ChrisWeigant.com

Program Notes

[ Posted Thursday, June 28th, 2018 – 15:55 PDT ]

There will be no new column today, sorry. I'm taking the day off and will instead devote my writing time to answering some recent comments, on which I have admittedly fallen woefully behind, of late.

Also, there will be no new column next Thursday, as I have to drive a friend to a medical appointment far from home. However, next Wednesday is Independence Day, so hopefully I'll be able to post a new column for the Fourth, in part to make up for the lack of Thursday columns.

If I had written today, it would have basically been a message to those of a religious bent to pray for the continued health of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and to likewise pray that at least one Republican senator (Susan Collins? Lisa Murkowski? With John McCain being incapable of traveling to Washington to cast a vote, it would only take one defection...) gets worried enough about the future of Roe v. Wade to block confirmation through both the midterms and the lame-duck period. Those of the Catholic persuasion might want to direct their prayers to St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes. Sigh.

So anyway, since we're getting all religious, I'll end by saying mea culpa for there being no new column today, and mea culpa maxima for not attending to the comments before now.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

141 Comments on “Program Notes”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    No apologies.

    Best wishes to you and your friend... and Notorious RBG, always. :)

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, (Whew!) just made it through yesterday's comments, complete with the answer Don Harris has been asking for (heh):

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/06/27/progressives-have-a-good-primary-night/#comment-121570

    More later, I promise...

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    Thanks. Said friend was in a motorcycle accident a while back and is still going through recovery. Wear helmets and leathers -- they save lives!

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Paula wrote:

    Enjoy taking some time off. Everyone needs a break.

    In other news, the Annapolis shooter has apparently been identified - a 38 yr. old man who had sued the paper for defamation in 2012 and lost. Don't know what the specifics of the suit are.

    It's bad but here's hoping there isn't going to be an outbreak of shootings at newspapers.

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    keep the faith man

    JL

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    NO. I do not want a "final answer" that is just AVOIDING DISCUSSING THE ISSUE AT HAND. That is not what I'm asking for. I want a REAL COMPLETE DISCUSSION.

    You catch more flies with honey is bullshit. You didn't answer when I asked nice. (Even Kick agreed that was annoying when being nice didn't work.)

    The only times you addressed it you misinterpreted or misrepresented what One Demand is and commented on that. When I responded pointing that out you did not continue the debate/conversation.

    But again, the issue at hand is the 2018 off year non-voters and whether it would be better if they participated in One Demand instead of not voting in 2018.

    The case I made is in the comments you will be reviewing and in the comments you just answered.
    Please address those points and answer those questions and then continue the conversation if I respond with a counter argument. That is how a discussion works.

    If I just wanted a "ruling" without a reasonable discussion I would be asking Judge Judy, not you. :D

    But just to give being nice one more try:

    "Honey, one so true, I love you."
    (sung to the tune of Sunny by I don't know who it's by)

    I did say please.

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    No column next Thursday?

    A perfect opportunity for the guest column on One Demand suggested by neilm.

  8. [8] 
    Paula wrote:

    The shooters lawsuit doc is here: http://170.99.108.1/appellate/unreportedopinions/2015/2281s13.pdf

    I'm scanning it - it appears that the shooter got the hots for a reporter and began stalking her and she eventually took him to court and he plead guilty to criminal harassment. The paper wrote some article about it which the shooter felt was too sympathetic to the woman and not sympathetic to him. He sued for defamation and lost.

    Whether or not this was the motivating factor in today's shooting is not yet established.

  9. [9] 
    Paula wrote:

    [8] Very cursory scan - so if other details come out that change the basic outlines - I'll acknowledge.

  10. [10] 
    Paula wrote:

    Meanwhile, now reading some stuff about Anthony Kennedy being forced out by DT - he had selected his clerks for next term and suddenly he's resigning. HOW he was forced out would be one question. WHY is another - though I see 2 possiblities. One, Blotus wants to pick someone who might protect him from being indicted by ruling a sitting Pres can't be - this has never actually been ruled on. The other - Repubs got DT to do this coz they smell a bloodblath and want to pack the courts before they're shoved out.

    Really hope we learn more about what actually went down...

  11. [11] 
    Paula wrote:

    And now the shooter's tweets are being released - he's a Trumper who believes the "news" is fake coz DT told him so.

  12. [12] 
    Paula wrote:

    He threatened the paper for not being supportive of DT.

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW- Your answer to my comment 3 (Wed) was equally baffling.

    The only reference I made to OSC was that Brand New Congress said she was one of their candidates. This was because you referred to her as the Bernie wing of the party so I wanted to provide you with that information in case you were not aware that she was with BNC.

    How did you get anything about me not supporting her from that?

    That comment was about all the things you said in the article and the issue of the 2018 off year non-voters. Yet all you did was misinterpret the one part of the comment about OSC and ignored the rest.

    The only vinegar in that comment was extremely watered down vinegar (the pretending to be a reality based blog part).

    But as I said many times, any vinegar could have been avoided if you didn't keep ignoring me and answered when I asked nice.

    Remaining silent about the vinegar puts it on you. If someone is doing something you don't like (like ignoring you), and you don't tell them that you don't like what they are doing then they can't be blamed if they keep doing it.

    I leave it up to you to decide if someone that keeps doing something after they have been told they are doing it can be blamed if they keep doing and if they deserve some vinegar when the honey approach is rejected.

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    that's three times you've been answered, which is significantly more consideration than most activists receive when they try to get a journalist to cover a cause.

    perhaps the difficulty in communication is an east-coast west-coast thing. please allow me to translate from california speak to new york speak and back:

    Don - Only CW can know why he won't address One Demand and the issues at hand and why he is keeping it to himself. [CA translation: if it's not too much trouble, i hope he wouldn't mind going into some more detail about my idea, so i can find out what he really thinks about it.]

    CW - You want a final answer? OK, here goes:
    You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. There you go! Happy now? [NY translation: you are stupid, your idea is stupid, and until you quit making such a horse's ass of yourself, i have better things to do with my time than explain why.]

    these translations brought to you by conquistador instant coffee
    http://www.montypython.net/scripts/conqcoff.php

    JL

  15. [15] 
    Paula wrote:

    Jared Sexton on Twitter:
    You know why there are police outside other newsrooms? Because for years now these trolls and fascists have been talking about carrying out massive attack called The Night of the Rope in which they kill huge numbers of journalists, liberals, and minorities.

    Everyone wants to pretend they're just trolls, that they're not serious, but they are. They're deadly serious. And the longer we pretend like there's not a developing, festering problem, the longer we allow it to grow in power.

    This is what the Repubs have built, by their constant lying and demonization of everyone-not-them. Demonization carried out by the highest-level Repub leaders, pundits, analysts, etc. They created a group of terrorists and DT arrived to give those terrorists permission.

  16. [16] 
    Paula wrote:

    [14] Oooh snap!

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NYpoet-
    So what you are saying if I am reading your translations correctly is that I was actually asking nicely and CW was responding like an asshole?

    Thank you.

    Even if CW was not doing as you said, his you get more flies with honey does not explain why he did not not answer when I asked nice.

    BTW, that's three times he did NOT answer. A bullshit answer that dose not address the issue is not an answer.

    That's not a communication problem. That's just you making stuff up.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula (16)-
    Thank you for agreeing with Nypoet that I was asking nice and CW was acting like an asshole.

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    BTW-
    Three bullshit answers is more than most activists get when they try to get a journalist to cover their cause?

    If that is the state of journalism in America then it's time to bring on the vinegar full force!!!!!!!

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    14

    CW - You want a final answer? OK, here goes:
    You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. There you go! Happy now? [NY translation: you are stupid, your idea is stupid, and until you quit making such a horse's ass of yourself, i have better things to do with my time than explain why.]

