ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [491] -- FART Act, Pruitt Out

[ Posted Friday, July 6th, 2018 – 16:55 PDT ]

We are (of course) not drawing any onomatopoetic comparisons to Scott Pruitt's last name with that title -- perish the thought! -- because it is merely a reference to two political stories which bookended this week. That's all. Ahem.

We begin with a little history. Benjamin Franklin was a funny guy, and was also prone to irreverence. When serving as U.S. Ambassador overseas, Franklin wrote a downright hilarious response to a scientific society's attempt to spur interesting research. This essay goes by many names, including: "A Letter To The Royal Academy On Farting," as well as the simpler: "Fart Proudly." Here's just a sample:

It is universally well known, That in digesting our common Food, there is created or produced in the Bowels of human Creatures, a great Quantity of Wind.

That the permitting this Air to escape and mix with the Atmosphere, is usually offensive to the Company, from the fetid Smell that accompanies it.

That all well-bred People therefore, to avoid giving such Offence, forcibly restrain the Efforts of Nature to discharge that Wind.

Franklin then goes on to propose -- modestly, of course -- that research into what people could consume to make their farts not stink would benefit all of humanity. And this was long before elevators had been invented!

Over 200 years later, the Trump administration -- you cannot make this stuff up, folks -- was reportedly considering a proposed piece of legislation on trade, which would have removed any congressional oversight over tariffs and also given the green light to Trump to ignore all those pesky W.T.O. rules as well. Borrowing a phrase Trump loves to repeat, they called their proposed bill the "United States Fair And Reciprocal Trade Act."

This, obviously, is the biggest acronymical faceplant since George W. Bush decided to call his invasion of Iraq "Operation Iraqi Liberation." Could any Republican really stand (with a straight face) on the floors of Congress to defend the "U.S. FART Act"?

Ben Franklin, obviously, would have been amused.

By week's end, the White House was desperate to clear the air of such a stinkeroo of a news story, so they decided to "accept the resignation" of E.P.A. chief Scott Pruitt. To summarize, we began with the FART Act and ended with "Pruitt out."

What the media interestingly didn't really pick up on with the Pruitt firing (oh, excuse us, "resignation") was the fact that a very interesting story broke a few days beforehand. Now, Pruitt was already having yet another rough week, as some of his aides testified to a closed session of a congressional oversight committee. Reportedly, they confirmed some of the more juicy details of Pruitt's numerous scandals, including the fact that Pruitt retaliated against anyone who dared to suggest that what he was doing was creating ethical problems (to say the very least). So that's what the news media went with -- "Pruitt Fired After Aides Testify."

But this ignores the other big Pruitt story of the week, which was that Pruitt directly asked Trump to fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions, so that Trump could then replace Sessions with Pruitt. Pruitt would serve in this capacity for a while, and then step down to run for office back in his home state. Trump, obviously, didn't take him up on this scheme.

But we've seen this sort of thing before -- any Trump aide the news reports is trying to manipulate Trump behind the scenes lives on very thin ice. Trump is terrified of the storyline that puppetmasters are pulling his strings, and he's fired people who even dared to suggest such a thing before, so it should have been a fairly logical conclusion that this at least partly led to Pruitt's ouster this particular week (Pruitt's had so many bad weeks and so many different scandals that one wonders why this particular week was any different than all the others, in other words).

But Pruitt's exit isn't really all that much cause for environmentalists to celebrate, since the guy who is replacing him comes directly from the coal industry. So the henhouse will be left in charge of the foxes once again, even if the new fox is less ethically-challenged than the last one.

Of course, some responded to Pruitt's exit with snark. Washington Post columnist Karen Tumulty responded: "How much can you get for a slightly used soundproof booth on eBay?" But the best response, though, came from presidential historian Michael Beschloss, who pointed out: "The Pruitts of Southampton was a 1966 ABC sit-com, starring Phyllis Diller, about a family trying to live beyond its means." Now that is a funny coincidence!

Of course, it was the week of July 4th, which is always chock-full of symbolism, and this year was no exception. A woman actually climbed up onto the Statue of Liberty to protest Trump's immigration policy, which is about as symbolic as you can get for an immigration protest, really. Also this week, it was revealed that the Trump administration is busily kicking immigrants out of the United States Army, for no particular reason. To twist the knife, many of the brave soldiers who were unceremoniously shown the door were not given honorable discharges, which would have protected them from possible deportation. Nothing like respecting and honoring the troops for Independence Day, eh?

But there was one protest which really stood out this week. Reverend Stephen Carlsen, the rector and dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Indianapolis, decided he had to do something about the cruel Trump immigration policies. So he put the nativity figurines of Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus out on the church's front lawn, surrounded by a chain link cage. As he explained, Joseph and Mary were also a migrant family fleeing violence in their home country, after Herod ordered the execution of baby boys in Bethlehem. As he put it: "People forget what that scene means. That was a homeless couple who weren't welcome anywhere, who took refuge in a the barn, and it was to that couple that Christ was born."

He has spent time standing on the sidewalk in front of the display to talk to passersby about it. Some people can connect the dots and agree, but some don't, according to Carlsen. When asked how long the display would remain outside the church, Carlsen responded: "How long is it needed? I would love for it to be outdated and be taken down. That would be my greatest wish."

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We've got a lot of folks to mention this week, but before we begin, we would like to send some "get well soon" wishes to Steny Hoyer, Democratic House Minority Whip, who was hospitalized this week for pneumonia.

We're handing out three Honorable Mention awards this week, for various reasons. The first goes to Representative Barbara Lee, who wasted no time after Joe Crowley's recent primary defeat to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Because Crowley will be out of office in January, it will leave his leadership position as the chair of the House Democratic Caucus open. Lee becomes the first person to toss her hat into the race to replace Crowley, which would (if successful) represent a double win for Progressives. It'll be interesting to see who else puts their name forward, but for now Lee is the only person who has announced her interest.

Our second Honorable Mention goes to Chuck Schumer, for sheer New York chutzpah. Schumer spoke on the phone briefly with President Trump, and suggested uniting America by nominating Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. No word on how Trump took this suggestion, but for daring to make it Schumer deserves some sort of recognition. It certainly would go a long way towards fairness, but we're not exactly holding our breath in anticipation of Trump following Schumer's advice, if you know what we mean.

And our final Honorable Mention goes to Cori Bush, who is running for a House seat in Missouri. She apparently had been getting some body shaming, and decided to push back on Twitter. Under proud photos of herself in various outfits, Bush posted:

As a candidate I've heard my hips are too big, and not just from trolls. "Wear dark pants." Well, I look like women in my district, who I serve. If elected, ALL OF THIS goes to Congress. Hips can't legislate but maybe they should! NO BODY SHAMING #WomenInPolitics! #thesehips Deal

That's the way to tell them! Nicely done....

As amusing as those last two were, we still had to slightly-retroactively award Bernie Sanders this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. As we wrote earlier this week, Bernie is well on his way to enacting a fundamental change in the Democratic Party's rules -- specifically, those dealing with the "superdelegates" to the national convention.

On the same day Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee voted 27-1 to change the rules for superdelegates. They will no longer be able to vote in the first round of nomination balloting at the convention, unless one candidate has already wrapped up the nomination by winning the majority of the pledged delegates. Otherwise, the superdelegates will get to vote starting with the second round of voting. This effectively removes the power to throw the nomination to one candidate or another by the sheer weight of the superdelegates' votes. At the same time, it still allows the superdelegates to get an automatic ticket to the convention and it still will allow them to cast their vote (one way or another). As we wrote earlier, this seems a rather elegant compromise between competing interests.

Even so, it's a clear win for Bernie Sanders, who pointed out how undemocratic the superdelegate system was, last time around. His supporters initially called for the abolition of superdelegates, but Bernie is now happy with the compromise they reached.

This isn't a done deal yet, as the proposal now has to be voted on by the full D.N.C., which will happen next month. But the 27-1 vote in the Rules Committee shows that it already has support from those in the Bernie camp as well as the Clintonistas. This bodes well for the proposal's chances of passing and becoming the new rules for 2020.

If it does pass the full D.N.C., then Bernie will have successfully fixed a glaring inequity in the way the Democratic Party nominates their presidential candidates. Even if -- as was the case with Hillary Clinton -- a huge majority of the superdelegates endorse one candidate before the primary voting even begins, it will not have any direct effect on any candidate's chances to win the nomination. These superdelegate votes won't count unless a candidate has already won the nomination, removing the power of the superdelegates to put a rather large thumb on the scale before the voters have any say in the matter.

Unrigging this system is in fact one of the most impressive outcomes of the bitter rivalry from 2016. Not only did Bernie Sanders see his complaints addressed with real change, but at the end of the day almost everyone was happy with the outcome. That is impressive indeed, and it's why Bernie Sanders gets a slightly-belated Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Senator Bernie Sanders on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Maybe it was because of the holiday this week, but no Democrat seriously disappointed us all week long, so the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award will have to stay on the shelf until next week. That is, unless anyone's got a suggestion for someone disappointing that we missed, this week, down in the comments?

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 491 (7/6/18)

This week's talking points range from Trump Baby to J. K. Rowling rolling on the floor laughing, so it's an interesting collection this time around. With no further ado, let's just get right to it, shall we?

 

1
   Trump Baby will fly!

Now there's a fun headline!

"When Donald Trump visits the United Kingdom later this summer, he will be greeted by a 'Trump Baby' blimp hovering over Parliament in protest. The blimp depicts Trump holding a cell phone (oh, excuse me, a "mobile" to Brits) in his tiny little hands while wearing a diaper (whoops... I mean a "nappy," of course). How appropriate! The mayor of London just granted permission for the Trump Baby protest, the TrumpBabyUK Twitter account noted. That's right -- Trump Baby will be flying high to greet the president's arrival."

