ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Arkansas Highpoint And Gangster Museums

[ Posted Wednesday, August 1st, 2018 – 20:05 PDT ]

This is your humble narrator, checking in from the road. Today's column is nothing short of a travelogue, so if that sort of thing doesn't appeal to you, I would suggest you stop reading right now. There will be no political discussion, as I've been doing my best to ignore politics for the past few days while enjoying a drive down the middle of the country. Oh, and today's title is quite literal.

Which is as good a point as any to begin with. Our drive was not carefully planned, we just kind of wandered around. Sometimes this leads to disappointing experiences, and sometimes it leads to quite the opposite. It's a Zen sort of way to vacation, in other words. This time, it worked out wonderfully, as we stumbled across a largely-undiscovered gem.

We were driving across Arkansas towards the end of the day, and decided to explore Magazine Mountain, which happens to be the highest point in the state (hence the literalness of our title today). It stands at 2,753 feet, with an impressive view of the Ozarks and the Petit Jean Valley. We had driven through Paris, Arkansas, which (to be polite) does not exactly live up to its better-known namesake in France. We didn't find a hotel there, and were somewhat concerned with where we would be spending the night.

I did have a guidebook of sorts, but it was over a decade out of date. It described the mountain and the short hiking trail to the top, and mentioned that around the other side from the trailhead were the ruins of a lodge that had burned to the ground in 1971. The lodge had originally been built in the Great Depression, by both the W.P.A. and the C.C.C., after the land on the mountain was all bought up by the federal government.

Many of these grand lodges were built across the National Park system at the time, as anyone who watched the Ken Burns documentary on the parks will know. Most of them still stand (most were built in parks throughout the West), and are absolutely breathtaking. So while the sun began to set, we drove around to see the ruins of one of these that had been built a lot further east than most of them.

We were in for a rather big (and rather pleasant) surprise. All the signposts looked rather new and they all pointed to "Lodge" -- not "Lodge ruins" or "Where the lodge used to be," but we really didn't notice this at the time. We rounded the shoulder of the mountain to find an enormous and fully functioning replica lodge -- which, seeing as how we needed a place to stay for the night, was serendipitous indeed.

[Editor's comment: I should insert a little side note here -- while I do have photographs to share, it's really beyond my abilities to post them right now, so I'll have to post a followup article next week with some of the photos of our trip. I will definitely include some showing this wonderful lodge, as well as one of me brandishing an authentic Thompson submachine gun (more on that in a moment).]

We were lucky, as there was indeed room at the inn. In fact, there weren't all that many people there at all, even though it was smack in the middle of the summer tourist season. Perhaps this was because it was a Sunday night, but for whatever reason we were thankful that we didn't have to drive down the mountain and seek some seedy little motel somewhere in the back of beyond.

The lodge (we were informed) was built just over a decade ago, but in every detail it looked exactly like all the Depression-era lodges throughout the West we had previously visited. Enormous beams made of full tree trunks were used to construct soaring ceilings in the cathedral-like dining room. While all the facilities were new and modern, the lodge looked and felt like one constructed by a Roosevelt "alphabet" works agency. It is simply stupendous all around, and it sits on the edge of a cliff (there is even a hang glider launch pad on the grounds, which not every lodge can boast). The rooms all have a breathtaking view of the Petit Jean River Valley.

So if you're ever in central Arkansas and want a fantastic experience, or are just looking for a place to stay, I would highly recommend the Lodge at Magazine Mountain. It is well worth the trip, and you might as well also make the 15-minute hike to the highest point in the state (although, to be fair, the peak itself is wooded, so the lodge itself has much better views).

As I mentioned, this was a rather Zen trip, without a hard and fast itinerary, so we were merely wending our way south towards the Big Easy, killing some time before the Netroots Nation conference was due to start. But time wasn't the only thing notably killed on our trip, as we wound up visiting not one but two museums devoted to gangsters. How's that for serendipity?

From Magazine Mountain, we headed roughly due south, which led us straight to Hot Springs, and what is quite possibly the weirdest national park in the whole system. The rangers also claimed it was the smallest, but I personally happen to know this is false, as I've been to Greenbelt Park just outside of Washington D.C., which is only 1,176 acres big (or "small," really).

Size aside, though, Hot Springs is without doubt the strangest national park around. It stakes a claim to being the first national park ever, nationalized long before Yellowstone was created in 1872. Forty years earlier, Congress passed an authorization on April 20, 1832 setting aside Hot Springs for future recreation. So while not actually called a "national park," it was indeed the first federal land devoted to recreation, in the hopes of creating a European-style spa town so the public could enjoy the medicinal properties of the hot springs there.

Now, if you visit the park, you'll hear all about the history of the medicinal uses of the hot springs. They delve into the history of the treatments and the bathhouses and the town itself. Or, to be more accurate, the sanitized version of the town's history. It's all very whitewashed and bowdlerized, and if you just visit the park and leave, you'll never hear of the rest of the colorful history of the town. It'd be like visiting Las Vegas and just learning the history of the neon sign, without ever being told why such signs were ever created -- in other words, with no history of the casinos at all. This is the closest analogy I can make, because Hot Springs was also known for both its casinos and its Wild West atmosphere -- for over a century, and long into the 1900s.

Hot Springs was where all the organized crime families across the country all came to vacation. The town was neutral territory for all of them, because the big boss of Hot Springs was a mathematical genius who singlehandedly created a moneylaundering empire. He handled the cleaning of illicit funds for all the other crime bosses, which is why Hot Springs was much like the Switzerland of organized crime in two ways -- banking, and neutrality.

Gambling was illegal in Arkansas -- casinos were never authorized by law. But they flourished in the town, along with houses of ill repute, nightclubs, and all the rest of the "Sin City" attractions. It was discovered that the waters of the hot springs had more than just medicinal properties -- if you made moonshine from these waters, it came out brilliantly clear. So the local bottled water industry was co-opted in brilliant fashion. Mountain Valley Spring Water was bottled in large glass jugs which were upended into dispensers, just as water cooler water bottles are still used today. But they rather intelligently decided early on that because their bottles were upended for use, they would emboss their logo on the bottles upside-down, so they could be read properly when the bottle was in use.

Bottles with the logo upside-down contained medicinal water. But soon bottles with the logo rightside-up began travelling across the country for distribution, and in these bottles was a different sort of medicinal "water" -- clear moonshine. One of the most prominent importers of this product was Joe Kennedy, father of J.F.K., R.F.K., and Teddy.

We learned all this more-colorful history across the street from the national park, in the Gangster Museum in Hot Springs. I can highly recommend this to (as the sign out front boasts) learn the real history of the town -- a much more interesting history than looking at medical devices from the 1920s!

Hot Springs was a wide-open town run by gangsters right up to the 1960s, in fact, with the police department fully co-opted in the management by the crime bosses. It wasn't until Winthrop Rockefeller became Arkansas governor that the town was cleaned up, in fact. The raids on the illegal casinos Rockefeller launched was the top Associated Press story of 1967, in fact, and there was a whole lot of other interesting things going on in the country at the time, to put it into perspective.

Also, for perspective, Bill Clinton spent his formative years (from age 4 through high school) in Hot Springs. This is the town he grew up in, which explains a lot, when you think about it for a moment. I mention this by way of a segue, since we also briefly visited Hope on our travels, and saw the house he first lived in after he was born.

From Hope we headed south, and again almost randomly came across the town of Gibsland, Louisiana, where we spent some time in the Bonnie and Clyde Museum, which is located there because seven miles outside of town is the spot where they were ambushed by officers of the law. Remember the final scene from the Warren Beatty movie where their car was riddled with bullets? This is where that happened. So without ever intending to delve into the subject of gangsters, we wound up visiting not one but two actual museums devoted to gangsters. Both were of a rather ad-hoc nature (they weren't exactly the Smithsonian), but they were both completely enjoyable and well worth both the time spent and the entrance fee, so I would freely recommend them to other travelers.

OK, it's getting late and I've got a lot of political news to catch up on, so I'll just sign off here. Photos will be posted later (next week, hopefully), I promise, including that one of me with a Tommy gun. After all, what other museum in the world allows you to pose with a "Chicago Typewriter" at the end? In other words, a good time was had by all. For the rest of the week, I'll be participating in more politically-correct activities, but I have to admit that our road trip getting down to New Orleans was certainly a whole lot of totally unexpected fun!

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

177 Comments on “Arkansas Highpoint And Gangster Museums”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: It is well worth the trip, and you might as well also make the 15-minute hike to the highest point in the state.

    Signal Hill!

    Okay, now I know you're having fun if you're hanging out in Hot Springs and Bathhouse Row area. You sneaker! Did you check out the tunnels underneath? Totally gangster.

    Stay safe and have fun. :)

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    CW: You have a fall back if the politics gets you down as a travel writer. Great column. Thanks.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    This deserves a read for both sides of the political divide.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17505406/trump-obama-race-politics-immigration

    Couple of interesting experiments:

    1. Ryan Enos surveyed people's political leanings at train stations around Boston. Then he planted Spanish speakers for three days and repeated the survey and documented a swing to the right.

    2. When shown pictures of Obama's dog Bo, more racially resentful Americans liked the dog better when told it was a picture of Ted Kennedy’s dog Splash.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    This deserves a read for both sides of the political divide.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17505406/trump-obama-race-politics-immigration

    "There is a very simple way to get rid of racism. Stop talking about it"
    -Odumbo Voter Morgan Freeman

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    "There is a very simple way to get rid of racism. Stop talking about it"

    If you actually read the article you'll see that Obama tried just that - he talked about race significantly less than other Presidents, yet race concern rose.

  6. [6] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Interestingly, the Rude Pundit's latest column is sorta on the same topic, with a slightly different take:

    Note to Democrats: Fuck the White Working Class

    Catering to the retrogressive opinions of racist snowflakes on the right is counter-productive.

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    Catering to the retrogressive opinions of racist snowflakes on the right is counter-productive.

    I agree. I think the difference in voting patterns is influenced far more by who turns out than by people switching allegiances - particularly in this hyper partisan climate.

    There are plenty of white people who are looking forward to a more diverse country, so if the Republican's white resentment identity politics keeps up, they will have to win with a subset of a minority.

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    WaPo's take on why Treasonous Trump's lawyers won't let him sit down with Mueller unless he overrides them:

    "Trump’s real problem is almost certainly that he can’t lie to Mueller about his conduct or tell him the truth about it."

    Not a good position to be in. Man, I'd love it if those interviews were broadcast live.

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [1] -

    Signal hill indeed... I can see you've been there!

    Also went to Driskill Mtn., near the Bonny-n-Clyde museum...

    Heh.

    Didn't see the tunnels, but there was a bit about it in a video in the Gangster Museum... they found the remains of Al Capone's private underground bowling alley...

    :-)

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [2] -

    Thanks for the kind words! Maybe you're right... I bet it'd pay better, for one...

    Heh.

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, lunch hour's almost up... back to the convention...

    :-)

    -CW

  12. [12] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    they found the remains of Al Capone's private underground bowling alley...

    Well, that's more than Giraldo found.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you actually read the article you'll see that Obama tried just that - he talked about race significantly less than other Presidents, yet race concern rose.

    Bullshit he "quit talking about it...

    ANd his ACTIONs with regard to race made things much worse..

    Throwing cops and honest patriotic Americans under the bus...

    Always siding with the blacks, even though overwhelming FACTS proved they were in the wrong..