    Jesus Lord... you are condemned to Hell for you attitude... watch your language... "common decency" *finger wags*

    What... are you kidding?

    I love him
    I love him
    I love him
    And where he goes
    I'll follow
    I'll follow
    I'll follow

    **********
    I will follow him!
    **********

    ^^^^^ Sung to the tune of ^^^^^

    Anybody want to step up and tell me I don't love JL for this post?

    Pound sand! :) XXX OOO XXX OOO

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    6

    NO. I do not want a "final answer" that is just AVOIDING DISCUSSING THE ISSUE AT HAND. That is not what I'm asking for. I want a REAL COMPLETE DISCUSSION.

    I want my
    I want my
    I want my MTV...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag

    You catch more flies with honey is bullshit. You didn't answer when I asked nice. (Even Kick agreed that was annoying when being nice didn't work.)

    That ain't workin', that's the way you do it
    … money for nothing, and the chicks for free... honey for nothing and the kick... wait, what?

    How did I get dragged into this? I was agreeing with the you were being annoying part. Read my post at [6] again.

    Sorry. :)

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    10

    Oh, Paula. Wow. I had heard several weeks back that Justice Kennedy had selected several clerks. I was so surprised to hear he was retiring. It did seem strange.

    Really hope we learn more about what actually went down...

    Yes, that should be interesting. Sounds like Kennedy might be receiving a subpoena to testify, no?

    I can tell you this from a reliable source:

    Donald Trump is holding a pair of 2s while Mueller is holding a Royal Flush.

    Stay tuned. :)

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    11

    And now the shooter's tweets are being released - he's a Trumper who believes the "news" is fake coz DT told him so.

    There are a lot of trolls out there spreading dezinformatsiya. Keep that in mind. :)

  24. [24] 
    BigGuy wrote:

    I have decided to forgo all reporting on the Mueller investigation. Director Mueller has exceeded all expectations for controlling leaks. Since no one in the media knows any real information about gathered by the team, they can neither predict the results, nor can they determine whether the results will be fair and credible.

    I, along with the rest of the world, have a guess what will happen - sorry Michale.

    What are Jim Jordan, Trey Gowdy, etc. thinking when they antagonize the two people who will determine when the report is released?

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it's a good thing i don't publish english to hungarian phrasebooks.

    http://www.montypython.net/scripts/phrasebk.php

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    BigGuy [24] -

    Yours is probably the best view I've read of Mueller in a while. Nobody knows. He just don't leak, period. I've mentioned how astonishing this is several times over the past year, and I'm still pretty astonished. In DC, not leaking a drop is a herculean task, but Mueller's team has consistently stuck to it.

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    And now for something completely different:

    http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

    "I'm sorry, the five minutes is up."

    Heh.

    -CW

  28. [28] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, Tuesday's comments answered...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/06/26/democrats-need-to-campaign-more-on-judicial-picks/#comment-121621

    Gotta go watch Colbert now, though...

    -CW

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    I'm scanning it - it appears that the shooter got the hots for a reporter and began stalking her and she eventually took him to court and he plead guilty to criminal harassment. The paper wrote some article about it which the shooter felt was too sympathetic to the woman and not sympathetic to him. He sued for defamation and lost.

    Whether or not this was the motivating factor in today's shooting is not yet established.

    So, it had absolutely NOTHING to do with President Trump..

    I am sure we will see your retraction and apology to President Trump soon...

    Right???

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    If I had written today, it would have basically been a message to those of a religious bent to pray for the continued health of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and to likewise pray that at least one Republican senator (Susan Collins? Lisa Murkowski? With John McCain being incapable of traveling to Washington to cast a vote, it would only take one defection...) gets worried enough about the future of Roe v. Wade to block confirmation through both the midterms and the lame-duck period. Those of the Catholic persuasion might want to direct their prayers to St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes. Sigh.

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it won't help, CW.. :D

    There are at least 5 Democrats who will vote for President Trump's nominee..

    So, even if the Dems can swing a couple GOP'ers.. It won't matter..

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Gonna bring a response forward from a couple days ago..

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

    When we were debating about the 2nd Amendment, I was told by someone that just because the SCOTUS says it's the law of the land, doesn't really make it so. The SCOTUS can change it's mind at any time..

    It was a pretty lame response, as I am sure it didn't come from you.. :D

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

    I hate to bedevil the point..

    McConnell instead dropped a second nuke, by declaring that Supreme Court judicial nominations could not be filibustered either. Then he defied the Constitution by refusing to act on Obama's nomination, baldly stating that no nomination would move forward until after the next election.
    -CW

    I might just be reading it wrong, but it appears there that you are claiming McConnell dropped the 2nd nuke and then refused to act on Obama's nomination.. In fact, those actions are reversed..

    It's a minor nit-pick and if I am reading it wrong, then my apologies..

    As to McConnell, yes he was being hypocritical.. He's a politician, what ya expect? :D

    McConnell was being as hypocritical as Dems are being when they claim that, if they ever return to power, they will do the EXACT same thing regarding the President's SCOTUS nominee. Even though they claim it's a "heinous" and "perverse" violation of the US Constitution..

    :D

    It's good ta have ya back.. I have missed this.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regarding the upcoming Mid-Terms...

    Democrats are making a big mistake on immigration
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/opinions/trump-immigration-gop-could-still-win-jennings-opinion/

    When will the Democrat Party learn??

    Illegal Immigration plays to the GOP's protect-Americans strengths and the Dem Party's We-Want-Open-Borders weaknesses...

    On WHAT PLANET is this a good issue for the Democrat Party to emphasize???

    Democrats.. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in 2018...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    And again...

    Ex-Clinton aide: 84 percent of Americans support turning undocumented immigrants over to authorities
    http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/394624-mark-penn-84-percent-support-turning-undocumented-immigrants-over-authorities

    On what planet is illegal immigration a GOOD issue for the Democrats to run on in 2018???

    Dems might as well just give the 10 seats to the Senate GOP and the 100+ seats to the House GOP now and move on.. :^/

  34. [34] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula (from the other day)

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

    Why would I blame Kennedy if the court were to find reason to overturn marriage equality (there is no such thing as “Gay Marriage”; there is only “marriage”)? He was one of the five who granted us the equality that we had been denied for so long. THAT is his legacy as far as I am concerned.

    Do I worry about it being taken away from us? Taking a right away after it has been granted is no easy task. I think they will have a hard time justifying that we are not equal in the eyes of the law. Not to mention the legal chaos that would cause. I do not think they will be able to overturn Roe vs. Wade, personally — not fully, anyway.

    Kennedy’s choice to resign was his to make. If it was politically motivated or not, I don’t know — but it was HIS choice to make.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have decided to forgo all reporting on the Mueller investigation. Director Mueller has exceeded all expectations for controlling leaks. Since no one in the media knows any real information about gathered by the team, they can neither predict the results, nor can they determine whether the results will be fair and credible.

    I, along with the rest of the world, have a guess what will happen - sorry Michale.

    No apologies necessary...

    I just think it's hilarious..

    On the one hand, it IS interesting that there have been "no leaks" from Mueller..

    On the other hand, Weigantia is REPLETE with comments from people who know EXACTLY what is going to happen with Mueller's investigation. :D

    So, as I said, no apologies necessary.. You said a lot more politely what I have been saying all along..

    Anyone who claims to know what's what with Mueller's witch hunt is full of shit.. :D

    Your's truly included.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do I worry about it being taken away from us? Taking a right away after it has been granted is no easy task. I think they will have a hard time justifying that we are not equal in the eyes of the law. Not to mention the legal chaos that would cause. I do not think they will be able to overturn Roe vs. Wade, personally — not fully, anyway.

    Maybe not with a 5-4 GOP SCOTUS...

    But if RGB and Kagan retire due to poor health, a distinct possibility, then you would be looking at a 7-2 GOP SCOTUS and then all bets are off...