 

2
   Seriously, though, baby jails are not who we are

On the more serious side of babies, Democrats need to start using this term as many times as possible, because it truly sums up the awfulness of the Trump administration's heartless policy.

"I'm sorry, but when I consider what it is to be an American and how our country should do things in our name, jailing babies shouldn't even be on the list. The very concept of baby jails should be abhorrent to any American citizen, no matter what you believe should be done on immigration. We are jailing babies, and that is just wrong, period. A church in Indiana this week put their nativity figurines of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph out on their front lawn with a chain-link cage around them. But it's even worse than that because they really should have just put the Baby Jesus in the cage, alone. Because under Trump, Mary and Joseph would be kept in separate jails. This is where Trump has led our nation, and it is high time every decent citizen speak with one voice, saying loudly: 'No more baby jails! Not in our name!'"

 

3
   Keystone Kops all over again

This is the inevitable result of determining policy on the fly, folks.

"Just like they did with the travel ban, the Trump White House proved once again that absolutely no thought whatsoever was put into what their new 'zero tolerance' policy would actually mean to the human beings who would be directly affected. No guidance was given, no systems were put in place, they just thought they'd wing it and everything would turn out fine. What happened instead was more reminiscent of the Keystone Kops, flailing and failing badly. Recently, the Trump administration admitted it didn't even know the precise number of children who have been ripped from their parents' arms to be confined in horrific conditions. They're estimating that it is 'under 3,000' but they really have no concrete idea. They called it 'difficult and time-consuming' to even attempt to keep track of which children belong to which parents. They're now attempting DNA testing to fix the disaster of what should have been routine recordkeeping. If all that weren't bad enough, the New York Times reported that even the woefully inadequate procedures that were attempted didn't work, because 'Customs agents deleted the initial records in which parents and children were listed together as a family with a family identification number.' This led to the situation where 'parents and children appeared in federal computers to have no connection to one another.' The stunning levels of incompetence the White House displayed during the travel ban fiasco were chalked up to a new administration that had only been in power a very short time. Except that excuse doesn't work anymore, a year and a half in. This entire human rights disaster has to be laid squarely at the door of Donald Trump and the gang of incompetents he surrounds himself with."

 

4
   Dutch prime minister refuses to enable Trump's fantasy world

This wasn't widely reported, at least not here in America.

"Donald Trump infamously lives in a fantasy world inside his own head, where everything he does is wonderful and nothing bad ever happens. On the trade wars he has started, according to Trump, it's all good. He was trying to explain this in a joint appearance with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte this week, but Rutte wasn't having any of it. When Trump said that if America and Europe 'do work it out, that'll be positive, and if we don't work it out, that'll be positive also,' Rutte injected a bit of reality into Trump's fantasyland, saying bluntly: 'No. It's not positive.' Trump responded: 'It'll be... it'll be positive.' So I'd like to thank Mark Rutte for so refreshingly pouring cold water on Trump's delusions in such a public way. Trade wars are not positive no matter what the outcome, which is a fact that Trump still has yet to face."

 

5
   Does anyone remember the Cold War?

Seriously, this should be jaw-dropping, but in today's GOP it is merely par for the course, somehow.

"If someone told you, during Ronald Reagan's last year in office, that 30 years from then eight Republican members of Congress would spend their Fourth of July in Moscow kissing up to the Russian government -- even though it had been proven that the Russians interfered in the most recent U.S. election -- you would have thought it an insane prediction. And yet, here we are. The leader of this delegation, Senator Richard Shelby, openly admitted that the Republicans were visiting to 'strive for a better relationship' with Moscow, and would not 'accuse Russia of this or that or so forth,' which is an absolutely astonishing statement for anyone who lived through even a piece of the Cold War. Meddling in our presidential election is 'this or that or so forth'? Really? Wow. Russian state television openly mocked the Republican delegation for appearing so weak. It was pointed out that all the tough talk the Republicans had promised back home 'changed a bit' by the time they got to Moscow. Folks, that sound you are now hearing is Ronald Reagan spinning wildly in his grave."

 

6
   How does he get a pass on this stuff?

This is a talking point that truly should be deployed by pretty much any Democrat on television, as many times as possible.

"Donald Trump has started a trade war, and he is incensed that Harley-Davidson responded by announcing they'd be moving production overseas as a direct result. Trump seemingly wants all immigration halted because he cannot stand foreigners coming to America at all. Both of those would seem to be bedrock beliefs not only of the president, but also of all his followers. However, there's a few glaring contradictions between these political stances and how Trump and his family run their various businesses. Because Trump really only gets irate at companies who manufacture things abroad that aren't named for Trump or his family. Ivanka uses Chinese factories to make all her branded clothing, and Trump used to have all his Trump ties made in China as well. This is somehow perfectly fine with the Trumps, while Harley-Davidson announcing it will be doing the exact same thing is somehow a gigantic betrayal of the president. Likewise, Trump's Mar-A-Lago resort just applied to hire dozens of foreign workers as cooks and waiters. Trump's business empire actually prefers giving jobs to foreign workers, whether in their own countries or right here in America. So where is the outrage? Trump creates jobs for foreigners, not Americans, and that's somehow supposed to be OK while no other American company should do the same? That's a pretty glaring bit of hypocrisy, and yet somehow his followers don't seem to mind, for some bizarre reason."

 

7
   Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Finally, just for fun, we have the most brilliant response to Trump from anyone this week. Technically, this isn't really a talking point, but it was close enough for us. You'll see why.

Donald Trump, obviously peeved over people who point out that he capitalizes words in his tweets in much the same fashion as was trendy in Ben Franklin's time (see that excerpt, above), decided to fight back on Twitter this week. He tweeted:

After having written many best selling books, and somewhat priding myself on my ability to write, it should be noted that the Fake News constantly likes to pour over my tweets looking for a mistake. I capitalize certain words only for emphasis, not b/c they should be capitalized!

J. K. Rowling was amused by this tweet, since Trump in claiming to be smart proved once again that he just isn't. Here are Rowling's two tweets, reproduced in their entirety:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *draws breath* hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1014257237945176071 …

 

'pour' hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Others also pointed out Trump's homonymic mistake, and soon enough the tweet was taken down and reposted with "pour" corrected to "pore." This led to another round of laughter from Rowling:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha someone told him how to spell 'pore' hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

129 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [491] -- FART Act, Pruitt Out”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    do you think rev. carlsen heard the nields song? definitely worth a listen if you haven't yet - i linked to it in a previous comments section, but here's that link again just in case:

    https://youtu.be/fPt6svQOmNY

    JL

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How does a US administration lose track of the families it chose to separate under its zero tolerance policy?

    Why can it not comply with a court order to reunite these families?

    When a misguided and mean-spirited policy meets complete ineptitude and incompetence all around in its execution, then you get a disaster on a mass scale that no one can resolve in a responsible manner. Heartless deosn't adequately describe the government's attempt to absolve itself of the responsibility to reunite children with parents who have already been deported.

    If DNA testing is being used to ensure that children are being properly reunited with their families and not with smugglers and other criminals, that would be one thing.

    But, the actual reason DNA testing is being used is that the government doesn't have a clue as to which children belong to which parents because the essential paperwork was not completed at each stage of the separation process.

    I'm afraid that this situation is going to be with us long past the duration of the Trump administration.

  3. [3] 
    rjrap wrote:

    I'm afraid that this situation is going to be with us long past the duration of the Trump administration.

    Not just this one. The next Dem president in 2020 is going to spend all 8 years undoing all the damage Trump has done.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, that is precisely why Senator Biden is the man for that job, with or without Governor Brown.

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    with these two scotus picks sitting on the bench, even if there isn't a third or fourth pick, it's going to take a lot longer than 8 years.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's going to take an extraordinary leader.

  7. [7] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    more than that even. because of the enthusiasm of his base, donald could very well win a second term.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I completely agree with that. You will recall I was worried he'd win in 2016.

    It will take an extraordinary leader who is capable of communicating a message clearly and concisely, focusing on the big picture as opposed to the daily distractions.

    And, most importantly, this leader must take his message well beyond his base.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    rjrap,

    Do you believe that it's more than possible that Trump will be re-elected?

  10. [10] 
    rjrap wrote:

    No I do not. I dont think his "base" is all that large percentage wise.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That can be a dangerous way of thinking ...

  12. [12] 
    rjrap wrote:

    Although I do not agree with what Maxine Waters proposed, I feel a ground swell of Trump rebellion starting. And I'm afraid its only going to get worse.

  13. [13] 
    rjrap wrote:

    And thats a dangerous thing also.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    rjrap,

    What do you think the next Democratic presidential nominee will have to do to beat him.

    Actually, at his last rally, Trump said something that kind of shocked me when I heard it. Of course, the media hasn't picked up on it.

    He was talking about 2020 and at one point he said, and I quote, "if I run". The Dems may not be the only ones with an incumbent-free primary ...

  15. [15] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    if he's able, he'll run. that's reality tv drama, not real indecision.

    JL

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And thats a dangerous thing also.

    Yes, that is a very, very dangerous thing and a sure fire way to re-elect a Republican president.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    I was thinking that Trump knows something we don't know - for sure, at least - about what Mueller is up to ...

  18. [18] 
    rjrap wrote:

    14- Liz

    I dont know what it will take. Hopefully just being a Democrat will be good enough.

    I sure we all know it wasnt just his base that got him elected. It was also voters who wanted to see if a non politician could drain the swamp and make all these great unfulfilled deals. I believe most of those voters are gone.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't know what it will take. Hopefully just being a Democrat will be good enough.

    Good luck with that strategy, again.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Pour vs Pore!?

    Really? I mean, SERIOUSLY!

