ChrisWeigant.com

Defining Impeachable

[ Posted Monday, August 27th, 2018 – 16:48 PDT ]

Today's question is a purely academic one, for the time being. What constitutes an impeachable offense for a United States president? What rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and what falls short? The quick (but unsatisfying) answer to that is that anything that a majority of House members find impeachable is impeachable. This still leaves a lot of undefined territory, obviously, but it is indeed the only concrete standard that really exists.

The reason I'm pondering the subject today is because I heard an interesting statement on Meet The Press yesterday. Representative Jerrold Nadler, who is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee (meaning: if the Democrats took back the House, he would likely become the committee's chairman), was asked by Chuck Todd about statements he had made during the impeachment of Bill Clinton (taken from the transcript).


CHUCK TODD: Let me ask you this: You know, you were one of Bill Clinton's most ardent defenders during his impeachment. You called it at the time a "partisan coup d'état." If you were charged with running something that -- some form of an impeachment investigation -- if you're chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which [would be] what would happen if Democrats took over Congress, how would you make sure that somehow you handled this differently than your Republican colleagues did 20 years ago?

REPRESENTATIVE JERROLD NADLER: I would take the same attitude I took then. I said then that impeachment is a constitutional provision to protect the Constitution against the president, who would aggrandize power, who would ride roughshod over checks and balances, who posed a true threat to American liberty or to constitutional government and the rule of law. And, two, and I said also at the time, and therefore, you should only do it under those circumstances. I also said at the time that you should not do an impeachment on a partisan basis. That, in order to do an impeachment properly, you'd have to think that the evidence of threatening impeachable offenses -- threatening to the constitutional order, threatening to liberty -- were so overwhelming that by the end of the process, the overwhelming majority of the American people, including a lot of the people who supported the other side, would agree that you had to do it. And we certainly didn't have that then.

TODD: Obviously, Watergate did eventually have that. Let me ask you this final question here: Back in 1999, you are, during the debate about whether or not President Clinton obstructed justice, you said at the time you weren't convinced that a president could obstruct justice. Do you still feel that way, that it's not one of -- I think the quote [was]: "It might not be impeachable." Put it this way: that obstruction of justice might not be an impeachable offense?

NADLER: Well, I don't remember saying that, but if I said it, I said it. But no, I don't agree with that today. A president, anybody can obstruct justice. Obstruction of justice under certain circumstances might be an impeachable offense. Remember, there's a very big difference between a crime, which may or may not be impeachable, and an impeachable offense, which doesn't have to be a crime. An impeachable offense--

At this point Chuck Todd cut him off with a question, which is a shame because I really would have liked to hear the rest of the sentence Nadler had just begun. But the final complete sentence he spoke was indeed a necessary reminder: "Remember, there's a very big difference between a crime, which may or may not be impeachable, and an impeachable offense, which doesn't have to be a crime." But before we delve into this, a final word from Nadler. Todd and Nadler went back and forth on what would and what wouldn't be impeachable for a few moments (would an affair be impeachable, or committing perjury when asked about such an affair?), before Nadler summed his thoughts up:

NADLER: I don't know. I have studied that. But certainly I said at the time that perjury with regard to a private sexual affair did not threaten the constitutional order. It's a crime, but was not an impeachable offense. Perjury regarding an attempt by a president to subvert the constitutional order to aggrandize power probably would be an impeachable offense.

Overall, it sounds like Nadler takes his position seriously and has thought about the subject at length. This is all to the good, especially if he becomes the Judiciary Committee chair next January. But I found it rather interesting in today's political atmosphere all the same.

Currently, the only questions the media seems to be asking all solely concern the politics of impeachment. The questions are asked over and over again, in various forms: "Are Democrats making impeachment central to their midterm campaign? Why aren't Democrats running on impeachment? Is Nancy Pelosi refusing to run on impeachment going to hurt the Democrats in November? Shouldn't the Democrats try to excite their base by making impeachment central to their campaign?" Impeachment is only seen through the lens of politics and the horserace, in other words, at least by the political media.

However, this is yet another case of inside-the-Beltway cocktail party chatter being mistaken for the reality on the ground outside the Beltway. When you get out into the rest of America, you'll find that very few Democrats are even mentioning the possibility of impeachment on the campaign trail, and those few that are can be found in overwhelmingly safe Democratic districts, for the most part. It just isn't that big an issue to most of the actual candidates, for two reasons. The first is that almost all of the Democrats running are talking about things the voters (as opposed to the national media) care about: healthcare, education, infrastructure, women's rights, and pocketbook issues for families. This isn't very exciting to extrapolate horserace stories from, but it can win elections nonetheless.

The big disconnect with the media on the subject of impeachment (and the second reason Democratic candidates aren't running on it) is the fact that the vast majority of Democratic voters don't even need to be reminded of impeachment, or even of Donald Trump's name. They know he's president, they don't like it, and they are already fired up to get to the polls in November. The media has been continually astonished that Democrats aren't running a purely anti-Trump campaign, but their voters don't actually need to be whipped up on the subject -- they're already pretty adamant about sending Trump a big message in the midterms. It's a given, in other words, meaning the candidates themselves don't need to spend a whole lot of time on the subject.

In fact, the party that is attempting to use impeachment as a goad to get people to vote is actually the Republicans right now. They're the ones continually bringing the subject up, and they're the ones running ads on the subject. They are trying to instill fear of Trump's impending impeachment among their own base, in the hopes that they'll turn out for the midterms.

Nancy Pelosi has been one of the sanest voices throughout all of this. In a recent interview she summed up the party's position (what follows is not a direct quote, but a paraphrase, just to be clear) as: "We will wait for Bob Mueller to finish his work and make his report. Nothing so far that Trump has been caught doing has risen to the level of an impeachable offense, but we still have no idea what Mueller's final report will reveal. If there is a smoking gun in it, then we will consider our next move. But impeachment has to be a nonpartisan effort if it is to be seen as legitimate. The evidence has to be so overwhelming that the other side agrees it is time to remove the president from office. Again, we do not have that kind of evidence yet, so even if Democrats take the House we're going to wait and see what happens rather than launching a purely partisan impeachment effort." Again, this is from memory, but the actual transcript of this interview is pretty close to these sentiments. Which, much like Nadler's statement, is pretty well-thought-out.

Impeachment is presented to the American public as a legal proceeding, but it really isn't. The House impeaches the president, which is supposed to be akin to a prosecutor bringing an indictment. The Senate holds a "trial" of the president (with the chief justice of the Supreme Court presiding as "judge"), and then the senators supposedly perform the function of a jury. But this is misleading, because an "impeachable offense" might not actually be a crime under current law. So "trying" a president for a non-crime isn't really a trial at all. Also, a "jury" of 100 senators isn't exactly impartial or even nonpolitical.

When you strip away the veneer of the courtroom from the concept of impeachment, it is revealed as a purely political exercise, not a legal one. After all the Constitution itself is vague on what would justify impeachment. This means it is up to the members of the House of Representatives to decide what constitutes an "impeachable offense" and what does not. But what it boils down to is: If a majority votes to impeach, then that's an impeachable offense. If they don't, then it isn't. Plain and simple.

History mostly bears this out. In both the cases where a president was impeached, it was a purely partisan act. Both Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached over their politics, plain and simple. Richard Nixon -- the one president who actually deserved impeachment -- was never officially impeached because he resigned before the House could act. But Nixon's case is the one everyone compares Trump's situation to, because in Nixon's case it would have worked (for once) in a nonpartisan manner. Enough Republicans had turned on Nixon that he likely would have been both impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate -- on bipartisan votes.

This is what Pelosi and other Democrats are talking about when they insist that if Trump is impeached, it will also be nonpartisan, because if they take that step it's going to be because of the revelation of a smoking gun so obvious as to be undeniable. If this comes to pass, then Republicans will join the Democratic effort to impeach -- but impeachment isn't going to happen until this condition has obviously been reached.

This is smart politics -- much smarter, in fact, than the erroneous conventional wisdom that the media keeps asking about. Democrats are taking the possibility of impeachment seriously, in other words, while the media is not. The media sees it as nothing more than a campaign slogan and an extended part of the endless political horserace. Democrats overwhelmingly do not see it this way -- they see removing a president as a lot more serious than that.

Impeachment is not some sort of episode of Law And Order. There is no impartial jury of peers -- instead, there are 100 senators as the "jury." That makes it a political exercise, not a legal one. Which brings us back to what Nadler said: "Remember, there's a very big difference between a crime, which may or may not be impeachable, and an impeachable offense, which doesn't have to be a crime." A president could commit a crime that was not an impeachable offense. Slander, say, or libel. Trump could release some outrageous tweet viciously and falsely attacking some private citizen, and they could successfully sue him for damages. Would this be an impeachable offense? Almost certainly not. As Nadler pointed out, it would not be an affront to the Constitution or any kind of constitutional crisis. An impeachable crime has to be one that can be conclusively proven to the public and one that is a very serious matter. A president attacking the constitutional order would qualify, and this would be true whether or not what he did was explicitly a crime or not (the second part of Nadler's statement).

President Trump is not going to be removed from office until and unless such a serious offense to the Constitution either happens or is revealed to the public. In such a case, the House will impeach him (which would admittedly be much more likely to happen if Democrats are in charge). But no matter which party holds control of the House or the Senate, Trump's offense will have to be so egregious and dangerous that over a dozen senators of his own party vote for him to be removed from office.

It won't matter if Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell is in charge of the Senate, in other words, because the Senate will have to act if the House impeaches Trump. They won't be able to avoid it, no matter who bangs the gavel. But this works both ways, as the Republicans learned with Bill Clinton. It won't matter to the actual vote count if Schumer or McConnell is in charge, because neither party will have a two-thirds majority in the chamber, and removal from office absolutely requires 67 votes. The exact number won't be known until after the election, but somewhere around 15-20 Republicans will have to vote against Trump in order for him to be removed. If the whole impeachment effort is seen as purely partisan, Trump will (like Clinton) remain in office.