  14. [14] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    Oh, that great unwashed, unthinking monolith, "the blacks." Those people. Them. A Venn diagram of "the blacks" would not show an intersection with cops or "patriotic Americans," would it?

  15. [15] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    No, wait. I forgot about "the good ones."

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, that great unwashed, unthinking monolith, "the blacks." Those people. Them. A Venn diagram of "the blacks" would not show an intersection with cops or "patriotic Americans," would it?

    Of course it would..

    But THOSE black Americans are Americans first.... Cops first.. Their race doesn't really enter in to ANY equation as far as they are concerned...

    Unlike the professional victims...

    "We haven't met yet. I'm Clint."
    "I don't care."

    -CAPTAIN AMERICA-CIVIL WAR

    No, wait. I forgot about "the good ones."

    If that's how you want to phrase it.....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I wasn't going to politicize the commentary..

    But, when in Rome..

    Photos will be posted later (next week, hopefully), I promise, including that one of me with a Tommy gun. After all, what other museum in the world allows you to pose with a "Chicago Typewriter" at the end? In other words, a good time was had by all.

    So, you derive enjoyment from holding a fire-arm, eh??

    Careful.. You might have to give up your Democrat Party club ID.. :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww right people.. It's poker night..

    See ya'all tomorrow.. :D

  19. [19] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    If that's how you want to phrase it.....

    No siree, Bob!

    I prefer to take people as individuals. I haven't found a valid use case for categorizing, pigeonholing, or classifying others. No y'all for me.

  20. [20] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Always siding with the blacks, even though overwhelming FACTS proved they were in the wrong..

    What an awful sentiment, much less mess of a sentence. You might want to take that back and have it checked for rabies.

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    Always siding with the blacks, even though overwhelming FACTS proved they were in the wrong..

    White resentment politics at its clearest.

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [17] -

    Hey, I'll have you know I saw a Tommy gun fired live... on a tour of the FBI building (they have a shooting range in the basement)...

    Of course, I was in like the 5th grade at the time...

    Heh.

    The photo's pretty funny, but you'll have to wait until next week.

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Off to see Cory Booker give a speech...

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Kick -

    Here's my position on the 3d gun thing. In the previous thread's discussion, there are two aspects in which the 3d gun techno-fiction is NOT advanced by the cartridge you linked.

    First, the instant the bullet leaves the end of this cartridge, the pressure of the expanding gases is dispered uniformly in all forward directions. The bullet's pass through the plastic barrel has no positive effect on the bullet's ballistics. Second, the very fact they had to open the firing chamber to disperse the pressure means the plastic firing chamber can't handle that pressure (I think that was even mentioned).

    The cartridge is, in effect, the weapon itself. The 3d printed "gun" is only a platform for the cannon-design cartridge as well as the trigger-hammer action, which in this case were factory machined metal components.

    Remember, to have anything close to penetrating force over any reasonable range, a bullet has to be accelerated by the pressure behind it, directed down the the barrel with no other path out. (Force = mass * acceleration : Newton) and, to establish accuracy, has to be spun by the barrel's rifling to give it gyroscopic stability. Neither this cartridge holder for any plastic 3d gun fired to date, does these things, and none I've seen currently can, for the reasons above.

  25. [25] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    One last thing about gun issues. In regard to Sasha Cohen's Who Is America, typically available to view on demand in premium content augmenting the generally mind-numbing cable package. Yes, it is, in the main, pretty stupid and cringe-worthy. However, it has its moments.

    It is just plain hilarious to listen to a string of gun advocates, including a past Senate Majority Leader, speaking on behalf of arming 4 to 12 year olds, including providing the guns with camo in the form of stuffed animal toys. Hilarious, that is, for those of us who have lost our sense of outrage, and replaced it with a sense of irony and, (hopefully not gallows-) humor.

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    4

    "There is a very simple way to get rid of racism. Stop talking about it"
    -Odumbo Voter Morgan Freeman

    Can you very simply get rid of a fabricating poster like Michale if you stop talking about him? Does it surprise anyone that the uneducated goober misquoted someone yet again? I doubt it.

    The conversation Michale is referring to occurred on 60 Minutes. Freeman didn't say: "There is a very simple way to get rid of racism."

    Obviously, if you listen to what he actually said in context, he was saying he didn't feel the need to be "classified" as anything except an American.

    WALLACE: Black History Month, you find …

    FREEMAN: Ridiculous.

    WALLACE: Why?

    FREEMAN: You’re going to relegate my history to a month?

    WALLACE: Come on.

    FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.

    WALLACE: I’m Jewish.

    FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?

    WALLACE: There isn’t one.

    FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?

    WALLACE: No, no.

    FREEMAN: I don’t either. I don’t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.

    WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until …?

    FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I’m saying?

    If you're stupid enough to believe this interview meant that Morgan Freeman believed racism would disappear if no one talked about it, then you're moron enough to fall for the Trump Con and stupid enough to worship at the alter of Benedict Donald a.k.a Treasonous Trump. #Misquote #Gullible

  27. [27] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Test comment.

  28. [28] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Somehow I lost a comment, twice submitted. It was a comment concerning 3rd generation Rockefeller men.

    If it never appears, that's okay. Public service borne of a genuine sense of noblesse oblige is quaint, and impossible today. As great was their public service and generosity (see CW's post for one example), the public servants needed right now are great counter-intelligence agents and relentless prosecutors.

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    booker gives a good speech. i thought his '16 convention speech was excellent.

    JL

  30. [30] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I'm waiting to be picked up to go to dinner, and I took a casual look at TPM. The background graphic on the lead story is a snippet of the Manafort evidence list of wire transfers. Right at the top was one from Bank of Cyprus PCL.

    By coincidence, I suppose, as ol' Wilber's wiki page mentions, "Since 2014, Ross has been the vice-chairman of the board of Bank of Cyprus PCL."

    Act III is going to be very, very, long and painful indeed.

    Good evening.

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    LB
    24

    Here's my position on the 3d gun thing. In the previous thread's discussion, there are two aspects in which the 3d gun techno-fiction is NOT advanced by the cartridge you linked.

    Techno-fiction? Seriously? LB, please. My family invented a line of firearms. As I explained to Stucki, I linked to that article as an example of the type of bullet I was explaining to him... not the actual bullet. I'm not remotely going to explain all the logistics and specs of the gun and ammo to you or Stucki.

    First, the instant the bullet leaves the end of this cartridge, the pressure of the expanding gases is dispered uniformly in all forward directions.

    Are you going to tell me how gunpowder isn't an explosive too, LB? :)

    The bullet's pass through the plastic barrel has no positive effect on the bullet's ballistics. Second, the very fact they had to open the firing chamber to disperse the pressure means the plastic firing chamber can't handle that pressure (I think that was even mentioned).

    Like I said; it was an example.

    The cartridge is, in effect, the weapon itself.

    If that were even remotely true, then I could throw it at you and would have no need of the 3D printed weapon, now would I? And that is simply not the case.

    The 3d printed "gun" is only a platform for the cannon-design cartridge as well as the trigger-hammer action, which in this case were factory machined metal components.

    Yes, and I believe I did explain it was similar to the concept I was explaining to CRS. You seriously going to presume to tell me the "facts" about something you don't really know anything about? I showed CRS the basics of the bullets my "guys" have been making for years, and I did explain it was an example of how they worked. Try to grasp that concept.

    Remember, to have anything close to penetrating force over any reasonable range, a bullet has to be accelerated by the pressure behind it, directed down the the barrel with no other path out. (Force = mass * acceleration : Newton) and, to establish accuracy, has to be spun by the barrel's rifling to give it gyroscopic stability. Neither this cartridge holder for any plastic 3d gun fired to date, does these things, and none I've seen currently can, for the reasons above.

    Again, LB. My family invented a line of firearms. Please keep that in mind the next time you start blog-splaining firearms to me. *laughs* :)

  32. [32] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Does the "line of firearms" your family invented have a name?

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    32

    Yes, it does, Stucki.

    In answer to your next question: No, I will not. I will say I'm proud of my family heritage, though, and I'm a wicked good shot too. :)

  34. [34] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Believe it or not, there wasn't going to be any "next question". I intuited that it wasn't something you would be wanting to make public.

    Tell me about the "wicked good shot". You talking live birds, clays, center-fire on big game, targets, or what?

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [26]

    You ROCK! God, I LOVE posts like that! Completely destroyed the lie being spewed! There is no way to respond to that that doesn’t just make him look worse. Beautiful!!!

    -R

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    MV,

    I prefer to take people as individuals. I haven't found a valid use case for categorizing, pigeonholing, or classifying others. No y'all for me.

    That remains to be seen... :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    You ROCK! God, I LOVE posts like that! Completely destroyed the lie being spewed!

    There was no lie spewed.. Morgan Freeman DID, in FACT, say that..

    If you have a problem with it, take it up with him..

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Hey, I'll have you know I saw a Tommy gun fired live... on a tour of the FBI building (they have a shooting range in the basement)...

    But you thought it was kewl, right??

    You thought holding a Tommy Gun was pretty kewl right?? :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    White resentment politics at its clearest.

    You ask a question, I answered.. I know it wasn't politically correct, but the facts are the facts...

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are Hispanics shifting their allegiances to President Trump?

    A recent Harvard/Harris poll recorded a 10-point spike in Hispanic support for Mr. Trump. It hasn’t received much attention from the mainstream media, which is heavily invested in its portrait of the president as an unrepentant — and unpopular — “nativist.”

    Coming in the midst of the nationwide controversy over children and families at the U.S.-Mexico border, it suggests that Hispanics may not be the entrenched liberal voting constituency that Democrats so often imagine.

    And consider Florida’s hotly-contested Senate race. Republican Gov. Rick Scott is besting his Democratic opponent among Hispanics, according to a Mason-Dixon poll. Historically, a large and aging Cuban-American exile community has given Republicans a decided partisan edge in the Sunshine State.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/31/good-news-for-the-gop-hispanics-are-boosting-trump/

    Bad news for Democrats.. Hispanics aren't buying the bullshit that Democrats are peddling.. :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    The derangement virus stalks the land

    Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) rarely kills, but it wounds, and it might be fatal to the Democratic crusade to take back the House.

    That struggle is just beginning, and one Democratic pollster says Democrats, despite their successful run on Fort Knox to build an abundant campaign war chest, feel more “exhausted” by the current news cycle than Republicans do.

    “That doesn’t mean they’re not going to show up to vote, Margie Omero of GBA Strategies, tells The Hill, the Capitol Hill political daily. “It just means they feel kind of weary by the news because it’s so troubling. People need to give themselves a little space from the news.”

    No doubt, but this is not the time for Nancy Pelosi’s foot soldiers and Chuck Schumer’s bomb-throwers to go over the hill. Mzz Omero cites a GBS poll suggesting that 62 percent of Democrats say they’re fagged-out by all the politics, and that’s twice as many as exhausted Republicans. “Even in focus groups, swing voters typically say, ‘I don’t know, this is just too much news.’ So it’s something that’s pretty unifying.”

    If so, that’s more bad news for the bomb-throwers. “Unifying” is nice, but who are the unified? A new poll by Rasmussen finds that President Trump’s favorability rating has surged to 50-50, and this is 5 points better than Barack Obama polled at this point in his first term.

