ChrisWeigant.com

Memo To Myself: Maintain Skepticism Next Week

[ Posted Wednesday, July 25th, 2018 – 17:13 PDT ]

Although I intend to take to task two of my favorite targets in this column (the mainstream media and the inside-the-Beltway cocktail-circuit chattering class), my real purpose in writing today is to create a memorandum to myself. Next week I will be attending the Netroots Nation conference in New Orleans, which will be as intense a gathering of lefties as is possible to imagine. This year, obviously, feelings will be running high and the rampant enthusiasm and optimistic expectations for the upcoming midterm elections should be off the charts. A little more than 100 days from now, America will vote -- and midterms are always seen as a referendum on the job the current president is doing. But like all ideological gatherings, Netroots Nation will be an echo chamber or (to be more polite) "speaking with only one voice." And it's important, when joining such a gathering, to maintain a healthy degree of skepticism. I guess what I'm trying to say was best said by that learnèd philosopher Yogi Berra, when he quipped: "It ain't over 'til it's over."

But back to heaping a bit of scorn on the inside-the-Beltway and media denizens. Reading trends is a big part of what they do, of course. Predicting what is going to happen is more than just a parlor game, it is part of the job description for a lot of these folks. Which has led, this year, to a whole spectrum of prognostication, from wildly optimistic to gloomily pessimistic. Nobody will know until the returns are in which was warranted, and even then the longer-term predictions will still be in doubt.

Let's take just one example: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Much ink has been spilled interpreting her upset primary victory in the Bronx over the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House. I should know, as I spilled some of that ink yesterday myself. What her victory means in the grand scheme of things is certainly interesting to contemplate, especially since she is such a fascinating character who obviously worked very hard to pull off an impressive victory. She has become an overnight star within the Democratic Party, and I fully expect her to regularly be in the news from now on. I don't mean to diminish her victory or her campaign in any way, and indeed I am one of the people cheering her on from the sidelines, if truth be known.

Still, she's only one woman. It's only one district (and a very liberal one, at that). In fact, her victory has been the only successful primary challenge on the Democratic side in this entire election cycle to date (not every state has held its primary yet, so there could be more to come). It is fashionable to portray her as the vanguard of a much larger movement, but when you look at the numbers, it only adds up to one such victory for this movement. There have been some others, but mostly at a lower level (statehouse races or even city and county councils). On the national scene, incumbent Democrats are still winning primaries pretty much across the board. I point this out to put things in perspective.

The risk of buying into a storyline that proves to be false has one big cautionary example from the past two years: Jon Ossoff. Ossoff was the Democratic candidate for a special election in Georgia that he ultimately lost. Millions upon millions of dollars rained down on his campaign from Democrats all over the country eager to flip a district to send Donald Trump a message. This massive effort failed, even though expectations were through the roof by the time Georgia voted. Since then, Democrats have won a number of special elections, but special elections are usually pretty local affairs (meaning they're not usually a good indicator of any sort of national trend). There will be over 450 separate elections for Congress this November, and it is absolutely impossible to keep up with all of them. It is much easier to try to squish them all into an overarching national storyline, but in most cases the vote will likely hinge on very local issues.

Another election trend storyline the media has been running with this year is the resurgence of women on the political scene. This year might wind up being a much bigger "Year Of The Woman" than the original one (1992) was. But again, most of these stories have been about the sheer number of women running for office. To state a painful reality, running for office doesn't equate to winning. Even winning a primary doesn't equate to winning in November (unless, as in the case of Ocasio-Cortez, the primary you won is in such a solid Democratic district that the general election is a foregone conclusion).

None of this dampens my enthusiasm at seeing so many women toss their hats in the ring, mind you. I think it's great, personally, to see so many women getting so involved. I think the real "Year Of The Woman" story is going to prove to be among the voters, as suburban women make a huge shift in their normal voting patterns and as minority women turn out in astonishingly-large numbers. That's just my gut feeling, however. We'll see how things work out.

Will women live up to the hype? It remains to be seen. So far, a goodly number of them have indeed made it through the primary process and are now general election candidates. That's all well and good, but just being a woman is no guarantee of success, even in a year that favors them. The problem with a storyline like "Year Of The Woman" is that it tends to become self-referencing. It feeds upon itself, to put it another way.

I like to call this fallacy "making too much stew out of one oyster" (which I probably am borrowing from Robert A. Heinlein, but am too lazy to go look up). One data point does not necessarily make a trend. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is certainly fun to watch, but just because she went to Kansas doesn't mean a wave of progressivism is about to swamp the state or anything. Lots of women ran this year, but let's wait and see how many of them win in November before drawing larger conclusions. Instead of fitting the data to a pet theory, I strive to pay attention to what the data actually is showing. Doing so will hopefully avoid getting too far out on a limb with my predictions.