    I don't really have a dog in the hunt in the abortion issue beyond the factual claim of hypocrisy it provides me against Democrats vis a vis their sickening "OH MY GODS WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN except if the children are in the womb" hypocrisy...

    I also have no dog in the hunt regarding the marriage issue either. I can see both sides of the issue and both sides make valid points. I could see an easy solution if both sides could just get past their hatred/distaste of each other...

    The only concern I have is the 2nd Amendment that allows me to protect myself and my family from harm...

    As I mentioned before, I had an opportunity to use my weapon when a dog attacked my grandson the other night..

    It makes my blood boil that the Left (there are exceptions and they are noted here) would want to take that right away from me and allow children to be mauled by dogs... Once again, the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" hypocrisy raises it's ugly head..

    That is my sole interest in maintaining a GOP lock on the SCOTUS...

    The bigger the lock, the better.. 5-4 is good.. 6-3 would be awesome... 7-2 and I'm in heaven...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the other hand, Weigantia is REPLETE with comments from people who know EXACTLY what is going to happen with Mueller's investigation. :D

    Even in this very commentary thread.. :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

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

    Thank you CW.. Once again, Liz.. My apologies for the typo...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said yesterday....

    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/

    It's been a horrible, very bad, no good week for Democrats....

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (21)-
    Read your post at 14 again.

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

    You then wrote: "I agree with that."

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of the Democrats' newest favorite socialist...

    Nobody has ever proved that Andy Warhol said “in the future everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” But he has been misquoted so often that a lot of people think he did. (Read the quotation carefully). A wiser man did say that “nothing recedes like success,” and we see that proved all around us every day.

    Only 15 minutes ago David Hogg was the media’s flavor of the month after he survived mass murder at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., and for 15 minutes became the nation’s most famous scourge of guns, violence and anyone older than 18. He dropped out of high school to dedicate his sudden fame to chasing the Republicans out of Congress. (Remember him?)

    Master Hogg has been replaced this month by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who at age 28 knocked off the No. 4 Democrat in the House of Representatives last week, and overnight became the hottest number in the party. Or at least the hottest number in the Democratic stronghold of the 14th New York Congressional District of New York. The media, which is always agog about something, is dutifully now “agog about Alexandria.” Her mother says she is already planning her campaign for president, though she may have to wait at least seven more years to meet the constitutional age requirement.

    Bernie Sanders, once the new thing, has become as fresh as the chewing gum left on the bedpost last night. But there may be enough Juicy Fruit left in socialism to satisfy some of the millennials.

    The average millennial doesn’t know much, a victim of the druggie generation presiding at the moment over the nation’s dumbed-down colleges and universities, and millennials can hardly be expected to know that socialism has already been tried in many places, and that it failed in all of them.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t trying to slip into office as a socialist in disguise. She’s serving up the real socialist dish: She wants to abolish immigration enforcement at once, have the government offer single-payer Medicare-for-all, declare housing a “right,” and invoke a radical criminal-justice “reform” to empty the prisons. She cites the campaign slogan of the British Labor Party with approval, “In the wealthiest nation in the world, working families shouldn’t have to struggle.” It’s the dream that will not die, but can never become more than a dream.

    Flirtations can be fun, but the Democrats should be wary. Dreams can become nightmares, and they’re always costly..
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/28/the-democrats-flirt-with-an-old-fantasy/

    I have been informed that AOC's district is such that it's very likely she will win.. But one socialist in one district does not a movement make..

    I still stand by my assertion that the Far Left's showing in the recent Dem primaries will do more harm than good, come the general election in November..

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW (28)-
    If you say so.

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    If you get to answering this comments thread, please answer the following questions that you seem to not want to answer from any previous threads.

    Is it not true that in off year elections 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential elections do not vote?

    Wouldn't it be better if some of those people, one third to one half, participated in One Demand instead of not voting? If not, why not?

    Remember these are people that will not be voting in 2018. There is no spoiler argument. They have already rejected the choices available.

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

    Did the Women's March come together in about two months?

    Did it require a lot more from participants than just signing up on a website and voting?

    That is all that would be required for these citizens to participate in One Demand in 2018 instead of not voting. Citizens already registered to vote signing up on the website that already exists and voting.

    No need to find small contribution candidates they agree with on other issues or make any contributions. They can even work together with other citizens that they don'y agree with on other issues on this one common issue.

    If the Women's March could have that much success with so much more required to accomplish their goal, can One Demand accomplish the goal of mobilizing these voters that requires so much less to accomplish the goal if these citizens are informed about this opportunity? If not, why not?

    As this could total anywhere from 5-20% of the vote in 2018 that are willing to write in their own name to declare that they are not satisfied with the Big Money candidates and want small contribution candidates in 2020, could this inspire some of those that still did not vote in 2018 and some of the 40% that don't vote at all to participate in One Demand in 2020 and in turn inspire many candidates to run as true small contribution candidates in 2020? If not, why not?

    Remember, the question is COULD it- is it possible?

    This is no different than any other possibility of what could happen if these citizens vote a certain way. The same as what could happen if one third to one half of these citizens decided to vote for Democrats or decided to vote for Republicans or decided to vote for Greens or Libertarians.

    Do these citizens deserve to know about this option? If not, why not?

    Should you, as a reality based blogger, address this real idea, with a real website and whether or not it is a real possibility?

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Answers to the questions in 43 would make a nice birthday present for me (just in case you didn't know what to get me).

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Meanwhile, now reading some stuff about Anthony Kennedy being forced out by DT - he had selected his clerks for next term and suddenly he's resigning. HOW he was forced out would be one question.

    heheheheheheheheehehehehehe

    Thanx Paula.. It's always nice to get a good laugh in the morning to start my day..

    Your KENNEDY-WAS-FORCED-TO-RESIGN conspiracy-nut theory is as laughable as the OBAMA-HAD-SCALIA-KILLED conspiracy-nut-theory... :D

    Once again, thanx for the laugh.. You DO serve a purpose here.. Comic relief.. :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Going back to the Kennedy thing..

    It's to the Democrats benefit to hold off the nomination process until after the election.. This could galvanize Democrats and get them to turn out and vote.. On the other hand, it would also galvanize GOP voters too.. And, as CW said, GOP voters are more galvanized by SCOTUS issues than Dem voters..

    On the other hand, it to the GOP benefit to do the nomination before the election. This puts 5 Dem Senators in Red States on the spot and would very likely tip their races to the GOP candidate...

    For me, personally, this will be the first time I vote GOP in a Senate race in a couple decades...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mark your calendars, people!!!!

    28 Sep... LAST MAN STANDING returns to TV!!!! :D

    Hmmmmmm Something familiar about that date.. heh

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Once again, Liz.. My apologies for the typo...

    Just don't let it happen again.

    :-)

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    From your comment 131 on "progressives have a good primary night":

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

    I look forward to reading your thoughtful view on and courteous response to comment 91 in the same thread.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just don't let it happen again.

    :-)

    You can count on it!! :D

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I don't see what difference it would make if I put an article here in the comments.

    Well, I for one, would be interested in reading what you have been unable to publish elsewhere, so far.

    As a Canadian, though, and one who is primarily interested in US foreign policy and its global leadership role, should that ever materialize again, I will leave your project to yourself and your American friends.

    Best of luck with One Demand.

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Sigh.
    You have read it already if you read my comments here.

    Thank you for the wish of luck, but it is not luck it is exposure/publicity that is needed.

    One way to get that exposure/publicity is to contact journalists that can inform citizens aboot* this opportunity.

    As a fellow commenter in the comment section of one of the journalists I have been contacting shouldn't you weigh in with your opinion on whether the journalist should address this idea or on this idea when it is asked?