    The president has had a very bad, awful, terrible fortnight, as measured by the news. Nothing but negative stuff, which in a news cycle on any other planet would spell gloom and doom for a president. But the Donald just keeps on truckin’
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/2/the-derangement-virus-stalks-the-land/

    Poor Lefties.. :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Black pastors see Trump bringing 'new hope' -- but still need to convince their flocks
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/03/black-pastors-see-trump-bringing-new-hope-but-still-need-to-convince-their-flocks.html

    Let's see...

    Hispanics are going Trump by the millions..

    Blacks are going Trump by the millions..

    LGBQs are going Trump by the millions..

    Pretty soon, Democrats aren't gonna have anybody but old white people... :D

    I just love the taste of irony in the morning.. :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    "President Trump is the most pro-black President we have seen in our lifetimes."
    -Rev Darrell Scott Of Cleveland

    Ooowwww.. That's GOTTA hurt!! :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    "So, I guess the greatest word I can say for you, Mr. President, is that you have given this country expectations, given us a new hope, a new excitement to believe that things are getting better and are going to get better."
    -Pastor Phillip Goudeaux

    For the Democrat Party, the hits just keep on coming.. :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:
  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    “For all his boorishness and other faults, Donald Trump has a singular talent and it
    may explain a whole lot of his governing style, and his success. Donald Trump instinctively knows almost immediately where his opponent’s jugular vein is, and that is where he attacks, and that is where he exerts the most pressure and the most leverage to get the best deal.

    “For example, in the primary, Jeb Bush was the odds-on favorite to win. He had the money, the Establishment, the résumé, and the name. All of the other candidates tried to attack him on his record and his ties to the Establishment, and all of them failed. Except Trump.

    “Trump didn’t attack him on any of that. He simply noticed that voters wanted action, and that Jeb Bush was a very slow, deliberate, plodding sort, and labeled him ‘Low Energy Jeb,’ and it was over. Bush’s jugular vein was crushed.

    Meet the Navy's new $13 billion aircraft carrier
    The Navy is skipping shock trials just to get it launched sooner.

    “Fast-forward to last week, when Trump is negotiating with the head of the European Union. Having threatened the EU with high tariffs, to get better leverage in trade negotiations, Trump sat down with the head of the EU and hammered out a decent first-step deal.

    “The most important part of that deal? It got little notice by the press. It was the EU’s commitment to a large increase in purchases of liquid natural gas from the U.S. This has nothing to do with the EU’s ‘jugular vein,’ by the way.

    “This was all about Russia. Russia is, basically, a well-armed gas station. Without high profits from the sale of oil and natural gas, Russia’s economy is nothing. And so, with his trade deal with the head of the EU, Trump went right for Russia’s jugular. He said overly nice things to Putin in Helsinki, then went back to Washington and, through his EU deal, stomped on Russia’s throat.

    “Now we’re on the verge of what may be huge tariffs on Chinese imports. Trump has stated over and over that he wants a tariff-free world — he wants free trade — but we aren’t there, and China has long used tariffs and other protectionist measures to advantage itself at U.S. expense.

    “But China’s economic jugular vein is their reliance on exports, with the U.S. being their largest customer. Meanwhile, the U.S. exports very little, comparatively, to China. Simply put, they can’t win a trade war with the U.S. We slap big tariffs on all their exports, they respond in kind, and it’s their economy that crashes, not ours.

    “And they know that. And Trump knows that. He knows what their jugular vein is, and he’s about to stomp on it. Trade wars are bad. People on both sides get hurt. But in the end, it will be China that loses, and it will be China that opens its doors to more U.S. exports, and it will be the U.S. that wins.”
    https://www.lifezette.com/2018/08/heres-why-trumps-greatest-talent-terrifies-dems-and-baffles-republicans/

    It's a FaceBook analysis. I know many can't or won't go to FB so I posted it here..

    I just wanted to explain in advance why Dumbocrats are going to get stomped and shellacked in November.. :D

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    The incompetents at 1600 Penn let Bob Woodward run around and interview everybody for his new book.

    They didn't mean to - in fact the "leadership" tried to block him, but the staff wanted their side of the story to come out.

    His book is released next month - should be entertaining.

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:
  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    His book is released next month - should be entertaining.

    I am sure it will be..

    To those who are CONSTANTLY "entertained".. Even by something so banal as a nonsensical word or two scoops of ice cream.. :^/

    Like I said.. A caricature...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Socialist candidate Ocasio-Cortez once saw herself as Smithian capitalist, viewed feminism as 'relic'
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/03/socialist-candidate-ocasio-cortez-once-saw-herself-as-smithian-capitalist-viewed-feminism-as-relic.html

    Democrats' latest shiny socialist is not all she claims... :D

    Don't tell me, let me guess.. She has "evolved"...

    :^/

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    On July 5th, the Post found what appears to be Trump’s most untruthful day yet: seventy-six per cent of the ninety-eight factual assertions he made in a campaign-style rally in Great Falls, Montana, were “false, misleading or unsupported by evidence.”

    And his fans don't care. It doesn't matter to them if they damage America, so long as they have fun and can hate on Mexicans, the Media, Hillary, etc.

    I hope the decent people of America are waking up to this and get out and vote.

  52. [52] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    On July 6, CRS found that 100% of the one claim made by the Post on July 5th was wrong. The actual percentage of Trumps "factual assertions" that were "false, misleading or unsupported by evidence" was 77.2%.

    Of course, there is a substantial amount of arbitrariness involved in these sort of calculations. Indeed, an amount sufficient to make people wonder if neilm has way too much free time on his hands, to bother posting something like that.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hispanic unemployment again hits new record low in July
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/hispanic-unemployment-again-hits-new-record-low-in-july

    Nice ta have a POTUS who gives MORE than just lip service to bringing back jobs for minorities....

    Face reality people... President Trump is doing things that the Messiah Odumbo couldn't do....

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    And his fans don't care.

    Yer right.. We DON'T care..

    Because we know that YOUR definition of lies is simply more Party slavery bullshit..

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Of course, there is a substantial amount of arbitrariness involved in these sort of calculations. Indeed, an amount sufficient to make people wonder if neilm has way too much free time on his hands, to bother posting something like that.

    Give Neil a break.. Like most everyone here, he suffers from HHPTDS...

    They are sick and need our understanding...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Those manufacturing jobs are just NOT coming back"
    -Barack Odumbo

    Manufacturing Jobs Up 400,000 Under Trump; +37,000 in July
    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/manufacturing-jobs-400000-under-trump-37000-july

    >MicDrop<

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sarah Jeong, the newest editorial board member of The New York Times, is also responsible for extensive anti-cop and anti-men tweets.

    The New York Times stood by Jeong on Thursday after the internet surfaced her old racist tweets, however her full Twitter history reveals her ire was not only directed toward white people. (RELATED: NYTIMES’ NEWEST HIRE SENT TONS OF ANTI-WHITE RACIST TWEETS)

    The NYT claimed that Jeong was “imitating” the behavior of people who harassed her online, but this does not explain why she was tweeting “fuck the police” and encouraging people to “kill all men.”

    A search for “cops” and “police” on Jeong’s Twitter reveals an extensive history of anti-cop sentiment and a lack of sympathy for police who are injured on the job.
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/03/nyt-sarah-jeong-cop-men-tweets/

    The pride of the Democrat Party..

    "KILL ALL MEN.... FUCK THE POLICE"

    :^/

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS: so you took the time to tell me you wondered if I was wasting my time? Do you have any self awareness?

    Of course, there is a substantial amount of arbitrariness involved in these sort of calculations. Indeed, an amount sufficient to make people wonder if neilm has way too much free time on his hands, to bother posting something like that.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Judge Ellis Loses Patience with Mueller Prosecutors and Ends Court Early Over Screw-Up
    https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/judge-ellis-loses-all-patience-with-prosecutors-and-ends-court-early-over-major-screw-up/

    heh

    Mueller is well on his way to LOSING his very first case.. :D

    Mueller's Team... Keystone cops....

  60. [60] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    I'm 83 yrs old. ALL OF MY TIME IS WASTED!! I presumed you did something useful on aoccasion, but maybe not??

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm 83 yrs old. ALL OF MY TIME IS WASTED!!

    LOL. I'm looking forward to wasting all my time :)

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    155,965,000 Employed in June: 11th Record-Setter Under Trump
    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/155965000-employed-june-11th-record-setter-under-trump

    Bad news for NeverTrumpers..

    President Trump is doing an AWESOME Job as POTUS!!! :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic rivalries laid bare at liberal summit
    Activist Democrats blast their establishment brethren at the Netroots conference, calling the party's treatment of Trump 'tepid, at best.'

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/03/netroots-conference-democrats-trump-760582

    Democrat Party Civil War!!! :D

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mueller is well on his way to LOSING his very first case.. :D

    Chickens. Counting. Hatching.

    As I have said all along, just be patient and let Mueller do his job. Despite the desperate attempts to malign him, he ran the FBI for twelve years, has a good team, and is putting America ahead of Treasonous Trump and his nefarious gang.

    Manafort did not declare his foreign accounts on his tax returns, but used wire transfers from foreign accounts to pay for a lot of stuff. Also, he isn't trying to fight the evidence, but say the evidence is correct, these are crimes, however it was Gates, not him, that is guilty.

    Good luck with that.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Despite the desperate attempts to malign him, he ran the FBI for twelve years,

    And did a piss poor job at it...

    Manafort did not declare his foreign accounts on his tax returns, but used wire transfers from foreign accounts to pay for a lot of stuff.

    All of which, even IF factually accurate, has nothing to to with Trump, Russians or the election..

    It's a bullshit case designed to do one thing and one thing only..

    Scare Manafort into turning on President Trump..

    Now that we see how laughable Mueller and his team are doing with an actual court case??

    Manafort is grinning from ear to ear... :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have a sincere serious question for Weigantians who are inclined to be sincere and serious for a moment.. (Yes, JL, Liz and LB, I am looking at you.. :D)

    Is it worth a stronger GOP Senate Majority to put up a token and ultimately futile fight against confirming Judge Kavanaugh??

    If Heitkamp, Donnelly and Manchin heed the Democrat Party base and oppose Kavanaugh it's all but certain that they will lose re-election and give the GOP at LEAST 3 more seats.. Add to that, the 3 or 4 seats that the GOP will pick up anyways and the GOP has an all but filibuster proof majority.. And with that super majority, President Trump simply re-submits Judge Kavanaugh's name and approval guaranteed...

    So, I have to ask...

    What's more important??

    Keeping the base happy??

    Or keeping the GOP with as low a majority as possible???

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's a bullshit case designed to do one thing and one thing only..

    No. It is to put Manafort in jail for the rest of his life.

    He isn't the lever, if anything, beyond being a crook, he is the example.

    They have two more swings at him for other crimes in two more trials after this one.

    Plus, as I've said all along, Russian intelligence is too smart to involve Treasonous Trump in anything directly - look at the complete clown show and lie fest one meeting at Treason Tower created.

    The real case is money laundering, and in particular laundering Russian money. While looking into Russian money flows, Manafort's name popped up, so he's dragged into court.

    Can you imagine the squeaky bums in the administration, the 2016 election team, and especially the family, if Manafort is sent away for life?

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. It is to put Manafort in jail for the rest of his life.

    Oh what a load of crap.. Manafort didn't do anything that any other fancy elitist hasn't done since time immemorial..

    He's soley a means to an end.. And if you don't believe that, then you are a lot dumber than I know you're not..