    Who among us has not made the mistake of saying there instead of their or your welcome instead of you're welcome or week instead of weak ...

    Serious people need to stop allowing themselves to be distracted and start focusing like a laser beam on the big picture or the unthinkable will happen in 2020.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    This, obviously, is the biggest acronymical faceplant since George W. Bush decided to call his invasion of Iraq "Operation Iraqi Liberation."

    Ahem... Obama's Win The Future...

    Now, Pruitt was already having yet another rough week,

    Yea, he was harassed by Mad Maxine's minions..

    Maybe it was because of the holiday this week, but no Democrat seriously disappointed us all week long, so the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award will have to stay on the shelf until next week. That is, unless anyone's got a suggestion for someone disappointing that we missed, this week, down in the comments?

    Oh puuulleeeezzeeeee :^/

    Others also pointed out Trump's homonymic mistake, and soon enough the tweet was taken down and reposted with "pour" corrected to "pore." This led to another round of laughter from Rowling:

    Haven't seen you Democrats more hysterical since coffeve... :^/

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pour vs Pore!?

    Really? I mean, SERIOUSLY!

    Who among us has not made the mistake of saying there instead of their or your welcome instead of you're welcome or week instead of weak ...

    Serious people need to stop allowing themselves to be distracted and start focusing like a laser beam on the big picture or the unthinkable will happen in 2020.

    Seriously, Liz.. Well said..

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ahem... Obama's Win The Future...

    Would you like to hazard a guess as to what my Poker Stars handle is? :)

    I've had some great political chats there, from time to time ...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Important to note..

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/05/democrats-civility-1960s-violence-218948

    Here's what happened the last time Democrats went down the road they are on today...

    If Democrats want to guarantee a larger House and Senate GOP majority, just keep on traveling down the late 60s/early 70s road...

  25. [25] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Pour vs Pore!?

    Really? I mean, SERIOUSLY!

    It would not have been as funny had Trump not preceded his gaffe with:

    After having written many best selling books, and somewhat priding myself on my ability to write…

    He first lies about being the author of many best sellers, then boasts about his writing abilities! You can’t make that sort of crap up! His arrogance is what made his otherwise forgivable mistake so glaring.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    this is what it looks like

  27. [27] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LWYH-25

    Trump seems to write about as well as he can read.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    more than that even. because of the enthusiasm of his base, donald could very well win a second term.

    And given the Democrat penchant to snatch defeat from the jaws of vicotry...

    Barring any major upheaval (a REAL one, not like what we have seen from hysterical Democrats) it's a forgone conclusion that Trump will win a second term...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    He first lies about being the author of many best sellers, then boasts about his writing abilities! You can’t make that sort of crap up! His arrogance is what made his otherwise forgivable mistake so glaring.

    Yea!!! And!!! And!!! He's got ORANGE SKIN too!!!

    AND!!! AND!!! Tiny hands!!!!!

    I really wish sometimes that ya'all could take a step outside yerselves and see how utterly inane and ridiculous ya'all sound...

    :^/

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:
  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Man threatened to kill supporters of Trump, GOP congressman outside campaign office, police say

    A New York man nearly ran over a campaign volunteer at a Long Island congressman’s re-election headquarters Friday after threatening to kill supporters of the lawmaker and President Donald Trump, police said.

    Martin Astrof, 75, was arrested outside his home shortly afterward and charged with making a terroristic threat and second-degree reckless endangerment, FOX5 New York reported.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/07/man-threatened-to-kill-supporters-trump-gop-congressman-outside-campaign-office-police-say.html

    What's the problem?? He is just doing what Mad Maxine told him to do.. "Absolutely harass" anyone who thinks differently... The only thing he forgot was to get the angry mob together...

    {/sarcasm}

    The "Love" and "tolerance" of the Left Wingery..

    :^/

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    MDDOTW-
    Why of course, CW- it's YOU!!!!!!!!

    "You disappointed the shit outta me."
    -Tony Russo
    Married to the Mob

    Just like a loyal mob soldier you have once again ignored One Demand and let an opportunity to run the guest column I submitted pass by without any explanation that is worthy of a reality based blogger.

    But disappointing is not a strong enough word.

    Deceptive comes to mind as not informing citizens about One Demand is a lie of omission. And it also fits your "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" excuse that clearly does not address why you did not respond when I asked nice which led to any vinegar.

    Why is it so hard for you to give simple direct answers to simple direct questions?

    Are the 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections real people or not?

    Are the 40% of eligible voters that don't vote at all real people or not?

    Together these citizens make up more than 50% of eligible voters that have rejected the Democrats message of we're not as bad as the Republicans.

    Shouldn't these citizens be informed that they have another option than staying home in 2018? If not, why not?

    Are you afraid that if these citizens were informed that they have another option that the citizens that have been suckered by the Democrats not as bad as the Republicans strategy will also decide they prefer having another option in 2018?

    And if this did happen, wouldn't it in the long run be a good thing? Couldn't it force the Democrats to rethink their failed strategy in 2020 and get many more Democrats to run true small contribution campaigns so that they can attract some of those over 50% of voters that have rejected the failed strategy as well as get back the others that chose the other option in 2018?

    Wouldn't it be better if some of the 20-30% of citizens that are off year non-voters participated in One Demand rather than waste their vote by not voting in 2018? if not, why not?

    What harm would it cause if they did? Does it outweigh the possible benefits? If so, how?

    If just one out of 20 of the over 50% of eligible voters that will not be voting in 2018 participated in One Demand it would total over 5% of the total vote.

    Could this inspire more of these citizens that still did not vote in 2018 to participate in One Demand in 2020? if not, why not?

    Could this inspire many candidates to run in 2020 as One Demand candidates? If not, why not?

    And all the 20-30% if citizens that are off year non-voters have to do to participate in One Demand in 2018 is register at the website and vote. They are already registered to vote as are some of the 40% that do not vote at all.

    They do not have to invest ant money in contributions, investigate any candidates, they are not spoilers because they would only be writing in their own name to register a vote against the Big money candidates to create and demonstrate demand for small contribution candidates in 2020 and set up a base for an organization to support those candidates in 2020 instead of not voting in 2018. They will not cost the Democrats any votes because they were not going to vote for the democrats in 2018 anyway.

    Isn't it true that the Women's March required so much more from participants and came together in about two months?

    So isn't it possible that One Demand could also come together to get 5% of the vote in 2018 if these citizens knew they had another option? If not, why not?

    While I am still not demanding that you address these questions with direct answers instead of bullshit dodges like "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" your claim to be a reality based blogger DOES DEMAND that you address these questions and One Demand directly and not with dodges or misinterpretations and misrepresentations of what One Demand is and inform citizens about this opportunity.

    "He clearly said 'to blave.' "
    -Miracle Max

    "LIAR! LIAR!"
    -Miracle Max's wife
    The Princess Bride

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:
  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Typical Democrat incompetence..

    Why the Left will hate Andrew Wheeler at EPA even more than Scott Pruitt
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-the-left-will-hate-andrew-wheeler-at-epa-even-more-than-scott-pruitt

    Hound Pruitt until he leaves the EPA post and bring to power someone even worse (for Democrats) at the EPA...

    What IS it about Democrats that they continually take a hammer to their own wee-wees over and over and over again??

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/05/some-trump-supporters-thought-npr-tweeted-propaganda-it-was-the-declaration-of-independence/?utm_term=.303ea0ff3a86

    WaPoop...

    'Nuff said...

    But I have to ask... Was that the same Declaration Of Independence that Leftist Facebook called "Hate Speech"??

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    BEWARE THE RED WAVE
    https://spectator.org/beware-the-red-wave/

    Democrats MAY have a shot in the House. Emphasis on MAY...

    But Democrats are going to get brutally decimated in the Senate....

    Joe Manchin
    Claire McCaskill
    Joe Donnelly
    Heidi Heitkamp
    John Tester
    Bill Nelson

    All are going to be replaced with GOP'ers...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe your Democrats can run on the THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS HATE SPEECH platform this election...

    Please encourage them to do so...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    How do you know the #WalkAway movement, in which white millennials are abandoning the Democrat Party, is a real thing?

    That’s easy — the Left is making the accusation that Russian bots are behind it.

    Dead giveaway.

    Heh..

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

    :D

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    The Walk Away "movement" is really no different than the Democrats getting all excited about some Republicans leaving the Republican Party because of Trump.

    The left media and the right media both highlight these kind of things that they think (or need to think) means that people are switching sides to their benefit.

    Meanwhile both sides of the media ignore the over 50% of eligible voters that walk away in off year elections from BOTH sides.

    And the commenters here from both sides are also as afraid as CW to address this reality by directly answering the questions in comment 32.

    Does anyone here from either side have the courage to directly answer these questions or are you all only capable of trading talking points that keep the discussion confined to your fantasy world that ignores the 50% of voters that reject both sides?

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Stop insulting us, Don.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Most people around here don't react well to insults.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Careful, Ryan.. Most things in the missile room don't react well to bullets"
    -Sean Connery, THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER

    :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Speaking of insults.. It's been kinda nice around here the last week or so, hasn't it?? :D

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    It is that kind of response that proves you are afraid to answer my questions. It is my opinion that the commenters here are afraid to answer my questions because the responses, just like your response, offer feeble excuses to not answer.

    If you are offended by my opinion that is too bad for you. You do not have a right to not be offended.

    It is also my opinion that it a fantasy world that does not address the over 50% of eligible voters that do not vote in off year elections.

    You are insulting me with your feeble excuses to avoid answering my questions. Continue if wish, but do not expect me to stop voicing my opinion and pointing out when you pass on the opportunity to have a real discussion despite complaining aboot the lack of real discussion.

    People also do not respond well to being ignored, fed feeble excuses and insulted and demeaned (not by you, except for the feeble excuses).

