way to stop all car crashes, so why mandate seat belts?

    You are being fed emotional arguments that play to your "us vs. them" weakness. Stop letting people program you so easily Michale.

    Take one hour and think honestly, and without partisan nonsense, about how we could construct gun laws that allow responsible people to have guns yet protect us from as many mentally ill people as possible. We are not going to have safe societies like England because of the current interpretation of the second amendment, but there is a lot that can be done within the real boundaries of the second amendment.

    I've repeatedly stated my policy suggestion. What do you have beyond throwing your hands up in the air and letting tens of thousands of people die every year from murder, suicide and accidents involving guns?

    If you have nothing, then be honest and state it.

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    38

    Andrés Manuel López Obrador

    This is hilarious. Karma.

    Popcorn ready... :)

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, I'm sure Trump calling out CNN on it's sketchy journalism is exactly why someone shot up a nearly unheard-of newspaper with a print circulation of 30,000 in the deep-blue DC area.

    {/sarcasm}

    It's likely going to be a disgruntled Left Winger who is pissed about Kennedy retiring and giving President Trump another SCOTUS pick..

  126. [126] 
    BigGuy wrote:

    Kick [113]

    Brought a smile to my face. Seemed like it could have been condensed to two words totalling 7 letters.

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is no way to stop all car crashes, so why mandate seat belts?

    Because seat belts are PROVEN to save lives..

    And because there is not a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to wear seat belts..

    Are you really that dumb???

    You are being fed emotional arguments that play to your "us vs. them" weakness. Stop letting people program you so easily Michale.

    Oh bullshit.. Its you bleeding hearts who are trying to feed the emotional OH MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN bullshit...

    about how we could construct gun laws that allow responsible people to have guns yet protect us from as many mentally ill people as possible.

    I don't have to take an hour.. I don't have to take even a minute..

    The solution is simple.. Tie Gun ownership application records to mental health records.

    But YOUR DEMOCRATS refuse to do that because of the social stigma...

    I've repeatedly stated my policy suggestion. What do you have beyond throwing your hands up in the air and letting tens of thousands of people die every year from murder, suicide and accidents involving guns?

    Your policy suggestions are NON-WORKABLE and completely against the 2nd Amendment..

    Get rid of the 2nd.. THEN you can implement your suggestions..

    Until then they are nothing..

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's so typical..

    I give a shout out to first responders and moronic anti-gun fanatics can't wait to make political hay out of dead Americans even before the bodies get cold..

    I would ask if you people have no shame, but it's apparent you do not..

  129. [129] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    Wow. And I thought that CW was impressive for the Supreme Court article coincidence.

    But you were able to respond months ago to the issue at hand that was only brought up about one month ago.

    Do you have a flying Delorean?

    Or is it that you just can't or won't grasp what the issue at hand is?

    Were you the dodge ball champion at your school? Are you trying to relive your glory days?

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Given the investigation’s focus on President Trump’s campaign, even a blind person can see that the true target of the Special Counsel’s investigation is President Trump, not defendant, and that defendant’s prosecution is part of that larger plan. Specifically, the charges against defendant are intended to induce defendant to cooperate with the Special Counsel by providing evidence against the President or other members of the campaign. Although these kinds of high-pressure prosecutorial tactics are neither uncommon nor illegal, they are distasteful.”
    -U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III

    That's one way to describe Mueller.. Distasteful...

  131. [131] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    I love this blog and will continue to support it and attempt to post my political views in between your repeated attempts to troll the entire board and control the dialogue.

    If you love this blog as I do, then you will treat it with the great respect it deserves by commenting in a respectful and substantive manner.

    I look forward to reading your thoughtful political views and courteous responses to your fellow commenters.

    This is what will make the blog we both love a better place for all of us to engage in fun and friendly discussion and debate.

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you love this blog as I do, then you will treat it with the great respect it deserves by commenting in a respectful and substantive manner.

    I look forward to reading your thoughtful political views and courteous responses to your fellow commenters.

    This is what will make the blog we both love a better place for all of us to engage in fun and friendly discussion and debate.

    Amen to that.. I stand ready to do my part, but I do admit to meeting hatred and bile with hatred and bile..

    If people like Paula and Kick will stop it than so will I...

  133. [133] 
    Paula wrote:

    [129] Don: But you were able to respond months ago to the issue at hand that was only brought up about one month ago.