    Mueller hoped to scare Manafort into flipping on Trump.. But now that Manafort sees how incompetent Mueller really is, Manafort knows he has nothing to worry about..

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh what a load of crap.. Manafort didn't do anything that any other fancy elitist hasn't done since time immemorial..

    So, you're now an expert in international financial transactions, AML, KYC, and the BSA.

    Super. Can you explain why Manafort, an American citizen, was allowed to amass large amounts of money in foreign accounts without declaring it?

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhh So now you are a keeper of the financial morals, eh??

    Funny how you only eye the violators with an -R after their name and ignore those with a -D after their name...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it doesn't matter.. Mueller is going to blow the Manafort case just like be totally frak'ed the anthrax case..

    Ellis is going to declare a mistrial due to the incompetence of the prosecution team.. What we have seen the last couple days is simply a prelude to how bad Mueller and his screwballs are going to be bitch-slapped time and time again...

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:

    He's soley [sic] a means to an end

    His only role is that of an example to those who won't cooperate with Mueller.

    His alleged crime is fairly simple. He got paid by the Ukrainian premier for work (legal); the money was paid into a foreign account (legal); he then didn't declare it on his tax returns (illegal); and then he confirmed he had control of the money by using it to pay for goods and services in the U.S. with wire transfers from the foreign accounts (stupid).

    Of course, he could be innocent, and that is why we are civilized enough to have a fair trial.

    It was assumed that, since most legal experts in this area think he was caught dead-to-rights, he was either (1) too stupid to cut a deal with Mueller, (2) wouldn't accept the terms that Mueller offered, or (3) Mueller didn't need him for any other purpose so refused to discuss a plea.

    If I were Treasonous Trump I'd hope that it was #3 above.

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    Your faith in the people who are convincing you that Mueller is incompetent is touching, but naive.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    His only role is that of an example to those who won't cooperate with Mueller.

    Ahhhhh So you concede that his crime isn't any big deal.. His use as an example to those who won't turn on Trump is his only function..

    Thank you for your concession.. :D

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your faith in the people who are convincing you that Mueller is incompetent is touching, but naive.

    Unlike you, I don't have to rely on people's biased opinions..

    I read the FACTS of the anthrax case...

    That proves beyond any doubt how incompetent Mueller is...

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thank you for your concession.. :D

    I didn't think you would break so fast..

    I have been binge watching Season 1 of the old MISSION IMPOSSIBLE series...

    Maybe I am picking up a few things..

    On the other hand, we DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so.... :D

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-fellow-journalists-dont-let-trump-make-us-the-story/2018/08/03/356eb808-972e-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?utm_term=.7971e294ce96

    Let's face the facts, people..

    There wouldn't BE a President Trump without the actions of the media trying to force Americans what to think...

    Billions and Billions of dollars in free advertising and the media is, even today, happy to dance to President Trump's tune...

    :D

    Gods bless America!! :D

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    Thank you for your concession.. :D

    Silly person. If that is how you need to deal with this disaster then so be it.

    Read what I said. Manafort is an accused criminal and thus is being tried. As far as his role in Treasonous Trump's outcome, he is an example.

    Can you deal with two concepts at the same time? "Defendant" and "example". Try hard, you might break new ground in your psychological development.

    So Treasonous Trump has been poisoning us with anthrax with the help of QAnon and a DC pizza parlor and Mueller hasn't stopped him yet? Dear, dear.

  79. [79] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    There wouldn't BE a President Trump without the actions of the media

    Especially the 2+ billion dollars (estimated) of free media Trump got in 2016. They still haven't apologized, or even barely acknowledged that fuckup.

    Billions and Billions of dollars in free advertising and the media is, even today, happy to dance to President Trump's tune..

    Well now they have to. He's still the President. His schtick is wearing thin, though. Rallies are no substitute for basic governing, regardless of how warm and fuzzy it makes the Q conspiracists feel.

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    34

    Believe it or not, there wasn't going to be any "next question". I intuited that it wasn't something you would be wanting to make public.

    Well then, you intuited correctly, sir. :)

    Tell me about the "wicked good shot". You talking live birds, clays, center-fire on big game, targets, or what?

    Oh, that. Well, my father put a small gun in my tiny little hand when I was a toddler, and I've been shooting ever since: bottles, clays, targets, anything that doesn't have a pulse (except insects), an ant sitting on a rock several miles away. Okay, that last one requires a very big gun on an M1 tank, but I would wager you get the general idea.

    I don't hunt animals for "fun" or for consumption, but I certainly see no problem with those who hunt/fish in order to eat. However, I will never understand those who kill animals for sport. Killing an animal with a firearm is all too easy and should really impress no one. Firearms should be used for self defense, and the ones designed only for the purpose of killing people should be limited to those we refer to as citizen soldiers or full-time military personnel.

    Probably more than you wanted to know, Stucki, but there you are. Now remember to play nice with the other kids, and here's hoping you have a great weekend. :)

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Firearms should be used for self defense, and the ones designed only for the purpose of killing people should be limited to those we refer to as citizen soldiers or full-time military personnel.

    Left out the words "multiple" and "rapid succession." I'm obviously talking about guns designed for the mere purpose of killing multiple people in rapid succession belonging primarily in the hands of law enforcement, police officers, and soldiers.

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    35

    You ROCK! God, I LOVE posts like that! Completely destroyed the lie being spewed!

    Oh, thank you, Russ, but "Michael" is such an inveterate liar that he deserves a post like that every day. I encourage everyone here to call him out on his lies, fake quotes, and ignorant gullible goop... or just ignore him. ;)

    There is no way to respond to that that doesn’t just make him look worse.

    I'm posting as I read them and haven't read the posts below, but I would wager if he responded to either of us that he insists that it's a real quote. The majority of the quote is naturally just bullshit he invented because he is the epitome of his oft repeated tiny little arguments numbering a total of two. #Pathetic

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    37

    There was no lie spewed.. Morgan Freeman DID, in FACT, say that..

    Lie... yet another one of your frequently invented quotes. You made the claim that Morgan Freeman said that so you prove it. I've already proven he didn't say it by posting what he actually said.

    If you have a problem with it, take it up with him..

    We're taking it up with the guy who invented it, and that would be YOU. Liar. :)

  84. [84] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    donald has decimated the concept of objective reality.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trumps-escalating-war-on-the-truth-is-on-purpose

    and he's probably going to be re-elected.

  85. [85] 
    neilm wrote:
  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    and he's probably going to be re-elected.

    Let's not rule out America yet.

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    Let's not rule out America yet.

    If there is a blue wave in November and Treasonous Trump is seen widely as a big loser, some of the invincible patina will wear off and the reactionaries on the right will realize that they can attack him from the center and divide the Republicans into normals and nuts. A few special elections in 2019 where the nutcase candidates get hammered by the normal Republican candidates and it is all over.

    This is very much a case within the Republican Party of "The Emperor has no Clothes" - the tipping point could be very sudden and dramatic.

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    51

    And his fans don't care. It doesn't matter to them if they damage America, so long as they have fun and can hate on Mexicans, the Media, Hillary, etc.

    They are united in their hatred, gullibility, and outright ignorance.

    I hope the decent people of America are waking up to this and get out and vote.

    Well, we're fixing to find out. Next Tuesday in Ohio... one of the most gerrymandered congressional maps in the country... will be a good barometer as to whether or not people are going to get out and make their voices heard:

    *
    ****** Vote D for democracy or R for Russia. ******
    *

    It ain't the least bit complicated. :)

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    59

    Mueller is well on his way to LOSING his very first case.. :D

    Spoken like a true moron who hasn't seen the evidence and doesn't have a clue. It's a documents case with 18 counts against Manafort being tried in a courtroom known as the "rocket docket" where the judge is old and cranky and seasoned and wishes the prosecutors to move it along because it's a pretty cut and dried 18 counts that are proven by documents and just a smidge of testimony. Eighteen counts of criminal activity and plenty more where those came from, and the rocket docket "gotta fly" like a free bird... not a jailbird who's never getting out like Paulie.

    Mueller's Team... Keystone cops....

    If they really were, there'd be no need whatsoever for Your Orange Worship Benedict Donald to whine about them incessantly like a little bitch, now would there? :)

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    67

    No. It is to put Manafort in jail for the rest of his life.

    Exactly right.

    He isn't the lever, if anything, beyond being a crook, he is the example.

    Again, exactly right.

    They have two more swings at him for other crimes in two more trials after this one.

    They actually have several more swings at him in the future. They've only leveled some of the charges at him that don't reveal their entire hand... playing it close to the vest, as they say.

    Plus, as I've said all along, Russian intelligence is too smart to involve Treasonous Trump in anything directly - look at the complete clown show and lie fest one meeting at Treason Tower created.

    You lost me there, though. Benedict Donald was a willing participant. It was Trump, after all, who called on Russia to hack his opponent. I believe he was told to do so, and that was what we refer to as a "signal." Time will tell... for sure. Trump knew.

    The real case is money laundering, and in particular laundering Russian money. While looking into Russian money flows, Manafort's name popped up, so he's dragged into court.

    I believe the money laundering is the gravy. Why? Because Manafort was in debt to Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska, Russian aluminum oligarch, and being sued by him in 2015 to recover multiple millions. Why would a guy millions of dollars in debt to Deripaska go to work for the Trump campaign for free? These issues aren't before the campaign; they were occurring during the campaign.

    Mueller's indictments against Manafort include bank fraud... the faking of income and asset documents in order to take out loans against Manafort's properties... remember that Deripaska was suing him for millions. Meanwhile, Manafort was trying to leverage his assets and turn them into cash through loans by faking their value.

    So Manafort's heavy in debt, working for Trump for free, and shortly after joining the campaign, Manafort sought to leverage his newfound position to get out of his debt with Deripaska. In a message to his representative in Russia, Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort asked: "How do we use to get whole? Has OVD operation seen?" OVD = Oleg Vladomirovich Deripaska.

    So Kilimnik then gets in touch with OVD and informed Manafort that he had "several important messages" from Deripaska and would meet him in person to deliver, which meeting between the two took place in New York. Manafort offered "briefings" to Deripaska regarding the Trump campaign, and suddenly the lawsuit seeking to recover millions that Deripaska had filed in 2015 was dismissed. Coincidence? Not likely. More likely a quid pro quo.

    The ultimate quid pro quo was obviously having the sanctions eased against Russia. Pretty cut-and-dried conspiracy against the United States; it sure ain't rocket science. I would wager that Manafort will get at bare minimum 50 years for the current charges. Mueller wants Manafort behind bars and doesn't need him to flip whatsoever. He's got Gates and all Manafort's documents and tapes. :)

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    Vote D for democracy or R for Russia.

    Good one!

    it's a pretty cut and dried 18 counts that are proven by documents and just a smidge of testimony

    This is why it is a complete mystery he didn't plea out. Maybe Mueller just thinks that he is big fish - maybe not in the Trump pond, but definitely in the money laundering pond. Not to forget the next trial which addresses whether he is a traitor or not. He can't be looking forward to that one.

  92. [92] 
    neilm wrote:

    Kick:

    Thanks.

    You are way deeper into this than I am. I'm hoping you can point me to a few sources.

  93. [93] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    72

    It was assumed that, since most legal experts in this area think he was caught dead-to-rights, he was either (1) too stupid to cut a deal with Mueller, (2) wouldn't accept the terms that Mueller offered, or (3) Mueller didn't need him for any other purpose so refused to discuss a plea.