Before I get to Netroots, I will be driving down the Mississippi River valley and into the Ozarks (through Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana) to do some sightseeing. This may inoculate my opinions a bit, by interacting with a region of the country I don't normally keep in touch with too closely. My hope is this will provide some balance before arriving at the convention, where liberalism will reign supreme. As I already predicted, enthusiasm this particular year may be higher than any other year I've attended one of these gatherings. Hopes and dreams of a big blue wave will definitely be on display all over the convention halls. But what I intend to firmly keep in mind is that such hopes and dreams won't become reality until November. The pull of the groupthink is always strong at Netroots Nation, but I've been disappointed before. So even though I spent yesterday writing about the possibility of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leading a new Democratic Socialist Caucus in the House -- based purely on similar speculation from inside the Beltway -- it's always good to keep in mind the difference between reality and possibility.

This won't dampen my enthusiasm one bit, I should mention. Many rising stars within the Democratic Party will be at Netroots this year, including quite a number of 2020 presidential hopefuls (including my own home state senator, Kamala Harris). Speaking of California senators, I'll also get to hear Kevin de León speak (the Democrat challenging Senator Dianne Feinstein), which I am definitely looking forward to. The mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico will be there as well, which is one speech I won't miss for any reason. One of the best parts of the convention is always the meet-up with new candidates for office. Standouts in previous years include Stacey Abrams, who has now won her primary and will be on the ballot for Georgia governor this year, as well as Randy "Iron 'Stache" Bryce, who has a decent chance of winning Paul Ryan's district in the House this year. Many of these up-and-comers do eventually fizzle out, but the opportunity to rub shoulders with people who one day could emerge as Democratic leaders is well worth it. But through it all, I will try to balance all the rampant enthusiasm and liberal energy with a healthy dose of skepticism. Writing reality-based columns has always been my goal, so hopefully this will keep my feet firmly on the ground throughout.

I close with a general program note: columns from now until the end of next week will be intermittent (or perhaps non-existent). My plan right now is to write Friday's column tomorrow, so it'll be ready to post ahead of time, but this might mean the absence of a new column on Thursday. Next week, I may throw up some re-run columns, and there's always the chance that I have enough time to file some reports from Netroots as it is happening. Then again, there is an equal chance that I will be far too busy to do so (which has proven to be the case numerous times in the past). So I make no promises, one way or the other. I'd advise people to check in to the site during the week, or watch my Twitter feed for "new column up" tweets (I never tweet for re-run columns). Regular columns will appear once again starting Monday, August 6th. Until then, I'll be following the cardinal New Orleans rule: Laissez les bon temps rouler!

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

57 Comments on “Memo To Myself: Maintain Skepticism Next Week”

  1. [1] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Ordinarily I would respect Ms. Miller's status as the Helen Thomas of the CW commenter corp, and not co-opt her right to the first comment. But time is short, and I wanted to give an example of why skepticism is a good posture.

    Meadows and Jordan and some other screwballs just filed articles of impeachment of the Dep.AG. A vote on it isn't required, and there won't be one unless Ryan has completely lost his mind.

    On the other hand, this might very well give Fox prime time the reason to keep that Cohen-Trump tape buried. The semiotics of that tape aren't so good after all.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    Enjoy your trip CW.

    "One swallow doesn't make a summer" is a similar British cliche you can trot out if you need to make a point.

    It will be 5-10 years before we know the real reaction of the amazingly insulting and incompetent clown that the Republicans elected in 2016.

    We could see a renaissance in left wing involvement in politics. Decent, sensible Americans might say "OK, we need to roll up our sleeves and get rid of all the loonies the right wing has let run our country". Certainly, it seems that Sacha Baron Cohen is trying to shake everybody awake by showing just how crazy the RWNJs are.

    Alternatively we could see a lot of tut-tutting but a lack of motivation to vote if it is inconvenient, or made difficult by Republican dirty tricks, so we get a milquetoast swing to the center left.

    Lastly the whole media circus could be everything, and voting patterns won't change significantly and the 202 election could just be another 50/50 toss up.

    Personally I expect that the anger that the traitor in the White House has generated on the left will have a real, long-term and significant impact on politics in this country ... but then that is also my wishful thinking and after decades of watching markets and listening to "experts" telling me the future of the economy, stock prices, etc. I'm very skeptical even of myself - an attribute that has been very valuable for me.

    The person you lie to most is yourself.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    The office of the Speaker of Georgia's House of Representatives told the Washington Post that Mr Spencer had submitted his resignation, effective from 31 July.