    I wrote about One Demand months ago: why I find neither it or you persuasive. Since then I've mostly skipped your posts. If you are trying to say that you raised some new point (which will be a regurgitation of an old point) or put out some specific challenge, hear this: I didn't read it, won't read it, won't respond to it, and don't care.

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ni Ni all.. Time for BOSCH with the lovely wife.. :D

  135. [135] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... but I do admit to meeting hatred and bile with hatred and bile...

    I wish I could snap you outta that way of thinking.

  136. [136] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Another word might be thorough.

    If the investigation is looking at Trump's campaign or anyone that was in it or involved with it then Mueller should look at anyone in the campaign that could be involved to find out if they were and to clear them if they weren't.

    Judges aren't always right.

    Some are far right! :D

  137. [137] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    Fine. At least you admitted that you did not address the issue at hand.

    But if the comments from months ago were the same avoiding the issue bullshit you posted on this thread before claiming you were DONE!, then I'm sure those comments (that comment) ended with same chickening out and retreating to your self-righteous fantasy world because you have no response that fits into your viewpoint that can counter my arguments.

  138. [138] 
    neilm wrote:

    So Michale, no solution. Just tens of thousands more dead bodies, more dead cops, more misery.

    But you feel good because you think that, since seat belts weren't mentioned in the BOR, you have some smug argument.

    As usual, it is all about "us vs. them" - try to think beyond the boundaries you've let yourself be programmed with Michale.

    What non-fiction books have you read in the last three months? Seriously, I read a wide range of topics and approaches to problems and am always looking for new books.

  139. [139] 
    Paula wrote:

    A journalist tweets: I’ve been getting an influx of death threats over the past week. I know other journalists who have as well. These things are organized, coordinated, and serious. We’ve pretended they weren’t for way too long.

    This is on Blotus, the Republicans, the NRA and every bloodthirsty Trumpnazi jacking off to their guns. The Annapolis shooter is wearing no ID and refusing to give his name.

  140. [140] 
    Paula wrote:

    [137] Yawn.

  141. [141] 
    Paula wrote:

    Now isn't this interesting? From Financial Times:

    https://www.ft.com/content/8c6d9dca-882c-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787

    Headline: Donald Trump’s debt to Deutsche Bank
    Subhead: As others shied away, the German bank lent money for several projects. But the president and lender face increased scrutiny over their ties

    Justin Kennedy, a trader who arrived from Goldman to become one of Mr Trump’s most trusted associates over a 12-year spell at Deutsche, is the son of a Supreme Court justice.

    Who just happens to retiring in order to give Blotus the chance to try to install a judge that will help block Mueller. Kennedy evidently didn't have the stomach for being faced with having to do the right thing. So he bailed.

  142. [142] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    88

    Nader is no longer influential and, indeed, he is despised by most of the Dem/Prog left. Few people care what he has to say about anything.

    Ralph who? Never heard of him. Wasn't he a "coffee boy."?

  143. [143] 
    Kick wrote:

    BigGuy
    126

    Brought a smile to my face. Seemed like it could have been condensed to two words totalling 7 letters.

    Yes, sir. :)

  144. [144] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    127

    Are you really that dumb???

    Now, now... "common decency." *finger wags*

    Oh bullshit.. Its you bleeding hearts who are trying to feed the emotional OH MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN bullshit...

    No need to yell, you know... "common decency."

    Besides, who was it at [109] that just accused Democrats of wanting to have their grandson killed?

    If Democrats had their way, they would prefer my grandson be mauled to death... :^/

    ~ Michale at 109 ^^^above^^^

    People will think you're a hypocrite. :D

  145. [145] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Nader is no longer influential and, indeed, he is despised by most of the Dem/Prog left. Few people care what he has to say about anything.

    And is the best argument for why not to support third party candidates on the left. Righties will always drive a truck through that opening.

    Glad to see that a few folks remember 2000, anyway. That's one thing that hasn't dropped down the memory hole.

  146. [146] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    131

    I look forward to reading your thoughtful political views and courteous responses to your fellow commenters.

    Please, Elizabeth. Enough already. Allow yourself to stop assuming the role of board mother. It would honestly be best for you to avert your eyes... lest I use some of the same salty language you used as outlined in blockquote above.

    This is what will make the blog we both love a better place for all of us to engage in fun and friendly discussion and debate.