    It is disappointing that someone calling for thoughtful debate and courtesy would come up with an excuse to avoid thoughtful debate which is not very courteous and does not provide a good example for the other commenters that you have been criticizing for not providing courtesy and thoughtful debate.

    *aboot was originally a typo, But I decided to leave it in to give the post a Canadian accent for you. :D

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you saying that Canadians don't know how to spell, Don?

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I am starting a political action committee for a groundbreaking grassroots’ political movement that I plan on calling, TWO DEMANDS!!! (the name came to me in a dream!)

    Demand One: Candidates must agree to make receiving small donations their main focus for funding their campaign.

    Demand Two: Candidates must make repealing Citizens United a central goal of their campaign.

    Demand Two is actually the more important of the two as there are already limits set on how much can be donated directly to a political campaign. The real money goes to PAC’s and SuperPAC’s where the reporting of where the money received actually originated is not required (if it isn’t enforced, then it really is not “required”!) and not available to the public. Foreign money can’t be donated directly to a campaign, but a SuperPAC can take in as much as a recently created LLC cares to funnel it.

    Demand One is the “feel-good” PR move, but Demand Two is where the real change will take place!

    CW, I will get back to you as to when I’ll be available for our interview and thank you again for your interest in our group! You’re the best!

  55. [55] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    LWYH

    "Citizens United" is a Free Speech (as in 1st Amend.) issue, and thus ain't likely to be going anywhere.

    Dem/libs hate CU because having money sort of translates into having a 'louder voice', which they equate with "unfairness" and similar bleeding heart issues.

    Problem is, you cannot restrict people from 'speaking louder' simply because they are more financially successful than other people. That would be far more "unfair" than the "unfair you are worrying about. Ain't gonna happen.

  56. [56] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Please share with me the valid points for overturning marriage equality as I have yet to hear a single one that came close to qualifying as “valid” — but I am sure yours are well thought out!

    As I mentioned before, I had an opportunity to use my weapon when a dog attacked my grandson the other night..

    Your grandson wasn’t hurt, I hope. Dog bites can require so many stitches. Where on his body was he bit? How did you manage to get a clear shot at the dog as he attacked your grandson? Weren’t you afraid of striking your grandson? I guess it was lucky that you had the gun on you when the dog attacked! So do you wear a holster under your bathrobe as you lounge around the house, or what?

  57. [57] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS,

    So you support corruption in politics, thanks for clarifying that. It is so sad that none of your generation will get to reap the true rewards of your decades of idiotic policies that the rest of us are stuck trying to repair.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please share with me the valid points for overturning marriage equality as I have yet to hear a single one that came close to qualifying as “valid” — but I am sure yours are well thought out!

    Marriage as an institution has been the bedrock of our society for thousands of years.. It seemed silly to change the institution based on a social justice issue that has only cropped up in the last decade or so..

    So said Justice Kennedy during arguments..

    You may not agree with the argument, but it IS a valid and rational argument nonetheless..

    Your grandson wasn’t hurt, I hope.

    A couple puncture wounds on his arm and shoulder.. Fortunately no tearing or slashing wounds..

    Thank you..

    How did you manage to get a clear shot at the dog as he attacked your grandson? Weren’t you afraid of striking your grandson?

    My daughter (his mother) got to the scene before I did and grabbed the mutt by the scruff and a leg and ripped him off my grandson and threw the dog clear... Then the owners came running up in the line of fire, spoiling my shot...

    I guess it was lucky that you had the gun on you when the dog attacked! So do you wear a holster under your bathrobe as you lounge around the house, or what?

    I was lying in bed with my wife watching TV.. Bosch, as a matter of fact... Grabbed my weapon out of the gun safe and grabbed a pair of underwear and ran out...

    Things ended well without the use of deadly force.. But it could have easily gone the other way...

    The "other way" is what Democrats are pushing..

    That's why I am firmly in the camp that says we need to keep the SCOTUS in Republican hands...

    I look forward to the day we have a 7-2 GOP SCOTUS..

  59. [59] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    LWYH

    Yeah, I support the right of rich people to support advertising in favor of their candidates, but I dispute your claim that such constitutes "corruption".

    I'm certain you are in favor of advertising supporting candidates YOU favor, but you're jealous of people who can afford more financial support than you can.

    Another way to put that is that you are an outrageous hypocrite, like most Dems/Libs!

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Citizens United" is a Free Speech (as in 1st Amend.) issue, and thus ain't likely to be going anywhere.

    I agree. We need to focus on the problem - is money being used corruptly in our political process?

    The total "cost" of the 2016 election was about $1.85B*. Of that Hillary spent $1.2B and Trump $0.65B. This was less than Obama and Romney "spent" in 2012 (total $2B - source: The Economist).

    Let's just go with a $2B figure and look at the impact that has. Firstly the money is being spent to convince people to turn out - cross party voting plays only a small role in the outcomes. I believe that the efficacy of this "spend" is more imaginary and D.C. based than effective in reality. Trump won because his supporters were angry about where they perceived America was in relation to where they wanted it to be (I contend they are ignorant of reality, but that isn't the point of this post).

    So politicians spend most of their time and effort raising money - sitting in small cubicles across the street from their public offices (where they are not permitted to fundraise).

    Let's triple the $2B to $6B to estimate the cost of all congressional, senate, as well as presidential elections.

    Our economy is $19.4T. $6B is a rounding error - literally. I rounded the $19.42T to $19.4T and lopped off $20B right there.

    So we are "spending" 0.03% of GDP on elections, and most of that is wasted on activities that either fail to move the dial, or support losing candidates.

    So, instead of focusing on campaign finance, we'd be much better demanding a Political Corruption Taskforce in the FBI to scare the bejesus out of corrupt politicians from top to bottom. Look at the impact that Mueller is having on the whole right wing - they are crying their eyes out in between soiling their diapers about Mueller. The left are rubbing their hands together, because let's face it, Trump is as guilty as sin of money laundering and Mueller is going to find it and expose it. The whole Russia investigation is viable, but it is a sub-plot. The real winner could be the American people. The left would not be so supportive and the right so scared of Mueller if they knew that this was just the first investigation into a series of independent investigations by the FBI into political irregularities.

    The problem is getting politicians to agree to a permanent FBI team dedicated to looking over their shoulders and shining a light where they want it to be dark.

    So my "One Demand" would be for a permanent "Robert Mueller III Memorial Political Corruption and Money Laundering Team" at the FBI.

    * Source for data: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm certain you are in favor of advertising supporting candidates YOU favor, but you're jealous of people who can afford more financial support than you can.

    It's been my experience that, by and large, Democrats LOVE the Citizens United ruling..

    They just hate that it also applies to Republicans..

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    I agree. We need to focus on the problem - is money being used corruptly in our political process?

    The total "cost" of the 2016 election was about $1.85B*. Of that Hillary spent $1.2B and Trump $0.65B. This was less than Obama and Romney "spent" in 2012 (total $2B - source: The Economist).

    So, simply put.. Whoever spent the most money is the one most guilty of corruption..

    That would be Hillary.. By a factor of 2

  63. [63] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Well, if the name came to you in a dream, I guess it's safe to assume it wasdn't a dream about One Demand because then you would have described it as a nightmare. :D

    I like the first demand. How would you define what constitutes a small contribution for the purpose of your organization?

    I do not agree with your second demand as Citizens United is a symptom and not the cause. I actually agree that money is speech and don't want to give up that right as it would make it constitutional for Congress to make laws limiting small contribution efforts without this protection (Most proposed amendments give Congress the power to control contributions and spending and state that artificial entities, which includes our organizations, have no rights under the constitution) .

    I do believe that CW should address your idea and inform citizens about the opportunity you are offering, even though I do not want to be part of your organization.

    I am willing to put my idea up against any other ideas and see what people choose to support. If they do not choose One Demand and I can find out why, then I can address those concerns and make improvements that may or may not be needed or find a way to better explain or get out my message.