    The lawmaker had faced mounting calls to quit, with the Speaker, David Ralston, among them. He told CNN Mr Spencer's actions and language were "reprehensible", adding: "Georgia is better than this."

    No, his election and his support by the Republican Party show that Georgia isn't better than this. This is what Georgia is. Own it. Then you can move on.

    Do you think Spencer is the only RWNJ in Georgia's Republican Party?

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LB,

    You have me pegged all wrong. Don't you know that I always want to have the last word. :)

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    Godspeed to ya on your travels down south! I hope Netroots Nation is energizing!
    -Russ

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Before I get to Netroots, I will be driving down the Mississippi River valley and into the Ozarks (through Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana) to do some sightseeing.

    You will be pleased to see the price of gas take a nosedive the closer you get to Texas.

    Restez en sécurité dans vos voyages, jouez bien avec les autres enfants, n'oubliez pas de prendre un peu de temps pour vous détendre, et tandis que dans la Nouvelle-Orléans il est obligatoire de vous rendre au Marché Français et Café du Monde (circa 1862) pour le café et la chicorée ou le café au lait et beignets français. :)

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    The semiotics of that tape aren't so good after all.

    Yea, they have President Trump demanding a diet coke!!

    "OH MY GOD, WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!"
    -Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    That is CERTAINLY an impeachable offense!!

    What a "bombshell"!!!

    :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Personally I expect that the anger that the traitor in the White House has generated on the left will have a real, long-term and significant impact on politics in this country ... but then that is also my wishful thinking and after decades of watching markets and listening to "experts" telling me the future of the economy, stock prices, etc. I'm very skeptical even of myself - an attribute that has been very valuable for me.

    "Well, it's nice to have you finally out of the closet"
    -SecState Arthur Curry, THE FINAL OPTION

    :D

    The facts clearly indicate that the "Blue Tsunami" will be, AT BEST (for Democrats) a blue trickle...

    At worst (for Democrats), a Red trickle or even a Red wave..

    Ya'all are probably best off referring to Nov 2016 for some pointers on how to react...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJsyh-xmpuA

    Practice up, buttercups.. :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87UXIH8Lzo

    Just GOT to love these trips down memory lane... :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    But through it all, I will try to balance all the rampant enthusiasm and liberal energy with a healthy dose of skepticism.

    I'm gonna hold ya to that... :D

  11. [11] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I don't think you understood what I wrote. The tape is a nothingburger.

    Nothing good can come from playing it for the faithful; it makes candidate Trump sound like just another politician. What good can come from the faithful hearing him talking about keeping his divorce papers under wraps until the after the election? And if it is a diet coke he orders on the tape, I'm not sure that's good either. Among the real men who support Trump, don't many hold diet soda drinkers to be just a little snowflaky?

    Anyway, what are you doing up at this hour? Aren't you in the Eastern time zone where it's still o'dark thirty or so?

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Portland, Ore., to clean up 'disgusting' Occupy ICE camp, calling it biohazard
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/26/portland-to-clean-up-disgusting-occupy-ice-camp-calling-it-biohazard.html

    Liberals.. Can't even clean up after themselves..

  13. [13] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    You will be pleased to see the price of gas take a nosedive the closer you get to Texas.

    That sure is the truth. Not too far from AUS airport, it's as low as 2.35. In general, TX gas prices don't get much above the untaxed futures price (they still call gasoline RBOB in the futures market), plus thirty cents or so.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think you understood what I wrote. The tape is a nothingburger.

    I did indeed misunderstand.. My apologies..

    Yea, like I said.. The "bombshell" of the tapes is that President Trump demands diet coke.. :D

    Among the real men who support Trump, don't many hold diet soda drinkers to be just a little snowflaky?

    Hay!! I resemble that remark!! :D

    I am on my 5th one as we speak.. :D

    Anyway, what are you doing up at this hour? Aren't you in the Eastern time zone where it's still o'dark thirty or so?

    My weekdays usually start at 0400.. Weekends, ya can catch me REALLY early.. 0030-0100 is the norm.

    Hell, last weekend, I started my Saturday at 2330 Friday evening.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    We could see a renaissance in left wing involvement in politics. Decent, sensible Americans might say "OK, we need to roll up our sleeves and get rid of all the loonies the right wing has let run our country".

    Yea and make room for all the James Hodgkisons of the Democrat Party...

    "Good call!!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

    :^/

    Lastly the whole media circus could be everything, and voting patterns won't change significantly and the 202 election could just be another 50/50 toss up.

    You mean the "50/50 tossup" that gave President Trump an electoral landslide??? :D

    Personally I expect that the anger that the traitor in the White House has generated on the left will have a real, long-term and significant impact on politics in this country ...

    Yea, just as the anger that was generated by the Right's treatment of Odumbo will have a "real" and "significant" impact on the 2016 elections..

