ChrisWeigant.com

Elizabeth Warren Not Afraid To Be Bold

[ Posted Tuesday, March 19th, 2019 – 18:03 UTC ]

As I wrote about yesterday, the Democratic 2020 presidential field is getting bigger all the time. With so many viable candidates running, it's getting tougher and tougher for each one of them to stand out in any appreciable way. Most of the attention in the media so far has focused on rather superficial traits about the candidates (this is nothing new, I should mention), but that doesn't mean that substantive policy proposals aren't being put forward. So today I'd like to zero in one on particular candidate who seems to be proposing some of the boldest ideas in the field (at least for now). Because whatever else you may think of her, Elizabeth Warren has certainly staked out a few cutting-edge positions.

[I should mention before I begin that I am in no way offering an early endorsement of Warren over any other candidate in the mix, rather you should see this as the first of hopefully many articles which take a deeper dive into the policy prescriptions of the Democratic candidates in the race. Because while I do enjoy a good horserace column (again, see yesterday's offering), there's far too much of that sort of thing around and not nearly enough examination of what each particular candidate is offering to the voters. So please see this as merely the first in a series of such columns, and not my own personal endorsement of any one candidate at this early stage in the race.]

Senator Elizabeth Warren has distinguished herself both before becoming a politician and in the Senate as the wonkiest of the wonks. She has a deep understanding of economic issues and how the rigging of the American economy has worked out for the worse for Main Street while showering largesse on Wall Street. She also has the ability to explain very complex and wonky issues in everyday language so that every voter can understand the problems she identifies and her recommended solutions. This is a very valuable trait to have as a political candidate, and she has always seemed to be a natural at it.

Out of the field of Democrats, Warren has so far offered up some of the most specific and some of the most bold ideas of anyone. Some may complain that these ideas are impractical and would take a long time to implement, given today's political divide, but the 2020 election (at least on the Democratic side) seems to be shaping up as one where bold ideas are what the electorate is looking for, so her agenda may serve her well in the end. Today, I'd like to highlight three of these issues that so far seem to stand out from the Democratic pack: the concept of not just an income tax but a "wealth tax," the idea of reparations for slavery, and Warren's recently announced support to abolish the Electoral College.

These are, as I said, very bold ideas. They are not half measures. Because of this, none of them may ever become political reality, even if Warren is elected president. But that doesn't lessen their political impact with the voters -- in fact, it may boost Warren's chances if other candidates shy away from them. If the race turns out to be one in which the boldest ideas are rewarded while caution and timidity are rejected by the voters, then all of them may help Warren's political chances. Or possibly not -- because they are so bold, they will also be easy for the Republicans to attack.

The idea of a wealth tax was an early proposal by Warren, and so far it is one that none of the other Democratic candidates have wholeheartedly endorsed. The idea is simple to explain, but would be maddeningly complicated to enact and police. Right now, everyone's yearly income is taxed. We're in the midst of tax season right now, and we're all adjusting to the new Paul Ryan tax system. But this tax system only covers what each of us earn or otherwise accumulate over one year's time. A wealth tax would be imposed on the total wealth individuals own. Warren is only proposing taxing those with an enormous amount of wealth, so most Americans wouldn't even be affected by it at all. But the billionaire class would have to -- on a yearly basis -- figure out their entire net worth. They'd add up how much cash they had, how much their investments were worth, how much the real estate they owned was worth, and how much everything else they owned was worth. Whatever figure they came up with would be subject to a tax, just as most people's income is. Again, Warren would set the bar so incredibly high that even most upper-middle-class people (those with a vacation home or two, say) wouldn't even be affected by it. But for the one percent -- and especially for the one-tenth-of-one-percent -- they'd have to pay a tax on their enormous wealth.

There are two basic problems with proposing any new tax: selling it to the public, and passing constitutional muster. Let's take the latter one first. A wealth tax may actually require a constitutional amendment to achieve. The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was necessary for the implementation of the federal income tax, after all. So Warren's idea to tax obscene amounts of wealth may also require such an amendment. Amending the Constitution is an incredibly high bar to cross, of course. That's by design, and it is why we only have done so eighteen times in American history (the Bill of Rights, and the other 17 amendments since then). It would require an overwhelming effort and an overwhelming amount of political will and popular support. Could a President Warren actually get this done? Well, it's doubtful, but that is the nature of bold proposals, when you get right down to it. They're not the easy things to do, by definition they are the hard things.