Democrats know this. They saw what happened to Clinton (his approval ratings actually went up during the impeachment). They aren't going to make the same mistake the GOP made back in the 1990s. What Nadler was saying reminds me of another famous definition, in fact, that of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart on the subject of hard-core pornography. The American public can't currently define what an impeachable offense is, but they'll know it when they see it. This is what Democrats are waiting for, plain and simple. The media and the Republican candidates are both trying to put all kinds of political spin on it, but Democrats are certain that if it is revealed that Trump did something truly impeachable, we'll all know it when we see it.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

137 Comments on “Defining Impeachable”

  1. [1] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    I hate to say it, but I'm not convinced by your (or the Democrats') elegant argument. From what I can see, Mueller could produce tapes of Trump swearing loyalty to Putin in cracked Russian, and the bank records showing $20 billion being transferred from the Kremlin's account to the Trump offshore operations, and House Republicans would find a way to argue it was not "impeachable". Their reasoning would be the same it's been up to now: to impeach the president is to implicate every Republican who's embraced his policies, style, and rhetoric for the past two years in the same crimes.

    They won't call any constitutional crime whatsoever "impeachable", thus leaving it in the Democrats' laps where it becomes the 'partisan coup' that Pelosi and Nadler realize is a losing proposition. That way the GOP buys itself more time to continue to reorganize the regulatory, judicial, corporate, and diplomatic sectors into long-term alignment with its core priorities.

    I wish I was wrong in my belief - your story sounds so much more hopeful.

  2. [2] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Everybody in Weigantia knows what it is - it's meeting with a Russian lawyer who claims to have something scandalous on hillary - oe at least that's what every single one of you (except for neilm) haa been assuring me for 2 yrs.

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nadler?

    "Missed it by that much."
    -Maxwell Smart

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    I would wager that Benedict Donald being an unnamed co-conspirator in a RICO case ought to easily meet the definition of "impeachable."

    MAGA: Manipulating America's Gullible Assholes

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Great article, CW!

    I agree with John M that it won’t be easy to get the Republicans to treat impeachment as anything but partisan politics. No gun can smoke enough for them to do the right thing, sadly!

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    25-30% of the public will not believe there is an impeachable offense regardless of the evidence, they are going to believe it is a conspiracy and they will have Tucker and Sean and all the "whacko birds" (shout out to John McCain there) egging them on.

    And they will be vocal and they will be enough to swing many Republican primaries.

    And if you don't think there are enough Americans who believe in conspiracies, check out:

    1. Anti-vaxxers
    2. 9/11 Hoaxers
    3. Sandy Hook was child actors
    4. Flat-Earthers (who are making a come back)
    5. Moon Landing deniers
    6. AGW deniers
    7. "More guns will solve our gun crisis" believers
    8. What gun crisis? Crazies
    9. GMO nuts

    The list could go on, and it isn't only on the right - the GMO, Anti-Vaxxers and Flat Earthers span the political spectrum, but lean more left than right.

  7. [7] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    neilm,

    You left out the climate change deniers!

    Big Oil has given up denying that carbon emissions are horrible for the planet, but the GOP still sticks to the lie!

    I guess it shouldn’t surprise me too much — Pence doubts that cigarettes cause lung cancer.

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    6

    Very nice list that definitely could go on, but I was thinking like Russ (again) and also could not help but notice you left out the climate change denier rubes.

    And the QAnon morons are also MIA... except in the Oval, of course:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/403549-trump-meets-with-promoter-of-qanon-conspiracy-theory-in-oval

    Fix it! ;) *wink*

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    Guys, I had AGW Deniers as #6 (Anthropogenic Global Warming)

    ????

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    You got me on the QAnon crowd. Good catch there :)

  11. [11] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Let's not forget that impeaching Trump would put Pence in the Oval Office, which makes impeachment for political reasons not such a good idea. Even if it becomes clear that constitutional crimes have been committed and impeachment is constitutionally and ethically warranted, some will still see it as martyrdom. I hope not that many, but....

    In the meantime, until the possible result of Mueller's investigations and until the next presidential election, which I hope will have a very different outcome, a legislature which actually acts as a balance of power is the best defence against abuses of power.

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    The worst outcome for the Republicans is to have their leadership seen as slimy crooks for a couple of years without the decency to resign. This could make the 2018 Blue Wave look small compared to a 2020 Blue Tsunami.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    From our previous discussion...

    In a new interview with The Washington Post's Tom Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helderman, Davis is backing off two massive claims he made in recent weeks, including that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen has told people he witnessed President Donald Trump being informed of Donald Trump Jr.'s 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer before it happened.

    "I should have been more clear - including with you - that I could not independently confirm what happened," Davis said, adding: "I regret my error."

    Davis also backed off his claim that Cohen has information suggesting that Trump knew in advance about Russian hacking of Democrats' emails in 2016.

    "I am not sure," he said. "There's a possibility that is the case. But I am not sure."
    https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Michael-Cohen-s-lawyer-has-done-real-damage-to-13185791.php

    Are you SURE you want to take Lanny Davis' word on ANYTHING??

    Once again, we see how the case against President Trump is nothing but lies and bullshit..

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I don't remember saying that, but if I said it, I said it. But no, I don't agree with that today. A president, anybody can obstruct justice.

    Typical Democrat hypocrite...

    A DEMOCRAT President *CANNOT* obstruct justice, but a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT can...

    :^/

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lanny Davis Says He Was A Source For CNN’s Trump Tower Story

    Davis, Cohen’s lawyer and spokesperson, said he also regrets lying about his involvement in the story on CNN's air last week.
    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stevenperlberg/lanny-davis-cnn-trump-tower-story

    To my fellow Weigantians, allow me to paraphrase Dr Peter Venkmen..

    "Oh... Oh people, did you back the wrong horse...."

    Ya'all went on and on and on about how, NOW... FINALLY... Cohen is going to bring down Donald Trump..

    And, JUST like Wiley Coyote, ya'all find that President Road Runner Trump leaves ya'all in the dust, holding a huge stick of ACME DYNAMITE...

    Once again President Trump makes FOOLS out of all of you NeverTrumpers...

    I had mused before that, wouldn't it be hilarious if Cohen was actually President Trump's trojan horse...

    I am laughing my ass of right now..

    Just when ya'all think that ya have Trump... He turns around and kicks ya'all in the arse.. :D

    "Lemme tell you about those {8 guilty pleas}, slick. As of right now, they mean precisely dick.."
    -Agent K, MEN IN BLACK

    One would think ya'all would learn and quit being played by President Trump...

    And yet, once again, here we are..

    President Trump sitting pretty...

    Me laughing my ass off...

    And ya'all with egg all over yer faces...

    Mr Rogers was right.. It *IS* a beautiful day in the neighborhood... :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Overall, it sounds like Nadler takes his position seriously and has thought about the subject at length.

    Considering his hypocrisy, I can't agree with this.. Now, if you were to say "Nadler takes his Party agenda seriously" then I could agree with you..

    When you get out into the rest of America, you'll find that very few Democrats are even mentioning the possibility of impeachment on the campaign trail,

    Commentary: Democrats are getting ready for impeachment, even if they say they're not
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-democrats-are-getting-ready-for-impeachment-even-if-they-say-theyre-not/

    'Nuff said...

    Again, this is from memory, but the actual transcript of this interview is pretty close to these sentiments. Which, much like Nadler's statement, is pretty well-thought-out.

    Yea.. Most Focus-Grouped speeches written by a speech writer usually are.. :^/

    This is what Pelosi and other Democrats are talking about when they insist that if Trump is impeached,

    No, this is what very few Democrats are talking about... Most Democrats are going all Mad Maxine Waters...

    This is what Democrats are waiting for, plain and simple. The media and the Republican candidates are both trying to put all kinds of political spin on it, but Democrats are certain that if it is revealed that Trump did something truly impeachable, we'll all know it when we see it.

    Then why don't Democrats just shut the frak up UNTIL such time as we see it, if ever??

    THAT is the exact problem with Democrats... And ya'all, incidentally...

    To listen to Democrats and ya'all, **EVERYTHING** President Trump does is an impeachable offense..

    President Trump tried to get dirt on Hillary Clinton??

    IMPEACH HIM!!
    -Democrats and Weigantians

    President Trump had sex with a hooker while married??

    IMPEACH HIM!!
    -Democrats and Weigantians

    President Trump gave the hooker money to stay silent on the romp??

    IMPEACH HIM!!
    -Democrats and Weigantians

    President Trump did a shitty press conference with Putin??

    IMPEACH HIM!!
    -Democrats and Weigantians

    President Trump had TWO SCOOPS OF ICE CREAM while everyone else only had one!!!

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

    IMPEACH HIM!!
    -Democrats and Weigantians

    I saids it before and I'll says it again... Ya'all simply CANNOT be believable if ya'all scream IMPEACH HIM!! over EVERY LITTLE THING....

    This latest Cohen/Davis episode is a perfect example of how utterly unhinged and ridiculous it makes ya'all look..

    One would think ya'all would learn yer lesson, but ya'all simply keep coming back for more..

    Ya'all's HHPTDS demands it..

    And here we are...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mezza,

    Let's not forget that impeaching Trump would put Pence in the Oval Office, which makes impeachment for political reasons not such a good idea.

    Very good point..

    Even if Democrats succeed in nullifying a free, fair and legal election and even if (a HUGE 'if') this country doesn't descend in an all out shooting civil war as a result, Dumbocrats will have to contend with President Pence... Who will be the complete Party ideologue...

    Of course, these sufferers of HHPTDS already have a "solution"..

    They'll just impeach Pence too!!!

    THAT is a perfect illustration of how utterly and totally frak'ed in the head many Weigantians are..

    They *HONESTLY* believe that, after impeaching Trump, they can easily impeach Pence...

    President Trump is the luckiest man alive to be blessed with such enemies, eh?? :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, referring back to The Landing shooting in JAX...

