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. :)

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?

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. :)

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. ;)

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. :)

excellent question for reflection.

JL

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.

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

But I suspect you are right about the 2016 election.

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.

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???

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 ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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

She replied "BULLSKI SHITSKI"!!!

“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.

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.

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

"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!

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!

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

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).

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

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.

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).

And I got that right too.

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 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

*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..

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

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.

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").

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.. :^/

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??

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..

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.

JL

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

https://www.thewrap.com/patrick-stewart-new-star-trek-jean-luc-picard-return/

A NEW Star Trek!!!!! :D

That's Rosenstein's deadline..

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

Uh huh. Dream on, lonesome cowboy.

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.

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

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.

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....

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

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!

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

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??

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.

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.

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..

Nothing false about it.. :D

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.

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

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.

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

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

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..

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

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.

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

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

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.

Heartbreaking:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/nra-financial-trouble-706371/

Tragic. *laughs*

This organization actually used to be a fine, upstanding group many years ago. Now they've sold out to Russia and are going to have to pay for it.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article212756749.html

Yes, it is also connected to the Trump campaign.

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.

Thanks.

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

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.

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. :)

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? :)

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. :)

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.

Let's not rule out America yet.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/nra-financial-trouble-706371/

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.

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. :)

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

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.

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. :)