Which brings us to the popular support such an idea might have. Elizabeth Warren would have to do a masterful job of selling the idea to the American public, but getting the public on her side might not be as hard as one might think. The public has, for the past three or four decades at the very least, been a lot more supportive of taxing the very wealthy than anyone in the mainstream media ever likes to admit. "Tax the rich" actually polls very well indeed, and has been polling very well for a long time now. This is what people like Warren and Bernie Sanders have tapped into, to their political benefit. Warren's main job in selling the idea of a wealth tax would be convincing the public that it would be an incredibly limited tax -- one that did not affect most Americans at all. She'd have to sell it as a partial solution to the ever-expanding inequality gap, but one that most likely wouldn't affect anyone the vast majority of voters personally knew. That would be hard, because as with any tax proposal, the Republicans would be actively (and falsely) painting it as a tax on the value of your own house and savings. But Warren could surmount this obstacle, at least in the eyes of most of the public, if she does it right.

The real obstacle would be getting Republican officeholders to support such a thing. This would be a longer-term project, obviously. To pass a constitutional amendment means getting three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify it, and that would mean getting a whole bunch of very red states to vote for it. The only way this could ever happen is if Warren's idea was so popular that even Republican voters were clamoring for it -- meaning that state legislators would be scared of losing re-election on the issue to someone who was for it. That is going to be a very high bar indeed. But none of this really matters in the short term, because for Warren the real question is whether she can convince a large number of Democratic voters and general election voters that it would be worth fighting for over the long term. That would be a much easier task than actually seeing a wealth tax happen.

The second idea Warren has been supporting is the weakest of the three, for two reasons. The first is that while it appeals to a certain demographic, it isn't all that popular with the general public. And the second reason is that Warren herself is only weakly supporting it and she's not alone in that -- other Democratic candidates have also offered only very limited support as well.

The idea of paying reparations to the descendents of slaves has been around for a while. It's been an issue since (at the very least) the black power movement of the 1960s and 1970s, but for most of that time it has been a rather academic issue. When I say "academic issue," I am being rather literal, because it has been an idea in academia more than it has been a policy proposal in the mainstream of American politics. Black studies professors have espoused the idea for decades, and many erudite books have been written about it, but it has never been seriously considered by Congress or any president up until now.

The problem with the concept mostly lies in its implementation. Even if we all agreed that paying the descendents of slaves was a worthy thing for the American government to do, how would such a scheme work? It's not as simple as just cutting a check for all African-American citizens, after all. Each and every one of them would have to prove in some way that they actually are directly descended from slaves. This would rule out any black people who have emigrated to America since slavery ended, as well as those who could not provide actual proof. And actual proof is notoriously hard to come by. All slave owners didn't keep meticulous records of lineage, and even the U.S. Census was woefully lacking in tracking such people. So who would get paid and who would not?

This is perhaps why Elizabeth Warren (and all the other Democrats who have even timidly supported the concept in the abstract) has been rather cautious about what she actually supports. At the present, Warren supports a current bill in Congress that would convene a blue-ribbon group to study the concept and present possible proposals for how such a thing would work in the real world. She -- and the other Democrats -- supports the concept, but there simply are no specifics to the idea yet. The only thing which has differentiated Warren from the others so far is that she also has said she would support reparations for Native Americans as well. Which opens up her own can of worms, of course, even though it makes a certain degree of sense in the abstract.

The problem for all the Democrats supporting the idea is that so far it is not very popular among the general public. African-American voters support the idea at much higher levels than everyone else (for obvious reasons), but so far the general public sees it as a radical idea that would be completely unworkable in its execution. So it remains dubious as a political proposition, even within the Democratic voting base.

Warren's third bold idea is a much easier sell, especially to Democrats. For the entire 20th century, every president who won the popular vote also won the Electoral College. Even though the 21st century is not yet two decades old, we've had two Republicans win the presidency without winning the popular vote (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016). This has called into question the entire existence of the Electoral College. Why should Americans not elect the person who got the most votes, after all? Why do we have this 18th-century hangover of an Electoral College in the first place? Why not do away with it entirely and restore the concept of "one person, one vote" in its full glory?

Again, this is a pretty easy sell among Democrats. We've seen what can happen -- twice, now. Both Dubya and Trump could have been avoided altogether if we elected presidents by a national popular vote. We would have had President Al Gore and President Hillary Clinton, and all the Supreme Court justices that implies. America would be a very different place right now, and that would all be to the good, as far as Democrats are concerned.