    For your consideration: (4) he was a co-conspirator in a quid pro quo between the Trump campaign wherein debts would be forgiven against Manafort by Deripaska and/or sanctions against Russia would be eased against Putin, Deripaska, and Russia. Remember: They changed the platform at the RNC... Republican National Communists... no I meant Republican National Cult... most likely a "signal" or a quid pro quo in exchange for hacking. Check your timeline.

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    87

    This is very much a case within the Republican Party of "The Emperor has no Clothes" - the tipping point could be very sudden and dramatic.

    I think the Helsinki summit where Trump cowered in front of Putin did some solid damage too. Yes, "the Emperor has no Clothes," and therefore makes it very easy to see the puppet strings. Only a moron couldn't see how Trump was emasculated in front of his master.

  95. [95] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    92

    I'm hoping you can point me to a few sources.

    I hear you... I really do. :)

  96. [96] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick & neilm [93]

    I would guess 3 & 4 are both on the mark! Manafort flaunted his faux-wealthy lifestyle and was willing to do anything to maintain the image (no wonder he and and the Orange tard get along so well!).

    Manafort is far more useful to the DOJ as a warning/example to those still being investigated or facing charges as part of this case.

    I am still wondering why the campaign made such a big deal of publicizing that Manafort was working as Trump’s campaign manager for free? If he was a “volunteer”, does that make Trump less responsible for anything Manafort did for the campaign compared to if he was considered an “employee”?

    I’ve said for years that the GOP must think their base are nothing but idiots because their lies seemed to be getting more and more obvious. Manafort seemed to be the living embodiment of this. His history working on behalf of Putin, the changes he made to the RNC platform to make them pro-Russia, Trump picking Rex Tillerson as his Sec. Of State despite not knowing who Tillerson was... these are all things that only make sense if Russia is pulling the strings on this campaign.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    Especially the 2+ billion dollars (estimated) of free media Trump got in 2016. They still haven't apologized, or even barely acknowledged that fuckup

    So, you agree with me, eh?? :D

    That musta hurt.... :D

    Well now they have to. He's still the President. His schtick is wearing thin, though. Rallies are no substitute for basic governing,

    That's really funny, because you didn't have a problem when Odumbo did it...

    Why is that??? :D

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Read what I said. Manafort is an accused criminal and thus is being tried. As far as his role in Treasonous Trump's outcome, he is an example.

    And, if Manafort had absolutely NO CONNECTION to President Trump would he have been charged and tried??

    Nope.. No one would have even HEARD of Manafort..

    It's soley to get to Trump.. That's it. Even the Judge acknowledges it..

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Of course President Trump is going to be re-elected. In an even BIGGER landslide then his first election..

    And WHY is he going to be re-elected??

    Because the Dumbocrat Party believes that they did absolutely nothing wrong in 2016 so they are going to make all the same mistakes in 2020..

    Identity politics..

    Ignoring blue collar workers..

    Attacking middle class Americans as "deplorables" and "irredeemable"...

    The Dims think that their message is just fine.. And it's their message that prevents them from winning elections beyond a handful of special elections here and there...

    For the sake of the country, I hope Dumbocrats NEVER wise up... :D

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    “The winning strategy is not chasing after Trump voters or moderating our message. Democrats need to be holding Trump accountable. … They need to be up in arms every day talking about Trump, and they’re too timid. They’re too quiet.”
    -Aimee Allison, President, Democracy in Color.

    Democrats need to listen to Aimee Allison!!!

    She is absolutely right.. Not only should they IGNORE Trump voters, Democrats should actively castigate and scorn and denigrate all Trump voters..

    Don't moderate the message at all!!! Scream the socialist message from the highest roof tops, Democrats!!!

    TRUMP!!!!!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! COLLUSION!!!!!
    TRUMP!!!!!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! COLLUSION!!!!!
    TRUMP!!!!!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! COLLUSION!!!!!
    TRUMP!!!!!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! COLLUSION!!!!!

    Forget everything but that ^^^ and you Democrats will do great!!! :D

    THAT will be the Dumbocrats surest path to victory!!!

    Go!! Go!!! Go!!! :D

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    And, if Manafort had absolutely NO CONNECTION to President Trump would he have been charged and tried??

    Who knows. Manafort was raising red flags - his book keeper thought there was something fishy, but stupidly (and in my opinion, illegally) went along with false entries.

    This is the way policing works - you start turning stones and sometimes you find something unexpected. In this case America started turning stones involving Russian interference and money laundering and out popped Manafort's misdeeds.

    So you are partly right, if Manafort had kept his distance from the election he might have managed to keep his alleged crimes hidden, but, as you will see when you learn more about how criminal investigations work, this is normal.

    Mueller was under explicit instructions to pass on any adjunct crimes he found to Rosenstein, and they then decided to charge Manafort. These instructions were wide ranging, and in my opinion, revenge against Trump by Rosenstein for involving him and the memo he wrote in the Comey firing.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    It all really doesn't matter.. If the trial actually goes the distance Manafort will be acquitted...

    But I don't think it will go the distance. Mueller's team is already making too many mistakes..

  103. [103] 
    neilm wrote:

    If the trial actually goes the distance Manafort will be acquitted.

    False bravado there buddy. This is up in the air. Neutral legal opinions see an open and shut case, but with a jury you never know - a few Qanon types could save Manafort's bacon.

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    False bravado there buddy.

    Nothing false about it.. :D

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I do approve of how you concede that you might be wrong..

    I also concede the same.. You might be wrong. :D heh

    J/K Yea, it's a crap shoot.. Could go either way..

    But given the level of incompetence shown by the hysterical NeverTrumpers, I am confident that, one way or another, Manafort walks, a free man..

  106. [106] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Michale, I suspect most of your opinion of the trial is colored by the article you linked above. Reading the courtroom report from last night on the same site should bring you back to reality.

    The Judge is conducting the trial as would Dragnet's Joe Friday were he to be reincarnated as a Federal judge. Virtually everything he admonishes the government for is something that could potentially be grounds for appeal. For example, the instance in your citation was a procedural issue wherein a non-expert witness' testimony might be counter to an already-agreed-upon definition which had been presented to the jury. It was late in the day, he dismissed the jury, and took the opportunity to have an extended bench conference which he then explained publicaly.

    So far in the trial, instances of tax fraud and evasion, and, yesterday, of bank fraud, have been established. Whether Manafort played any role in GRU Campaign or not, this trial is only about defrauding the US government of millions in taxes. Nobody does that, leaves a paper trail, and doesn't go to jail.

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    Virtually everything he admonishes the government for is something that could potentially be grounds for appeal.

    Thanks LB. This is interesting - I didn't realize that the judge was basically eliminating appeal possibilities in his actions, but it makes sense. He doesn't want to be the judge whose most visible case to date gets overturned on appeal, so he is closing as many doors as he can.

    This probably means that he has looked at the evidence himself and come to the same conclusion as everybody else, i.e.: Why isn't Manafort pleading out? Since he has few worries that his actions against the prosecution are likely to let Manafort off unless the jury goes all QAnon on him, it makes no difference to the result, but clips Manafort's wings post trial.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    So far in the trial, instances of tax fraud and evasion, and, yesterday, of bank fraud, have been established. Whether Manafort played any role in GRU Campaign or not, this trial is only about defrauding the US government of millions in taxes. Nobody does that, leaves a paper trail, and doesn't go to jail.

    SO, you would agree with me that this trial has absolutely NOTHING to do with Russia, President Trump or the 2016 election...

    N'est Pa??

  109. [109] 
    neilm wrote:

    SO, you would agree with me that this trial has absolutely NOTHING to do with Russia, President Trump or the 2016 election.

    That is the next trial due to start next month. Don't worry, you'll get you collusion soon.

  110. [110] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    When all you fanatical Dem/Lib Weigantians emerged from the shock of Hillary's defeat, you promptly grasped at the straw of "Russian collusion", assuring me that sins of that magnitude would SURELY and quickly de-throne the illegitimate victor.

    Now, here we are after 2 solid yrs of steadily diminished expectations inflicted by liberal doses of reality, and it sounds like if Mueller manages to indict some dirty Commie Muscovite for jaywalking, you guys will happily declare "victory", while Michale gets the best laugh of all, the LAST ONE!

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is the next trial due to start next month. Don't worry, you'll get you collusion soon.

    I am not worried because there will NEVER be a trial about "collusion" because there is nothing criminal about collusion...

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, here we are after 2 solid yrs of steadily diminished expectations inflicted by liberal doses of reality, and it sounds like if Mueller manages to indict some dirty Commie Muscovite for jaywalking, you guys will happily declare "victory", while Michale gets the best laugh of all, the LAST ONE!

    It's gonna be pretty hard to top the last laugh I got on 9 Nov 2016...

    But yea, I have a feeling that when Mueller is all said and done and he has but a Manafort..... Yea, that could top that last last laugh.. :D

    Mueller needs to hurry.. His final report is due 1 Sep 2018....

  113. [113] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [108] SO, you would agree with me that this trial has absolutely NOTHING to do with Russia, President Trump or the 2016 election

    Yes, that's exactly right. That said, I believe Manafort had a much larger role in a much larger conspiracy. I'll hold back those beliefs and just wait for events and realities to be revealed. I've learned that, around here, if one advances overarching conclusions not supported by specific facts, one can get kicked in the shin, so to speak.

    It's time to go expand my carbon footprint. Have a good day.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    [108] SO, you would agree with me that this trial has absolutely NOTHING to do with Russia, President Trump or the 2016 election

    Yes, that's exactly right.

    OK.. It's an agreed upon FACT that this Manafort trial has nothing to do with Russia, President Trump OR the election...

    So, given this FACT...

    One has to wonder why the Special Prosecutor, whose *SOLE* mandate was to investigate Candidate Trump's alleged collusion with Russia during the election, is prosecuting this case....

    It's time to go expand my carbon footprint. Have a good day.

    Expand it far and wide, my friend.. :D

  115. [115] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    One has to wonder why the Special Prosecutor, whose *SOLE* mandate was to investigate Candidate Trump's alleged collusion with Russia during the election, is prosecuting this case...

    Check your premise:

    Order appointing the Special Counsel 5/17/17

    (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation..including,

    (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

    (c) ...authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation...

    As to his motivations, who knows? Trump met with Mueller on the day before he accepted the job from Rosenstein, who was a Trump appointee. Maybe Mueller's compromised, and the whole investigation is an elaborate con to get Trump and all of his cronies off with light or non-existent sentences. Maybe Trump's daily castigation of Mueller is simply cover for this bigger scheme.

    The point is: neither of us know what Mueller's really up to.

  116. [116] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mueller needs to hurry.. His final report is due 1 Sep 2018...

    Uh huh. Dream on, lonesome cowboy.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uh huh. Dream on, lonesome cowboy

    That's Rosenstein's deadline..

    Investigation has to be wrapped up by 1 Sep so as not to interfere with the National Elections...

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:
  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    The point is: neither of us know what Mueller's really up to.

    So, you are admitting that I COULD be dead on ballz accurate???

  120. [120] 
    neilm wrote:

    When all you fanatical Dem/Lib Weigantians emerged from the shock of Hillary's defeat, you promptly grasped at the straw of "Russian collusion", assuring me that sins of that magnitude would SURELY and quickly de-throne the illegitimate victor.