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Just a thought..

    The same freedom that gives you the right to voice your opinion and ask your questions is the same right others have NOT to address your opinion or answer your questions..

    If you demand to voice your opinions and ask your questions, you must respect other's rights to NOT address your opinions and to NOT answer your questions..

    I'm just sayin'....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Walk Away "movement" is really no different than the Democrats getting all excited about some Republicans leaving the Republican Party because of Trump.

    Except for the fact that the #WalkAway movement is nearly all LGBQTRABCXYZ.... That's much for of an issue for Democrats because they are a protected group...

    It would be as if black Americans migrated to President Trump in droves..

    Oh wait.. THAT has happened too...

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    So when is Trump picking his second Russian Judge? Almost a quarter of the SCOTUS are illegal placements after this. None of the judgements the Russian Judges are swing votes are legitimate. If the Russian Judges take away our healthcare, or let Trump get away with crimes, they should be impeached as soon as the Democrats get power back.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    So when is Trump picking his second Russian Judge? Almost a quarter of the SCOTUS are illegal placements after this. None of the judgements the Russian Judges are swing votes are legitimate. If the Russian Judges take away our healthcare, or let Trump get away with crimes, they should be impeached as soon as the Democrats get power back.

    "The whine is strong with this one"
    -Yoda

    :D

    Ya really have ta face reality, Neil...

    McConnell gambled and it paid off big time..

    The Left doesn't have a leg to stand on trying to deny Judge Barrett her seat at the table...

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale[45],

    Very well said.

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I has been nice around here, Michale. I was afraid to say anything to jinx the welcome atmosphere ...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    I has been nice around here, Michale. I was afraid to say anything to jinx the welcome atmosphere ...

    I kinda was too... But (knock on wood) we can keep it going...
    :D

    Michale[45],

    Very well said.

    Danke... :D

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Careful, Ryan.. Most things in the missile room don't react well to bullets"
    -Sean Connery, THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER :D

    Yes, that movie was on my mind - one of my favourites.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Left doesn't have a leg to stand on trying to deny Judge Barrett her seat at the table...

    Of course, that doesn't mean they shouldn't try!

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    Couldn't it force the Democrats to rethink their failed strategy in 2020 and get many more Democrats to run true small contribution campaigns so that they can attract some of those over 50% of voters that have rejected the failed strategy as well as get back the others that chose the other option in 2018?

    Where is your data that shows the reasons that people give for why they failed to vote?

    I have no doubt that most people believe that we need to get Big Money out of our elections, but that doesn’t mean that this is the reason that people chose not to vote. There are lot of people who support one political party over the other, but don’t vote for a variety of reasons: forgot to mail it in, overslept, feel that their vote won’t change anything, etc..

    Why would a person who doesn’t vote because it would mean getting up an extra two hours early to get to a polling place before heading into work want to make the effort just so they can write in their own name on the ballot?

    You think that sends a message to the political class, but how is anyone going to know the difference between those that truly want Bart Simpson to win and someone supporting One Demand by writing their own name in?

    They do not have to invest ant money in contributions, investigate any candidates, they are not spoilers because they would only be writing in their own name to register a vote against the Big money candidates to create and demonstrate demand for small contribution candidates in 2020 and set up a base for an organization to support those candidates in 2020 instead of not voting in 2018.

    You are telling people not to take the time to see if a candidate deserves their support, but to do what you tell them to do! Wow! Talk about arrogance! You have yet to explain how writing in your own name is sending a message against Big Money candidates that anyone other than you will recognize.

    You want people to get excited about a political movement that you, yourself, have said will have no effect on who is elected in that election. You believe, for some unknown reason, that people will be so excited by their decision to make a change in their own lives by voting (even though writing their own name onto the ballot won’t accomplish anything) that they are going to want to continue taking the time to vote in future elections and support the movement that accomplished NOTHING?!?!

    And what about electronic voting booths that do not allow for write-ins? What are people to do then? Or in places where write-ins are not allowed except in the primaries?

    You try to compare what you are wanting to do to the Woman’s March protests, which gave people an opportunity to come together in protest for women’s rights and to shine a light on those that have abused women. Your group wants to send an unclear message politicians whose only sin is accepting donations that you deem to be too large! You have yet to explain WHY I would support the only One Demand candidate on my ballot who opposes everything I support....except that they ran a small donations campaign!

    And that is the real problem... you want people to support candidates based on how they choose to run their campaigns, NOT with how they will govern!

    And to answer your questions: No, there is no chance in HELL that One Demand will draw people because it doesn’t give them “another option”! It isn’t a political party. It’s a campaign strategy at most, but it isn’t even a very good strategy.

  55. [55] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    You are right that people do not have to respond to my opinion. But when they choose to do so, they should expect a response.

    And when they make claims about One Demand that are inaccurate or avoid addressing the issue at hand (for example Listen comment 54), I will point that out in my response.

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    The data you ask for doesn't matter. 80% of citizens want the Big Money out of politics. The citizens in question have already rejected the Big Money choices offered.

    One way we can find out why and generate data is to offer them the option of One Demand and see if they respond.

    I have explained many times when accused of not explaining it as you have once again done how writing in their own name sends a message and what that message is.

    People sign up on the website now that they will be participating in one Demand for the purpose of registering a vote against the Big Money candidates and creating and demonstrating demand for small contribution candidates in 2020. A clear message and a real purpose.

    And by signing up now citizens also let other citizens know they will be participating so other citizens that might participate will not feel as if they are acting alone.

    As I only need one out of twenty of the 50% of 2018 non-voters to get it started and achieve 5% of the vote in 2018, I don't have to get the people that don't vote because they don't want to get up early.

    And since 80% of citizens want the Big Money out of politics there is a good chance that at least one out of twenty of these citizens are in that 80% and would consider casting a write in vote that has a chance to send a message and inspire the kind of candidates they want to run in 2020 better than wasting their vote by not voting.

    I am not telling people not to investigate candidates.

    I am saying that at this point in the election cycle there will be no or very few small contribution candidates on the ballot in November.

    If participants have a small contribution candidate on their ballot that they feel they can support they can vote for that candidate.

    But since most people will not have a small contribution candidate on their ballot all they have to do is write in their own name.

    So it is not too much effort for some of the people that already vote in presidential elections to sign up on the website and participate in 2018.

    I am not telling anyone to do anything. There is no arrogance. I am offering them a choice to participate.

    Electronic voting booths that do not allow write in votes? Pretty sure those are only in places where write in votes are not allowed.

    Places where write in votes are not allowed do not stop people in places where write in votes are allowed from participating in 2018 and getting it started. Then, if needed, we can work on the places where write in votes are not allowed for 2020 when these citizens might have the option of small contribution candidates on their ballot thanks to the people that participated in 2018.

    The Women's March gave people a chance to come together to protest and shine a light on those that abused women?

    I think you're confusing that with the me too movement.

    The Women's March was protesting Trump.

    And all it was was a protest rally (rallies).

    One Demand gives citizens a chance to come together to protest where it counts and will be noticed- in the voting booth.

    So I am comparing the Women's March to One Demand for the purpose of showing that there is plenty of time and it requires much less effort for citizens to participate.

    Other than that the Women's March is way below the level of One Demand.

    I don't have to explain why you or anyone would vote for a small contribution candidate that is against everything you support. I never asked anyone to do that. You just made that up.

    I have explained many times despite your false claim that I have not explained it, that the small contribution commitment is a starting point.

    Just like any other issue that a citizen feels is important enough to be a starting point.

    And I expect that One Demand candidates will govern on how they run their campaigns- representing the people that finance their campaigns.

    Just like the Big Money candidates govern- representing the people that finance their campaigns.

    Thanks for the discussion, but you still just provided recycled excuses and didn't really answer my questions even though I once again addressed your questions and argument.

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    you are correct on many counts about non-voters. according to political scientists, one of the main reasons people don't vote in the US is because it's inconvenient and takes effort. another main reason is because they don't know, don't care or aren't interested in politics. a third reason is that there is no immediate positive result when people vote for anyone other than the candidate who wins. however, those issues don't interest don. he's only interested in "the issue at hand" (an oddly appropriate term), namely whether or not millions of people who currently don't vote in mid-terms could be convinced to vote based primarily on campaign finance.

    as i see it, the chief obstacle would not be the illogical rationale for voting that way - people vote for all kinds of stupid stuff all the time (see: brexit). the main operational obstacle would be targeting the appropriate cross-section of the population and gaining their attention. which is why i see pestering CW as counterproductive. although there's a fair amount of sympathy here for the overall cause of addressing the legalized corruption of campaign finance, we as a community tend not to be receptive to the narrow focus of don's idea. some of us have suggested in all sincerity that he would be more successful if he sought out greener pastures, but no matter how many times we all say no thanks, it's certainly his prerogative to continue to ask.

    JL

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    Is campaign finance reform possible in the wake of Citizens United?

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    yes it is. see here:

    http://www.nhrebellion.org/agenda

    JL

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    also, strengthen and lengthen revolving door prohibitions.

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-table-revolving-door-prohibitions.aspx

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Hillary Clinton secretly planning to run in 2020?
    https://nypost.com/2018/07/07/is-hillary-clinton-secretly-planning-to-run-in-2020/

    All I have to say is... PLEASE, PLEASE run Hillary!!! You owe it to your fans to be a 3 time loser..

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Careful, Ryan.. Most things in the missile room don't react well to bullets"
    -Sean Connery, THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER :D

    Yes, that movie was on my mind - one of my favourites.

    :D One of Connery's best...