Abolishing the Electoral College would be a bold move indeed, because it would completely upset the applecart of presidential elections. There would be no more "battleground states" because each state's voting totals would be absolutely irrelevant to the larger election. Candidates would no longer concentrate exclusively on states like Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin at the expense of all the other states. Candidates would instead focus on running up the vote total in friendly areas like California and Mississippi. Solidly blue and red states would no longer be completely ignored. The old battleground states might be ignored, or might at the very least receive far less attention from both the media and the candidates themselves. It would mean an entirely new ballgame for all concerned.

Such a radical idea would definitely need a constitutional amendment to implement. Warren is not calling for support for the end-run around the Constitution (the National Popular Vote scheme), but for actually abolishing the Electoral College entirely. Because it is outlined specifically within the Constitution, it would take an amendment to change.

This, again, would require an overwhelming amount of support from the general public. It is doubtful that Warren could whip up such a level of support for the idea, but that really wouldn't matter much in the short term. Republicans have been getting lots of political mileage out of constitutional amendment proposals for decades now, without ever actually passing a balanced-budget amendment or a defense-of-marriage amendment or even a flag-burning amendment, after all. Why shouldn't Democrats use the same tactic, even if it ultimately doesn't result in amending the Constitution? It would certainly spark debate, and the debate would center around the concept of fairness. It's a pretty easy concept to grasp after all -- democracy means the majority is supposed to rule. When a majority of voters want one candidate, that candidate should win the election. What could be simpler?

Elizabeth Warren has obviously realized that this election cycle -- or, at the very least, this primary election cycle -- may reward the candidate who espouses the boldest ideas possible. This is a direct result of the last election, where the battle among Democrats was one of "go big" versus "let's be pragmatic." Being pragmatic and incrementalist didn't do the trick, obviously, although there were certainly other forces at play. But with such a wide field this time around, it is no longer a one-on-one contest of these two ideals. "Go big" is going to have its own contest among people like Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. It's going to be hard to stand out in such a race, but to date Warren seems to be aware that she's going to have to have a number of very bold ideas to differentiate her from the other progressives in the race. These three aren't the only policy prescriptions she's proposed, either, but they have been the ones which have generated the most discussion among the Democratic base. Time will tell whether this is a winning strategy for her, but so far at least she has done a rather good job of staking out her own ground in a very crowded field by getting behind some very bold ideas.

 

[Editorial Note: For the pedantically-minded who may have noticed the error, technically we have only had one president elected in the 21st century who won the Electoral College but not the popular vote. The year 2000 is technically part of the 20th century, no matter what we all celebrated on December 31st, 1999. There was no year zero, please remember, so the first century ran from the year 1 to the year 100, and all centuries since then have followed suit. But it was more elegant to write it the way I did, so please excuse the intentional error.]

[Program Note: After seeing my wife go through a miserable five or six days, I have also now caught the flu she has been struggling with. I was (barely) able to get this column out today, but columns for the rest of this week may be sporadic or even non-existent. I will try my hardest to at least get Friday's column out, but at this point I can make no promises even about tomorrow's column. So if you see a bunch of re-runs, or if this column just stays up for days with no subsequent columns, that is the reason. I apologize in advance for any interruption in service here.]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

277 Comments on “Elizabeth Warren Not Afraid To Be Bold”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Chris' analysis of the question of eliminating the electoral college failed to touch upon what is probably the most basic part ot that proposal, that being that the electoral college is the very foundation of the existence of our country being a union of independent states.

    Eliminating the EC would result in the defacto transition of the union from being the "United States" (plural) to being the "United STATE" (singular).

  2. [2] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    The day that congress votes "reparations" for any racial group whatsoever, will be the day that I declare my membership in that particular racial group. If it worked for Fauxcahontas, it'll work for me!

  3. [3] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [1] CRS: The electoral college is the very foundation of the existence of our country being a union of independent states.

    I dunno. Seems like "exactly 2 votes in Senate for each State no matter how tiny your population is" seems a lot more "foundational" of that concept.

    The Electoral College seems more like something that seemed a practical compromise when information took days to get from Maine to D.C.; which is irrelevant now. Otherwise, our Infallible Founding Parents would have decreed that every State would get the same number of Electors as they do Senators, methinks.

  4. [4] 
    John M wrote:

    [1] C. R. Stucki

    "...the existence of our country being a union of independent states.

    Eliminating the EC would result in the defacto transition of the union from being the "United States" (plural) to being the "United STATE" (singular)."

    Actually that question was settled in reality with the end of the Civil War, when it was decided that there was not a union of independent states (plural) like the present day European Union (or the original Articles of Confederation of 1781, which failed, before our current constitution of 1787), but in fact a national government (singular) with supreme authority over its federal constituent sub sections. There is a distinct difference between the two concepts.