    That's what you don't seem to get, Neil.... Everything ya'all are saying, everything the Democrats are doing are a near repeat of what you said and what they did in the run-up to 2016...

    Ya'all are doing and saying the same things, yet expecting a different outcome..

    The very definition of insanity..

    Elections from here on out are going to be "ESTABLISHMENT" vs "OUTSIDER" elections..

    And the ESTABLISHMENT will continue to lose...

    I know, I know.. Ya'all didn't believe me then and ya'all won't believe me now..

    :D

  16. [16] 
    John M wrote:

    I just wanted to take this time to address two things that struck me:

    C.W. wrote Tuesday:

    "It's going to be hard enough for Democrats to get much of anything done for the next two years, even if they do manage to take the House. And even if a miracle happens and the big blue wave hands the Democrats the Senate in November, it'll still be hard to advance many of their agenda items. The legislative filibuster will still exist, and there will still be a Republican president at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. With those realities, nobody should expect single-payer healthcare any time soon, to state the obvious."

    Some important points:

    1) Assuming Democrats take the House, unless he works with them, this will make Trump a lame duck during the remaining two years of his one and only term as president.

    2) Getting nothing done rests on the assumption that nothing changes in the Senate. If Democrats gain majority control of the Senate as well, I think there will be tremendous pressure for them to do away with the filibuster. C.W. assumes it will remain in place, but in fact there is nothing stopping a majority caucus of simply voting to do away with it as part of the rules before the Senate session begins.

    I agree that this could, in turn, have the effect of, as ListenWhenYouHear says, of the entire Democratic agenda being passed, since Trump is just as likely to sign anything any Congress puts before him, either Republican or Democratic, as long as it is perceived to be popular and he can claim credit for it and supposedly keep on winning.

    A Totally Democratic Congress and Trump working together could oddly enough ensure a Trump second term.

    The second thins I wanted to address was Judge Jeanine Pirro's recent skewering on The View by Whoopi Goldberg and then Pirro's own eight minute rant on her own program about it.

    All I have to say is wow Jeanine, talk about being a snowflake! If you can't take it, then don't dish it out in the first place. Despite Pirro's protestations to the contrary, a rant lasting eight minutes, instead of either no response or a short two sentence rejoinder, does nothing to back up your claim that you are in fact a big girl who can take it as well as she gives it.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    All I have to say is wow Jeanine, talk about being a snowflake! If you can't take it, then don't dish it out in the first place. Despite Pirro's protestations to the contrary, a rant lasting eight minutes, instead of either no response or a short two sentence rejoinder, does nothing to back up your claim that you are in fact a big girl who can take it as well as she gives it.

    And the FACT that Pirro happens to be a Trump supporter has NOTHING to do with your codemnation, eh? :D

    I'll remind you of this, next time a Democrat has a long rant about something.. :D

    Should be fun.. And soon.. :D

    As for the rest, it's a pipe dream that Democrats take the Senate..

    Dims will be VERY VERY lucky if they can get the House..

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:
  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    REVEALED: NYT Targets Kavanaugh’s Wife, Looking For ‘Abortion,’ ‘Gun,’ ‘Gay,’ ‘Federalist’ Emails
    The New York Times and Associated Press target Judge Brett Kavanaugh's wife with records requests.

    https://ntknetwork.com/revealed-nyt-targets-kavanaughs-wife-looking-for-abortion-gun-gay-federalist-emails/

    The pathetic desperation of the hysterical Left Wingery..

    How utterly sad...

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    16

    All I have to say is wow Jeanine, talk about being a snowflake! If you can't take it, then don't dish it out in the first place.

    Yes, sir... all too common righty traits are their whining and perpetual grievance and their inability to "take" what they dish out on a regular basis. It's comical to watch them flailing in their ignorance and total lack of self-awareness.

    Despite Pirro's protestations to the contrary, a rant lasting eight minutes, instead of either no response or a short two sentence rejoinder, does nothing to back up your claim that you are in fact a big girl who can take it as well as she gives it.

    You have to cut "Judge" Jeanine some slack, though, John M, since she remains permanently and perpetually butthurt from her failed attempt to unseat then Senator Clinton and the multiple other losses she's suffered attempting to take the leap from suburban DA to be elected to higher office... any higher office.

    Standing at the podium, before a blue banner that read JEANINE PIRRO, the experienced campaigner played the part well, instantly reinforcing her reputation as sharp, articulate, with-it politician—at least initially. Smiling under the camera lights, Pirro launched into her stump speech with aplomb, calling herself a “fighter, an advocate, and an agent for change.” She stressed her 30-year career in office, and her moderate views. She laid out her positions on controversial issues (“I support making President Bush’s tax cuts permanent. But I also support the right of a woman to choose.... I believe in immigration.... But I also believe in the Patriot Act.”) Building momentum, she took aim at her opponent, someone who “has shortchanged New York” and who “hasn’t delivered.”