    The suspect in a deadly shooting at a Florida video game tournament had previously been hospitalized for mental illness. That's according to court records in his home state of Maryland reviewed by The Associated Press.

    Divorce filings from the parents of 24-year-old David Katz of Baltimore say that as an adolescent he was twice hospitalized in psychiatric facilities and that he was prescribed anti-psychotic and antidepressant medications.

    The records show Katz's parents disagreed on how to care for their troubled son, with his father claiming his estranged wife was exaggerating symptoms of mental illness as part of their long-running and acrimonious custody battle. The couple divorced in 2007.

    Once again, the FACTS bear out..

    EVERY MASS SHOOTING has one other commonality besides guns used..

    ALL mass killings had a mental health aspect where the shooters have ALL had mental health issues prior to their violence...

    And yet, Democrats STILL shy away from mental health legislation due to privacy and social stigma concerns??

    Get that?? People are being slaughtered by the hundreds and Democrats are worried about the privacy and social stigma of the shooters.. :^/

    Morons... :^/

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why I never get bummed when ya'all appear to have President Trump on the ropes...

    I just have to wait a day or two and hysterical Dumbocrats and NeverTrumpers will always find a way to embarrass themselves and prove beyond any doubt that all that they spew is bullshit.. :D

    Making America Great Again
    -President Trump

    America Was Never That Great
    -Democrat Party

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chicago 1968: The Night the Democratic Party Died

    The riots that night set a political pattern that Democrats are still following today.
    Fifty years ago tonight, a great American political party was murdered by its own children and closest friends.

    The party in question was the Democratic party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and JFK, which perished during the riots in Grant Park, Chicago, on the night of Aug. 28, 1968, in the midst of the party’s national convention.

    Its children in this case were the rioters from the anti–Vietnam War Left. After killing off the traditional liberal Democratic party they despised, they would go on to take over the corpse and make it the host of America’s radical Left, from Jerry Brown to Bernie Sanders — with George McGovern, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama as their front men.

    The friends who joined in the kill were the mainstream media. Their coverage of the riots, that night and later, would make the SDS demonstrators and their violent cohorts — the predecessors of today’s antifa — into martyrs of “police brutality” and Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley’s “Gestapo tactics,” as one Democratic senator from Connecticut put it in a speech to the convention that night, when they had in fact been — like today’s antifa — the deliberate instigators of mayhem and bloodshed. Starting that night the New York Times, the Washington Post, and ABC and CBS News would become the enablers of America’s radical Left, even at its most violent — and in the process cut themselves off from the millions of ordinary working Americans who had made the Democratic party their political home.
    https://tinyurl.com/y8wae5w6

    The more things change, the more they stay the same..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Right Prescription
    The Next American Revolution: #WalkAway

    There’s something happening here, for the Democrats the end is near.
    My first inkling that Donald Trump might actually become President came about mid-evening on election night, 2016, when I switched to MSNBC to look at that infallible barometer of Republican success at the ballot box, the expressions of the “journalists” reporting the returns. The first face I saw was that of Chuck Todd, who was frowning at a map of Wisconsin and maundering about Milwaukee. He was worried about low turnout in precincts where the African-American vote was crucial to Hillary Clinton’s success in the Badger State. Having long been skeptical of Trump’s chances, I was surprised. Todd was trembling.

    His fear was well-founded. Those Milwaukee precincts were emblematic of a nationwide phenomenon that contributed in no small part to Trump’s victory — African-American enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton was tepid at best. Both the Democrats and the “news” media have ignored this reality. Their willful ignorance allows them to claim, as the brainiacs at Vox put it, “Trump won because of racial resentment.” Never mind that Hillary Clinton is conspicuously caucasian and that white turnout has remained relatively stable since 2004. As the Pew Research Center reports, this cannot be said for African-American turnout:

    The black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012. The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks.

    The obvious moral of this tale is that the Democratic Party has become so dependent on the African-American vote that it cannot hope to win a national election without generating a level of enthusiasm in that community comparable to that which former President Obama enjoyed. Consequently, any Democrat with an IQ exceeding single digits should be terrified by the #WalkAway movement. Candace Owens, one of its most influential voices (ask Kanye West), constantly reminds her huge social media following that the Democratic Party has used African-Americans to gain power and provided very little in return:

    When over 90% of a community is voting for one political party, they become irrelevant. Our voting predictability made it so that neither side needed to make good on promises to our community. This is all about to shift, dramatically.

    But the times, to coin a phrase, they are a changin’. Democrats who believe that they have a permanent hold on the African-American vote should take a look at how these voters view their position on immigration. A recent Harvard-Harris survey found that African-Americans are the racial group most opposed to unlimited immigration. Whereas 79 percent of whites want to prioritize legal immigrants based on what they can contribute to our society, fully 85 percent of African-Americans hold that view. A party that advocates open borders and the abolition of ICE is going to get fewer and fewer of their votes.

    The Democrats are in denial on this as well. They obviously believe that constantly accusing President Trump and his supporters of racism will somehow keep African-Americans on the liberal plantation. These people evidently failed to notice that, after Kanye West signaled his affinity for the President, a Reuters survey found that Trump’s support among African-American men doubled. This isn’t a huge number. But it won’t take a very large number of electoral defections to assure the death of the Democratic Party. But the Democrats and their media enablers remain in denial. As the Post writer quoted above confidently assures us:

    There’s little actual evidence to suggest that #WalkAway
    represents a mass conversion… the#WalkAway hashtag is going Conservative Internet viral on the same hope driving recent pro-
    Trump support of Kanye West: that the country is on the verge of a mass conversion to conservative thought, a Great Awakening of sorts.

    What this young lady, and the political party for which she shills, won’t see is what the Pew survey all but shouts at them. A “Great Awakening” isn’t required. All that is needed is about 5 percent more African-Americans to vote Republican and another 5 to 10 percent to simply stay home. And once they kick the Democrat habit, they won’t backslide. As Candace Owens puts it, paraphrasing Harriet Tubman, “I’ve seen black liberals go conservative, but never seen a black conservative go liberal.” So, let’s hope the Democrats and the “news” media keep dismissing #WalkAway. That means, to quote Reagan, “We win, they lose.”
    https://spectator.org/the-next-american-revolution-walkaway/

    Amongst black Americans popularity for President Trump and the GOP has almost TRIPLED since the election..

    This is FACT that no amount of spin can change.....

    If the Democrat Party loses just 5% more support amongst black Americans??

    Democrats will be lucky to be elected county dog catcher...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have always said it's next to impossible to do fair research on google, which overwhelmingly hides conservative leaning results in favor of liberal leaning results..

    96 Percent of Google Search Results for 'Trump' News Are from Liberal Media Outlets
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-search-results-show-pervasive-anti-trump-anti-conservative-bias/

    TUrns out I wasn't imagining things...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://sharylattkisson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Screen-Shot-2017-04-23-at-1.43.33-PM.png

    Interesting to note..

    Look at the far Right sites...

    Fringe sites like InfoWars, Breitbart, The American Conservative...

    Now look at the far Left sites..

    Washington Post, MSNBC, New York Times...

    All main stream "news" sites...

    Mainstream "news" is nothing but Left Wing propaganda...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Student Who Took Classmate’s MAGA Hat Says She Was Making Political Statement
    https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/08/27/maga-trump-hat-taken/

    This scumbag made the claim that her assaults on the student and her teacher were a "political statement"...

    I guess that's how Dumbocrats express their politics, eh?? Thru violence and intolerance and hatred... :^/

    What a surprise, eh? :^/

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @mezzo,
    True, given donald's general ineffectiveness and polarizing influence, the best thing Democrats can do for their own long term political fortunes is to keep him in office as long as possible.

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale [13-24],
    Wow man, you're really on a roll today.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow man, you're really on a roll today.

    I believe the word you are searching for is....

    "DOMINATION!!!"
    -Mortal Kombat

    :D

    What can I say... I go where the facts take me.. :D

    True, given donald's general ineffectiveness

    And yet, the great economy and the lowest unemployment numbers in history belie that claim...

    the best thing Democrats can do for their own long term political fortunes is to keep him in office as long as possible.

    Thereby proving beyond ALL doubt that Democrats put Party before country..

    Just to be clear, I know it's not YOU who advocates this..

    But you are dead on ballz accurate that THAT is how Democrats think...

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    @michale [13-24],
    Wow man, you're really on a roll today.

    I skip thru Michale's comments when there is more than one - it usually is a sign of desperation and his attempt to convince himself that everything is OK.

    The more page downs for me, the more desperate he is.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    I skip thru Michale's comments when there is more than one - it usually is a sign of desperation and his attempt to convince himself that everything is OK.

    TRANSLATION:

    I CAN'T HANDLE THE FACTS!!!

    's OK I understand, this ain't yer never never land..

    Reality is a bitch for ya, ain't it Neil? :D

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hilarious - Treasonous Trump searched on Google for "Trump News" (I'll bet the first few times he typed in "News about me" until some poor intern explained the Interwebs to Grampa) and found that 90% was negative.

    Now, of course, it couldn't be that he is doing a hopeless job, is a crook, that his circle is being convicted left and right, that he is unpopular with everybody except the mostly dimwitted, and that he lies almost constantly.

    No, it had to be Google's algorithm.

    Sad.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, of course, it couldn't be that he is doing a hopeless job,

    That's the lie..