  5. [5] 
    John M wrote:

    [2] C. R. Stucki

    "The day that congress votes "reparations" for any racial group whatsoever, will be the day that I declare my membership in that particular racial group. If it worked for Fauxcahontas, it'll work for me!"

    I will take this as intended a cheeky, snarky comment, since it in fact

    1.) Did not most assuredly work for Elizabeth Warren, and is in fact not what she claimed at all, but what Donald Trump Tried to claim for her; and

    2.) You would never be able to provide whatever documents or DNA proof etc. would be required to support your assertion of claiming membership in such group.

    The major obstacle to the concept of reparations are the twin pillars of contemporary white people's objections to having to pay something for what members of their race did in the past, and not for something they had anything to do with personally today, as well as having to pay it to people they see as already unfairly benefiting from affirmative action and receiving welfare that they don't deserve, while simultaneously being blind to the still ongoing inequality caused by white privilege.

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Warren is not offering bold. She is offering empty promises and you seem to be okay with that as long as it works in fooling voters.

    But if the voters want bold- then give them bold.

    Tell the voters aboot a mystery candidate. See if they can guess who the candidate is.

    This candidate, let's call him/her BOLDIE, will not make empty promises but will take the bold position of taking action NOW.

    Boldie will declare that rather than promising legislation in the future to get the big money out of politics while they continue to take big money that they will be running a small donor campaign now in the 2020 election.

    Boldie will point out that the candidates running small contribution campaigns are trying to pass off these campaigns as small donor campaigns when they are not.

    Boldie will point out how many donors that make small contributions to these campaigns make many small contributions and their total (aggregate) contributions make them a large donor.

    Boldie will point out that even if these donors have the best of intentions in mind they are providing cover for large donors with nefarious purposes in mind.

    Boldie will point out that citizens do not have to worry aboot the intentions of any of the large donors to his/her campaign because there are no large donors.

    Boldie can encourage those that can afford more than the 200 dollar aggregate limit in contributions to use that money to make small contributions to other candidates that make this small donor commitment. This will prevent their contributions from being used as cover for large donors with nefarious intentions and will instead help those citizens that can only afford to be small donors or can't afford to be donors at all.

    Boldie can point out how the big money interest work across state and congressional district lines so there is no reason citizens that want small donor candidates can't also help each other out across state and district lines.

    Boldie can point out how this will help many small donor candidates succeed and make it aboot changing the whole system and not just a presidential campaign.

    Boldie can point out that just 5% of voters contributing 100 dollars would total over 500 million dollars.

    Boldie can point out that he/she believes that a candidate that can't get 5% of citizens to contribute 100 dollars does not deserve to be president and that is why he/she is not asking citizens to trust him/her based on promises, but is instead trusting citizens to support his/her bold action of running a small donor campaign.

    "Boldie For President in 2020" sounds like a good and easy article to write (feel free to use the title and any of this comment if you need to bang a quick article while you're under the weather).

    Of course, then you would have to say there is no Boldie at the moment. And then you could inform citizens that they can take bold action now and lead the politicians by participating in One Demand instead of waiting for a politician to take a bold step and demand Boldie(s) for president and many other offices.

  7. [7] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M Re: Your [5]

    Trump did not designate Warren as "Native American" on any employment-related records. Warren did that exclusively on her own.

    That which you characterize as "white privelege" is in reality only "white differentiation".

    The specious claim that there is no such thing as innate racial differences is simply a liberal chimera, easily and readily empircally disproven.

  8. [8] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Sage of Idaho 1.

    "Eliminating the EC would result in the defacto transition of the union from being the "United States" (plural) to being the "United STATE" (singular)."

    Nice knee jerk slogan, but how so? Are the state constitutions, legislative bodies and governors abolished? Are the many and varied state laws torn up? Are the state capitals demolished? Are all the "You entering _____ signs removed at the borders?

  9. [9] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Warren's Reparation Concept (The 23 and Me Act?) is fundamentally unworkable because race is such a squishy concept. There is no identifiable racial gene. What we call race is a mixture of ethnicity and skin color filtered through a lens of casual bigotry. If any body should know this, it is Warren herself.

    Focus on something that is quantifiable: access to quality education, good jobs and health care. Which is what Warren seems to stand for.

  10. [10] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    aSTIGmatism [9]

    Actually, a pretty good case can be made for the concept that Warren and her tribe(s) owe 'reparations' to the descendants of the white Europeans who 'disposessed' them from their land.