    “But I am not Hillary Clinton,” Pirro declared, pausing for effect. She segued flawlessly from the type of security she’s fought for at home to the types she’ll fight for on Capitol Hill–not just national security, but Social Security, medical security, economic security. “You will know where I stand on the issues,” Pirro trumpeted, staring at a fixed spot in the back of the room.

    “Hillary Clinton,” she continued, and looked down at her notes. She then paused, mid-sentence, and said nothing. She shuffled through her notes, as seconds passed. Reporters shifted in their seats. Photographers flashed their cameras.

    Then, in a muffled voice, Pirro asked her staffers, “Do you have page 10?”

    ~ Kristen Lombardi, August 9, 2005, The Village Voice

    She stressed her belief in the right of a woman to choose and her belief in immigration and other moderate views but spent the majority of her speech Clinton bashing. Pirro seemingly forgot to realize she had a primary challenger to beat before she would even be allowed to run for that Senate seat that she coveted... *laughs*… and then she couldn't find page 10.

    You will just have to forgive the paid idiots and terminally enraged and angry like Ms. Pirro on Fox News, where failed politicians forge new lives; they generally just read the propaganda on the prompter and/or deliver their notes as written... unless the prompter fails or they can't find page 10. ;)

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    LeaningBlue
    11

    The tape is a nothingburger.

    Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg who was mentioned in the "nothingburger" tape has a date with a grand jury in New York. Those grand juries have been busy, but I digress.

    Mr. Weisselberg worked with Fred Trump and has worked with the Trump Organization since the 1970s and is frequently described as the one person in the Trump orbit who "knows where all the bodies are buried."

    I suspect Benedict Donald's twitter feed will get extra "lit" as that noose becomes ever tighter. Trumpertantrum in 3... 2... 1. ;)

  22. [22] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Former fed on Fox explaining Allen Weisselberg (CFO of T.Org.) getting Grand Jury subpoena from SDNY. It's a witness subpoena.

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/former-prosecutor-tells-foxs-shep-smith-subpoena-trump-org-cfo-turn-bank-fraud/

    By coincidence, long-time bookkeeper Allen W. was just arguably named in the nothingburger tape by Cohen as a co-conspirator. Tying back to the topic of skepticism, since there's no conspiracy to do anything, it's probably nothing more than just tying up some loose ends on some Cohen tax-or-taxi fraud.

  23. [23] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I had to take a phone call and was delayed; Kick and I essentially conspired to both post about Weisselberg. I mean, we did so by coincidence.

  24. [24] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I forgot my movie quote; it's a long one...

    Bowtie Driver: [while on the main stairway inside the train station] Me and the bookkeeper are walking out of here, getting into a car, and driving away. Or else he dies! He dies! And you ain't got nothing! You got five seconds to make up your minds!

    Ness: You got him?
    George Stone: Yeah, I got him.
    Bowtie Driver: [Bowtie starts counting off five seconds] One!
    George Stone: [Stone shoots him] Two!

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    LeaningBlue
    23

    I had to take a phone call and was delayed; Kick and I essentially conspired to both post about Weisselberg. I mean, we did so by coincidence.

    I have three things to say about that, LB:

    ** "Fake News."

    ** "No collusion."

    ** "Just remember: What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."

    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. ~ Eric Blair a.k.a. George Orwell, 1984

    And get me a Coke, LB! ;) *laughs*

  26. [26] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I see the Russian lawyer woman who got the whole "collusion" thing going by offering to give the Trump campaign "dirt" on Hillary way back in 2016 is back in the news (Huffpost).

    I've always heard that the so-called "dirt" never materialized, or at least in the view of the Trump people, wasn't of any political value, but I've never heard what the purported "dirt" actually involved.

    Anybody out there that can shed light on that subject?

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    LeaningBlue
    24

    I forgot my movie quote; it's a long one...

    Nice "quote," LB. You sure you got all those words in there correct?!

    https://youtu.be/eRJ539f5Ugc?t=7m42s

    Just kidding you, of course. There's a lesson in there, and it's this: One should never mess around with the "eff be I"! :)

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Donald Trump

    U.S. second-quarter GDP growth expected to top 4%
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-second-quarter-gdp-growth-expected-to-top-4-percent/

    Not too bad for a POTUS ya'all SWORE would "decimate the economy" and "start WWIII"...

    Once again, ya'all were wrong and I rejoice rubbing ya'all's noses in it.. :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    Tying back to the topic of skepticism, since there's no conspiracy to do anything, it's probably nothing more than just tying up some loose ends on some Cohen tax-or-taxi fraud.