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    San Francisco: Poster-Child For The Failure Of U.S. Cities' Blue Model

    San Francisco proudly calls itself a "progressive" city. It follows what writer and scholar Walter Russell Mead calls the progressive "Blue Model" of governance. Yet, the policies it follows — high taxes, inane regulations, petty nanny-state authoritarianism, tolerance for rising lawlessness and disorder on its streets in the name of "compassion" — are the very ones that have driven middle-class and working-class citizens out. Only the rich and the so-called homeless, who have been welcomed into the city and are a growing issue, can afford to live in the city.

    Still, it might be unfair to single San Francisco out. A new study of Census data from 2010-2017 by the online publication 24/7 Wall Street and reported by USA Today finds that many other major American cities are losing population to other areas, even faster than San Francisco. But, unlike San Francisco, none of them have a booming Silicon Valley to bail them out as their middle-class residents seek greener pastures elsewhere.

    Looking at the Top 10 biggest net migration losers on the list for the seven years is instructive: It includes Chicago (which lost 296,320 people from 2010-2017), L.A. (-93,959 people lost), Detroit (-54,640), St. Louis (-39,894 people), Cleveland (-33,117), Memphis (-30,000), Milwaukee (-27,959), Flint, Mich. (-22,658), El Paso, Texas (-21,829), and, of course, New York City (-21,503).

    Those cities' hard-working middle class residents are leaving, rather than face growing urban decay, welfare-based poverty, loss of major businesses, poor-performing public schools, artificially high local housing prices, crime and a hostile political class that focuses on superficial measures of class-leveling and "equality" rather than creating opportunities for all.

    We looked at the list and did a bit of research of our own. What we found was that virtually all of the top 10 cities on the list that had a net loss of population to other cities and states have been governed almost exclusively by liberal or far-left Democratic regimes since at least the 1960s. Their problems aren't accidental. They're systematic.

    For years, these Blue Model politicians have taxed, spent and regulated on the people's behalf, with poor or even abysmal results. That's why the massive shift of population is taking place. It also accounts, perhaps, for the surprising rise and success of President Trump.
    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/san-francisco-blue-model/

    The conclusion is as rational and as logical as it is inescapable...

    Democrat governance simply does not work as advertised...

  64. [64] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NYpoet-
    While there are many reasons that people don't vote, it is not true that those reasons don't interest me- I just have a different approach to addressing those reasons.

    For example, that there is no immediate positive result when someone votes for a candidate that doesn't win.

    As Bernie has shown you don't have to win to make progress. And Democrats don't always win -even when it seems like sure thing.

    This is the problem with our current political situation that the current major parties exploit and is the basis for their you have no other choice strategy.

    They do not want voters to think long term and build an alternative which is the logical way to utilize our votes, they want voters to think that only the current election matters so that voters are playing short term while they are playing long term.

    It is not logical for voters that want the Big Money out of politics to keep voting for Big Money candidates. It is not logical for citizens that want the Big Money out of politics to not vote.

    Those two options guarantee that nothing will change.

    Registering a vote in 2018 against the Big Money candidates to create and demonstrate demand for small contribution candidates in 2020 does not guarantee that things will change- but it at least has a chance to make change happen.

    So participating in One Demand is clearly the logical choice over not voting in 2018.

    It is how democracy is designed to work. Are you saying democracy is illogical?

    You are right about and thank you for acknowledging the issue at hand- can some of the 2018 off year non-voters be convinced that using the logical long term approach of One Demand rather than not vote in 2018.

    They cannot be convinced if they don't know the opportunity exists. That is why I am persistent in trying to get CW to write about it.

    CW has been more open at times than the commenting community here and I hope he will be again.

    It's true that commenting community here has said no thanks. It is also true that the commenting community here is not the target demographic for this approach.

    But the commenting community here has often said no thanks by misrepresenting, misinterpreting or just making stuff up about One Demand, as in Listen's comment 54.

    The questions I ask are designed to address the false claims, misrepresentations and misinterpretations.

    So while they may be loaded questions in that sense, they are also legitimate questions that should be answered by anyone that is honestly discussing the issue at hand.

    There have been enough indicators that people want other choices, that citizens are concerned with Big Money in politics and that things that seemed impossible actually and suddenly happening to at least enter the One Demand approach in the public discourse to find out if it can work and to improve upon the idea through discussion if that is needed.

    And despite any well meaning advice on how I should approach promoting One Demand, it is all advice that is based on what the commenter thinks will convince them to participate in One Demand and the approach that would attract the commenter's participation. This is not what the target demographic wants- in fact, it is what makes them not want to vote.

    There is no reason to seek greener pastures. This is not the only pasture where I am attempting to sow some seeds. You never know where and when a seed might germinate so the more seeds you spread in more places the better chance you have of one starting to grow.

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Campaign finance reform is not possible, but Citizens United is not why.

    Campaign finance reform requires legislation. This legislation will not be effective if it is written and passed by Big Money legislators.

    In order to pass any meaningful legislation citizens would first have to elect small contribution legislators.

    While organizations like NHrebellion may mean well, they are in fact playing into the hands of the Big Money interests by focusing on legislation that delays action until some time in the future when the legislation is passed and implemented and drains the resources and energy of the resistance pursuing legislation that will not work rather than focusing on what citizens can do now to change the dynamic much quicker and more effectively, using the basic tools of democracy provided by our founding fathers- our votes.

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

    Cause and effect.

    No legislation can change that simple fact.

    Democracy is the solution to our current problems with our democratic process.

  66. [66] 
    John M wrote:

    [9] Elizabeth Miller

    "Do you believe that it's more than possible that Trump will be re-elected?"

    [10] rjrap

    "No I do not. I dont think his "base" is all that large percentage wise."

    Here are my predictions:

    1) Control of the Senate between Republicans and Democrats is too close to call.

    2) The House will flip from Republican to Democratic control guaranteed.

    3) If a Democratic House tries to impeach Trump without overwhelming control of the Senate as well, they will fail, and Trump will garner enough sympathy to be elected to a second term.

    4) If however, a Democratic House just holds hearings and investigations, lets Mueller issue his report, takes no action on impeachment, and leaves it up to the American people to decide politically through the next election, then: Trump will not be elected to a second term, and those close to Trump, like Jared Kushner and Eric Trump, will be hung out to dry and left to face criminal charges by themselves, while Trump himself remains untouched except for the electoral loss.

  67. [67] 
    John M wrote:

    [20] Elizabeth Miller

    "Who among us has not made the mistake of saying there instead of their or your welcome instead of you're welcome or week instead of weak ..."

    My favorite are the people who use "except" instead of "accept" and don't know the difference.

  68. [68] 
    John M wrote:

    [36] Michale

    "But Democrats are going to get brutally decimated in the Senate....

    Joe Manchin
    Claire McCaskill
    Joe Donnelly
    Heidi Heitkamp
    John Tester
    Bill Nelson

    All are going to be replaced with GOP'ers..."

    I know how much you LOVE polls BUT:

    Democrats hold double-digit leads in the U.S. Senate contests in Arizona and Ohio:

    In Arizona, Democrat Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is ahead of all three potential Republican opponents — Kelli Ward by 10 points among registered voters (48 percent to 38 percent), Rep. Martha McSally by 11 points (49 percent to 38 percent) and Joe Arpaio by 25 points (57 percent to 32 percent).

    In Ohio, Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, leads GOP challenger Jim Renacci by 13 points, 51 percent to 38 percent.

    Even in Florida, the incumbent Democrat, Sen. Bill Nelson, gets support from 49 percent of registered voters, while his Republican challenger, Gov. Rick Scott, is at 45 percent

    Democrats are also currently ahead in Montana and West Virginia. North Dakota is currently a toss up.

    So again Michale, I would not crow too loudly or count your chickens before they are hatched. There's a long way between now and November, and the Senate really remains too close to call.

    Especially with Democrats having excellent chances to pick up Republican held Senate seats in Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee, while holding on to ones in Florida, West Virginia, Montana and Missouri, and possibly losing ones in North Dakota and Indiana.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    My favorite are the people who use "except" instead of "accept" and don't know the difference.

    I have to admit that this does confuse me...

    Democrats hold double-digit leads in the U.S. Senate contests in Arizona and Ohio:

    In Arizona, Democrat Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is ahead of all three potential Republican opponents — Kelli Ward by 10 points among registered voters (48 percent to 38 percent), Rep. Martha McSally by 11 points (49 percent to 38 percent) and Joe Arpaio by 25 points (57 percent to 32 percent).

    In Ohio, Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, leads GOP challenger Jim Renacci by 13 points, 51 percent to 38 percent.

    Even in Florida, the incumbent Democrat, Sen. Bill Nelson, gets support from 49 percent of registered voters, while his Republican challenger, Gov. Rick Scott, is at 45 percent

    Democrats are also currently ahead in Montana and West Virginia. North Dakota is currently a toss up.

    And all of that means NOTHING when a SCOTUS seat is in play..

    Let's revisit those stats AFTER the incumbents place their vote for Judge Amy Barrett..

    I wager 10,000 quatloos that those stats will be VASTLY different than they are now..

    So again Michale, I would not crow too loudly or count your chickens before they are hatched. There's a long way between now and November, and the Senate really remains too close to call.

    Not to those who objectively understands the FACTS and reality without any partisan blinders..

    Especially with Democrats having excellent chances to pick up Republican held Senate seats in Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee, while holding on to ones in Florida, West Virginia, Montana and Missouri, and possibly losing ones in North Dakota and Indiana.

    YOu can dream.. :D

    It's gonna be 56-58 GOP after the mid-terms. :D

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have to admit that this does confuse me...

    Heh.

    You're bad, Michale. :)

  71. [71] 
    TheStig wrote:

    nypoet22-57

    The decision to vote or not vote involves some interesting asymmetries between costs and benefits to an individual voter.

    The costs of voting tend be personal,concrete and therefore relatively easy to quantify in terms of lost time and money.