    The traditional image of the 'Noble Redman', astride his Palomino pony, with his eagle-feather warbonnet streaming in the wind, resplendant in his beaded buckskins, with his Winchester rifle held aloft, is a fictional creation of Hollywood.

    In reality, the Indian's horse, his rifle, and even the glass beads on his vest and moccasins, ALL came courtesy of the white man.

    Prior to the arrival of the white folks, Warren's ancestors were primitive people living in the stone age. Nowadays, while not being capable of making the full transition to the level of modern civilizations, even they would likely admit they are infinitely better off than they would be were they still ensconced in the stone age.

    Perhaps they should owe 'Negative reparations', right?

  11. [11] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CRS-7

    That which you characterize as "white privelege" is in reality only "white differentiation"

    The word differentiation is value neutral, the word privilege is not.

    What you are effectively saying is "White Privilege is in reality White Power."

    "The specious claim that there is no such thing as innate racial differences is simply a liberal chimera, easily and readily empircally disproven."

    I look forward to seeing your proof in detail. I suspect there is a bucket full of circularity in your reasoning.

  12. [12] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    aSTIGmatism [11]

    Youtube is laden with results of stucies of IQ differentiation by race. Jewish white folks seem to be consistently at the top, and I think I recall Australian aborigines at the bottom, with everybody else somewhere in between.

    Of course liberals can always attempt to rationalize the irrational by denying the validity of such research, but the facts remain.

  13. [13] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oop, make that read 'studies' in place of "stucies".

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @crs,

    sure, that's one way of looking at it. i'm sure we also 'donated' smallpox just to help the natives build immunity.

    i won't even get started on the validity of IQ tests, because at least for me one dissertation was enough.

    JL

  15. [15] 
    Paula wrote:

    I love what Warren is doing/saying - she is a better Bernie than Bernie. She's adding ideas to the pot that are influencing others - like BS did last time, but isn't doing now. Now he's just retreading 2016, including his use of nasty surrogates.

    He just hired David Sirota to attack the other Dems AND Briahna Joy Gray who appears most famous for attacking John Lewis for being "a stooge for the DNC" (paraphrasing). IOW he's reverting to type as predicted.

    He also still hasn't released his taxes but DID close the Sanders Institute which looked like it existed primarily as a way to funnel a generous donation-funded salary to his son.

    Meanwhile Beto is getting a lot of people interested / excited and Mayor Pete has surprised many by being more exciting than seemingly more probable candidates like Hickenlooper or Inslee.

    Looking forward to debates so we can start seeing these folks together.

  16. [16] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    poet

    Is the point of your [14] that you dispute my claim that given their choice, the natives would NOT elect to revert to their (minus smallpox) pre-Columbian stone-age existence?

  17. [17] 
    John M wrote:

    [7] C. R. Stucki

    "Trump did not designate Warren as "Native American" on any employment-related records. Warren did that exclusively on her own."

    Nice try. But Elizabeth Warren never actually did that!

    For Warren’s application to Rutgers, which asks if prospective students want to apply for admission under the school’s Program for Minority Group Students. Warren answered “no.” For her employment documents at the University of Texas, Warren indicated that she was “white.”

    She did however put herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list as Native American) in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools, and Harvard Law School at one time promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member.

    But notice, however, that both of those are lists of faculty members, and not employment records or government documents.

    Also, by the way, the specious claim that there is such thing as innate racial differences is simply a very common racist trope, easily proven by a visit to any Alt-right, KKK, Neo-Nazi, or White Supremacist website.

  18. [18] 
    John M wrote:

    [10] C. R. Stucki

    "Prior to the arrival of the white folks, Warren's ancestors were primitive people living in the stone age. Nowadays, while not being capable of making the full transition to the level of modern civilizations, even they would likely admit they are infinitely better off than they would be were they still ensconced in the stone age."

    This paragraph rather speaks for itself by largely buying into the patently false notion that certain groups of people are simply inherently inferior. It also totally ignores historical reality. Even Native Americans of North America had complex earthen work mounds of amazing complexity. Not to mention multi-story dwellings carved into the cliffs of the American southwest.

    Among the accomplishments of Pre-Columbian natives, you would also have to list: the abacus, almanacs, aqueducts, rubber balls, calendars, canals, dams, roads, pyramids, the syringe, and umbrellas. Among many others.

  19. [19] 
    John M wrote:

    [12] C. R. Stucki

    "Of course liberals can always attempt to rationalize the irrational by denying the validity of such research, but the facts remain."