    Really, then I'm sure you can point us to some links to some quotes on this blog. Or is this part of your fertile imagination when you don't get your afternoon nap?

  121. [121] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's Rosenstein's deadline..

    Obviously I'd take your statement at face value if 90% of your comments weren't pure fantasy.

    No chance of a link to support this, I presume.

  122. [122] 
    neilm wrote:

    The point is: neither of us know what Mueller's really up to.

    Exactly. We just have to wait an see. I trust he will uncover any Russian interference, and if so any criminal abetting by Treasonous Trump's election insiders.

    It is the squeaky bum crowd who are trying to predict the future and set up fantasies to overcome their anxiety that they might have to accept that their idols are traitors, or that the "Dem/Libs" are the true patriots.

    If it comes to pass, it comes to pass, if not then we can relax because Russia wasn't putting their finger on the scale.

    As far as I'm concerned it is a win-win - either Mueller concludes that there was no material interference or possibly Trump is either the recipient of a rigged election and perhaps a traitor.

    Patience.

  123. [123] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Not sure what your definition of "rigged" would include, but do you really think that Russia has the power to seriously and meaningfully affect U.S. elections?

    I say they don't, because I believe people vote their pocketbook and/or their ideology, and Russia has no control whatsoever over either of those factors.

  124. [124] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not sure what your definition of "rigged" would include

    Neither am I. Fortunately we have an ex-FBI leader to investigate and tell us.

    I believe people vote their pocketbook and/or their ideology

    You don't spend much time on social media, right?

    Do you think that people who watch Fox News are likely to become more left leaning or more right leaning, or do they just stay the same?

  125. [125] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Never having seen a Fox News broadcast (got no cable service), I have nothing specific to go by, but I'm guessing, based on general knowledge gleaned from 80+ yrs of observing, that conservative formats attract politicl conservatives (and similar for liberal shows attracting libs.)

    Actually, that's not at all rational (of course damn little about politics is rational), because it should be the other way about. For example, I watch Amy Goodman on PBS daily, but I never get convinced of much by her rants, so I suppose my answer would be, they likely just stay the same.

  126. [126] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    foreign electioneering, be it russian, turkish or what have you, did not change any individual's vote from one candidate to the other. that's not how these things work. the millions of rubles spent creating online identities for ostensibly american characters were geared toward motivating some groups of people get off their butts and vote, and discouraging other groups so they would shake their heads in disgust and stay home. thus, affecting the outcome of an election doesn't require a single person to change their mind about anything.

    JL

    source:
    https://www.wired.com/story/did-russia-affect-the-2016-election-its-now-undeniable/

  127. [127] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I like poet's analysis. I'm not sure about how effective that sort of thing could actually be, but I've said from day one that the standard Dem/Lib theory, that revealing to Sander's backers (by means of hacked emails) that the Dem establishment (Hillary, Donna Brazille, John Podesta, etc.) stacked the primary deck against their guy assuring he'd never win the nomination, made them (the leftist of the lefties), switch their votes to Trump, was prima fascia ridiculous-cum-stupid!

  128. [128] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    In the UK referendum of 2016, the 'leave' campaigned pushed two issues, immigration and money. Membership of the EU, they said over and over again, cost the UK £350 billion a year, which could be spent on the NHS instead.
    They also claimed that 'immigrants' (never too precise about which immigrants) overload the NHS, take all the houses, take 'our' jobs.... All issues with financial impact as well as playing on xenophobia and racism.

    Some parts of the UK which have substantial net financial benefit from EU membership voted most heavily to leave.

    But funny thing, when the referendum was over, prominent Leave campaigners admitted that the £350 billion for the NHS claim was a lie. (So were most of the others, but they've been less honest about that.) And funny thing, the different Leave campaigns broke some UK election rules. Even funnier, there was Russian involvement in social media campaigns targetting certain groups....

    People can be persuaded that something hurts them financially when the impact is neutral, or persuaded that a factor or group other than the true one is to blame. So even if people do vote their pocketbooks, persuasion and lies can still affect that vote.

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really, then I'm sure you can point us to some links to some quotes on this blog.

    Oh, com'on Neil!

    You have been all over the map on this.. After reading some fantasy novel, you were swearing up and down that President Trump is going down for collusion.. Then stating that the issue isn't collusion at all, but just to nail Trump for SOMETHING... anything..

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obviously I'd take your statement at face value if 90% of your comments weren't pure fantasy.

    No chance of a link to support this, I presume.

    Would it change your mind if it was verified???

    Of course it wouldn't..

    So, again.. Why bother??

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anarchy Breaks Out in Portland, With the Mayor’s Blessing
    A vicious mob targeted the ICE office and even a food cart. The police followed orders to do nothing.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/anarchy-breaks-out-in-portland-with-the-mayors-blessing-1533331454

    Another fine example of Left Winger "peace" and "tolerance"...

    Amazing that the silence from the Left (and from ya'all incidentially) is so deafening..

    No, it's not really amazing.. It's what patriotic Americans have come to expect.. :^/

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it's why Democrats have been so decimated, politically, in the last 10 years...

  133. [133] 
    neilm wrote:

    Would it change your mind if it was verified???

    Of course it wouldn't..

    So, again.. Why bother??

    So, yet again, another Michale fantasy statement without any factual support. You really are like Trump - you just say anything that comes into your head that is convenient and feels good, without any need to deal with reality (a polite way to say "lie").

  134. [134] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh, com'on Neil!

    And again, you can't point to any statement I've made to support your fantasy.

    Why is dealing with reality such a challenge.

    Here's a hint - the next time some idea crosses your mind, research it and present some facts that back it up before you decide to lie about somebody.

  135. [135] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Mezzomamma

    You have a discouragingly, but COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED, low opinion of the intelligence of the American electorate!

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, yet again, another Michale fantasy statement without any factual support.

    *I* know it's factually accurate..

    Just as I know that ya'all have a track record of ignoring the facts when they don't fit yer ideological slavery..

    Ya'all set the standard.. I am just going by what ya'all have established..

    And again, you can't point to any statement I've made to support your fantasy.

    So, you deny a comment made on here by you that touted a boot that you said "proved" President Trump committed collusion??

    Is that your claim??

    Here's a hint - the next time some idea crosses your mind, research it and present some facts that back it up before you decide to lie about somebody.

    Been there, done that...

    And what happened?? Ya'all ignored the facts because it didn't suit your Party agenda..

    So, I ask again.. Why should I bother?? You are going to say the same thing, regardless of the facts..

  137. [137] 
    neilm wrote:

    *I* know it's factually accurate..

    C'mon Michale, you don't have facts, you have feelings that you must be right.

    And since you never countenance that possibility you might be wrong, your feelings are facts to you.

    That is why I call most of the people "feelies" - they go through life to lazy to do 10 minutes of research to back up their claims.

    This is fine when you are BSing on CW's blog, but I also see too many people do the same thing in real life with serious financial implications.

    There is a controversial writer who you would like named Coleman Hughes. He is a 22-year-old philosophy student at Columbia University and is tearing up the left with his analysis of racism in the U.S. He has only written four articles in Quillette but I recommend them. He also talked to Sam Harris for a couple of hours on his "Waking Up" blog - again I recommend this.

    I bring this up because he digs into the wealth disparities between different racial and ethnic groups and brings forth results from studies and surveys that are pretty much taboo. He concludes that individual behavior conditioned by different subcultures, explains the difference in wealth between groups far more than systemic preferences or challenges. The reality is that most people make decisions based on their heuristics rather than their own research and it has profound implications to their outcomes.

    Try to stop being a "feelie", it is just too expensive in America to blunder though life without doing the hard work to understand reality.

  138. [138] 
    neilm wrote:

    Just to preempt CRS's regular nit-picking of my grammar, I meant to type:

    That is why I call most of the people "feelies" - they go through life too lazy do 10 minutes of research to back up their claims.

  139. [139] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why I tell my boys that you need to pay attention in America.

    The rich societies in Europe set up support systems by default for their citizens. They deliver birth-to-death healthcare, generous pensions, etc. The citizens are taxed at a higher rate to cover these, but this is offset by far lower costs for healthcare (10-12% of GDP vs. 18%+ in the U.S.) and far lower military costs.

    In the U.S. the philosophy is more individualistic. There are few programs that provide universal "default" support, and if you want a comfortable retirement you better fashion one for yourself.

    The U.S. also has fewer safeguards for poor financial decisions - businesses hate Elizabeth Warren's CFPB because it does the homework for people and points out the rip-off artists. Most European nations have government agencies that play the role of the CFPB and have had them for generations.

    Thus in America you have to be on your toes financially. You have to understand how healthcare works to navigate the system and get the best outcomes for least money. You have to develop strong financial planning skills to manage your money and build wealth for education and retirement. You have to understand the impact buying a new luxury car every 5 years has on your long term wealth, etc.

    My kids all went to a school in the top 5% of public school districts in California. They never got taught basic personal finance. They had to learn it from their parents and their parent's social group.

    They understand that they have to budget and keep track of income vs. spending. They know that have to open up investment accounts and pension plans in their 20's, and that they need to protect their wealth with high quality insurance and medical coverage, because they were taught it from an early age.

    This is how the top 20% in America are stifling the American dream. The chance of a poor kid getting ahead in America with just hard work and a can-do spirit is all but over. The top 20% of America are buying their kids a high quality education, passing on inheritances that build multi-generational family wealth, and teaching personal financial skills that most kids just don't get an opportunity to learn. Few kids go out and buy Personal Finance in America for Dummies, so the constant education and examples from rich parents create huge differences in habits and behaviors.

    It is said that over 50% of Americans can't cope with a $500 unexpected expense (see: https://www.bankrate.com/finance/consumer-index/money-pulse-0117.aspx).

    America's biggest educational challenge is financial planning and Americans need good financial planning skills far more than Europeans or the Japanese.

    There is a whole industry dedicated to helping Americans make better financial planning decisions, and I have close friends who work in this area.

    They are ripping people off with monthly fees, portfolio percentage fees, etc., and then putting their client's money in instruments that pay fat commissions from high fees. They wouldn't thank me for characterizing their business in this way. However ... I would still recommend somebody who has no plan and does not track their finances, and falls into the 50% of America who can't cover a $500 bill to think about working with a financial planner - even for a couple of years to get on track. Once they have taught you budgeting, planning, etc. you can drop them and move your money to low cost instruments for long term growth. Their help to develop good habits outweighs their excessive costs for most people, so long as it isn't a long term solution.

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is why I call most of the people "feelies" - they go through life to lazy to do 10 minutes of research to back up their claims.

    You mean, like ya'all did in the run-up to the 2016 election??

    :D

    Ya'all had yer "feelies" that Clinton was gonna decimate Trump..

    And yer "feelies" were totally and utterly wrong and MY "feelies" were dead on ballz accurate..

    Matter of fact, when it comes to yer "feelies" regarding ANYTHING and EVERYTHING Trump, ya'all have a PERFECT track record of being WRONG all the time..

    You call it whatever you like.. But the facts and reality is on my side...

    But why not just wait until 1 Sep comes around and we'll see whether your "feelies" prevail or whether my FACTS rule the day.. AGAIN.. :D

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Double Standards Are The Only Standards Liberals Have

    The charge of racism is tossed around by progressives like it’s an Olympic event and they’re going for the gold. There isn’t much that isn’t call racist these days by the left; support the idea of border security? Racist. Support the idea of borders? Racist. Exhale? Racist. In fact, the only thing leftists won’t label as racist is racism by leftists.