    Black Business Ownership Under Trump JUMPS 400 PERCENT in ONE YEAR

    Youth Unemployment Hits 52 Year Low

    Black Support for Trump DOUBLES to 29 percent

    RECORD Number of Employed - 63 Percent labor participation

    Worker pay rate hits highest level since 2008

    Black and Hispanic Unemployment rates hit record low in April

    Business Investments up 39 Percent Due to Tax Cuts

    April 2018 Best Month in HISTORY for Budget according to CBO

    Food Stamp Usage Drops Half Million in Single Month

    Highest Ever Manufacturer Optimism over 94 Percent

    Unemployment claims have fallen to a 45-year low

    Trump Economy Explodes Record Number of Americans Employed Stocks Soar

    FEB JOBS BLOWOUT 313K

    GREAT AGAIN Household Net Worth Pushes Further Into Record Territory

    U.S. Consumer Confidence Is at 17-Year High

    US homebuilding permits soar to highest level since 2007

    Economy to grow at 5.4% rate in first quarter

    Roaring: Economic Optimism Index hits 13-year high, credit to tax cuts

    U.S. jobless claims drop to near 45-year low

    Wages jump to highest level since 2009 - up 2.9%

    U.S. Oil Production Tops 10 Million Barrels A Day, First Time Since 1970

    Trump Decreases Debt to GDP Ratio - First Time in Over 50 Years!

    Jobless claims drop to lowest level in nearly 45 years

    Apple to Invest $350 BILLION in US citing Trump Tax Plan

    Utilities cutting rates, cite benefits of Trump tax reform

    Over 100 companies giving 'Trump Bonuses' after tax victory

    Black unemployment rate falls to record low

    Trump adds 184,000 manufacturing jobs and continues growth trend

    Manufacturing in the U.S. Just Accelerated to Its Best Year Since 2004

    Nikki Haley negotiates $285M cut in ‘bloated’ UN budget

    WIC Welfare Participation Hits 17-Year Low

    U.S. home sales hit 11-year high

    Manufacturing Optimism Reaches Another All-Time High - 94.6%

    Economy adds 228K jobs in November

    Mining up 28.6% - Leads the Nation in Growth

    Broadcom will move back to U.S. — and bring tax money with it

    US private sector added 235,000 jobs in Oct - Beats Expectations

    Consumer confidence highest level since December 2000

    Q3 GDP at 3 Percent – Beats Expectations

    Ivanka Trump creates new World Bank initiative to foster Entrepreneurship among Women

    Consumer Sentiment in U.S. Surges to 13-Year High

    63.1%: Participation Rate Reaches Trump-Era High

    Unemployment down to 4.2, wages rise .5%

    New entrants from outside the labor market made up 3.2

    U.S. Factories Expanding at 13 Year high

    Dow posting first eight-quarter winning streak in 20 years

    Home builder confidence at 12-year high

    Manufacturer confidence at a 20-year high

    Tech giants pledge millions to Trump initiative
    Q2 GDP up 3.1%

    Sales of new U.S. homes rebounded in August

    Federal Reserve: Household Wealth in America at record high of $1.7 trillion - Rising property values and Financial gain

    Surging stock market powers U.S. wealth to $96.2 trillion

    Food Stamp Usage Has Fallen Every Month Under Trump

    Median Incomes Climbing for First Time Since 2007

    Trump has signed a $15 billion relief package for Texas in the wake of Hurricane Harvey

    Jobless claims drop to 240,000 - hottest streak in 43 years

    U.S. Consumer Sentiment Rose in August

    Recovery Is Finally Trickling Down to Least-Educated Workers

    U.S. Job Satisfaction Highest Level Since 2005

    American manufacturing expanded in August at fastest pace in six years

    Donald Trump Ends Obama Effort to Waive Work Requirements for Welfare

    Consumer confidence strengthens in August, second-highest level since late 2000

    President Trump Cuts More US Debt for a Longer Period of Time Than Any President

    Pennsylvania coal company to open a SECOND coal mine

    Summer Youth Unemployment Falls, Level Since 1969

    In Trump era, American corporations are seeing their best earnings in 13 years

    US trade deficit narrows as exports hit 2-1/2-year high

    Milestone for Trump: 1 million new jobs in six months

    National unemployment rate at 4.3% (lowest it's been in 16 years)

    13,000 jobs being created in WI - largest job announcement in WI history (Foxconn)

    Black Unemployment, Lowest Level in 17 Years

    Gas prices at a 12-year low

    Some states are experiencing their lowest unemployment rates in their histories

    Trump Announces $200 Million in Apprenticeship Funding

    U.S. has record 6 million job openings, 6.8 million Americans are looking for jobs

    CEO confidence highest since 2014

    U.S. jobless rate falls to lowest level in 16 years

    Trump signs bills that helps Veterans and Police officers by giving them Priority and Training

    Government spending as percentage of GDP down

    1000s of jobs being created through pact with Saudi Arabia

    Executive Order on the Establishment of the American Technology Council

    USA's small business confidence is spurring a hiring and spending spree

    Alibaba Takes First Step To Fulfilling Jack Ma And
    President Trump's 'One Million U.S. Jobs' Promise

    Slashing job-killing regulations left and right

    Creating thousands of more jobs for immigration officers and border patrol

    Signed a resolution encouraging women in entrepreneurship and STEM

    Executive ordered all federal agencies to create task forces to cut regulations that hurt the economy

    US Manufacturing Index at a 33-year high

    Coal Miners are WINNING. Cut Regulations/Create Jobs/New Plant

    US Economic Confidence Surges To Highest Level Ever Recorded By Gallup

    Then there are the FACTS and the REALITY...

    I know, Neil. I get it..

    Ya'all have been WRONG about everything TRUMP for years now..

    The HHPTDS must be eating thru yer brain..

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    The country is a mess, the economy is disrupted and overheating from a completely unneeded stimulus package that not only will make the next downturn more painful, but has removed most of our mechanisms to cope with it.

    This is a slow motion disaster, and now we are finding out that the number of crooks is growing as more and more guilty pleas/convictions come through.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    The country is a mess, the economy is disrupted and overheating from a completely unneeded stimulus package that not only will make the next downturn more painful, but has removed most of our mechanisms to cope with it.

    This is a slow motion disaster, and now we are finding out that the number of crooks is growing as more and more guilty pleas/convictions come through.

    I know, I know.. That's how you see things..

    More's the pity...

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Our president is a professional criminal. Our Congress is dysfunctional, bought and managed by wealthy hobbyists who use it to protect their rentier interests. That rot is working its way into the judiciary one lifetime appointment at a time. Trump removed any pretense of health or stability from our system.

    https://www.politicalorphans.com/after-democracy-look-up-at-this-tower/

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    I know, I know.. That's how you see things..

    Here's the difference, I investigate these things, read a wide range of news sources, many from beyond the U.S. and look at long term trends.

    You copy and paste one liners from web sites dedicated to telling you what you want to hear with no links or in depth analysis.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's try a reality check..

    Is there ANYONE here who can concede that President Trump's governance vis a vis the economy has NOT been as bad as they thought it would be??

    Anyone?? Anyone at all??

    I am making a bet with myself as to who can concede this fact...

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Is there ANYONE here who can concede that President Trump's governance vis a vis the economy has NOT been as bad as they thought it would be??

    What did I say it would be?

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    What did I say it would be?

    And I want links to quotes, not your version of what you want me to have said.

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    And I want links to quotes, not your version of what you want me to have said.

    You know, some real research. Let's see if you can actually understand what facts are, instead of random talking points that you happen to like so brand as "facts".

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the difference, I investigate these things, read a wide range of news sources, many from beyond the U.S. and look at long term trends.

    But you are an admitted NeverTrumper who would NEVER concede that Trump has done good, even if the FACTS prove it..

    Ergo, you simply cannot be believed..

    You copy and paste one liners from web sites dedicated to telling you what you want to hear with no links or in depth analysis.

    No, I paste FACTS...

    Black unemployment is THE LOWEST it's been in history..

    That's a FACT.. If it wasn't, your vaunted skills should allow you to disprove it easily..

    But you can't...

    Hispanic unemployment is THE LOWEST it's been in history... That's a fact..

    Can you disprove that?? No you can't..

    CEOs are marveling at how awesome the economy is for Americans..

    FACT...

    Jobless claims drop to 240,000 - hottest streak in 43 years

    Can you disprove this fact?? No you cannot..

    Is everything perfect?? Of course not..

    But things are a LOT better than you will admit..

    And THAT is why you lose every argument and debate..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    What did I say it would be?

    By omission or commission, you said that the economy would implode, the market would be decimated and President Trump would destroy the country...

    And NONE of that has happened..

    The economy is strong and getting stronger...

    You were WRONG..

    And you can't admit you were wrong...

    So you hide behind this lame "I never said any of that" bullshit that we BOTH know is bullshit..

    But don't worry.. I predicted you were one of the one's who couldn't let go of yer Party slavery and give credit where credit is due..

    You HHPTDS is still intact.. :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    FBI agent says bureau leaked stories, then used them to get FISA warrants

    A top FBI special agent admitted to House committees last week that bureau officials were known to leak information to the press and then use the resulting articles to help obtain surveillance warrants.

    Special Agent Jonathan Moffa, who worked with controversial former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, testified last Friday behind closed doors before the House Judiciary Committee and House Oversight Committee.

    A source with knowledge of his testimony confirmed to Fox News that Moffa said FBI personnel would use media reports based on information they leaked to justify applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/28/fbi-agent-says-bureau-leaked-stories-then-used-them-to-get-fisa-warrants.html

    Yea.. We can trust Odumbo's FBI stooges.... :^/

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    You call for "research" Neil???

    CENSORED! How Online Media Companies Are Suppressing Conservative Speech
    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/ashley-rae-goldenberg/2018/04/16/censored-how-online-media-companies-are-suppressing

    Of course you do.. Because the tools of research are controlled by the Left...

    Just another way that Left Wing group think is bad for this country...

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    Black unemployment is THE LOWEST it's been in history.

    No. It was lower in the 1950's and 1960's than it is today.

    Stop accepting lies as facts.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    US consumer confidence rises to 18-year high
    https://apnews.com/a9444498173d4f42a52c83adb947fa74/US-consumer-confidence-rises-to-18-year-high

    Once again, Neil.. Either by commission or omission, you said that a President Trump election would trash the country, trash the economy...

    The FACTS prove you wrong..

    Yet, you can't admit you were wrong..

    A symptom of HHPTDS.....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. It was lower in the 1950's and 1960's than it is today.