    And of course, conservatives can always also attempt to rationalize the irrational by failing to point out the cultural bias and flaws inherent in so many so called IQ tests, as well as other factors, such as failing to take into account reading disabilities. Many IQ tests, in fact, measure only one kind of intelligence, such as reading comprehension in a language which is not native for the test taker, while failing to measure other non verbal forms of intelligence, such as visual-spatial processing.

    Instead of answering a question about history with a cultural bias, such as who is George Washington or who is George Washington Carver (How many white children would get that answer correct?) the test might give individuals a series of boxes, each containing shapes that change from box to box, and a box that is empty, instead. The test taker then must recognize the pattern that is shown and correctly identify the shape that should go in the empty box from a collection of options.

    [14] nypoet22

    "i won't even get started on the validity of IQ tests, because at least for me one dissertation was enough."

    Exactly!

  20. [20] 
    John M wrote:

    [16] C. R. Stucki

    "Is the point of your [14] that you dispute my claim that given their choice, the natives would NOT elect to revert to their (minus smallpox) pre-Columbian stone-age existence?"

    Even though this was not specifically directed at me, see see response number 18.

  21. [21] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M

    [17] OK, but does the fact that the existence of "innate racial differences" is discussed by the Alt-right negate the existence of "innate racial differences"? Does the fact that you discuss variabilities in the weather mean there are no such variabilities?

    [18] Does the ability to work with dirt and stone (cliff dwellings, canals, mounds, dams, roads, etc.) imply advancement beyond the 'stone age', while still minus metal tools, minus written language, etc.?

    Re: "Rubber balls, pyramids, and calendars", Warren has never claimed that her Native American ancestors included the Mayans of S. America. She talks about the Cherokees of Oklahoma.

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Posting this through a haze of cough syrup...

    Here's an interesting article...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/20/trumps-defensive-defense-electoral-college-doesnt-make-much-sense/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39afeb542b3a

    the graphics are fascinating, especially that first one, a map of which states the candidates actually visited in 2016.

    Just my $0.02...

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Paula wrote:

    CW: sorry about your flu - bummer.

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Sage of idaho -
    Jewish White folks are a race again? I thought that designation was changed in the '40s. Well, JWF have The Bomb now. Maybe The Red Indian Race Should get the bomb too. Like The Yellow North Korean race just did. Slower than The Yellow Chinese Race did, but still impressive. The Blonde Swiss Race doesn't have the bomb...I hear they have even stopped universal conscription. They must be dumb as dirt. Nothing says smart like building The Bomb.

    There is a YouTube video on everything. I like to think of YouTube as an infinite toilet stall scrawled on by an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite supply of black magic markers. You can waste an infinite number of hrs. at YouTube. Racism, hucksterism, ignorance on YouTube? Nah, it's all sooo carefully vetted.

  25. [25] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-22

    What a co-inky-dense. Just read that WAPO piece myself. In a haze of Fexofenadine 180 mg for blocked sinuses. Supposedly non-drowsy.

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig [25] -

    Maybe we're sharing a mass hallucination, and that article didn't really exist?

    Heh. Sorry, getting loopy and feverish...

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Then you better stop posting.

  28. [28] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Stuki-12

    "Youtube is laden with results of stucies(sic) of IQ differentiation by race. Jewish white folks seem to be consistently at the top, and I think I recall Australian aborigines at the bottom, with everybody else somewhere in between. Of course liberals can always attempt to rationalize the irrational by denying the validity of such research, but the facts remain."

    No the facts do not remain. False feet (pseudo podia) and lyin' lips (pseudo labia) are not accepted elements of genuine science.

    What you and the lunatic fringe on YouTube are pushing is called Scientific Racism. Scientific Racism is regarded as a pseudoscience by a strong consensus among the Scientific Community. Scientific Racism has all five of the "tells" of pseudoscience (lightly annotated from Wikipedia):

    1) Contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims

    2) Reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation (a Stuki favorite)

    3) Lack of openness to evaluation by other experts

    4) Absence of systematic practices when developing theories

    5) Continued adherence to a theory long after it has been experimentally discredited (another Stuki-ism).

    You seem to know as much about modern science as you do about modern economics. Not a lot. If the pseudo pod fits, you wear it.

  29. [29] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    TS [28]

    Who was it recently said something like "You can attempt to rationalize the irrational by denying the validity of the research that led to the conclusion, but the observable and irrefutable facts remain"??

    Oh - that would be me!

  30. [30] 
    John M wrote:

    [21] C. R. Stucki

    [17] "OK, but does the fact that the existence of "innate racial differences" is discussed by the Alt-right negate the existence of "innate racial differences"? Does the fact that you discuss variabilities in the weather mean there are no such variabilities?"