    It would be infinitely more "fun and friendly" if you would skip the posts of commenters you don't like and stop the incessant whining. Allow yourself to stop, please. I said please. :)

  147. [147] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [1] -

    I know, I know... it's impossible to ignore...

    [2] -

    I did see the ad, and it was fantastic. So were her posters and campaign buttons. She's living proof talent can overcome money, at times...

    Don Harris [3] -

    What's not to love about AOC? She ran on the slogan "they have the money, we have the people." Seems like a prime candidate for you to support...

    TheStig [7] -

    Well, thank you for the kind words!

    :-)

    Paula [11] -

    Nice LOTR metaphor, there...

    Good point about Mueller, too.

    neilm [21] -

    Excellent points all around about SCOTUS and Roe. If this doesn't get Dems to pay attention to the court, nothing will.

    Also good point about Ireland, too.

    Michale [25] -

    Got your board shorts ready to surf that red wave? Heh. Whatever helps you sleep at night, bro...

    :-)

    neilm [26] -

    I've been wondering about the multiple Universes theories myself for the last two years.

    :-)

    neilm [29] -

    The GOP does seem to be damned if they do (on immigration) and damned if they don't. Now that they didn't, we'll see the fallout in the moderate districts with high Latino percentages.

    Michale [30] -

    Did anyone dispute the fact that Kennedy leaned conservative? But I bet you weren't as big a Kennedy fan for all of his rulings, were you?

    Heh.

    neilm [38] -

    To defeat the nannybot, try tinyurl.com, that might help. Just a suggestion...

    Michale [39] -

    OMG, Michale and I are agreeing! Well, at least it's on the technical level, not political... whew!

    Heh.

    Michale [40] -

    You're probably right. Liberals are grasping a single straw, really, and that is that either Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski (or perhaps some anti-Trump senator who is retiring) will gum up the confirmation works until the next Senate is seated. With McCain sidelined, all it would take would be one defection, and the vote would be 50-49 against confirmation. A slim hope, to be sure, but please remember what a razor-thin majority the GOP now has.

    neilm [42] -

    OK, now that's downright scary. But you're probably right, sad to say!

    Michale [45] -

    Because we all know how Democrats always confiscate everyone's guns, first thing. Oh, wait, that never actually happened, did it?

    [47] -

    I think you meant: "NOTHING motivates voters on the right like SCOTUS"...

    [51] -

    Oh, please. You really think that if your scenario had happened (Dems supported Gorsuch, McConnell didn't have to drop the second nuke), that McConnell wouldn't immediately do so now? That's a fantasy, pal.

    [65] -

    Filibuster-proof? Wow, have some more Kool-Aid, there, dude... I think you're getting feverish...

    :-)

    C. R. Stucki [72] -

    I think you meant "12%"?

    LizM [83] and Michale [85] -

    OK, your wish is my command. The comment has been edited, with a note to point this out. Done!

    Michale [89] -

    Who knew conservatives were such snowflakes? They bully and bully and bully, and the minute someone challenges them, they collapse into a pile of quivering Jell-O. Sad!

    John M [93] -

    Good point. I've already heard speculation about (as it were) "turning SCOTUS up to eleven."

    Probably won't happen, but there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it, that's for sure...

    Don Harris [98] -

    Only CW can know why he won't address One Demand and the issues at hand and why he is keeping it to himself.

    You want a final answer? OK, here goes:

    You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    There you go!

    Happy now?

    Michale [102] -

    Socialist candidates who want to abolish ICE are winning your primaries.. Candidates that have absolutely NO CHANCE of winning in the election..

    I'll bet you 1000 Quatloos, right here and now, that AOC wins the general and is seated in the new House. Say what you want about her, but she fits her district.

    :-)

    C'mon, you know you want to...

    Heh.

    [103] -

    Harlan Ellison died? Wow, that is a bummer.

    Among many other things, he sure did know how to come up with memorable names for his stories:

    I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream

    "Repent, Harlequin!" Said The Ticktockman

    He will indeed be missed. I need to go watch "The City On The Edge Of Forever" again, and re-read "A Boy And His Dog."

    Thanks for passing on the news, I hadn't heard it yet...

    Kick [113] -

    Looks like I need to work my way back through more comments. Seems the mice are playing while the cat's away...

    Michale [130] -

    Disappointed that the judge you predicted would rule for Manafort didn't?

    Hmmmm?

    heh.