    Prove it...

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    Once again, Neil.. Either by commission or omission, you said that a President Trump election would trash the country, trash the economy...

    No, I didn't. Prove it.

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    No. It was lower in the 1950's and 1960's than it is today.

    Prove it...

    I knew ypou'd believe anything you read that made the traitor look good:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000031

    Dec 73: 5.3%
    Jul 18: 6.1%

    Will you admit you were deceived by liars?

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    You CAN'T prove it because those is no DATA for those years...

    https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

    So the claim that, under President Trump, the black unemployment rate for black Americans is the LOWEST it's been in history is a factually accurate..

    Nice try at your spin... But THAT is all you have....

    Spin...

    You CAN'T handle the FACTS because you CAN'T handle you were wrong...

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    There are no BLS data, but there is data.

    Admit you are wrong.

    And where are the quotes you claim I made about the economy?

    You can never prove anything.

    Here is a hint: When I tease you into getting excited about some fact you are wetting your pants about and get you to go out on a limb, I've got data to prove you wrong.

    I thought you'd have caught on to this after years of it.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dec 73: 5.3%
    Jul 18: 6.1%

    You said "50s and 60s"

    NOW you are moving the goal posts??? Figures..

    Will you admit you were deceived by liars?

    No...

    1973
    JAN 9.1
    FEB 9.5
    MAR 9.4
    APR 9.9
    MAY 9.6
    JUN 9.8
    JUL 9.8
    AUG 9.2
    SEP 9.7
    OCT 8.8
    NOV 9.3
    DEC 9.0

    https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

    Will YOU admit you are full of shit?? :D

    Because THAT is what the FACTS clearly show...

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    Having a "oops" moment Michale?

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    I followed your link. It gave me this:

    Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:31 PM

    Your request was invalid for this Data Access Service. Please attempt other data requests. Thank you for using LABSTAT

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oops. Har har.

    My link still works and you can see the 5.2% number yourself (I mistyped earlier - it should be even lower - 5.2%, not 5.3%

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can never prove anything.

    Except I just proved you were full of shit..

    1. For saying 50s and 60s and then changing it to '73

    2. For claiming that the UEP for black Americans was 5.3 in Dec of 73 when the FACTS clearly prove that it was 9.0 in Dec of 73...

    You are WRONG, Neil...

    Why can't you admit it???

    Here is a hint: When I tease you into getting excited about some fact you are wetting your pants about and get you to go out on a limb, I've got data to prove you wrong.

    And your "data" is full of shit...

    I would think you would have caught on after all these years of getting your ass kicked.. :D

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    I went to the US Government BLS site..

    You went to some moron named "Fred"... :^/

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I followed your link. It gave me this:

    Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:31 PM

    Your request was invalid for this Data Access Service. Please attempt other data requests. Thank you for using LABSTAT

    Hay, if yer too stoopid to know how to do research, just admit it...

    :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:
  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ironically enough, your moron, "Fred" uses the data from the same source that *I* quoted..

    Bureau of Labor Statistics

    So, as usual, you search the Internet to cherry pick a site that is obviously biased and completely wrong...

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    You said "50s and 60s"

    NOW you are moving the goal posts??? Figures..

    No, you just ignored my hint earlier:

    https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4449

    Page 11:

    "Unemployment — Table 13 shows that for both Negro men and women the average rate of unemployment, from 1947 to 1951, has been more than 50 percent above that for whites. Although the rate was about 5 percent for Negroes in 1951, compared with 3 percent for whites, about the same relative improvement had taken place since 1949 when the economic situation was less favorable. (Chart 11)"

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lemme know if you need any help to figure out how to use the BLS site, Neil.. It can be confusing to those who are in the throes of HHPTDS.... :D

    Always willing to help a brother out... :D

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, to summarize:

    BLS numbers show Black unemployment was lower in the 1970's, lower in the early 1950's and decreased further during the 1950's.

    Thus the claim that Black unemployment has never been so low is a lie. Again.

    Plus, at 6.1% it isn't anything to be proud of - it is still significantly higher than white unemployment and the income numbers are still sadly lower.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    All the major Left Winger rags are confirming that black American unemployment is the lowest it's been in history..

    So, you just have to know that if the Left rags are saying it, it HAS to be accurate, right?? :D har har

    Regardless, VOX admits that the government didn't start separating the numbers until the 70s...

    So, yer 50s and 60s claim is bullshit..

    Your TOTAL BS claim that the unemployment rate for Black Americans was lower than it is today is outright fantasy...

    Once again... Yer wrong and you can't admit it..

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale 9:26AM: You CAN'T prove it because those is no DATA for those years.

    Michale 9:30AM: Post the data he made up on 1973 and a link that does not work.

    Fish. Barrel. Bang.

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    All the major Left Winger rags are confirming that black American unemployment is the lowest it's been in history

    Really. Post a link then.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    BLS numbers show Black unemployment was lower in the 1970's,

    NOW you move the goal posts AGAIN because you got caught spewing shit..

    The black unemployment rate for DEC 1973, which is the month YOU quoted was 9.0...

    That is according to the BLS website..

    Once again I prove what it's useless to give you facts... You never accept them even when they are substantiated..

    Because you simply CANNOT accept that you are WRONG again...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really. Post a link then.

    Why?? You always deny the facts, even when they are confirmed..

    Sorry, son.. You have proven beyond any doubt you are not debating in good faith, you are simply pushing buttons..

    This is why it's useless with you..

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    Regardless, VOX admits that the government didn't start separating the numbers until the 70s.

    As a continual series that is searchable, yes. But the numbers were collected in Censuses and other non-cyclical analysis.

    There are data points that prove that the numbers were lower. You just can't handle reality as usual.

    It is a bit like your uric acid level - you get it measured once per year, then your doc freaks and puts you on a monthly testing regime and you have cyclical numbers.

    Data is my thing Michale. I thought you'd have figured that out by now.

    Posting feel good nonsense from right wing websites and claiming them as "facts" is your thing.

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    Really. Post a link then.

    Why?? You always deny the facts, even when they are confirmed

    No, I read them then post links to sites that prove you were deceived.

    I'm educating you. For free. Some gratitude would not be amiss.

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    So post a link to the Vox article. It can't be that difficult.

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry, son.. You have proven beyond any doubt you are not debating in good faith, you are simply pushing buttons.

    You can't prove anything, and are losing, so you are taking your ball and going home.

    Zing! I win.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    If that's what you have to think to get you thru yer sad and pathetic always losing day, who am I to take that away from you.

    :D

    You claimed that the unemployment rate for black Americans was 5.3 in Dec of '73..

    The FACT is, according to the BLS web site, the unemployment rate for black Americans was 9.0 in Dec of '73...

    You were wrong... I have PROVEN you were wrong...

    And you STILL whine and cry that you were right..

    As I have proven, you simply CAN'T admit when you are wrong, even though the FACTS clearly show that...

    Just like you CAN'T concede that Consumer Confidence is rocking under President Trump..

    After the mediocre 'eh' economics of yer messiah, Odumbo... President Trump swoops in and gives Americans a GREAT and BOOMING and ROARING economy..

    No wonder yer so pissy.. All yer predictions turned out to be bullshit.. :D

    And NOW, on top of all that, the one bright spot you had, the Cohen fiasco has turned out to be a laughable nothing burger... :D

    "Neil... I'm laughing at the superior intellect.."

    :D

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    But don't worry.. I still like ya.. I can understand why you can't admit you are wrong..

    You can't give President Trump credit for ANYTHING...

    It causes you physical pain...

    It's one of the sad symptoms of HHPTDS...

    I shouldn't ride you so hard.. It's not yer fault. Yer just sick and don't know any better..

    I'll try and ease up on ya...

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't prove anything, and are losing, so you are taking your ball and going home.

    Looks like it's you who is losing so you throw out more bullshit and then go home.. :D

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/28/sizing_up_the_florida_senate_race_137911.html

    And the bad news for Democrats continue...

    This will be the first time I vote Republican for FL Senate...

    Weird... :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regarding the latest about GOOGLE and their suppression of conservative content and information...

    Google plays censor: Tech giant is helping China suppress information
    http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2018/08/27/Google-plays-censor-Tech-giant-is-helping-China-suppress-information/stories/201808270012

    Apparently these actions are SOP for GOOGLE...

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    CNN, Credibly Accused of Lying to its Audience About a Key Claim in its Blockbuster Cohen Story, Refuses to Comment

    Photo: YouTube/CNN
    CNN’S BLOCKBUSTER July 26 story – that Michael Cohen intended to tell Special Counsel Robert Mueller that he was present when Donald Trump was told in advance about his son’s Trump Tower meeting with various Russians – includes a key statement about its sourcing that credible reporting now suggests was designed to have misled its audience. Yet CNN simply refuses to address the serious ethical and journalistic questions raised about its conduct.

    The substance of the CNN story itself regarding Cohen – which made headline news all over all the world and which CNN hyped as a “bombshell” – has now been retracted by other news outlets that originally purported to “confirm” CNN’s story. That’s because the anonymous source for this confirmation, Cohen lawyer Lanny Davis, now admits that, in essence, his “confirmation” was false. As a result, both the Washington Post and the NY Post outed Davis as their anonymous source and then effectively retracted their stories “confirming” parts of CNN’s report.
    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28/cnn-credibly-accused-of-lying-to-its-audience-about-a-key-claim-in-its-blockbuster-cohen-story-refuses-to-comment/

    Once again, the Leftist Lame Stream Media has had to retract a bullshit story that had no factual basis..

    And, once again, CNN stands by this bullshit story that has no factual basis...

    Ya'all go on and on hysterically about President Trump's low approval numbers...

    Funny how you ignore the FACT that the Leftist MSM's approval numbers are even LOWER.....

    Funny, eh? :^/

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    As to Glenn Greenwald, I love that guy..

    He is wrong a lot more than he is right, but he is *ALWAYS* consistent.....

    He calls a spade a spade and to hell with what people WANT to hear...