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, simply put.. Whoever spent the most money is the one most guilty of corruption..

    Asinine comment of the day, and totally missing the point of my comment by jumping on a "us vs. them" bandwagon.

    We will cure you of your blindness that everything is Hillary's fault and all Republican politicians are pure as driven snow, but you need to take the first step - you need to stop believing only things that make you feel good.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Asinine comment of the day, and totally missing the point of my comment by jumping on a "us vs. them" bandwagon.

    Once again, it's funny how you disapprove of the "us vs them" argument when it's your "us" that's at fault. :D

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    The best way to lower money in politics is to make sure it doesn't influence policy at a granular level (i.e. corruption).

    If all politicians who accepted sugar industry money were excluded from voting about legislation that impacted the sugar industry due to "conflict of interest" rules then the sugar industry would stop buying them. This goes for just about every shareholder owned business - if political contributions did not impact the bottom line for a public company then the shareholders and management would use the money for something else.

    At the same time, would teacher's unions spend money supporting politicians they knew would not be able to vote on legislation favorable to them?

    So we have the last spigot, issues funding. It would be complex but viable to tie individual politicians to issues money - either directly or indirectly, and impose "conflict of interest" rules.

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    My "us" Michale is the American people. My "them" is corrupt individuals who make our political system unfair.

    Are you identifying as a supporter of corruption and corrupt union leaders, business people, and politicians?

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    The more simpler approach is CW's idea..

    NASCAR jackets for Politicians...

    I am reminded of an old MISSION IMPOSSIBLE episode.. There was this crooked politician who was running for governor of a state. The IMF's mission wasn't to take out the bad guy but to insure that the voters were informed of this guy's connections and activities..

    Convincing the bad guy that they (IMF team) were aliens, they got him to admit all of his activities over the radio...

    It was a pretty kewl episode..

    Anyways, that's what we need to do.. FOrce the politicians to be completely transparent about who is funding them and such..

    Unfortunately, transparency is verboten, but it's only the Democrats who are hypocritical about it..

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    My "us" Michale is the American people.

    No.. You have made it clear that your "us" is the Democrat Party..

    If your "us" was the American people, you would be a Trump supporter...

    If your "us" were the American people, you would condemn the likes of Maxine Waters et al...

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    If your "us" was the American people, you would be a Trump supporter...

    Nice try, but let's stick to the topic - corruption.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats badly underestimated Trump
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/opinions/democrats-badly-underestimated-trump-zelizer/index.html

    Yup, yup, yup...

    Democrats and NeverTrumpers blinded by bigotry, hatred and intolerance....

    President Trump plays them every time...

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nice try, but let's stick to the topic - corruption.

    You're the one who brought up the bullshit claim that you are on the side of the American people.. :D

    When it comes to corruption, there really is no difference between Democrats and Republicans..

    The *ONLY* difference is that Republicans embrace theirs and Democrats lie about theirs..

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm (66)-
    One flaw in the conflict of interest system you propose is that the already corrupted politicians will be the ones passing the legislation and deciding who should or should not be covered under the legislation that also would take years to pass and implement.

    It seems much easier and faster for citizens to stop voting for Big Money candidates and to start registering votes against those candidates now to create and demonstrate demand for small contribution candidates.

    If the candidates only take small contributions then the there would be no ability for conflict of interest from Big Money contributors because there would be no Big Money contributors.

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    25

    it's a good thing i don't publish english to hungarian phrasebooks.

    *
    *
    Please may I ask for an adjournment, m'lord?
    *
    *

    Keep them coming, please. I love them too. :)

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    First, when the sexual revolution collides with the First Amendment, expect to see the First Amendment win. That’s the way the conflict played out in NIFLA and Masterpiece Cakeshop, to take the two most prominent examples from the Court’s most recent term. A more solidly originalist court would likely have decided Masterpiece Cakeshop on broader free-expression grounds, would scoff at the very notion that the government could revoke religious institutions’ tax exemptions for upholding their own notions of sexual morality, and may well take a dim view of efforts to prohibit counselors or pastors from sharing such notions with gay or transgender clients.

    Second, look for the court to offer greater clarity on the Second Amendment. Since Heller and McDonald, the Court has essentially gone quiet about gun rights. Left undecided are questions about the extent of the right to bear arms outside the home (implicating carry permits) and the nature and type of weapons precisely protected. If an originalist court follows the late Antonin Scalia’s reasoning that the Second Amendment attaches to weapons “in common use for lawful purposes,” then broad “assault weapons” bans will likely fail.

    Fourth, prepare for a more color-blind court. State-sponsored affirmative action — especially in higher education — has hung on by its fingernails for more than a decade. It’s beyond difficult to make an originalist argument for policies that, to take a contemporary example, effectively cap the number of Asians in any given class. The case for affirmative action has rested for a long time on magnifying the state interest in creating “diverse” communities through policies that explicitly use race as a factor to punish or privilege specific demographics. These policies exist far more as a matter of social justice and academic theory than actual constitutional law. Soon enough, the nation may understand that “equal protection” means just what it says.
    https://tinyurl.com/y9r29qoz

    Some of the likely results of President Trump's pick to the SCOTUS...

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale, do you REALLY think that Trump cares about people like you? I mean, really?

  77. [77] 
    neilm wrote:

    If the candidates only take small contributions then the there would be no ability for conflict of interest from Big Money contributors because there would be no Big Money contributors.

    Assuming they win. What happens if they lose?

    Anti-corruption investigative units could be set up at the state level and we could build from there.

    While money is effective in buying politicians, trying to stop the flow is pointless. You need to target why people are putting big money into politics and make that ineffective. Stopping the source, rather than the flow, is far more effective.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://tinyurl.com/y9ntbnvl

    That's the Democrat Party in a nutshell..

  79. [79] 
    Paula wrote:

    [77] neilm:

    Stopping the source, rather than the flow, is far more effective.

    Yes.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, do you REALLY think that Trump cares about people like you? I mean, really?

    As much as Obama really cared about people like you..

    I only know the facts..

    Under Democrats my business sucked..

    Under President Trump, business is a LOT better...

    Whether President Trump did that specifically for me, is completely irrelevant..

    Middles Class Americans' lives are better under President Trump...

  81. [81] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS,

    I'm certain you are in favor of advertising supporting candidates YOU favor, but you're jealous of people who can afford more financial support than you can.

    Nope, you are wrong....which seems to be a trend with you. I hate all of it! Wish we only allowed candidates two weeks of ads and required that they be truthful ads focusing on themselves.

    You seem to believe that Dems are all poor hippies or minorities that just wish they were white and therefore wealthy. Arrogant, hateful old farts like you are why some nursing home nurses kill the elderly.

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Was that last sentence really necessary, Russ?

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    You're a good one to ask about this ... have you seen this report on Americans' views of democracy ...https://www.democracyprojectreport.org/

    It sounds like a very good basis for Democrats to run on ...

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    You're a good one to ask about this ... have you seen this report on Americans' views of democracy ... https://www.democracyprojectreport.org/

    It sounds like a very good basis for Democrats to run on ...

  85. [85] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm-
    Just like every other organization, including the Democrats, some will win, some will lose- but everybody sings the blues (or something like that).

    The ones that win will work on legislation and the ones that lose will try again.

    But with only already corrupted Big Money legislators being the ones to set up the anti-corruption investigative units, it is not likely to happen anytime soon and not likely to be effective and is likely to be a sham that only pretends to address the problem. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.

    Remember McCain-Feingold?

    The why people are putting Big Money into politics is because citizens keep voting for Big Money candidates. This is the same principle as your approach of excluding legislators that take contributions from an industry (good luck defining that by the way) from voting on legislation that has an effect on that industry.