    [134] -

    My wife likes "Bosch" too, but I've only read the books. I'd have to start from the beginning and binge watch it, at this point...

    OK, that's it for this fun thread. More later tonight, hopefully.

    -CW

  148. [148] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Kick, the only thing I can conclude from your response above is that you don't actually love this blog.

    This is not about me or about avoiding comments we don't like. This is about respecting the blog you purport to love.

  149. [149] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthy-
    It is good you can remember the 2000 election.

    Too bad you haven't learned from it and keep repeating the same mistakes that led to Trump and all the other Democratic losses over the years.

    If Nader and 2000 election is the best argument against third parties then there is no argument against third parties.

    More registered Democrats voted for Bush than the votes that Nader got.

    The only people that don't respect Nader are the ones that are under the delusion that he somehow caused Al Gore to lose the election. Funny how many of the same people think that Jill Stein cost Hillary the 2016 election.

    Some people never learn.

    The Democrats nominated the establishment candidate in 2000 instead of Bill Bradley and nominated Hillary instead of Bernie in 2016.

    That is why they lost and was of their own doing.

    And they seemed to be poised to keep trying to dig their way out of that rabbit hole again in 2018.

    But at least you have found a place where with only a few exceptions you can complement others suffering from the same delusions on their opinion of the emperor's new clothes.

  150. [150] 
    Paula wrote:

    [148] Liz: you don't get to define "what it means to love this blog" for anyone else. You can attempt to assume that right, but its presumptuous and I categorically reject your attempt.

  151. [151] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Re: Harlan Ellison's passing.

    Profound sadness. Ellison edited a compilation called Dangerous Visions that was a touchstone for me when I was in High School of what really good writing looked like. I gave a copy to an english teacher once, and he agreed, but said, "If I tried to teach this, I'd lose my job", and that taught me a lesson that I'm sure Ellison would have approved of.

  152. [152] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [148] Liz: you don't get to define "what it means to love this blog" for anyone else. You can attempt to assume that right, but its presumptuous and I categorically reject your attempt.

    Shocking. Positively shocking.

  153. [153] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    i'm not shocked at all.

    JL

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Joshua, guess what movie that came from ...

  156. [156] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The only people that don't respect Nader are the ones that are under the delusion that he somehow caused Al Gore to lose the election. Funny how many of the same people think that Jill Stein cost Hillary the 2016 election.

    Yeah, funny how that is. I laugh about it every time I see Trump interact with foreign leaders.

  157. [157] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthy-
    I am disappointed that you would feel that the Democrats shooting themselves in foot by nominating candudates that can't beat candidates like GWB and Trump is funny.

    Or are you still delusional about why the Democrats have been losing?

  158. [158] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    148

    Well, Kick, the only thing I can conclude from your response above is that you don't actually love this blog.

    Thank you, Elizabeth... for responding to my repeated requests that you stop sitting in judgment of other posters and attempting to control the dialogue by sitting in judgment of me yet again. Good call.

    This is not about me or about avoiding comments we don't like. This is about respecting the blog you purport to love.

    How is not about you, Elizabeth? How exactly is it not about you when you repeatedly and continually sit in judgment of posters while deciding what is and is not acceptable commentary according to your judgment?
    How is it not about you, Elizabeth, when you inform another poster that you have "concluded" something about them based on your judgment?

    Does Paula's wording regarding Mr. Kennedy not meet with your definition of "common dececency"? How is that not about you, Elizabeth? Have you concluded that I don't love something based on your definition of "love"? Again, how is that not about you Elizabeth?

    When you constantly allow the males on this board to post all manner of curse words and hate speech toward politicians as well as other posters while selectively admonishing primarily the female posters on this board about their "language," how is that not about you, Elizabeth?

    And newsflash: I might not even be a female.

    Get over yourself, please. M'kay? :)

  159. [159] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I'm pretty sure you're a girl, Kick. :)

  160. [160] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, I'm pretty sure you're a girl, Kick. :)

    So much for your judgment, sweetie. It obviously sucks. :D

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry, Kick, I simply could not resist. I'm not that strong.

  162. [162] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Say, Kick, have you heard the story about the two wolves?

  163. [163] 
    Kick wrote:

    My great grandmother was full-blood Cherokee, Elizabeth. They wrote it. :)

  164. [164] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Excellent!

    It's a very appropriate story for what we've been discussing here with respect to civil discourse.