    The benefits of voting are collective and much harder to quantify in tangible terms. The chances that any one voter can sway an election one way or another are extremely small. In a very real sense, your individual vote typically doesn't matter very much. Moreover, the post 19th Century process of voting gives an individual plausible deniability about how they voted, or if they voted at all. Given the low peer pressure, it's very easy to say "screw it...." even before you weigh the likely dubious merits of the available candidates.

    At the end of the election day, I'm always slightly amazed at the percentage of potential voters who actually DO show up at the polling stations.

    Maybe we should give a smallish tax credit to those who show up to vote. Who you vote for remains secret, but the fact you showed up is a matter public record. Not all peer pressure is bad.

  72. [72] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    Are your lists of people who sign up going to be available for anyone to view?

    I still cannot figure out how anyone is supposed to know that a voter who writes their own name in on the ballot is making a political statement about campaign donations? How can people tell that this isn’t just someone who really wants to vote for themselves to win? Do you have a plan to determine how many write-in ballots are actually One Demand protesters?

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Participants get to decide if they want to keep their participation private beyond any disclosure required by law.

    Participants will sign up and vote. After voting they will be able to register on the website how they voted. When the official results are released they can be compared to what is on the website.

    There really is no way to determine exact numbers with certainty as there is no official individual voting results available to the public.

    But it is the same as any voter claiming they voted for any candidate. How do you know if someone claiming to have voted for Hillary in 2016 voted for her, voted for Trump or Stein or was one of the people that did not cast a presidential vote?

    If 5% register on the website that they cast a write in vote for this purpose and there is at least or close to 5% in the official results of write in votes it provides some verification that the write in votes are in line with the participants registered on the website.

    So the answer to why you can't figure how someone is supposed to know is that it is the same as any other vote- there is no way to know. All that can be done is draw a reasonable conclusion from the evidence that is avaialble.

  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yet, the policies it follows — high taxes, inane regulations, petty nanny-state authoritarianism, tolerance for rising lawlessness and disorder on its streets in the name of "compassion" — are the very ones that have driven middle-class and working-class citizens out. Only the rich and the so-called homeless, who have been welcomed into the city and are a growing issue, can afford to live in the city.

    OMG, this has to be the dumbest argument ever.

    Let me see if I can get this argument straight:

    1. Nasty nanny government in SF is driving people out
    2. This means that less demand sends prices skyrocketing
    3. So only rich people can afford to live there.

    This is so asinine it could only be swallowed by a confirmed Trump supporter.

    If the writer and readers of this joke propaganda had used their brains for a couple of seconds, they would have identified two possible scenarios:

    Scenario One - Bad Government is raising the costs of living in SF
    1. Thus the cost of daily living in SF goes up
    2. People don't want to pay these costs
    3. They leave for the relatively inexpensive surrounding counties
    4. SF rents drop and rich people get a bargain

    Scenario Two - A lot of people want to live in SF and vote for their local government to enact policies they want
    1. Take a look at SF - that is the reality on the ground.

    Rent in SF seems high until you understand that the median salary at FaceBook is north of $240K (for the mathematically challenged, this means that half are paid more and half are paid less, Michale).

    Three 20-something friends of mine live in SF. Two are couples living in one bedroom apartments downtown for $3.5K/month, the other is living further from the center with a room in a house with four other friends for $1.5K. These are normal prices.

    SF is one of the best cities in the World - people love living there when they are young, but move to the burbs' to raise families. Some (the really successful) move back in or get a pied-à-terre.

    I'd suggest you visit, but we have enough tourists ;)

  75. [75] 
    neilm wrote:

    So the whole article "San Francisco: Poster-Child For The Failure Of U.S. Cities' Blue Model" is a piece of simple propaganda.

    The "author" did his or her research to find facts or statistics that backed up the headline, and went all smug. He or she probably failed in SF or some other big city and has a chip on their shoulder.

    To see why people move to SF and the Bay Area, and why companies repeatedly, year-after-year, decide to start up in the Bay Area, you need to read the book I recommended a couple of months ago: "The New Geography of Jobs" by Enrico Moretti.

    Needless to say the real situation, and the choices made by millions of people, is far more complex than this laughable piece of feel-good nonsense.

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    I hike all over SF - I go in several days per month and do some of the guided tours, or my and my buddies just pick a route and hike it - we are working our way though climbing every set of stairs in the city.

    There are two or three areas that are sketchy. One is a poor neighborhood and has the usual problems of crime, etc we see in any major city anywhere in the world.

    The other two areas are major areas with homeless people. The one towards the South of the city is mostly out-of-sight as in most cities. The other area in called "The Tenderloin" and is right between the financial district, Chinatown, the City Hall/Opera House/Symphony area, and Market Street.

    The Powell St Cable Car terminus is right on the edge of the Tenderloin and so most tourists get to see the homeless part of SF, with pretty aggressive panhandlers. This dramatically increases the perception of tourists that SF is overrun by homeless people because most other cities sweep them away from "nice" areas.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Founder of Movement Against Liberalism Denied Service at Camera Store: 'It Took My Breath Away'

    The creator of a social media movement urging liberals to detach themselves from the Democratic Party said he was denied service at a camera store because of his campaign.

    Brandon Straka started the "#WalkAway Campaign," which shares video stories of people who decide to dissociate themselves from liberalism.

    Straka appeared on "Justice with Judge Jeanine" Saturday night and said that he tried to purchase camera equipment at a New York City store, but was questioned by the cashier.

    "Are you planning to use this equipment for alt-right purposes?" Straka said the salesperson asked him.
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/08/brandon-straka-walk-away-campaign-founder-denied-service-camera-store

    Once again, the "tolerance" and "respect" of the Hysterical Left Wingery....

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    This dramatically increases the perception of tourists that SF is overrun by homeless people because most other cities sweep them away from "nice" areas.

    No, the FACT that SF is overrun with homeless people crapping on the sidewalks and throwing their used needles all over is what increases the perception..

    Face reality... Democrat run big cities suck...

  79. [79] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    No, the FACT that SF is overrun with homeless people crapping on the sidewalks and throwing their used needles all over is what increases the perception..

    No, the FACT is you have no idea what you are talking about. neilm is absolutely correct. I have moved out of the city recently but two months ago, I worked in the Financial district and can confirm neilm's view of SF homeless. I lived out by the beach and my neighborhood had one homeless lady, and the only shit on the sidewalk was from dogs, which admittedly deserves it's own rant...

    That article also pulls a serious bait and switch. All those cities with net negative migration? San Francisco is not on the list. Yes, many people are leaving, myself one of them, but more are are coming in. San Francisco has been gaining population every year for the last couple of decades.

    neilm, have you done the 16th avenue tiled steps from the end of Morega? Way cool. I used to climb up to Coit Tower from Filbert street on my lunch break. Great workout.

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    neilm, have you done the 16th avenue tiled steps from the end of Morega? Way cool. I used to climb up to Coit Tower from Filbert street on my lunch break. Great workout.

    The tiled steps are fantastic! My friend runs some walking tours of SF for free (he loves the exercise) and we are working on a new one that includes the tiles steps.

    His Telegraph Hill tour includes the steps up to Coit Tower, and he has lots of amazing history included as well.

    http://palmer-walking-tours.com/

    He has a perfect 5 Star rating on Tripadvisor. These and the City Guides tours are great ways to learn a lot about SF for free (most people tip at the end, but it is strictly optional and there is no pressure).

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    BashiBazouk:

    Have you ever seen the tiled steps in the moonlight when the mirrored tiles show a different picture? I've yet to see this, but it is on my list:

    https://www.boredpanda.com/glowing-16th-avenue-tiled-steps-san-francisco-night-view/

  82. [82] 
    rjrap wrote:

    77 - Michale

    You didn't do your homework on this one.

    The hashtag has been linked to a Russian Twitter campaign.

    Astroturfed social media campaigns like the “WalkAway Movement” aim to create manufactured consensus, or the illusion of popularity, so that an idea or position without much public support appears more popular and mainstream than it actually is.

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why American Taxpayers will be bailing out Soybean farmers to try to help Trump avoid humiliation in November:

    http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/soybean.png

  84. [84] 
    rjrap wrote:

    US Soybean Prices Crumble as Trade War Sparks Brazil Rally - AgWeb

  85. [85] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    neilm-

    That's really cool. I have never seen the steps in the moonlight nor heard about it...

  86. [86] 
    rjrap wrote:

    OK you guys, I give up. I'm contacting my realtor tomorrow and selling my house here in L.A., divorcing my wife, giving away my dog and selling my beloved '56 Chevy Nomad and moving to S.F. with just the clothes on my back.

    Just for the exercise of course.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    That article also pulls a serious bait and switch. All those cities with net negative migration? San Francisco is not on the list. Yes, many people are leaving, myself one of them, but more are are coming in. San Francisco has been gaining population every year for the last couple of decades.

    The problem is the people leaving are upstanding American middle class citizens and the people going into SF are the illegal immigrant criminals and the homeless..

    I don't know if I would be bragging about that emigration eh??

    And, I have to ask?? Why did you have to leave?? Be honest.. I am betting because it's too expensive to live there, right??

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    rjrap,

    The hashtag has been linked to a Russian Twitter campaign.

    Facts that proves your claim??

    ANY facts at all???

    It's my day off. I'll be here all day...

    Lemme know if you come up with any FACTS that prove your claim..

    :D

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why American Taxpayers will be bailing out Soybean farmers to try to help Trump avoid humiliation in November

    More hysterical fear-mongering that, like all of the fear-mongering predictions before it, will never come to pass... :^/

    What part of, "THE LEFT HAS NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER" do you not understand???

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    MSNBC Does Not Merely Permit Fabrications Against Democratic Party Critics. It Encourages and Rewards Them.