    I respect the hell out of that..

  79. [79] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Once again, the Leftist Lame Stream Media has had to retract a bullshit story that had no factual basis..

    I'm not sure that we know the facts, yet. The possibilities are:

    A. Lanny is now telling the truth that he lied to CNN.

    B. Lanny is lying now and told the truth before.

    C. The truth changed: Cohen was willing to sing but not anymore, or blurted out later, "I wasn't actually in the room.."

    D. It's a ruse: he's trying to bait Mueller.

    E. Oops. Shouldn't have had a Scotch with lunch.

  80. [80] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    As to Glenn Greenwald, I love that guy..

    Careful Michale, I'm fairly sure that he's more anti-American than you're probably comfortable with, once you get to know him.

    I think he's a tool.

  81. [81] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Apparently these actions are SOP for GOOGLE..

    As it is for Yahoo, Bing, Ebay, Amazon, and any other internet platform operating in China.

    We complain about them blocking political content, they complain that we block cheap knock-offs and bootleg streaming content.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Careful Michale, I'm fairly sure that he's more anti-American than you're probably comfortable with, once you get to know him.

    Oh, he is often wrong, no doubt about that..

    But here's the thing...

    My respect for him has nothing to do with right or wrong..

    It has to do with INTEGRITY... Greenwald has it in spades...

    He is like things USED to be here in Weigantia... We used to disagree, but respected each other's opinions..

    I'm not sure that we know the facts, yet.

    And yet, ya'all CLAIMED to know the FACTS beforehand eh??

    But NOW that Lanny and CNN et al has been exposed as the outright liars they are....

    NOW ya'all go "Hmmmmmmm We're not sure of the FACTS"

    Just trying to spin an outright catastrophe....

    Ya'all been had.. THat is all there is too it..

    As it is for Yahoo, Bing, Ebay, Amazon, and any other internet platform operating in China.

    ANd if any of those had a TENTH of the clout that Google has, you would have an argument..

    But they don't so you don't..

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    We used to disagree, but respected each other's opinions.

    Now we insist on links to back up our "facts" ;)

    Such disrespect!

  84. [84] 
    neilm wrote:

    NOW ya'all go

    Do you have conversations in your head between yourself and "ya'all" - because I've never seen most of the things you claim "ya'all" said on this thread?

    Maybe one person sometimes, sort of obliquely, if you spin things the way you want them to be spun, but when I ask repeatedly for links to things "ya'all" said you suddenly change the subject and claim we won't believe you even if you post links.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now we insist on links to back up our "facts" ;)

    Such disrespect!

    I gave you a link..

    As usual you ignored it because it proved you wrong..

    Do you have conversations in your head between yourself and "ya'all" - because I've never seen most of the things you claim "ya'all" said on this thread?

    Oh you do... Ya'all just can't acknowledge it because it proves you wrong..

    Like I did with your bullshit claim that the black unemployment rate in Dec of '73 was 5.3%...

    and claim we won't believe you even if you post links.

    I proved beyond ANY doubt that you won't accept my links when I gave you the BLS link that showed the black Unemployment rate in Dec of '73 was 9.0%...

    You don't even have the competence to follow the link..

  86. [86] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    As for CW's column (sorry that I'm getting to this so late...)-

    Paraphrasing the venerable Edwin Edwards of Louisiana: it seems that the only way that Trump will get impeached is if he's caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.

    He's got the Republican Party by the nuts: conservatives are afraid of the sway that he holds over their voters, and moderates are afraid of primary challenges.

    If, on the other hand, it turns out that his endorsements don't help house candidates this fall, his grip on their gonads might loosen. His primary endorsement record wasn't all that good. Moore's the pity.

    If the Dems don't take the house this fall, it's all academic anyway. They should focus for the next two years on exposing the truth about Trump, and let justice take its course.

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    I gave you a link..

    As usual you ignored it because it proved you wrong..

    The link didn't work. It gave an error. I told you twice.

    Sad.

    Plus I asked for links to back up one of "ya'all said" claims - this just means finding statements on cw.com that support your claim - and you failed again.

  88. [88] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh you do... Ya'all just can't acknowledge it because it proves you wrong..

    Again, just post a link to a comment where "ya'all" said the thing you claim. This is a repeated failure on your part - frequently I've asked you to post links to "ya'all said" claims and every single time you have failed hopelessly to back up your claim.

  89. [89] 
    neilm wrote:

    I proved beyond ANY doubt that you won't accept my links when I gave you the BLS link that showed the black Unemployment rate in Dec of '73 was 9.0%...

    Here is the link you posted, try to follow it yourself:

    https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

    Fail!

  90. [90] 
    neilm wrote:

    You don't even have the competence to follow the link..

    I followed the link. It was a typical example of your "facts" - i.e. it doesn't exist.

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    9

    Guys, I had AGW Deniers as #6 (Anthropogenic Global Warming)
    ????

    Yes, you sure did, Neil... mea maxima culpa. I was looking for the QAnon morons and so totally missed it. :)

  92. [92] 
    neilm wrote:

    My link, however, works and shows that the rate on Dec 73 was 5.2%

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000031

    Try it.

  93. [93] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    ALL mass killings had a mental health aspect where the shooters have ALL had mental health issues prior to their violence...

    While that makes a great talking point on the NRA channel, it is not true. Plenty of shootings involving 2 or more victims have been committed by people who have never been diagnosed with a mental disorder.

    I am all for making sure people who suffer from mental disorders are prevented from having access to guns, but that will require a national gun registry be put in place to catch people who have purchased guns prior to be diagnosed with a mental illness from slipping through the cracks.

    San Diego has been part of a pilot program where the city will remove firearms from any location that authorities are called to assist citizens suffering from mental illness. Families are also able to contact the city if they fear that their loved one is a danger to themselves or others and the police will hold the firearms until a court can make a determination of the threat posed by the firearms.

    One reason a gun registry is needed over the current system for background checks is that with mental health issues, the need to restrict access to firearms is not permanent as it is with someone convicted of a felony. The system will have to allow for the courts and police departments to alter the files as needed, which the current background system does not allow for. (Presently, info can be entered easily, but cannot be removed accept by going through a very lengthy process.)

  94. [94] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    But NOW that Lanny and CNN et al has been exposed as the outright liars they are....

    I LOVE how excited you get when you catch one person who opposes Trump in a lie!

    Lanny Davis & CNN: 1....Donald Trump : over 4000!

    If one makes them “outright liars”, then what would another 4000 make them? President? Unindicted Co-conspirators?

  95. [95] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    neilm [9]

    My bad on that!

  96. [96] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As to Glenn Greenwald, I love that guy..

    He is wrong a lot more than he is right, but he is *ALWAYS* consistent.....

    He calls a spade a spade and to hell with what people WANT to hear...

    I respect the hell out of that..

    Hey everyone, Michale respects the hell out of the guy who consistently wrongly accuses people of deeds they didn’t commit! I am SHOCKED!!!

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    All politics aside...

    Appealing to Sci-Fi fans...

    First Act to new Show...MANIFEST
    https://www.imdb.com/videoplayer/vi2300164889

    Doesn't that look AWESOME!!!????

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lanny Davis & CNN: 1....Donald Trump : over 4000!

    The problem is how you define "LIE" when it comes to President Trump..

    That's how I know yer claim is bullshit..

    It is, in fact, a lie..

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    While that makes a great talking point on the NRA channel, it is not true. Plenty of shootings involving 2 or more victims have been committed by people who have never been diagnosed with a mental disorder.

    And if 2 or more defined a "mass shooting" then you would have a point.

    But it's not, so you don't..

    And YOU, of all people, should know better...

    I am very disappointed, Russ...

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am all for making sure people who suffer from mental disorders are prevented from having access to guns, but that will require a national gun registry be put in place to catch people who have purchased guns prior to be diagnosed with a mental illness from slipping through the cracks.

    So, you are taking gun confiscation....

    And how will you enforce this gun registry on past buyers????

    There goes the 4th Amendment...

    You see the slippery slope you propose??

    But, as I said.. Fine..

    Get rid of the 2nd, eviscerate the 1st, 4th and 10th Amendments and you can have your gun ban...

    Until then, shut up about it..

    Deal??

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    My link, however, works and shows that the rate on Dec 73 was 5.2%

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000031

    Try it.

    Your link comes from someone named Fred...

    My link comes from the governmental BLS web site..

    Your link "works" but is still bullshit..

    Obviously, you are too stoopid to use the BLS website...

    But, as I said.. I still like ya.. :D

    The fact remains.. In Dec of 1973, the unemployment rate for black Americans was 9.0%...

    Incidentially, VOX, LA TIMES, WAPOOP and HUFFPOOP all concede that black unemployment is the LOWEST it's been in history....

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    According to the BLS:

    During the Obama administration,
    "Black or African American unemployment" fell:
    * 1.0 percentage points in 2016
    * 1.9 percentage points in 2015
    * 1.5 percentage points in 2014
    * 1.8 percentage points in 2013

    https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

    During the Trump administration,
    "Black or African American unemployment" fell:
    * 1.1 percentage points in 2018 (to date/incomplete data)
    * 1.0 percentage points in 2017

    Question: Where were the Trump Cock Holsters when Obama was posting annual numbers equal to and much higher than Trump's?

    It's comical that Cult45 and their useful idiots expect everybody else to get excited about Trump's weaker numbers that can't even measure up to those of Barack Obama. #Pathetic

    The TCH's are totally unaware that the numbers for which they criticized Obama are even higher than the ones they expect everybody else to get all excited about. If you're hypocritical and ignorant enough to hysterically sing the praises of Donald Trump while you whined incessantly about Obama's weak numbers, here's your dunce cap:

    ************ MANIPULATED AMERICAN ************
    **************** GULLIBLE ASSHOLE ***************

  103. [103] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And if 2 or more defined a "mass shooting" then you would have a point.

    But it's not, so you don't..

    My bad! Didn’t proof read before I entered. Should be 3 +victims excluding the shooter.