    Can you offer proof that there are in fact innate racial differences from a reputable non-racist scientific source??? Especially given the fact that the term "race" has its origins in a social concept and has no basis in actual biological science?

    [18] "Does the ability to work with dirt and stone (cliff dwellings, canals, mounds, dams, roads, etc.) imply advancement beyond the 'stone age', while still minus metal tools, minus written language, etc.?"

    Can you offer any proof for your assertion that the fact that a group has not yet advanced beyond the stone age means that they never will or are incapable of doing so, especially if they are exposed to modern technological society and education???

    Re: "Rubber balls, pyramids, and calendars", Warren has never claimed that her Native American ancestors included the Mayans of S. America. She talks about the Cherokees of Oklahoma.

    You do know that virtually all Native Americans of the Western Hemisphere are biologically related to one another and share approximately 80 percent of the same DNA, since they all came in groups across the land bridge that existed between Alaska and Siberia? That holds true regardless of whether they are Inuit from the Arctic Circle, tribes from the plains of the Mississippi, Aztecs or Mayans from Mexico and Central America, or Incas and others from the Andes of South America and the Amazon Basin. It makes no difference.

  31. [31] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M

    OK, I concede that all 'races' (ethnicities, whatever) are exactly equal.

    The fact that black folks make up 10% of the U.S. but 90% of the N.B.A., or that Jews make up 2% of the world but 75% of the Nobel Science winners (Statistics are guesses, I don't care enough to look 'em up), reflects the fact that black moms give their sons toy basketballs to play with in their cribs, while Jewish moms give their toddlers science textbooks as primers, right?

  32. [32] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [30]

    Doesn't EVERYBODY (including apes and monkeys) "share approx. 80% (actually, I think it's more than that) of the same DNA"?

    What should we conclude from that?

  33. [33] 
    TheStig wrote:

    William Saletan frames the essence of the race:intelligence debate brilliantly:

    "Here’s my advice: You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing. Connecting intelligence to race adds nothing useful. It overextends the science you’re defending, and it engulfs the whole debate in moral flames.

    I’m not asking anyone to deny science. What I’m asking for is clarity. The genetics of race and the genetics of intelligence are two different fields of research. In his piece in the Times, Reich wrote about prostate cancer risk, a context in which there’s clear evidence of a genetic pattern related to ancestry. (Black men with African ancestry in a specific DNA region have a higher prostate cancer risk than do black men with European ancestry in that region.) Reich steered around intelligence where, despite racial and ethnic gaps in test scores, no such pattern has been established.

    It’s also fine to discuss the genetics of IQ—there’s a serious line of scientific inquiry around that subject—and whether intelligence, in any population, is an inherited social advantage. We tend to worry that talk of heritability will lead to eugenics. But it’s also worth noting that, to the extent that IQ, like wealth, is inherited and concentrated through assortative mating, it can stratify society and undermine cohesion. That’s what much of The Bell Curve was about.

    The trouble starts when people who write or talk about the heritability of intelligence extend this idea to comparisons between racial and ethnic groups. Some people do this maliciously; others don’t. You can call the latter group naïve, credulous, or obtuse to prejudice. But they might be open to persuasion, and that’s my aim here. For them, the chain of thought might go something like this: Intelligence is partly genetic, and race is partly genetic. So maybe racial differences on intelligence tests can be explained, in part, by genetics.

    There are two scientific problems with making this kind of inference. The first is that bringing race into the genetic conversation obscures the causal analysis. Genes might play no role in racial gaps on IQ tests. But suppose they did: To that extent, what would be the point of talking about race? Some white kids, some black kids, and some Asian kids would have certain genes that marginally favor intelligence. Others wouldn’t. It’s still the genes, not race, that would matter."

    Complete article still available on line W/O paywall:

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html

  34. [34] 
    TheStig wrote:

    31-

    (Statistics are guesses, I don't care enough to look 'em up)

    Not only don't you care, you don't guess very well. The actual percentage of Jews among all Nobel prize winners is closer to 20%. That's impressively high, but I'm referencing this statistic to an article in JC.com, a Jewish Publication, so they should know - and they would be tempted to inflate the statistic. The article points out that this tally includes winners with just one Jewish parent. This gets dicey, since it is Jewish practice that a child is automatically deemed Jewish by the community if, and only if, the mother is Jewish: dad's religious status is irrelevant. Conversion to Judaism is rare. There are certainly genes from ancestral Jews lurking all over the human genome, but there can be no gene that determines if the bearer is Jewish. Even if there were, I doubt it would bring the tally anywhere close to 80%. There must be powerful environmental factors in play that have nothing to do with genotype.

    https://www.thejc.com/news/world/a-remarkable-week-for-jewish-nobel-prize-winners-1.49544

  35. [35] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    TS

    You'll note I specified Nobel "Science" prizes. That's the ones the Swedes award. Those morons in Norway pass out "feel good" prizes, to (mostly non-Jewish) guys like Obama, who was awarded the "peace" prize just prior to taking over the "daily-assassaination-by-drone" program.