    On MSNBC, lies are not corrected; they are rewarded, provided the lies are designed to smear the reputations of Democratic Party critics. Is this not definitive and conclusive proof of that: that this is not a news outlet but a political arm of the Democratic Party? What else could possibly explain, let alone justify, behavior like this? I’m asking that earnestly.

    I BRING THIS UP again now not because I think MSNBC will ever correct its lie – it has made clear that lies designed to destroy the reputations of Democratic Party critics are perfectly permissible – but because a very similar event happened on Friday night involving the same MSNBC analyst.
    https://theintercept.com/2018/07/08/msnbc-does-not-merely-permit-fabrications-against-democratic-party-critics-it-encourages-and-rewards-them/

    This is EXACTLY why it's impossible to take anything the Left says seriously.. Because it is PROVEN and DOCUMENTED bullshit...

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    The hashtag has been linked to a Russian Twitter campaign.

    It's funny.. rjrap's bogus claim fits in nicely with the Glenn Greenwald article above..

    In the past, Democrats would simply accuse people they disagreed with of racism. Of course, no facts to support and the Dims doing the accusing KNEW that there were no facts to support the racist accusations.. But the Dims would accuse people of racism just to silence them.. This is a well-documented tactic used by Democrats.

    Now we have Democrats reaching back in time to use a tried-and-true method of silencing any dissent. Made famous by Joe McCarthy himself... NOW Dims will simply accuse people of working for the Russians.. Of course, there is nothing but rumor, innuendo and outright bullshit to bully people into silence....

    But the goal in BOTH of these programs is the same. Silence ANYONE who would dissent by ANY means necessary...

    Don't ya'all think it's sad that your Democrat Party has sunk so low????

    On the 4th, CW put out a commentary that was titled Everybody Agrees We Have The Freedom To Disagree

    At the time it was aired, I had a problem with that because I firmly believed that NO... Not EVERYONE agrees we have the freedom to disagree.. I just did not aire my disputes because I felt it was a feel good holiday commentary that I didn't want to denigrate with such a discussion..

    But I can now state, for the record... NO.. Not everyone agrees we have the freedom to disagree... The Left is pulling out ALL the stops and re-visiting the Red Scare era in an effort to insure that NO ONE has the right or the ability to disagree....

    And that's just sad....

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    And while Democrats dither and go on an on hysterically about the latest shiny.....

    More South Texas land owners getting letters on border wall
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-south-texas-land-owners-getting-letters-border-145331014.html

    .....President Trump is quietly going about the business of keeping this country safe.. :D

    And, once again, Democrats get played.. :D

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Supreme Court vacancy: Prepare for a game-changer, experts say
    http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2018-07-08/supreme-court-vacancy-prepare-game-changer-experts-say.html

    After Judge Amy is seated as the newest SCOTUS Justice... This country will never be the same.. It's going to be much much better!!!

    And it will have the added benefit of totally demoralizing the Democrats.. :D

    The Red Tsunami approaches... :D

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    This month, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he would be retiring from the Supreme Court of the United States, giving President Trump an opportunity to nominate a potential replacement.

    Instantly, Trump’s political opponents began questioning the credentials of those who were thought to be on his shortlist for the position.

    "I saw the new nominee is like racist, and he’s starting a new wave of something very negative..." Tweet This

    The same sentiment was seen on social media from pundits and members of Congress alike -- but what would college students have to say about the matter? Did they have substantive reasons for not trusting the potential replacement, or were they simply set on opposing any Trump nominee?

    To find out, I headed to New York University to ask students what they thought about who Trump had chosen to replace Justice Kennedy.

    Despite the fact that Trump’s decision was still days away from being finalized, students unanimously condemned Trump’s move, harshly criticizing the president’s nonexistent nominee.

    “He’s quite extreme in his views,” said one student of the fictitious Judge.

    “I saw it all over the news, that he’s like racist,” another student added, referring to the announcement that hadn’t yet happened.

    “I saw the new nominee is like racist, and he’s starting a new wave of something very negative, and I’m really scared about the future and what choices he will make,” another pupil added.

    When asked if she’d seen the online coverage of the event, one faculty member described witnessing “outrage… as it should be.”
    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11100

    Progressive sheep are so easily led..

    BLLEEEEEEETTTTTT

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bookstore owner calls 911 when customer confronts Bannon

    The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that Nick Cooke, owner of Black Swan Books in Richmond, called 911 Saturday afternoon after witnessing a woman confront Bannon and call him a "piece of trash."

    Cooke said Bannon was minding his own business when the woman began harassing him. Cooke asked the woman to leave. She did so only after he called police.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/08/bookstore-owner-calls-911-when-customer-confronts-bannon.html

    What a cowardly biatch.. If she really had the strength of her convictions she would have stayed until LEO's arrived..

    Nothing but a drive-by coward..

    Typical of the hysterical Left...

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Liberal Backlash Is Coming
    http://prospect.org/article/liberal-backlash-coming

    The liberal backlash is already here..

    And is proving to be very VERY detrimental to the liberal's agenda.. :D

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    In “Summer of Our Discontent,” Washington Post staff writer Dan Zak lays out the mood gripping Washington, D.C., or, as the headline in last Tuesday’s Style section describes it, “the capital of the resistance.” Here’s the third paragraph:

    “Here we all are. The start of a mad hot American summer in the nation’s capital. A president violating norm after norm. Immigrant children wailing for their mothers. A Supreme Court seat, open like a wound. A midterm election hurtling toward us like an avenging angel, or a killer asteroid. The resistance girding for war, or curdling into hysteria, depending on your view.”

    Let’s opt for hysteria. This is the shark fin of a Deep State that is determined to bring down the Trump administration by whatever means necessary.

    “It’s reached a point of desperation,” explains Amanda Werner, described by Mr. Zak as a campaign strategist. “We’ve been civil (did she say this with a straight face?) and having endless debates, and all we’ve seen is the decimation of everything we care about.”

    Two weeks ago, Ms. Werner and a dozen others invaded a D.C. restaurant to heckle Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and also came to her residence to scream, “We’re here to wake up your neighborhood.” Last Sunday, the D.C. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America chanted slogans outside the Alexandria home of just-retired Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau Director Thomas Homan, accusing him of “fascism” (a socialist variant, but perhaps they don’t know that).
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/8/liberals-wrapped-in-hysteria-hurtle-toward-a-dooms/

    As I said.. Liberal backlash is already here..

    And the Democrats are paying and will continue to pay a huge price for not reigning in their violent hysterical minions...

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    In all honesty.....

    WASHINGTON — Democratic senators running for re-election in Trump Country face an agonizing choice over President Trump’s coming Supreme Court nominee: Vote to confirm the pick and risk demoralizing Democratic voters ahead of the midterm elections, or stick with the party and possibly sacrifice their own seats — and any chance at a Democratic majority in 2019.

    The actions of a handful of Senate Democrats struggling to hold their seats in red states where Mr. Trump remains popular — notably Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — will have broad implications for the party at a critical political juncture.

    A decision by one or all of them to try to bolster their standing with Republican-leaning voters in their states by backing the president’s nominee would undermine Democratic leaders as they try to sustain party unity. And if their votes put the president’s choice on the court, it could hasten the move to the left by the party’s aggressive activist core, while intensifying the clamor for new, more confrontational leadership.

    But if they hold together on a “no” vote, those senators could not only surrender their own seats, but by expanding the Republican majority, they could also narrow the path of Democrats to a Senate majority for years to come by ceding those states to Republicans.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/us/politics/democrats-supreme-court-nominee.html?rref=collection%2Fissuecollection%2Ftodays-new-york-times&action=click&contentCollection=todayspaper&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&

    I don't envy these 5 Democrats their choices...

    What IS it about Democrats that, nearly always, they maneuver themselves into a classic lose-lose situation..

    I honestly can't see ANY way that they will keep their seats in November..

    Vote YES and they piss of their base and they lose..

    Vote NO and they piss of their constituents and they lose..

    I feel a bit sorry for them...

  99. [99] 
    rjrap wrote:

    88- Michale

    Google it. You'll find plenty of facts. I don't have the room here for all the links. You said you have all day.

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Google it. You'll find plenty of facts. I don't have the room here for all the links. You said you have all day.

    It's not up to me to provide facts to support YOUR claim

    And Google is as about as reliable for finding stuff AGAINST the Left as Snopes/Politifact is...

    You made the claim.. If you don't have any FACTS that prove your claim, that's on you, not me..

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    You'de be better off changing your posting name to Joe McCarthy.... :D

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's revisit the credibility of the hysterical Left Wingery and the NeverTrumpers..

    https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1016079192604139520

  103. [103] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M [102]: Yep, we're hysterical all right - hysterically laughing at the desperate 'red wave' iconography, and at the pathetic attempt by the Trumpers to pin the tail on everyone except the ass in the middle of it all.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (catch breath) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa!(snort) hehehehehehe....

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    I can admire that you can put on such a brave face, considering all the hits you Democrats have been taking over the last couple weeks..

    But look at that twitter video.. That should bring you back down to reality..

    That is, if you WANT to actually be brought down to reality.. :D

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously.. All politics aside, you have to simply marvel at the position that President Trump has maunevered the Democrat Party into..

    Take a "principled stand" against President Trumps nominee, please the Democrat base and give the GOP a near filibuster proof majority..

    OR...

    Go along with President Trump's nominee, piss of the Democrat base BIG TIME and give the GOP a near filibuster proof majority...

    I really hope CW does an analysis of this LOSE/LOSE position the Democrats have been forced into.. :D

  106. [106] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I really hope CW does an analysis of this LOSE/LOSE position the Democrats have been forced into.. :D

    I do too, because your side is suffering from a great many delusions fed to you by your corporate overlords.