    If you take away what they get with their contributions, the votes for their candidates, then they have no incentive to make the contributions and the candidates have no incentive to take the contributions if they are offered because if they do they won't get the votes.

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Interesting tidbit from your link:

    Picking 2 out of 11 topics identified as important by respondents, Money in politics was one of the two most frequently selected.

    I think I remember that some people have said it is not that important.

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Big money doesn't always win. But, it usually takes an extraordinary candidate to prevail.

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    Money in politics is a big issue. But, what can be done about it so long as Citizens United is the law of the land?

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I mean, besides One Demand.

  90. [90] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (88,89)-
    Nothing, if you want it to be effective.

  91. [91] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As complicated as the problem is the basis of the solution is simple.

    If citizens keep voting for Big Money candidates they will keep getting Big Money legislators.

    Cause and effect.

  92. [92] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Marriage as an institution has been the bedrock of our society for thousands of years.. It seemed silly to change the institution based on a social justice issue that has only cropped up in the last decade or so..

    And today, marriage as an institution is still the bedrock of our society just as much as it ever has been. The institution isn’t changed just because you allow more people to exercise their right to be part of that institution. We have learned over the years that allowing different races or people of different faiths to marry did not change the institute of marriage. Face it, marriage equality threatens traditional marriage in the same way that abolishing slavery made freedom less enjoyable for white people.

    The groups that make this argument have chosen not to introduce or endorse legislation that would make it tougher for married couples to terminate their marriages, oddly enough! How does allowing people to marry cause greater to the damage to the institution than people choosing to end their marriages? Much like the Colorado Cake case, this is truly about hatred towards people they look down on.

    Plus, marriage is a legal contract that grants couples legal protections and benefits that individuals are not granted. It’s funny how few people against marriage equality are willing to give up those protections and benefits in exchange for keeping gays from being able to marry. I guess their faith is only worth fighting for as long as they aren’t negatively effected by their choice to fight.

  93. [93] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    40

    Read your post at 14 again.

    No.

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

    I still agree with that, Don. You have been annoying and insulting a lot of times, and so far nothing has worked for you whether you were nice or naughty or mean or nasty or a pain in the "ask."

    See what I did there? :)

  94. [94] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz [84]

    Thanks for this link! I was impressed with some of their findings. I think the one issue that effects our opinions more than anything else is our media. Sensationalized stories that serve as click bait is bad, but allowing propaganda to masquerade as news stories based in the truth is destroying our country. Honest reporting of the news would probably result in the elimination of many of the concerns listed in the survey. Journalism is too important of a component to having a healthy democracy to allow dishonesty to be presented as the truth. Everyone is free to have their own opinion and views, but those need to be clearly identified as being an opinion and not necessarily based on the truth.

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    The why people are putting Big Money into politics is because citizens keep voting for Big Money candidates.

    Why do you care if people vote for big money candidates?

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Yes, I see what you did. You agreed that I was annoying/insulting when being nice did not work.

    Thank you.

    This, at least in my opinion, helps show that CW's claim he was ignoring me because of the vinegar is not valid because he was ignoring me before the vinegar in his analogy was applied and that the honey he recommended and implied could work had in fact already not worked.

  97. [97] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I don't care if people that want to vote for Big Money candidates vote for Big Money candidates, as long as they don't complain when the Big Money legislators don't do what they want them to do (assuming they are not big money contributors).

    What concerns me is the people that want the Big Money out (80%), the people that don't vote, both those that don't vote in off year elections (20-30% of presidential cycle voters) and those that don't vote at all (40% of those eligible).

    These last two groups are people that have already rejected the Big Money candidates by not voting for them. I am concerned with trying to get these citizens to vote against that Big money candidates as they are already half way there.

    And I believe it is a legitimate idea that deserves to be part of the public discourse that should be addressed by a reality based blogger.

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    BigGuy
    24

    I have decided to forgo all reporting on the Mueller investigation. Director Mueller has exceeded all expectations for controlling leaks.

    While Director Mueller has kept a very tight lid on the investigation, his team is not the only office working on prosecution of the perpetrators. Focusing solely on Mueller's team is like... how shall I say... missing the trees for the forest.

    Never miss an opportunity to turn an idiom on its head. :)

    What are Jim Jordan, Trey Gowdy, etc. thinking when they antagonize the two people who will determine when the report is released?

    I'm not sure what Jordan's angle is... yet, but Trey Gowdy was one of the approximately one dozen or so members of the Trump transition team... the one for which Mueller's team acquired multiple thousands of their emails from the General Services Administration (one of those trees).

    Fun Fact: Trey Gowdy is retiring at the end of his term when he could easily win reelection in his ruby red state. Speaking of which, whatever happened to that "nice" Jason Chaffetz of Utah? He too could have easily won re-election if only he had not "chosen" to retire without even waiting for the end of his term. Pity, that. :)

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/16/politics/special-counsel-robert-mueller-transition-emails-letter/index.html

  99. [99] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    LIz- (88,89)-
    And even with Citizens United overturned by decision or a decision following an amendment it will make little difference as Citizens United is a symptom and not the cause.

    And One Demand does not require waiting years for decisions, legislation or amendments to be effective.

    A small amount of citizens, as little as 5% of the vote in 2018, which if made up of the 30% of voters that didn't vote in 2014 would only have to be about one out of ten of those voters, could provide the base for this beginning to be effective in 2020 and on any legislator, Big Money or not elected in 2018 and/or seeking re-election in 2020 when they are serving (and who they are serving) in 2019.

  100. [100] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    54

    I am starting a political action committee for a groundbreaking grassroots’ political movement that I plan on calling, TWO DEMANDS!!! (the name came to me in a dream!)

    "TWO DEMANDS!!!" I love it... but with those three exclamation points people might think there's a third... as yet undisclosed... demand. ;)

    Foreign money can’t be donated directly to a campaign, but a SuperPAC can take in as much as a recently created LLC cares to funnel it.

    Mr. Gowdy has a PAC problem too. Pity, that. ;)

    CW, I will get back to you as to when I’ll be available for our interview and thank you again for your interest in our group! You’re the best!

    If he wants you to use a different name for your PAC, may I suggest: Kitty Political Action Committee!!! or Kitty PAC for short because who doesn't like kittens?! ;)

  101. [101] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    56

    Your grandson wasn’t hurt, I hope. Dog bites can require so many stitches. Where on his body was he bit? How did you manage to get a clear shot at the dog as he attacked your grandson? Weren’t you afraid of striking your grandson? I guess it was lucky that you had the gun on you when the dog attacked! So do you wear a holster under your bathrobe as you lounge around the house, or what?

    You, sir, display a wicked level of intellect, power of deduction, and absolute mastery of training that is so sorely and obviously lacking in others... if you get my drift, and I would wager that you do! ;)

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump is test marketing fascism?

    Well, we saw plenty of people defending locking up children, or trying to claim that everybody does it (wrong), so why it is a problem?

    One trait that strongly indicates support for Trump is deference to authority - which is also a pillar of fascism.

    Interesting it comes from the Irish Times.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375?mode=amp

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, we saw plenty of people defending locking up children, or trying to claim that everybody does it (wrong), so why it is a problem?

    JUst as we see plenty of Democrats every day defending brutally murdering children.. So why is that a problem??

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    60

    Yes! Everything Neil said.

    So my "One Demand" would be for a permanent "Robert Mueller III Memorial Political Corruption and Money Laundering Team" at the FBI.

    That's a great idea. Seriously.

  105. [105] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm

    Let me be the first to congratulate you on your big win in the Kelly Exit contest. I believe your guess was 8/1/18, and I believe that's going to be awfully close.

    I hear he is hanging in there desperately just trying to make the 1-year mark, which would be 7/31/18.

    You sneaker! :)

  106. [106] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (100)-
    While I haven't had much success in naming organizations, how about the Kittens Instead of Corruption Kommittee?