    Yep.. Nothing to do with Russians or Collusion or Election...

    More fishing and witch hunting..

    Trying to find SOMETHING.... **ANYTHING** to be able to wrap this up and claim success...

    You and I are definitely on the same page here...

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I don’t know why people take it. I think Americans should be out in the streets screaming to the top of their voice. Do something. Make something happen."
    -Mad Maxine Waters

    Looks like Mad Maxine is at it again, calling on all the James Hodgkisons of the Democrat Party to "do something", to "make something happen"....

    Yea.. THAT's how Democrats will win elections. But gunning down Trump supporters :^/

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look at the questions on immigration. NBC asked if people think immigration helps or hurts the country and found that 56 percent think immigration is helpful. It also asked people to rate Trump in his “treatment of immigrants and their families” — a question I have never seen before — to capitalize on the separation of children, which we already know was overwhelming disapproved by 88 percent in a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll.

    But the questions ignore the heart of the issue: The battle is not over immigration per se but over illegal immigration. The public is quite sour on illegal immigration. Yet, you rarely if ever see a fair question on sanctuary city policies, which 84 percent oppose in the last Harvard CAPS/Harris poll. Or on chain migration or on immigration lotteries.

    It’s like Luke Skywalker in the last “Star Wars” film when they pound him with all their weapons. (Or, if you are on the other side, it’s like when the resistance throws everything at the Death Star and it remains unscathed.) When events like that happen, you need to reexamine your assumptions about what’s going on. These one-sided polls with slanted issue questions could once again easily miss the impact of 4 percent growth combined with more muscular trade and immigration policies. Unless the polls really reflect all the sides of the national debate on the issues before us, they will never reflect the nation they are supposed to capture.
    http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/398940-polling-could-be-missing-reality-again

    This is exactly why I laugh at ya'all's reliance on ONLY the polls that say what ya'all want to hear.. :D

    Polls serve ONLY to show the biases of the poll takers.. Those who are polled are tricked into supporting those biases by the questions asked...

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I've always heard that the so-called "dirt" never materialized, or at least in the view of the Trump people, wasn't of any political value, but I've never heard what the purported "dirt" actually involved.

    One very good source for keeping it all straight is Bill Moyer's Russia scandal timeline, now at the "Committee to Investigate Russia" website. It's the most up-to-date info source available on this subject.

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But the questions ignore the heart of the issue: The battle is not over immigration per se but over illegal immigration.

    That's what they keep saying, yet in a report last night, NPR detailed the many steps that the Trump administration has taken to curtail legal immigration. Republicans say that it's just about illegals, but can't seem to think of a group of non-european legal immigrants that they don't also have a problem with.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    One very good source for keeping it all straight is Bill Moyer's Russia scandal timeline, now at the "Committee to Investigate Russia" website. It's the most up-to-date info source available on this subject.

    One very good source for keeping it all straight is Bill Moyer's Russia scandal timeline, now at the "Committee to Investigate Russia" website. It's the most up-to-date Left Wingery/NeverTrumper info source available on this subject.

    There.. Fixed it for you..

    Yer welcome...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what they keep saying, yet in a report last night, NPR detailed the many steps that the Trump administration has taken to curtail legal immigration.

    For example...????

    Republicans say that it's just about illegals, but can't seem to think of a group of non-european legal immigrants that they don't also have a problem with.

    And you can't point to single problem that the GOP has a problem with that is not a reasonable legitimate problem..

    When protesters are throwing shit around and attacking and assaulting LEOs, they are not supporting LEGAL immigrants..

    They are supporting ILLEGAL immigrants..

    Nice try on trying to obfuscate the issue..

    Fail...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Second-quarter GDP jumps 4.1% for best pace in nearly four years
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/us-gdp-q2-2018.html

    So much for the claim that President Trump would decimate the economy.. That his tariffs would destroy this country...

    Things are looking pretty damn good.. :D

    Let's hear a response from the NeverTrump peanut gallery..

    COLLUSION!!!!! RUSSIA!!!!!! SEPARATED CHILDREN!!!!! NRA!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! COLLUSION!!!!! COFVEVE!!!! COFVEVE!!!! MY GODS!!! COFVEVE!!!!!

    :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1022715131682160640

    Ahhh yes... The "peace" and "tolerance" of the Democrat Party...

    The Dims are SURE to win over voters in November...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Making sport calling out 'them lyin' newspapers
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/26/making-sport-calling-out-them-lyin-newspapers/

    The Left will never beat President Trump because they don't GET President Trump.. :D

    It's really that simple..

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The Left will never beat President Trump because they don't GET President Trump..