    Progressive activists with press credentials across the country rushed to defend Sarah Jeong, the newest leftists to join the New York Times editorial board, when it was discovered that she had a years-long history of tweeting racist comments about white people. (Check them out for yourself, there are dozens, if not hundreds of disgusting, hate-filled thoughts from the newest member of the gang that sets the tone for the “paper of record” that have to be seen to be believed.)

    The basic argument from the left is Jeong can’t be a racist because she’s a woman and a minority. Of course, if she had said any of the things she tweeted about blacks or Hispanics and not white people, she’d be condemned because on the progressive sliding scale of victimhood, Asians rate lower than those groups.

    This stupidity is called “intersectionality,” which is essentially how the left sets up a hierarchy of victimhood. It sets up an order of who can be victimized and who can’t in any given situation. Straight white men are at the top (or bottom) of the scale and since we’re the worst, you can pretty much do or say anything about or to us.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2018/08/05/double-standards-are-the-only-standards-liberals-have-n2506865

  142. [142] 
    neilm wrote:

    You mean, like ya'all did in the run-up to the 2016 election??

    You should go back and read the posts from the days before the election (you know, do 10 minutes of research so you have a clue).

    This was my summary of the situation:

    Breaking down the outcomes.

    About 1/3 chance D's wins the Presidency and Senate - yippee says he left, the right are inconsolable

    About 1/3 chance D's win the Presidency and lose the Senate - Hmm says the left as they realize that the Senate is going to block everything, including Supreme Court nominees for 4 years. The right are pretty bummed.

    About 1/3 chance Trump wins and keeps the Senate - D's desolate. Yippee says the right.

    source: http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/04/ftp414/#comment-87574

    I still thought Hillary would win however because it was obvious Trump was a liar and a con man, and unlike CRS I thought the American electorate was smart enough to see though this blatant charlatan.

  143. [143] 
    neilm wrote:

    it was obvious Trump was a liar and a con man

    And I got that right too.

  144. [144] 
    neilm wrote:

    But why not just wait until 1 Sep comes around and we'll see whether your "feelies" prevail or whether my FACTS rule the day.. AGAIN.. :D

    So, to be clear, you are predicting that Mueller will wrap up on September 1st and there will be no active DoJ investigation after that?

    Do you have any predictions for the midterms?

    1. Who will win the House?
    2. Who will win the Senate?
    3. There are 33 Republican Governors, 16 Democrats and one Independent (Alaska); will the number of Republican Governors go up, down, or remain level?

    Let's see just how good your feelings are.

    Also, and this is important, so let me know if you've read this far, feelings about the future are very different from feelings about the past. There actually is a thing called reality that we can measure the accuracy of our feelings about the past against. This is where you make a tit of yourself (no offence) frequently by making statements like "Y'all did ..." or "Y'all said ..." when it is simple to trip you up and watch you pratfall. Something that you do to amuse us here on a regular basis (see above).

  145. [145] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    My respect for the intelligence of the U.S. electorate took a major hit when they bought into the bogus nuclear war monger BS, andchose the archetypal political hack LBJ over a man of the character of Goldwater.

    As I've pointed out before, in the age of TV and the internet, Abe Lincoln wouldn't have the chance of the proverbial snowball in hell.

  146. [146] 
    neilm wrote:

    Re Mueller and Sep 1:

    Mr. Giuliani said that the office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, shared its timeline about two weeks ago amid negotiations over whether Mr. Trump will be questioned by investigators, adding that Mr. Mueller’s office said that the date was contingent on Mr. Trump’s sitting for an interview. A spokesman for the special counsel’s office declined to comment.

    Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/20/us/politics/mueller-trump-obstruction-september-giuliani.html

    Basically, as far as I can see, the Sep 1 date comes for the ever reliable mouth of Rudi the weirdo, is contingent on an interview that so far hasn't happened and isn't scheduled, and Mueller's team, as usual, haven't said anything about.

    Just to add more details to Michale's FACTS:

    Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani "entirely made up" a supposed Sept. 1 target by the special counsel's office to end an inquiry into possible obstruction of justice by Trump, a source told Reuters.

    - CNBC, May 21, 2018

  147. [147] 
    neilm wrote:

    As I've pointed out before, in the age of TV and the internet, Abe Lincoln wouldn't have the chance of the proverbial snowball in hell.

    Fair enough, but Trump? Isn't that plumbing a level of collective stupidity beyond Goldwater vs. LBJ? I mean, LBJ had the sympathy for Kennedy boosting him in the North, and the fact that he was a Texas Democrat helping him in the South (where Kennedy's civil rights message had suppressed his popularity by 1963).

  148. [148] 
    neilm wrote:

    Bad day for Treasonous Trump's legal challenge to Mueller:

    The appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Despite that, we play the game because I, unlike the Democrats, have done nothing wrong!
    Treasonous Trump Tweet, June 4th, 2018

    As usual, TT is wrong:

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/04/politics/judge-beryl-howell-mueller-appointment-trump-subpoena/index.html

  149. [149] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump Confesses to Collusion, but Now Says It’s Not Illegal

    Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!

    If this meeting was completely legal, why would it matter if Trump knew about it? It wouldn’t!

    If Trump had hired an investigator to dig up info on Clinton and the Russians and this meeting was the investigator reporting her findings, then YES, it would be legal.

    But this was the Russian’s compiling the finished product and bringing it to Trump. This is conspiring with a foreign government. The information had value, and a campaign may not receive any donation of any value from a foreign country. It is not that complicated!

    I just keep picturing Trump kissing Don Jr. on both cheeks and then walking away, leaving Junior stunned and realizing he’d been given the “kiss of death” with the “wonderful son” comment!

    Dear Lord, Trump sure seems to enjoy making Mueller’s job easy for him to do!

  150. [150] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen

    "But this was the Russian compiling the finished product and bringing it to trump. This is conspiting with a foreign government."

    Sweet Jesus, what the hell are you thinking? Treason would be defined as "Conspiring with a foreign government AGAINST THE U.S.", not against your political opponent.!

    If Trump or his campaign conspire, collude or whatever-in-hell, to get dirt on Hillary, that could be described as a conspiracy/collusion against Hillary (which would be perfectly legal) but NOT AGAINST THE U.S.!!!

    Were I to collude with a Russian con man to defraud my neighbor out of his horse, would I be guilty of treason?

    That's gotta be the dumbest phuqueing idea ever to appear on this blog, and that's really saying something!

  151. [151] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen

    Sorry, that got away from me. Maybe a mite to intemperate.

  152. [152] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oops - make that read TOO intemperate, not "to".

  153. [153] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Treason would be defined as "Conspiring with a foreign government AGAINST THE U.S.", not against your political opponent.!

    Oh I see. You don't understand. US Elections have rules, and when an election rule like "don't accept donations of any sort from foreign countries" is broken, the aggrieved plaintiff is the United States, not just the lawbreaker's opponent.

    And so the lawbreaker will be charged with "conspiring against the United States", which is synonymous with "treason".

    So the great orange idol is either a traitor or a moron. Either he knew what he was doing, or should have known what he was doing. There is no grey area here, or hairs to split. His words and actions since the election betray a 'consciousness of guilt' that can't be ignored. As Trey Gowdy publicly opined, if the man is innocent, he sure doesn't act like it.

  154. [154] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Under the heading: Things I Wouldn't Advise My Client to Say, comes this:

    “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere,” Trump tweeted, publicly acknowledging for the first time that his son had attempted to gain political opposition research from the Russians.

    Again, either Trump is aware that that constitutes conspiracy (i.e.,"collusion"), or he's a moron. Maybe both.

  155. [155] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy Your [153]

    I ran your theory past that Russian lawyer that got the whole thing started.

    She replied "BULLSKI SHITSKI"!!!

  156. [156] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [141]: If that article wasn't a transparent attempt to manufacture fake outrage, I'd be mildly annoyed, because I didn't see any racism in those tweets, only a bit of mild fun-poking at grumpy old white dudes.

    Don't get too upset, or folks will start saying that old white dudes have skins as thin as white hooded bedsheets. heh.

  157. [157] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CR [155]: I ran your theory past that Russian lawyer..

    Next time, try a lawyer that knows US law (which apparently excludes Trump's team):

    52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

    (a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—

    (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

    (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

    (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

    (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

    (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

  158. [158] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS,

    Balthy is spot on in [153]! And if it weren’t illegal, Trump wouldn’t need to make sure everyone knows that he was unaware of the “completely legal” meeting with foreign agents!

    Trump has lied so many times regarding this one meeting that it amazes me that anyone bothers to defend him anymore! I understand the desire to not have to come to terms with and have to admit to yourself that you were played for a fool by someone that you supported and believed in. Trust me, when I left the GOP in 2008, the realization of just how much I had been lied to was a tough pill to swallow. But I finally reached the point where I couldn’t come up with excuses for their dishonesty that I could accept. How much longer are you going to defend a traitor who lies to you every time he speaks?

  159. [159] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    Re that "thing of value" part, and the "contributions/Donations" thing.

    How exactly do you evaluate advice, perhaps a certain amount per word, if so how much? And if the Russian exaggerates the importance of his "dirt", does that make it worth less, and if so, how much less?

    You guys are grasping at straws, and have been since day one. But, of course that's what drowning people do, so I guess it's OK.

    Listen

    Re "Defending a traitor". So far, I see not the slightest indication that he IS a "traitor". Immature, incompetent, even stupid, but hey, he was all those things when you guys elected him.

    I voted for the Libertarian, seem to recall that his name was Anderson, but not sure.

  160. [160] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    Another thought on the "contributions of any sort" concept - whenthe "contribution" is verbal, and you seek to criminalize it as being "something of value", do you not detect First Ammendment issues?

  161. [161] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    How exactly do you evaluate advice, perhaps a certain amount per word, if so how much? And if the Russian exaggerates the importance of his "dirt", does that make it worth less, and if so, how much less?

    Another thought on the "contributions of any sort" concept - when the "contribution" is verbal, and you seek to criminalize it as being "something of value", do you not detect First Amendment issues?

    You're kidding, right? Do you think that thousands of hacked secret communications from the DNC had no value? What is the the value in Rubles of the elite military and intelligence hacking teams that accomplished that information theft? What was the value to the Trump campaign to have the Democratic Party split by the hacked information, and lose its chairwoman on the eve of its Convention? Moreover, these were all supplemented by targeted communications through the Russians' Internet Research Agency (described as a multi-million dollar operation), and through the actions of Russian covert agents in the US. Now what would you pay for it?

    But wait, there's more!

    Billionaire Robert Mercer, who was joined at the hip to the Trump campaign (Bannon and Kellyanne both came from Mercer's political operation and whose daughter Rebecca is reported to have been a 'constant presence' at Trump Tower), and also owned Cambridge Analytica (whose dodgy operations during the Brexit campaign have recently come to light, including connections to - you guessed it - Russians) also provided services to the Trump campaign, some of which were based on illicity obtained profiles from millions of Facebook users. Mercer also purportedly offered CA's services to Assange - help with indexing the thousands of hacked materials provided to wikileaks by the Russians. We still don't know, however, if Assange took Mercer up on this offer, whether Mercer indexed and used the hacked materials anyway for his own ends, or if not, who did the actual indexing for Wikileaks. All of this has value.