    It may not be as good as your suggestion, but I thought you might like the acronym.

  107. [107] 
    Paula wrote:

    [105] Kick: Yep, old Kelly's bowing out. There's some talk about Hope Hicks coming back to replace him. They literally have to recycle people from an ever-shrinking pool. She'd be a fool to come back but then she probably is a fool or she wouldn't associate with these people. A fool or just another criminal.

  108. [108] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [107]: Like a lot of important men, Trump would certainly prefer his constant companion to be his familiar right-hand-gal to a General giving crisp answers to be his questions. I'm sure that Kelly doesn't sufficiently stroke any part of his ego.

    When they were discussing Kelly's replacement the other day Hope's name popped into my head too. I think Trump misses her influence. Considering some of the things he's done since her departure maybe we should too.

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    92

    The groups that make this argument have chosen not to introduce or endorse legislation that would make it tougher for married couples to terminate their marriages, oddly enough! How does allowing people to marry cause greater to the damage to the institution than people choosing to end their marriages? Much like the Colorado Cake case, this is truly about hatred towards people they look down on.

    It's yet another issue of "control," and the Bible is used to justify it. Since marriages were originally more about strengthening family bonds and the merging of the wealth of families in order to create a larger/stronger work/war force... and less about a union of two people in love... a lot of the things we believe are religious custom aren't really at all.

    For instance, Isaac married his cousin, Jacob too married his cousin, and Abraham married his half-sister. So many people willing to overlook some of their Bible verses while insisting on the importance of the others is nothing but an issue of control and fear... but mostly control.

  110. [110] 
    Paula wrote:

    [108] Balthasar: I think Trump misses her influence. Considering some of the things he's done since her departure maybe we should too.

    If you think she'll reduce his atrocities - well, whatever gets you through the night. I think we're past that point and his atrocities are now geared soley towards ginning up his drooling deplorables to back him when the showdown with Mueller happens.

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    96

    This, at least in my opinion, helps show that CW's claim he was ignoring me because of the vinegar is not valid because he was ignoring me before the vinegar in his analogy was applied and that the honey he recommended and implied could work had in fact already not worked.

    Hint:

    * Clover
    * Eucalyptus
    * Rosemary
    * Manuka
    * Buckwheat
    * Sourwood
    * Acacia
    * Dandelion

    You're welcome, Don. :)

  112. [112] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Hmmmmm. I got it.

    You're talking aboot President Xi's favorite food! (see John Oliver).

    Hint: Oh, bother.

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    166

    Kittens Instead of Corruption Kommittee

    Well, aren't you clever... but that's far too Bavarian. ;)

  114. [114] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    107

    There's some talk about Hope Hicks coming back to replace him. They literally have to recycle people from an ever-shrinking pool.

    Hope Hicks!

    She'd be a fool to come back but then she probably is a fool or she wouldn't associate with these people. A fool or just another criminal.

    I would be surprised to see Hope come back to the White House because I believe she is a material witness... among other things.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    [105] Kick: Yep, old Kelly's bowing out.

    Any facts to to prove this???

    No?? Of course not...

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as the Annapolis Shooter..

    Once again, warning signs were ignored because Democrat policies encourage ignoring criminals and threats due to social justice...

  117. [117] 
    Paula wrote:

    [114]Kick: Hope Hicks is a material witness - ah. She's "spoken" to Mueller's team but does that automatically mean she couldn't go back to the WH?

  118. [118] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well, well, well - as the British copper said as he saw three holes in the ground.

    Maybe my guess that Trump and Kelly would tire of each other but Kelly would want to last at least a year for reasons of pride (the man, prior to his current role, had a lot to be proud of).

    The WSJ, a stalwart of the center right, also thinks that Kelly is on his way out, "maybe as early as this summer", and that Trump is interviewing replacements.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-consults-advisers-about-possible-replacement-for-chief-of-staff-john-kelly-1530212632

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    The WSJ, a stalwart of the center right, also thinks that Kelly is on his way out, "maybe as early as this summer", and that Trump is interviewing replacements.

    Ahhh OK..

    So, Kelly isn't REALLY leaving.. Some media puke "THINKS" that Kelly is leaving..

    And ya'all lap it up because it fits your agenda..

    It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS

    That's what I thought..

  120. [120] 
    Paula wrote:

    [118] neilm: (the man, prior to his current role, had a lot to be proud of).

    Except for his white supremacy.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump has narrowed his Supreme Court shortlist to five people, including two women, he told reporters traveling with him to New Jersey today. He said he'll be interviewing candidates this weekend and that he'll announce the pick Monday, July 9.

    This is going to be awesome!!

    it's going to be really nice to see Dumbocrats flailing around trying to be relevant...

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except for his white supremacy.

    Any FACTS that prove this??

    No???

    Of course not...

  123. [123] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,
    [101] :D

    [109]. Or take King David....a man after God’s own heart... the man slept with half the kingdom. His letters and poems to Jonathan talking about his love for him were not the writings you’d send to a “bro”.

    Heck, Jesus was a 33 yo virgin in a time when the normal age of marriage was around 15. He hung out with 12 rough trade guys and his bestie was a whore who never got with. If that doesn’t sound like a gay guy, I don’t know what does.

    Two songs/videos to check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxc20saM8DA the first is Bo Burnham’s “From God’s Perspective”

    The second is Garfunkel &Oates’ “The Loophole” discussing the Bible’s teachings on sex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY

    Hope you enjoy them as much as I do!

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    New rallying call for 2020 Democrats: 'Abolish ICE'
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/abolish-ice-call-democrats-left-flank-195227858--election.html

    Awesome!!!

    That guarantees President Trump a landslide victory..

    Here's the new slogan for the Democrat Party..

    DEMOCRATS!! PULLING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY IN 2018!!! :D

  125. [125] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Dang it, put two links in a post and it got snagged by the censors.

    Kick

    [101]. Very flattered. I just thought it odd how the 2nd saved his grandson without the gun actually being anything but an afterthought to the story.

    [109] Or how about Onan, who was told to impregnate his dead brother’s wife, (not marry her and then have sex, mind you) but pulled out “spilling his seed upon the ground” and the reason masturbation is supposedly a sin. If God didn’t want us to play with ourselves, our genitals would have been placed between our shoulder blades.

    Then there was King David, “a man after God’s own heart”.... the bisexual love machine who screwed half the kingdom! David’s true love was Jonathan, which he made abundantly clear in the poems that you wouldn’t write for someone you consider to be just a “bro”!

    For fun: Bo Burnham’s “From God’s Perspective” song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxc20saM8DA If you have never seen this kid, I definitely encourage you to watch the full concert...his wit and depth of comedy is really inspiring!

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/06/29/19/4DC41A0700000578-0-image-a-20_1530297282741.jpg
    A black and white colored video from a 2004 encounter shows fighter jets closing in on an unidentified object (circled red) before it quickly accelerates out of sight

    Duh.... That's obviously a TIE Fighter...

  127. [127] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    You’ve got Trump calling for ending the Dept of Labor and Dept of Education and turning them into a single unit somehow. ICE isn’t that old of a department....they used to be INS not too long ago. So calling for a remodel isn’t that outlandish of an idea. DHS could easily take over the border.

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump’s on a hot streak: Court rulings, vacancy, summit plan
    https://apnews.com/b5d909fc9e8642709d95a31a83c00b5c

    Reality test...

    Who here can concede the facts and who here will dispute reality based on political bigotry??

    I am guessing 3 to the former and all the rest to the latter...

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    So calling for a remodel isn’t that outlandish of an idea.

    If they were calling for a remodel, you would have an argument..

    But they are calling for abolishment, so you don't..

    But, by all means.. Pooh-pooh it away.. Support the abolishment of ICE...

    See how well Democrats do in November.. :D

    DHS could easily take over the border.