    But my main point, that not all mass shootings are committed by people with a history of mental illness, remains correct.

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obviously, you are too stoopid to use the BLS website...

    Push, push, push...

    Not much fun when yer on the receiving end, eh Neil... :D

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    My bad! Didn’t proof read before I entered.

    No problem.. I am happy you can concede your error and admit you were wrong..

    Should be 3 +victims excluding the shooter.

    Actually, the FBI defines "mass shooting" as 4+ more victims where it's not a family/friends shooting...

    Meaning a non domestic or familiar shooting where the victims are largely unknown or un-acquainted with the shooter..

    So, for example, a domestic involving a large family member victim contingent would not be considered a "mass shooting" as it is defined..

    Irregardless of all these facts, there is one fact that remains above all other..

    BY DEFINITION, mass shooters ALWAYS have a mental health component...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of Victoria's spewage, one FACT remains...

    Black American unemployment is the LOWEST it's been in history..

    So says LA TIMES, VOX, HUFFPOOP and WAPOOP..

    Once again, ya'all are wrong..

    I am factually accurate...

  107. [107] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, you are taking gun confiscation....

    And how will you enforce this gun registry on past buyers????

    Gun owners will be required to register their guns by a given date, after which point they would be treated like any other person who is found in possession of an unregistered firearm — they are ticketed (which would automatically enter the gun into the registry) and pay a fine, or they forfeit the firearm. Choice is yours.

    It isn’t that hard to work through the details when you don’t automatically jump to hysterical rantings of your rights being violated! But you aren’t interested in actual discussions, you prefer talking down to people, we get it!

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, if we were talking about the RATE of fall, Victoria would ALSO have an argument..

    But we're talking about the lowest rate in history, NOT the rate of fall..

    So, as usual, Victoria is just acting like a mental defective, trying to deflect from the argument..

    Similar to what a crack-whore would act like, desperate for a fix...

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gun owners will be required to register their guns by a given date, after which point they would be treated like any other person who is found in possession of an unregistered firearm — they are ticketed (which would automatically enter the gun into the registry) and pay a fine, or they forfeit the firearm. Choice is yours.

    Except a gun registry is nothing but a prelude to gun confiscation and will do NOTHING to prevent gun violence...

    It isn’t that hard to work through the details when you don’t automatically jump to hysterical rantings of your rights being violated!

    How are you going to find out if people own guns are not??

    Unreasonable Search & Seizures, which are obviously unconstitutional..

    It's MUCH easier to loosen privacy laws and combine mental health records with gun purchase records..

    But you Democrats DON'T want to do that because you lose a political agenda..

    Get rid of the 2nd.. Eviscerate the 1st, 4th and 10th Amendments.

    THEN you can have your gun ban AKA Gun Confiscation AKA Gun Registry...

    Until then, hysterical whining and crying is counter-productive...

  110. [110] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Doesn't [MANIFEST] look AWESOME!

    Yes, it does. But Lost started out looking awesome. We'll have to see where it goes from there.

    In Dec of 1973, the unemployment rate for black Americans was 9.0%...

    Let's say that it doesn't matter. 1973 was the oil embargo, and the death throes of the Nixon administration. Blacks were laid off first.

    But it's interesting that the current high black employment rate (that you think Obama had nothing to do with) is a good counter-argument to C.R.'s 'productive vs. 'unproductive' nonsense. Turns out, when jobs are available, even the shitty ones that predominate at the lower levels of this economy, poor folks will grab them up, just as if they weren't lazy or something. Imagine that.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    So, what you are saying is a perfectly law abiding citizen who owns a gun per his 2nd Amendment rights and uses that gun to defend his wife and children from slaughter by some scumbag who doesn't care about your laws....

    THAT man is going to be fined!!!???

    *THAT* is what you are all about???

    VERY disappointed, Russ...

    VERY disappointed...

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, it does. But Lost started out looking awesome. We'll have to see where it goes from there.

    Actually, while being awesome at the start and kind of murky in the middle, LOST finished REAL strong.. I cried at the end of LOST..

    Whereas the OTHER big finisher at the time, '24' didn't move me much at all..

    MANIFEST has potential, but yer right.. We'll have to see where it goes..

    Let's say that it doesn't matter.

    Of course it "doesn't matter"... The numbers ONLY matter when ya'all are right, eh??

    Thank you for proving my point..

    Even when I provide bona-fide FACTS to prove my comments, ya'all ignore the facts or spin the facts or claim that the FACTS "don't matter"...

    But it's interesting that the current high black employment rate (that you think Obama had nothing to do with)

    Obama did NOTHING for black Americans.. That's what black Americans say today...

  113. [113] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    BY DEFINITION, mass shooters ALWAYS have a mental health component...

    They never found a mental health issue in the Las Vegas shooter. Biggest mass shooting of this century so far.

    Unreasonable Search & Seizures, which are obviously unconstitutional..

    I wish the SCOTUS Republican majority agreed with you, but they don't.

    Except a gun registry is nothing but a prelude to gun confiscation and will do NOTHING to prevent gun violence..

    ..says the gun lobby in the only first-world country where gun violence is endemic.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Movie night with the wife..

    Trying to decide between SKYSCRAPER and UPGRADE....

    Any suggestions about either??

  115. [115] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Obama did NOTHING for black Americans.. That's what black Americans say today...

    The overwhelming majority of black folk don't say that. Trust me on that one.

  116. [116] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, what you are saying is a perfectly law abiding citizen who owns a gun per his 2nd Amendment rights and uses that gun to defend his wife and children from slaughter by some scumbag who doesn't care about your laws....

    THAT man is going to be fined!!!???

    If he doesn’t register his firearm as the law requires, then he is NOT a “law abiding citizen”, is he? Your whole rant is once again negated.

  117. [117] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It's MUCH easier to loosen privacy laws and combine mental health records with gun purchase records..

    Which prevents someone diagnosed with a mental illness from then purchasing a firearm... great!

    And what about those that purchased a gun the day before having a psychological evaluation? That is why a gun registry is needed!

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    108

    But we're talking about the lowest rate in history, NOT the rate of fall..

    Michale [40]

    But you are an admitted NeverTrumper who would NEVER concede that Trump has done good, even if the FACTS prove it.. ~ Michale

    Do you even read your own posts, Michale Moron? You're bitching that people aren't conceding that Trump "has done good," and I'm posting the numbers as to why nobody is all that impressed and why you are a hysterical hypocrite and gullible asshole for claiming we should be impressed with the weaker numbers of Trump. Additionally, you keep whining that no one will give Trump "credit where credit is due," while I'm pointing out that his shit is weaker than the guy you hysterically whine about. Got that? It's not complicated.

    Question: If Trump's numbers are worse than the guy you pillory on a regular basis, how effing great can they be?

    Answer: They're not that effing great, and you're a gullible moron complaining we don't give him enough credit. Meanwhile, you're whining about Obama daily when he easily outperformed Your Orange Worship.

    So, as usual, Victoria is just acting like a mental defective, trying to deflect from the argument..

    That's not deflection, Michale Moron, it's exactly on point. Speaking of deflection, perhaps in the throes of your TCH Stupor, you have confused me with the hysterical moron on this board who whines about Hillary and Obama every time anybody posts something about His Orange Worship. That guy complaining about "deflection" is the definition of hysterical hypocrite. :)

    Similar to what a crack-whore would act like, desperate for a fix...

    Tell us more about you and your wife's problems. We never tire of hearing how desperate you and your crime family are! :)

    Speaking of ya'alls crack problem: It's never too late to crack a book!

    SO TO RECAP

    If you want everybody here to get all excited about Trump's "weak shit" and claim incessantly that we've got problems because we won't admit how great Trump is, you just might want to get your data in order first and make sure that his numbers aren't shittier than Obama's or somebody is bound to come along and point out the FACT that you're a GULLIBLE ASSHOLE. :)

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    84

    Do you have conversations in your head between yourself and "ya'all" - because I've never seen most of the things you claim "ya'all" said on this thread?

    He fabricates whatever he needs. Unfortunately for him, he's the only one on this blog that appears gullible enough to fall for this type con of his.

    Maybe one person sometimes, sort of obliquely, if you spin things the way you want them to be spun, but when I ask repeatedly for links to things "ya'all" said you suddenly change the subject and claim we won't believe you even if you post links.

    It's similar to the multiple cons that Trump constantly employs:
    * Bullshitting
    * Outright Fabrication

    The sad part is that it's only the gullible morons and bullshitters themselves who believe the constant steady stream of invented spewage. :)

  120. [120] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    John M from Ct. [1] -

    You may be right. I was more interested in the Democratic position than projecting past the election.

    neilm [6] -

    Now that's a sobering list. There were plenty of people who supported Nixon to the very end, too (around 25% if memory serves).

    Mezzomamma [11] -

    Amen to that.

    Michale [18] -

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/3/14496774/congress-guns-mental-illness

    One party tried to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental problems. Hint: it wasn't the GOP...

    [Also, Michale, I have to warn you about posting full articles here. Please don't get me into copyright trouble -- post a paragraph or three, at the most, but just post a link to the full article... thanks.]

    neilm [28] -

    Heh.

    Michale [40] -

    OK, the economy is doing better than I thought it would under Trump. Happy?

    But I do have to quibble with your stats.

    Black unemployment is THE LOWEST it's been in history..

    While true, incomplete. Black unemp. stats have only been kept since the 1970s. So it is true to say they're the lowest they've been historically since being measured, that's not quite the same thing.

    Same for Hispanic stats -- they didn't used to break them out.

    And you do realize, don't you, that we'll all be quoting you if the market heads south during Trump's term -- if you take the credit, then be prepared to accept the blame...

    :-)

    But let's flip it, too. How about you admitting that the economy under Obama gained strength since the depths of the crash? Longest bull market in history, most of which happened under Obama. So where's your non-partisan, cross-party credit for that... hmmm?

    [49] -

    OK, now you're making my case against you.