    I'd like to post the story at some point here - do you have a good link for it?

  165. [165] 
    Kick wrote:

    The original story was appropriated and scrubbed.
    If you wish to learn the real story of the two wolves:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHXwPFMvaXk

    You must allow them both to thrive. Do not starve either one or the other. :)

  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks for that ... there were quite a few good videos there presented by Native elders.

    We sure could use a lot of Native American spirituality - here and everywhere.

  167. [167] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Balthasar [151] -

    Me too, except is was "Love Ain't Nothin' But Sex Misspelled"...

    Requiescat In Pace

    -CW

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wish I could snap you outta that way of thinking.

    As do I Liz, as do I..

    But my days of being a Weigantian Punching Bag are over...

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Glad ta see ya back.. Was getting worried about ya.. :D

    Got your board shorts ready to surf that red wave? Heh. Whatever helps you sleep at night, bro...

    How else do you explain that Democrats blew a 22 point Generic Poll lead??? :D

    You're probably right. Liberals are grasping a single straw, really, and that is that either Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski (or perhaps some anti-Trump senator who is retiring) will gum up the confirmation works until the next Senate is seated. With McCain sidelined, all it would take would be one defection, and the vote would be 50-49 against confirmation. A slim hope, to be sure, but please remember what a razor-thin majority the GOP now has.

    Yea, but there are 5 Democrats who will vote to confirm President Trump's nominee or they might as well concede their election right now..

    Because we all know how Democrats always confiscate everyone's guns, first thing. Oh, wait, that never actually happened, did it?

    Ain't from lack of bragging and screaming hysterically about it..

    But what are Dems gonna do?? Ban shotguns now??

    The PERSON is the key.. Not the tool they choose..

    I think you meant: "NOTHING motivates voters on the right like SCOTUS"...

    OK... OK.. But IF accurate, then McConnell should hold off on the confirmation until after the mid-terms so that the Right voters will be motivated and the Left voters will be apathetic, right?? :D

    Come on, CW.. You know I was born at night, but not LAST NIGHT.. :D If there is a SCOTUS pick in the mix, LEFT voters will be JUST as hysterically motivated as RIGHT voters.. :D

    I'll bet you 1000 Quatloos, right here and now, that AOC wins the general and is seated in the new House. Say what you want about her, but she fits her district.

    :-)

    C'mon, you know you want to...

    Heh.

    Tempting.. But you know her district better than I do, so I will accept your wisdom..

    However, it does nothing to refute my earlier claim, as I am sure you will agree..

    Disappointed that the judge you predicted would rule for Manafort didn't?

    Hmmmm?

    heh.

    Yea, I am.. I don't mind admitting it.. But my point is still valid that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump.... excuse me.. PRESIDENT Trump, the Russians or the election..

    Even the Judge is disgusted by Mueller totally blatant political witch-hunt play...

    My wife likes "Bosch" too, but I've only read the books. I'd have to start from the beginning and binge watch it, at this point...

    It's not hard to binge watch.. :D each episode is like 35 mins and there are only 10 episodes per season..

    It's a pretty decent show...

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Kick, the only thing I can conclude from your response above is that you don't actually love this blog.

    This is not about me or about avoiding comments we don't like. This is about respecting the blog you purport to love.

    A-Frakin-Men to THAT...

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    He will indeed be missed. I need to go watch "The City On The Edge Of Forever" again,

    If you get a chance, read the original script of that episode..

    VERY dark with drug-dealing crew members and cripples in wheelchairs getting phaser'ed...

    Very dark.. Even for Ellison...

  172. [172] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    168

    But my days of being a Weigantian Punching Bag are over...

    Translation: The board's gaslighting troll sure doesn't mind endlessly and incessantly "dishing it out," but he is not altogether so good in the "taking it" department... ever the whiny and aggrieved "victim" with zero ability at self-awareness. :D

  173. [173] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    170

    A-Frakin-Men to THAT...

    Mr. "Too Much Political Correctness" who worships the Orange Blowhole continues his whining about "common decency" in of the comments of others! I wonder if he reads his own posts?

    We regret to inform you that the only person on this board you could possibly be fooling with this "common decency" whining is probably yourself. Nice try, though.

    Besides, CW didn't have a problem with Paula's post, so y'all can now come down off your high horse... oh, wait... y'all can now stop beating your dead horse already... m'kay? :D

Comments for this article are closed.