    That's what you don't get.. They don't want ANYONE 'taking over the border'...

    They want a totally free and open border..

    Go ahead.. Ya'all support that...

    I double dog dare ya..

    And then the coming Red Wave will be a Red Tsunami... :D

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Man charged with threatening to kill Ajit Pai’s family
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/29/ajit-pai-family-death-threat-man-charged-688040

    Democrats... :^/

  131. [131] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (128)-
    Warning aboot a red wave? Didn't they used the call the Russians the Reds? Was that what you're referring to? :D

  132. [132] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (128)-
    Very clever slipping in the answer to 112. twice.

  133. [133] 
    neilm wrote:

    They want a totally free and open border..

    That's libertarians Michale. You seem to forget that traditionally Democrats were against immigration and were chastised by the right because they saw it as protecting jobs at the expense of the economy.

    It is only recently that the Republican Party has become taken over by bigots who hate Mexicans and have gone looney tunes on border walls, etc.

    The libertarians needed to square the circle of the obvious libertarian value of freedom of movement of labor being restricted by the other parts of the Republican Party and so came up with the welfare argument, which is really sad, because the solution is to restrict welfare only to American citizens, which is far more libertarian a solution than going along with the bigots, but showed the libertarians up for what they were.

  134. [134] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    117

    She's "spoken" to Mueller's team but does that automatically mean she couldn't go back to the WH?

    But what if it was Ms. Hicks who conspired with the Messrs Trumps in order to perpetrate multiple crimes? Wouldn't they have to be utter fools to allow Hope back into the White House? ;)

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    115

    Any facts to to prove this???

    Canis lupus familiaris. *laughs*

  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    118

    Well, well, well - as the British copper said as he saw three holes in the ground.

    *grins*

    Maybe my guess that Trump and Kelly would tire of each other but Kelly would want to last at least a year for reasons of pride (the man, prior to his current role, had a lot to be proud of).

    Yes, sir... I saw what you did there, and that's why I called you a "sneaker." It is one of the highest forms of flattery that I bestow.

    I had surmised Trump would tire of him within 6-7 months and he would endeavor to last until his birthday and then announce his retirement. It is not at all uncommon for a federal employee to retire around the day of their birth after reaching a particular age or their SCD* after reaching a particular number of years of service.

    Congrats again, sneaker! :)
    ___________________

    Key:

    * Service Computation Date - calculated for Federal Employees such as Mr. Kelly with two or more terms of service

  137. [137] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    119

    So, Kelly isn't REALLY leaving.. Some media puke "THINKS" that Kelly is leaving..

    Of course Kelly is leaving. He obviously won't be there forever. "Media puke"? You may note that there is a poster on this board who keeps posting multiple stories from other "media pukes" that are highlighted in bold that I would wager are skipped over in the same manner as myself... yet no one else feels the constant need to interrupt his right-wing spewage by whining that it's nothing more than the bullshit of a "media puke."

    If you were the commenter who's posting the majority of "media puke," then why on Earth would you feel the constant need to whine incessantly about it and barrage every other poster in a trolling fashion ad nauseam with the same BS over and over?

    I am not constrained to point out that nobody else on the board feels the need to troll every comment of his and interrupt the dialogue every time he posts something from a "media puke." :)

    And ya'all lap it up because it fits your agenda..

    Said the guy who... hands down... spews the most drivel and litters the board with the majority of "puke."

    It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS

    No, it isn't... thank you for trying, though.

    It's called "there is no way in Hell that Kelly will last until the date that Don chose," so Neil is the obvious winner.

    *
    *
    Congratulations Neil... you Sneaker!
    *
    *

    :D

  138. [138] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    125

    Dang it, put two links in a post and it got snagged by the censors.

    It's up there already, though... "uncensorated" by CW. Props! I will check out your links this weekend, for sure. I loves me some history... no matter how far back it goes!

    Very flattered. I just thought it odd how the 2nd saved his grandson without the gun actually being anything but an afterthought to the story.

    I know, right?! Oh, how can I word this... I just thought it very odd too that your "questions" were even answered and that your "ammunition" flew right over his head. It's like... oh! *laughs* I will say no more, but I am certain that you get my drift. :)

    Or how about Onan, who was told to impregnate his dead brother’s wife, (not marry her and then have sex, mind you) but pulled out “spilling his seed upon the ground” and the reason masturbation is supposedly a sin.

    You mean... that wasn't a parable about gardening? ;)

    If God didn’t want us to play with ourselves, our genitals would have been placed between our shoulder blades.

    Okay, Russ... now I cannot "unsee" that. ;)

    Then there was King David, “a man after God’s own heart”.... the bisexual love machine who screwed half the kingdom!

    Would we call that half empty or half full? I heard tell that the good king screwed them all in one way or another. Say, being that David was an ancestor of the son of God, perhaps he didn't steal God's heart after all... only borrowed it. :)

    David’s true love was Jonathan, which he made abundantly clear in the poems that you wouldn’t write for someone you consider to be just a “bro”!

    Yes, sir. I think there are a whole lot of people who read the "good book" and simply fail to comprehend it, and then too, there is a lot that was either lost in translation or thrown out in its entirety by the Scottish king and those in his "service."

    I'm going to watch both your links up there over the weekend, and I'll definitely report back. Thank you. :)

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know, right?! Oh, how can I word this... I just thought it very odd too that your "questions" were even answered and that your "ammunition" flew right over his head. It's like... oh! *laughs* I will say no more, but I am certain that you get my drift. :)

    I get it.. I really do.. You have no clue what it's like to have children/grandchildren and what it takes to protect them..

    It's not surprising.. Ya'all are part of a group that not only endorses, but ADVOCATES the wholesale brutal slaughter of innocent children..

    And yet, ya'all scream hysterical because criminal's kids are taken away..

    Blatant hypocrisy..

  140. [140] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    139

    I get it.. I really do.. You have no clue what it's like to have children/grandchildren and what it takes to protect them..

    No, sir. You really obviously don't get it at all; that was our entire point. I just read this out loud to a room full of what I will refer to as "my crew," and they got a really good laugh out of that. Come down off your high horse, Mr. "LEO." It's past time that you did considering your circumstances. :D

    It's not surprising.. Ya'all are part of a group that not only endorses, but ADVOCATES the wholesale brutal slaughter of innocent children..

    It's not surprising you make a lot of bullshit assumptions either. You're embarrassing yourself every time you say something stupid like that, but we don't mind because it's always good for a belly laugh. :D

    And yet, ya'all scream hysterical because criminal's kids are taken away..

    And here I thought we agreed to stop talking about your family. :D

    Blatant hypocrisy..

    Well, of course, it's going to always be "blatant hypocrisy" when you whine incessantly about criminals considering your own circumstances such as they are. :D

  141. [141] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As I mentioned before, I had an opportunity to use my weapon when a dog attacked my grandson the other night..

    It makes my blood boil that the Left (there are exceptions and they are noted here) would want to take that right away from me and allow children to be mauled by dogs... Once again, the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" hypocrisy raises it's ugly head..

    You HAD AN OPPORTUNITY to use your gun:
    - to kill an animal that bit, but was no longer a threat to your grandson
    - to use it to rob a store
    - to accidentally shoot a family member mistaking them for an intruder.

    The point is, you didn’t actually use your gun to do ANY of those, but you could have! You tried to make it sound like your gun was used to defend the life of your grandson, but that gun played no part in defending him from that dog! NONE! ZERO! ZILCH!

    Good thing you didn’t shoot it, either. I’m guessing that you’d probably be charged with animal cruelty and possibly discharging a fire arm inside city limits. But the worst part is that exercising your 2nd Amendment rights would have greatly increased the chance that someone you love would be hit by one of your bullets ricocheting off the ground. Dog bites heal, bullets bury!

Comments for this article are closed.