    You CAN'T prove it because there is no DATA for those years.

    Right. But it works both ways. You CAN'T state "LOWEST it's been in history" when the official history only goes back to 1972. Period.

    Balthasar [86] -

    First, THANK YOU for returning us to the subject at hand (and apologies for all caps, I've been answering Michale... heh).

    Nice Edwards quote. But your "Moore's the pity" was downright hilarious! Well done!

    :-)

    My take is similar -- it takes getting wiped out in an election for a party to seriously rethink their positions. If the blue wave materializes, I think there will be GOPers who reconsider how close they're tying themselves to Trump's fortunes. However, if that's the case, then Dems will have picked up most competitive districts in the House already (that big blue wave). So the shift in GOP thinking might happen in the Senate, where statewide races are always tougher to win on an extremist platform. And, conveniently, the Senate is where the votes would be needed to remove Trump.

    Heh.

    :-)

    OK, enough of this...

    -CW

  121. [121] 
    neilm wrote:

    Your link comes from someone named Fred...

    My link comes from the governmental BLS web site..

    OK, you're joking right?

    You do know what Fred is?

    You do know that FRED stands for "Federal Reserve Economic Data"

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/

    Do you even try to research anything?

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    18

    Neil is exactly right, as usual. You don't even try to research anything. You just make up bullshit and generally provide ZERO proof to back up your fabrications because there's not any.

    A 1-minute search easily produces this FBI study released recently by the Trump Administration (which report is linked in the article):

    The study, which examined dozens of active shooters between 2000 and 2013, found that contrary to the public perception of the episodes as being fueled by mental health issues — an assertion frequently given voice by politicians, including President Trump — law enforcement officials were able to verify that only about 25 percent of the attackers had diagnosed mental health issues.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/06/20/active-shooters-usually-get-their-guns-legally-and-then-target-specific-victims-fbi-says/?utm_term=.5fac69ce8d56

    Once again, the FACTS bear out..

    ALL mass killings had a mental health aspect where the shooters have ALL had mental health issues prior to their violence...

    Michale is wrong again.

    Crack a book and/or do some simple research! :)

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    WaPoop??

    'nuff said..

    If I am saying the opposite of WaPoop then I am DEFINTELY factually accurate by default..

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    If he doesn’t register his firearm as the law requires, then he is NOT a “law abiding citizen”, is he? Your whole rant is once again negated.

    Except it's NOT a law...

    It's yer anti-gun wet dream..

    So YOUR entire premise is nothing but a fantasy..

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Also, Michale, I have to warn you about posting full articles here. Please don't get me into copyright trouble -- post a paragraph or three, at the most, but just post a link to the full article... thanks.]

    Then, I'll assume you'll come to my defense when I am attacked for not posting proof?? :D

    J/K..

    I'll refrain.. My bust.. :D

    One party tried to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental problems. Hint: it wasn't the GOP...

    We have been over that, CW... Unless you want to state for the record that not being able to balance one's checkbook equates to mental illness, that rule was an Obama overreach in a lame attempt to circumvent the 2nd Amendment..

    The simple fact is, Democrats want to protect the personal privacy of mass shooters and make sure these scumbag shooters are not stigmatized by the label of mental illness...

    This is FACT that no amount of spin can take away...

    OK, the economy is doing better than I thought it would under Trump. Happy?

    "Ecstatic.."
    Jafar, ALADDIN

    :D

    There you have it, people.. ^^*THAT*^^ is what integrity looks like...

    But I do have to quibble with your stats.

    Of course you do.. :D

    While true, incomplete. Black unemp. stats have only been kept since the 1970s

    THAT is what I told Neil.. But he insisted that the stats in "the 50s and 60s" were lower. He can't admit he was wrong..

    Right. But it works both ways. You CAN'T state "LOWEST it's been in history" when the official history only goes back to 1972. Period.

    So, if I add the word "official" yer OK with it??

    Then YOU can't say that Odumbo was the first time a black man was elected as leader of the free world because you don't know that there wasn't a black man as leader of the free world back before recorded history...

    Right??

    Is that quibbling necessary???

    The FACT is, under President Trump, black American unemployment is the lowest it's been in history... If it makes you feel better to mentally add a qualifier, be my guest.. It's yer blog, after all. :D

    But the fact remains the same.. :D

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Cock Holsters

    Ahhhhh so NOW yer resorting to homophobic slurs???

    Wish I could say I was surprised....

    Pretty sad that you would resort to gay slurs, when there is a gay man in our little community.. :^/

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    126

    Ahhhhh so NOW yer resorting to homophobic slurs???

    Not remotely. Are you completely unaware that everyone has a mouth regardless of sexual preference? Your ignorance is showing... again.

    Wish I could say I was surprised....

    Wish I could say you had a brain with which to think.

    Pretty sad that you would resort to gay slurs, when there is a gay man in our little community.. :^/

    Pretty sad when you recently posted "suck my dick" to another poster that you'd try to mischaracterize someone else's post as a "gay slur." Are you unaware that anyone can be a CH? Please try more thinking and less trying to start fights among other posters. You may now resume your normal position as Trump CH. :)

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    123

    WaPoop??

    FBI study from the Trump administration.

    If I am saying the opposite of WaPoop then I am DEFINTELY factually accurate by default..

    Read the FBI study that came out recently during the administration of Your Worship. It'll be like cracking a book and learning something instead of spewing your fabrications.

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not remotely.

    Cock holster is a homophobic slur... Or gay slur....

    At least it was when Colbert did it..

    Stephen Colbert tried to insult Donald Trump. He made a homophobic comment instead.
    The comedian used an insult that mocks gay men.

    https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/5/2/15515066/stephen-colbert-trump-putin-homophobia-late-show

    Are you completely unaware that everyone has a mouth regardless of sexual preference?

    Ahhhh So you are saying YOU are a "cock holster"...

    OK.. If you say so...

  130. [130] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    129

    I'm saying stop trying to start shit on the blog that doesn't exist. Enough already with your fabrication and outright lying. It's asinine and unnecessary.

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm saying stop trying to start shit on the blog that doesn't exist. Enough already with your fabrication and outright lying. It's asinine and unnecessary.

    You used a gay slur... I called you on it.. You denied it.. I provided proof...

    NOW you are trying to put it on me when it was YOU who started with the gay slur....

    If you want to quit being a total bitch and attacking people who disagree with you in the most vile and disgusting ways, then it will stop..

    You have been told before and not just by me..

    Stop the shit and the shit will stop...

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    131

    You used a gay slur... I called you on it.. You denied it.. I provided proof...

    Let me make myself perfectly clear. You are a Trump cockholster. It wasn't the first time I called you that on this board and probably won't be the last. That was meant as an insult to you and no one else. If you want to get all "politically correct" and whine and make more out of it than was meant to be, then be my effing guest. None of your whining PC bullshit will change the fact that you're a Trump cockholster.

    If you want to quit being a total bitch and attacking people who disagree with you in the most vile and disgusting ways, then it will stop..

    Who do you think you're fooling?

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/08/24/ftp497/#comment-125277

    You didn't need my help when you told another poster to "suck my dick" so why must you blame me for everything? It is pathetic and transparent that you insist your behavior is anyone's fault except your own. Don't let's pretend otherwise, m'kay?

    Stop the shit and the shit will stop...

    Liar. You will post as you please while whining about others making you do it. You will attempt to censor everyone except yourself. Your problem is that you want to dish it out to everyone else while trying to control what others are allowed to post. It's obvious to everyone except yourself.

    Figure out the fact that you want to post as you please while censoring others; it's glaringly obvious to everyone else except you.

    Done here.

  133. [133] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As the resident homosexual, let me state that “cock holster” isn’t a gay slur. What prevents a female from becoming a “cock holster”? A heterosexual male may be one, too, as nothing in the insult requires that the person being used as a “cock holster” enjoy their new found position in life!

    So, for the record, “cock holster” is NOT a gay slur.

  134. [134] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    For the first and last time, Trump might have been right. Shooting someone on 5th ave might not be enough to deter his proponents.

    My recent trip to the land of the three-toed people and cable tv was interesting in that I got to spend time in FOX & Friends. I thought to myself it was odd that Tucker Carlson was telling no one who watches his show what they were thinking. I assumed un-hingement was in response, and tandem, to Trump doing the same at some conclave of evangelical clerics. Apparently, according to Trump, ANTIFA plans to mug America when the Democrats retake the house, after the democrats undo all their (Trump and the ecumenical right) moral imperatives.

    One thing's for certain, if FOX is telling the right what the left is doing, the opposite is more likely the truth.

    LL&P

  135. [135] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [132] I was amused by the outburst, it was consistent with everything Michale has shared in the past, in that it elicited amusement. I've reached the point of no concern with some poster's content, insomuch as style and content remain dreary and obvious.

    Suffice as to say, I chose not to undertake a republican party hazing ritual.

    LL&P

  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    135

    *laughs* :)

  137. [137] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    133

    So, for the record, “cock holster” is NOT a gay slur.

    I know, right!? Many of the troops and veterans I've had the pleasure to work with and get to know have been throwing that term around for many decades, actually. For those not familiar with the colorful and colloquial terminology used by the various assorted branches of our United States armed forces, if a service member or veteran tosses that term in your general direction, it's likely to be a soldier or Marine versus an airman or sailor... particularly if it's a "boot" fresh out of camp because they've been hearing it for weeks on end. Oohrah!

    And to the Trump-trolls with all of their manufactured snow-flakey thin-skinned and politically correct bullshit about Colbert's choice of language to describe Benedict Donald's coziness with Vladimir Putin -- the only person on the planet Hair Dick-Tater will not insult -- when your whining and moaning about Trump's "grab them by the kitty" phrase meets the level of your outrage over Colbert's language, perhaps somebody might take you seriously. Until then, you would be wise to "clue in" to the fact that not everyone is as easily conned as are you garden variety un- and undereducated Cult45 minions, goobers, and hayseeds. :)

Comments for this article are closed.