    And if Trump knew in advance (or at all) about most of this, he engaged in a violation of campaign finance law at least, in conspiracy to defraud the US, and in an attempted cover-up and obstruction of justice by lying about it later.

    Trump's defense is that all of these people - his son-in-law, his Campaign Manager, his political mentor and former campaign manager, his billionaire buddy (and his brass-tacks daughter), and apparently, his entire team of National Security Advisors, among others, were all meeting with Russians seeking to advance his campaign, but none of them ever mentioned any of it to him, not even once.

    I think conspiracy was ruled to not fall under the first amendment some time ago.

  162. [162] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    I suppose time will tell whether getting free dirt on your political enemies constitutes collusion, conspiracy, treason, or politics as usual. I'm betting on the latter.

  163. [163] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    CW - Our drive was not carefully planned, we just kind of wandered around.

    Perhaps, if, in the past 6 years, enough in the Democratic Party had taken that approach, the programmed multiculturalism might have been widened just enough to gain a little more traction where it counts.

    It's been attributed to Johnny Carson to have said that ratings were won in the Central Time Zone.

  164. [164] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Perhaps, if, in the past 6 years, enough in the Democratic Party had taken that approach, the programmed multiculturalism might have been widened just enough to gain a little more traction where it counts.

    There you go, perpetuating the myth that Democrats somehow 'blew' the 2016 election by not paying enough attention to cranky old white guys. Being a cranky old white guy myself, I think that's just bunkum, a narrative for the press to spin.

    The truth is that Hillary, while winning an overwhelming majority of voters, only lost in the electoral college by 61 votes. That's only Pennsylvania, Florida and change.

    In other words, the "swing states" swang, aided in that election by Republican Governors and legislators who narrowed voting hours, access, and eligibility. Pennsylvania's map,like Wisconsin's, was so ostentatiously gerrymandered that the courts later stepped in to correct them.

    The only place that anyone can point to where voting patterns deviated significantly from historic norms was in southern Wisconsin, where 18 counties that had voted for Obama in 2012, inexplicably went to Trump in 2016. Those areas also, not coincidentally, experienced a high number of voters shifting their votes to third party candidates - in some areas, by as much as 500%.

    And with all of that, Trump only beat Hillary in Wisconsin by a reported 0.02% of the vote. Overall, Trump got about the same numbers as Romney. It was fallaway on the Democratic side in these and similar specific districts that cost Hillary the election.

    So unless you can discount the effects of voter suppression, gerrymandering, Russian influence on left-leaning voters and other targeted influence campaigns, you can't really blame the results on Democrat's inability to effectively communicate with the Hee Haw crowd.

    In fact a better case could be made that the constituency that hurt Hillary the most was the one she most counted on - the suburban women's vote, which failed to show up in the numbers that nearly everyone expected. Maybe she should have spent more time in shopping malls instead of trying to win over thick headed yahoos who wouldn't vote for her on a bet anyway.

  165. [165] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    I believe it is erroneous, and leads you Dems/Libs to drawing false and erroneous conclusions, to attempt to explain Hillary's loss by drawing comparisons of voting patterns between 2012 and 2016, meaning between her votes and Obama's.

    Nobody ever mentions it, because we like to pretend that Americans are beyond that, but the facts of the matter are that Obama was the beneficiary of a substantial anti-Mormon vote.

    In the age of TV and internet, when Abe Lincoln wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance, when physical appearance and charisma are far more important than character and qualifications, a man like Romney, the candidate straight out of central casting, would have attracted far more votes than he actually received, but for his religious affiliation.

    That 'one-off' factor likely makes comparisons between 2012 and 2016 less than legitimate, in trying to rationalize Hillary's loss.

  166. [166] 
    neilm wrote:

    the facts of the matter are that Obama was the beneficiary of a substantial anti-Mormon vote

    Do you have any sources to back this up?

    Also, with the selection of Sarah Palin, Obama was also the beneficiary of the anti-Moron vote in 2008 ;)

  167. [167] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Re "sources" Yeah, I took a phone survey of 2000 voters. Each and every one responded to the effect of "Hell no, wadda you think, like I'm some sort of religious bigot?", but they all winked so loud I could hear it over the phone!!!

    I'm surprised that after living thru the 2016 election, you can still claim with a straight face that there IS such a thing as the "anti Moron" vote???

  168. [168] 
    neilm wrote:

    Balthazar [164]

    I think you are correct. In my business, as in most, we estimate that it takes 5-10X the time and effort to sell to a new customer as opposed to selling something new to an existing customer.

    I suspect that there are about 40% of people who lean Republican, 40% who lean Democrat, and 20% who are in the center and could be swayed.

    It is far easier to get one of your 40% to vote than to both convince one of the 20% to vote and to vote for you.

    It is all about getting out the base. That is due to passion, and Hillary didn't instill passion. Worse for her, the Bernie did instill passion, but the Russians and others targeted those voters with claims, and sometime pretty damning proof, that Hillary undermined Bernie unfairly.

    However, there are indications that in the last two years the "passion" advantage has swung dramatically from the Republicans to the Democrats, which we will be able to measure in November.

    Getting crotchety old white guys like me, you, and CRS to change our minds isn't a good use of time and money, I'd suspect.

  169. [169] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [167]

    No sources? OK, where did you hear the anti-Mormon claim?

    But I suspect you are right about the 2016 election.

  170. [170] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I'm surprised that after living thru the 2016 election, you can still claim with a straight face that there IS such a thing as the "anti Moron" vote

    HA! You've got a point there, I have to admit.

    Hillary, I know from experience, also faced an "I'll never vote for a woman for president" contingent that managed to stay below the radar. I heard it myself from enough associates that it must have been a factor, like the anti-Mormon vote that Romney faced.

    My point was, and you guys seem to be agreeing, that the Trump election wasn't some extraordinary event, but rather just another case of the left being convinced to either stay home or vote for someone else.

    I wonder - if you're scanning this, CW - are the left at Netroots discussing this? Lots of evidence that the Russians targeted them, and that that targeting worked in some critical districts.

  171. [171] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @balthasar,

    excellent question for reflection.

    JL

  172. [172] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    103

    It all really doesn't matter.. If the trial actually goes the distance Manafort will be acquitted...

    "Goes the distance"? You think they'll call the trial off for some reason? Is that the bullshit you're being fed on right-wing propaganda TV?

    As I said before: Spoken like a true moron who hasn't seen the mountains of documentary evidence that prove the guilt of Manafort and Gates. They're both guilty; one of them just plead guilty in exchange for leniency.

    Gates has a plea deal that if he knowingly lies on the stand in any way, his deal is null and void and he can be sentenced according to the crimes he's confessed. There is so much documentary evidence against Manafort and Gates that Manafort isn't even disputing the validity of that admitted evidence; he is simply blaming Gates for all of it.

    In order for Manafort to be acquitted of all 18 charges; he has to convince the jury that Rick Gates is responsible for every single one of those 18 crimes without any involvement whatsoever on the part of Manafort or that the United States has failed to adequately meet their burden of proof on every single one of the charges... or a mixture of both. Keep in mind that Gates has confessed to his part in the crimes, and good luck with that defense. Remember also that the prosecutors/United States didn't choose Rick Gates; Paul Manafort chose Rick Gates.

    Donald Trump also chose Manafort and Gates, and much of the things being discussed happened while they were working for the Trump campaign. Gates continued working from Trump even after he was sworn in as POTUS.

    For somebody who keeps spouting his "LEO bona fides" ad nauseam, you sure seem ignorant regarding how the law actually functions. You'd be so much more credible if you didn't seem like such a Trump cultist who drank the Orange Goop and just weighed the actual evidence like a real law enforcement officer would invariably do. :)

  173. [173] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    166

    In the age of TV and internet, when Abe Lincoln wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance, when physical appearance and charisma are far more important than character and qualifications, a man like Romney, the candidate straight out of central casting, would have attracted far more votes than he actually received, but for his religious affiliation.

    Ha, ha! That is hilarious, Stucki. I am guessing that you don't know the facts regarding how Abraham Lincoln actually managed to secure the nomination of his party and then get elected as President of the United States or you wouldn't be tossing around words like "character," "physical appearance," and "charisma."

    LINCOLN FUN FACTS

    ** Lincoln was a very nice looking gentleman and respected orator when he was elected as POTUS. Lincoln himself said that a photograph by Matthew Brady and his Cooper Union speech in New York City on February 27, 1860 (the speech was given the same day the picture was taken) got him elected.

    Have you perchance seen that photograph of Lincoln?

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-one-mathew-brady-photograph-may-have-helped-elect-abraham-lincoln-180963839/

    ** Lincoln's campaign aides printed out approximately 5,000 counterfeit tickets to the Republican convention to pack the halls with his supporters. People arrived with genuine tickets are were not allowed in the venue because it was already packed with Lincoln's supporters who arrived earlier as instructed.

    If you need any more history lessons, just let me know. ;)

  174. [174] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oh yeah, I see it now, with those giant ears, and a big wart on his cheek to go along with that radiant smile, how the hell could he not win on looks alone?

  175. [175] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    175

    Oh yeah, I see it now, with those giant ears, and a big wart on his cheek to go along with that radiant smile, how the hell could he not win on looks alone?

    My whole point was that Lincoln didn't win on his looks alone; he was a great orator and had charisma and intelligence. He wore a size 14 shoe and towered over everyone else because he was 6'4" tall in an era when the average man was about 5'8" tall. He would have been fine during the television age, and I can prove it with another picture and 3 words: Barack Hussein Obama.

    http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20061023,00.html

    Your statement above regarding the "giant ears" and a "wart" applies equally to Obama... wart/mole whatever. While you're at it, factor in the fact that Obama has a foreign sounding name, and a large portion of the moron electorate believe to this day that Obama is a Muslim. Now tell us all again how poor Mitt Romney lost to that guy because he is a "Mormon"... Poor Romney. *laughs*

    Maybe if Obama's opponent would have stretched his ears, painted a wart/mole on his cheek, and chosen to run for POTUS using his actual given name of Willard Romney, he'd have stood a better chance to win against the big eared guy with the mole and the funny name who many believed was a Muslim.

    Stucki... I'm just saying maybe you should think some of this drivel of yours through before you post it and sound silly to most everyone else. It's solid advice. :)

  176. [176] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Why would anybody EVER think Obama was a Muslim???

    Just because his dad and every single paternal ancestor was Muslim, he had a Muslim name, his mom and his stepdad were Muslim, he was educated in Muslim schools in his youth, etc. etc.

    What the hell, anybody can see he surely must have been Southern Baptist, right?

  177. [177] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    177

    I believe Obama spent an entire 2 weeks in the company of his father as a child and never saw him again. His father had an African name and didn't practice Islam. Obama and his mother were both named after their fathers. Being named Barack Obama after his absent father who didn't raise him wouldn't make Obama a Muslim any more than being named Stanley Dunham made his mother a man.

    Fun fact about Stanley Dunham: James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok was her sixth cousin.

    I hope somewhere in all these comments you realized that your belief that Poor Romney being a Mormon was not likely a hindrance to his path to the presidency. Whatever factors he had to overcome paled in comparison to those of his opponent, wouldn't you say?

    Anyway, I would have thought that you would be someone that would be infinitely aware that you can't judge a person by their name. :)

Comments for this article are closed.