    Oh no, I get it. Republicans with Trump are like a kid with a pet poison snake. He revels in the attention it brings him. He revels in its toxicity, and ability to freak people out. Having the snake around, he thinks, makes him cool and powerful. Mostly he loves the way that folks in authority react to it. They have actual conniptions about it.

    And no one is surprised except him when one day it bites him on the ass.

    Poisonous snakes, pit bulls, tigers, they're all the same - they all can seem domesticated until suddenly, they aren't.

  40. [40] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Only about 10% of a Weisselberg is visible from the surface. I think the hidden 90% is what will ultimately sink the Trumptanic. Cohen waited a bit too long to hop into a prosecutorial lifeboat.

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So maybe that's it, then. Trumpers are just going through their "Goth" phase...

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [35]: For example...????

    [The Trump]"..administration has granted fewer visas, approved fewer refugees, ordered the removal of hundreds of thousands of legal residents whose home countries have been hit by war and natural disasters and pushed Congress to pass laws to dramatically cut the entire legal immigration system." - USA Today

    That article (just one of several I found) goes on to describe other measures the Trump administration has taken to limit legal immigration, such as limiting Asylum claims, severely reducing refugee resettlement, the "Muslim travel ban", ending (or attempting to end) DACA, ending Temporary Protected Status for people from war-torn countries, reducing family reunification (which righties call 'chain migration'), and severely reducing the issuance of visas ("green cards") - except for H2B visas, which non-agricultural businesses (including Trump's) depend on.

    And you can't point to single problem that the GOP has a problem with that is not a reasonable legitimate problem..

    Such hubris! Never wrong, eh? Not even treating babies as criminals? That sure played out well for them.

  43. [43] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Me [32]: One very good source for keeping it all straight is Bill Moyer's Russia scandal timeline, now at the "Committee to Investigate Russia" website. It's the most up-to-date info source available on this subject.

    Michale [34]: One very good source for keeping it all straight is Bill Moyer's Russia scandal timeline, now at the "Committee to Investigate Russia" website. It's the most up-to-date Left Wingery/NeverTrumper info source available on this subject.

    There.. Fixed it for you..

    Oh I see what you did there. You stuck your own head up your own ass so that you wouldn't have to deal with the fact that Trump has been sucking Putin's dick since the turn of the century. Don't forget that it was Republicans who joked that the only two people that they knew for sure were on Putin's payroll were Trump and Dana Rohrbacher.

    It wasn't that long ago that you wrote to me, "you watch the Fox channel more than I do!" Damn straight I do. When you're stuck in a house with crazy people, it's a good idea to try to figure out what makes them tick, even if what they believe makes no sense at all.

    You should check out that site yourself. You might learn something.

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [20] and [25]: Exceptional posts! Color me pink with admiration, and green with envy.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    [The Trump]"..administration has granted fewer visas, approved fewer refugees, ordered the removal of hundreds of thousands of legal residents whose home countries have been hit by war and natural disasters and pushed Congress to pass laws to dramatically cut the entire legal immigration system." - USA Today

    Unless you have FACTS that prove it's because the GOP is against legal immigration, all you have is someone's opinion..

    In other words, you ain't got shit..

    You stuck your own head up your own ass so that you wouldn't have to deal with the fact that Trump has been sucking Putin's dick since the turn of the century.

    And yet, Dumbocrats LOVED Trump when he had a -D after his name..

    Funny how that is, eh...

    Once again, all you have is hysterical political bigotry...

    It wasn't that long ago that you wrote to me, "you watch the Fox channel more than I do!" Damn straight I do.

    So you're the FOX NEWS sycophant, not I..

    Of course, ONLY when they say what you want to hear..

    How is that not hysterical hypocrisy??

    Oh no, I get it.

    Oh, no you don't get it..

    Trump is the exact same person he was when he had a -D after his name..

    Funny how you had NO PROBLEM with Trump then..

    It's only when he had a -R after his name you started hating him...

    That makes you either a Party slave or a hypocrite.. Most likely, both..

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Les Moonves and CBS Face Allegations of Sexual Misconduct
    Six women accuse the C.E.O. of harassment and intimidation, and dozens more describe abuse at his company.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/06/les-moonves-and-cbs-face-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct

    And another heavy Democrat donor is a sexually deviant scumbag harasser..

    What *IS* it about Democrats like Clinton, Weinstein and Moonves????

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And yet, Dumbocrats LOVED Trump when he had a -D after his name..

    No, they didn't. They tolerated Trump because he hosted expensive parties. Mostly, Dems made fun of him.

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    What *IS* it about Democrats like Clinton, Weinstein and Moonves?

    Same as with Republicans like Trump, Farenthold, and Hastert: can't keep their hands to themselves.