    Start with numbers: the best that you can hope for numerically is that large numbers of Democrats stay home as they did in 2010 and 2016.

    That ain't happenin'. Democratic voter participation has been up all year, and the midterms are shaping up to see an even larger bump up.

    Then you'd have to hope that large numbers of Trump voters are on board with the pain that will be delivered upon them by Trump's Trade War. Soybean farmers in Iowa are already griping as contracts for their crops are disappearing into thin air.

    Harley-Davidson is the canary in the coal mine, buddy. If they'll leave the US to escape the vortex of Trump's trade black hole, others will follow.

    McCaskill, Manchin, et. al., are already being told by Democratic voters: we've got your back on this one. Voting against Trump's nominee my cost them a few Trump votes, but will be rewarded by many more Democratic votes.

    Besides, Democrats never expected to take the Senate on this go-round. At worst, we end up close to where we are now - without having to worry about the GOP peeling as many votes away in the future.

    We might, on the other hand, flip the House this time. It'll be harder for local congressmen to justify the pain of Trump's trade war at the local level, where jobs and commodities prices matter.

    One thing we can thank Trump for - he's making Democrats look Great Again!

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Start with numbers: the best that you can hope for numerically is that large numbers of Democrats stay home as they did in 2010 and 2016.

    That ain't happenin'. Democratic voter participation has been up all year, and the midterms are shaping up to see an even larger bump up.

    It WILL happen if 5 Democrats vote YEA on President Trump's nominee..

    McCaskill, Manchin, et. al., are already being told by Democratic voters: we've got your back on this one. Voting against Trump's nominee my cost them a few Trump votes, but will be rewarded by many more Democratic votes.

    Yea, the base said the same thing with the Gorsuch votes..

    Guess what happened??

    Besides, Democrats never expected to take the Senate on this go-round. At worst, we end up close to where we are now - without having to worry about the GOP peeling as many votes away in the future.

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You people were ALL about taking the Senate.. Until the fortunes turned against Democrats.. :D

    You are making the EXACT same arguments ya'all made in the summer of 2016...

    Let's revisit that again, since you obviously missed the point. :D

    https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1016079192604139520

    You were as confident then as ya are now..

    Why do you think you have any credibility??

    Because THIS time it will be different :D

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what it ALL boils down to, Balthy..

    Ya'all were as confident, as mouthy and as sure now as you were in the run-up to the 2016 election...

    And you were as wrong as wrong can be...

    Why do ya think it's gonna be any different this time around???

    Thoughts and prayers?? :D

  109. [109] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You were as confident then as ya are now..
    Why do you think you have any credibility?

    Science, my friend. If you want to keep crowing about your fluke election, you go right ahead, and be sure to convince every other Trump zombie that everything will be just fine in crazy-land for eternity.

    As for us, we've got a midterm election to win, followed by a hard knock-out in 2020. Once Trump hits the floor, it's all over except for the mop-up job, which will be huuuuuuge.

  110. [110] 
    rjrap wrote:

    104 - Michale

    I can admire that you can put on such a brave face, considering all the hits you Democrats have been taking over the last couple weeks.

    Here's some Trump stuff from just the last week. Enjoy.

    -Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Files Request To Hire Foreign Workers — Again

    -In The World According To Trump, NATO Allies Are Bad And Putin Is Good

    -Migrant Baby Returned To Mom Covered With Lice

    -Year-Old Baby Appears In Immigration Court, Cries Hysterically

    -Data show that Trump's real base is 24 percent of the electorate. A decline of 10 percent

    -U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials

    -Here’s A Taste Of The Divisive Rhetoric Trump Uses To Vilify Immigrants

    -Trump Crammed A Remarkable Amount Of Misogyny Into Just 24 Hours

    -Justice Kennedy Cut Voting Rights. His Replacement Could Destroy Them

    -The Trump Administration Is Quietly Discharging Immigrant Recruits Promised Citizenship in Return for Military Service

    -Ivanka Trump's Chinese-made products spared from tariffs

    -‘ANT-MAN AND THE WASP’ SETS NEW MARVEL RECORD

    I like the last one. I just threw that one in.

    Tell me which one you want a link to. We gotta have the facts.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Science, my friend.

    The same "science" that predicted Hillary's win??

    Dood, I would get your money back.. :D

    Come talk to me on 7 Nov when your Democrats have lost and lost big time. :D

    I was right then.. I'll be right now.. :D

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's some Trump stuff from just the last week. Enjoy.

    And with ALL of that, Democrats have been having their asses handed to them and President Trump's approval numbers have been going up. :D

    Still waiting on your to provide FACTS that prove #WalkAway is a Russian plot...

    -‘ANT-MAN AND THE WASP’ SETS NEW MARVEL RECORD

    Yea, that's gonna be good.. Won't compare to INFINITY WAR though.. :D

  113. [113] 
    rjrap wrote:
  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    I asked for FACTS.. Not links..

    I ain't gonna read thru a whole big litany of Left Wing bullshit only to learn it's all innuendo, rumor and outright bullshit..

    Quote the facts and then you quote the link to back up the facts..

  115. [115] 
    rjrap wrote:

    I quoted the facts as stated in the link in my original comments and just supplied the link. Do want something notarized?

    I don't know what else your looking for.

  116. [116] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Just moments ago heard from some Dem/Lib nut job on youtube name of Jimmy Dore, that Manafort and perhaps others are to be prosecuted by Mueller for everyday, run-of-the-mill corruption, and that "Collusion with the Russians" wont even be a factor in the prosecutions.

    How many gawdam times have I told you people that THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST GETTING DIRT ON YOUR OPPONENT FROM ANYBODY WHATSOEVER, even dirty Communists, and how many times was I greeted with ridicule and derision for being a naive simpleton, too dumb to understand the many ramifications that could come of "collusion"???

    And now I'm ashamed to say I can't resist a "told ya so, morons!!!"

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    The hashtag has been linked to a Russian Twitter campaign.

    Astroturfed social media campaigns like the “WalkAway Movement” aim to create manufactured consensus, or the illusion of popularity, so that an idea or position without much public support appears more popular and mainstream than it actually is.

    There are no facts there.. At least no substantiated facts...

    Can you substantiate ANY claim you make there??

    No, you cannot..

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now I'm ashamed to say I can't resist a "told ya so, morons!!!"

    It gets easier, the more you indulge... :D

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe ya'all can help me out...

    How do I got about donating to Hillary's campaign to encourage her to run again in 2020???

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Just to keep things in perspective, Donald Trump could either nominate Judge Amy Barrett or Vladimir Putin and tomorrow's headlines would be exactly the same.."
    -Dennis Miller

    It's funny (and sad) because it's true..

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Key red-state Senate Democrats turn down invites to Trump's Supreme Court reveal
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/key-red-state-senate-democrats-turn-down-invites-to-trumps-supreme-court-reveal

    Looks like Dems are going to tough it out and stick with the Party....

    Their seats will adorn the GOP side of the aisle very nicely....

    And then, assuming that Democrats were able to derail Judge Amy's confirmation, with the GOP's 58 in the Senate, President Trump re-submits Judge Amy's name and she sails thru confirmation... :D

    No matter what..

    President Trump and this country wins and Democrats lose.. :D

  122. [122] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "Just to keep things in perspective, Donald Trump could either nominate Judge Amy Barrett or Vladimir Putin and tomorrow's headlines would be exactly the same.."

    Donald Trump could nominate Wolf Man and Frankenstein, and the results would be the same. But why would a sane human being nominate either?

  123. [123] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Key red-state Senate Democrats turn down invites to Trump's Supreme Court reveal

    pucker factor for Judge Amy's nomination just went up.

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    pucker factor for Judge Amy's nomination just went up.

    Worst case scenario, Judge Amy's nomination is thwarted the first time around, but sails thru when the GOP adds 7-9 seats after the midterms. :D

    Donald Trump could nominate Wolf Man and Frankenstein, and the results would be the same. But why would a sane human being nominate either?

    So, you are saying thatJudge Bartlett is no different than Putin, Frankenstein or the Wolfman...

    Nice bigotry...

  125. [125] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [116],[118]

    Please take that juvenile behavior somewhere else. It doesn't belong here.

  126. [126] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (119)-
    Tell Hillary you're a wall street executive and offer her 225,000 dollars to make a speech.

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please take that juvenile behavior somewhere else. It doesn't belong here.

    :D heh...

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tell Hillary you're a wall street executive and offer her 225,000 dollars to make a speech.

    OK, that sounds good.. I can buy an ambassador-ship!! :D

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    116

    Just moments ago heard from some Dem/Lib nut job on youtube name of Jimmy Dore, that Manafort and perhaps others are to be prosecuted by Mueller for everyday, run-of-the-mill corruption, and that "Collusion with the Russians" wont even be a factor in the prosecutions.

    Oh, isn't that cute? Old man Stucki doesn't understand the concept of statute of limitations and that Mueller isn't going to play all his cards just yet against Paulie Manafort. The hayseed in Idaho actually thinks this is all Mueller has got and nothing more. I guess ignorance really is bliss... so they say. :D

    How many gawdam times have I told you people that THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST GETTING DIRT ON YOUR OPPONENT FROM ANYBODY WHATSOEVER, even dirty Communists, and how many times was I greeted with ridicule and derision for being a naive simpleton, too dumb to understand the many ramifications that could come of "collusion"???

    How many times have we posted the actual law, and how many times have you ignored it? Mueller has more charges against Paulie, old man; you can count on that because it's a fact. The way a "Snitch Hunt" works is that you charge the target you're trying to flip with "enough" to secure their cooperation and retain the other charges as a bargaining chip.

    And now I'm ashamed to say I can't resist a "told ya so, morons!!!"

    You are embarrassing yourself, hayseed! :D

Comments for this article are closed.