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    36

    Second-quarter GDP jumps 4.1% for best pace in nearly four years

    So doing the math, we're looking at third quarter of 2014 during the Obama administration where GDP was much higher. If you weren't singing the praises of Barack Obama in the third quarter of 2014 [and hint: you weren't] which saw a 5.2 GDP -- adjusted to 4.9 over time as these things are -- then why on Earth are you going on and on about this number?

    I'd say it's because you (above anyone else on this blog) are the personification of your two lone arguments. Everyone knows what your two arguments are so obviously there's no reason to spell them out.

    Things are looking pretty damn good.. :D

    Funny how you weren't saying that in third quarter of 2014, iddn't it? #Hypocrite #D/R :)

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    44

    Kick [20] and [25]: Exceptional posts!

    Thank you, kind sir.

    Color me pink with admiration, and green with envy.

    Okay, but I'm warning you now that pink and green makes gray. You sure you wanna go there? How about a nice shade of blonde, sir? ;)

  51. [51] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    As I've pointed our previously, our presidents get the credit for good economic performance, and they get the blame for poor/bad economic times, and truth be known, they rarely to never deserve either.

    Governments definitely can and do have the power to affect economic performance to some degree, but they have FAR more power to screw things up than they do to make things go well, and by far the greater share of such power as they do have resides with the legislative rather than with the executive branch.

    It's also worth noting that gov't financial statistics often amount to something comparable to the well-known definition of 'History' - "A fable agreed upon."

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    40

    Only about 10% of a Weisselberg is visible from the surface.

    TS is right. It's also best to hit a Weisselberg head on and take damage to the forward compartment versus trying to maneuver around it and risk a giant gash down your hull that damages multiple compartments.

    I think the hidden 90% is what will ultimately sink the Trumptanic.

    Indubitably.

    Cohen waited a bit too long to hop into a prosecutorial lifeboat.

    Are we absolutely sure he isn't already warm and toasty aboard the RMS Carpathia? ;)

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    46

    Six women accuse the C.E.O. of harassment and intimidation, and dozens more describe abuse at his company.

    Pathetic. It sounds like way less accusers than Trump who has plenty more where that came from, including teenage accusers whom he admitted to walking in on their dressing room because he owned the pageant. They're all pathetic.

    And another heavy Democrat donor is a sexually deviant scumbag harasser..

    I am not constrained to point out that Donald Trump was a heavy Democrat donor who is a sexually deviant scumbag harasser too. So there's that. #Pathetic #Hypocrite

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    47

    No, they didn't. They tolerated Trump because he hosted expensive parties. Mostly, Dems made fun of him.

    Yes, sir. They took his money and tolerated him, but he was never accepted in their circles because it is widely known he is a con artist and fraud who incessantly talks about himself nonstop. He is a joke who gets laughed about behind his back in their circles, and the laughter is only getting louder as his mind wastes away in full view... another widely known fact, actually.

    He's also a known pervert just like his pals Manafort and Stone. Having said all that, there are many Democrats who resemble that too since there are no political parties that exist in America wherein you will find no clods.

    The only things about Trump that have changed over the decades are his mind wasting away and his party affiliation changing about nine times in order to take advantage of different scenarios wherein he's actually been running for POTUS or giving it lip service since 1999.

    Lastly, he became a tool of Russia since he couldn't get financing in America because he was a known deadbeat who didn't repay his debts and cheated financial institutions and investors on a regular basis. Then he sold out his country and became Benedict Donald... and shall remain ever thus. #Sad

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    51

    As I've pointed our previously, our presidents get the credit for good economic performance, and they get the blame for poor/bad economic times, and truth be known, they rarely to never deserve either.

    This is notable in that I agree with Stucki... typos and all. :)

    Governments definitely can and do have the power to affect economic performance to some degree, but they have FAR more power to screw things up than they do to make things go well, and by far the greater share of such power as they do have resides with the legislative rather than with the executive branch.

    Unless, of course, the Whiney-Little-Witch-in-Chief levies tariffs on everyone except his Comrade Putin under the guise of them being a "threat to national security" while the spineless members of his party who are supposed to be a co-equal branch of our government of "checks and balances" stay seated with their heads planted firmly up their own asses, right?

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    Same as with Republicans like Trump, Farenthold, and Hastert: can't keep their hands to themselves.

    But, according to ya'all, your Democrats are supposed to be BETTER than Republicans..

    Are you finally agreeing with me in that there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans??

    "Awwwww you cute lil snookems.."
    -Genie, ALADDIN

    :D

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Are you finally agreeing with me in that there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans?

    In that they share human foibles? sure.

    About locking up babies? Maybe not so much.

Comments for this article are closed.