  36. [36] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Women of Weigantia (including both those with and those without penises) REJOICE, your moment of victory and glory is about to come to pass!!

    8:00 AM tomorrow, 'Bobby 3 Twigs' submits his Report on "Trump campaign Russian collusion/conspiracy", two LONG YEARS in the making, and by 5:00PM, a couple dozen Russian hackers will surely be being fitted for the hangman's noose, and the Conspirator-in Chief himself, Donald J. Trump, will surely be HISTORY, as the Democratics scream for his head!

    Certainly it will turn out that getting dirt on Hillary from Russians (even when the promised dirt never does materialize), ABSOLUTELY IS ILLEGAL!!! Omygawd, HOW could I have been SO wrong for SO long!! Words can scarcely convey the measure of my remorse for misleading you girls so egregiously for so long. I hereby PROMISE that my level of contrition, humility, regret, embarrassment, remorse, and UNsmugness will be unequalled in the history of political apologies!!

    A public disgrace of this magnitude will surely demand that I hide my head in shame and slink off into oblivion, never to sully the sacred blogs of Weigantian political discourse again!

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    jeez...

  38. [38] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller(if you see this):
    I finally replied to your question about Joe Biden from Wednesday. It’s in Wednesday’s comment feed. Sorry for the delay. I only read this blog sporadically these days and I forgot that I commented. You’ll just have to trust that I didn’t use the last 24 hours frantically scanning the internet for every mistake Biden has ever made in his life ;)

  39. [39] 
    John M wrote:

    [31] C. R. Stucki

    "OK, I concede that all 'races' (ethnicities, whatever) are exactly equal.

    The fact that black folks make up 10% of the U.S. but 90% of the N.B.A., or that Jews make up 2% of the world but 75% of the Nobel Science winners (Statistics are guesses, I don't care enough to look 'em up), reflects the fact that black moms give their sons toy basketballs to play with in their cribs, while Jewish moms give their toddlers science textbooks as primers, right?"

    [32] C. R. Stucki

    "Doesn't EVERYBODY (including apes and monkeys) "share approx. 80% (actually, I think it's more than that) of the same DNA"?

    What should we conclude from that?"

    You know you answered your own question, right?

    Obviously what we should conclude is that culture plays a far more important role than either race or genetics.

    Jackie Robinson became a great baseball player not because of any innate advantage ability of African Americans as a group to play baseball but that because of societal segregation at the time athletics (boxing, basketball etc.) was one of the few avenues open to African American men to better themselves. (As opposed to receiving a great education.)

    Similarly, Florence Nightingale became a great pioneer in nursing not necessarily because of any superior inherent ability of women in general to be more nurturing than men, as a group, but because it was more socially acceptable for women to enter the fields of nursing or teaching rather than to take on the male jobs of politician or policeman, etc.

  40. [40] 
    John M wrote:

    [31] C. R. Stucki

    "The fact that black folks make up 10% of the U.S. but 90% of the N.B.A....."

    Similarly it is far more easier for a young black man in a poor crime ridden inner city neighborhood to find a way out by playing basketball on the corner neighborhood lot and getting really good at it, rather than attending his local, poorly financed, falling down high school with a lack of good teachers and textbooks. That's why you find so many African American players in the NBA, even still today. I might add also that White society at large is still more comfortable and used to seeing a Black man achieve fame and fortune on a basketball court than they are at seeing a Black man in a position of power as a high powered corporate lawyer, for example.

  41. [41] 
    TheStig wrote:

    D-plus and holding: Idaho scores low in Education Week report

  42. [42] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The source for (41):

    https://www.idahoednews.org/kevins-blog/d-plus-holding-idaho-scores-low-education-week-report/

    Really if, we are going to casually toss ethnic slurs about, shouldn't it be on an equal opportunity basis?

  43. [43] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    It's true that Idaho perpetually ranks near the bottom of all states on "per-pupil expenditure for education".

    Absolutely no mystery there, Idaho (and all the other states that rank near the bottom) also rank near the bottom on per-capita income. How much native intelligence (aka "common sense") does it take to perceive the natural iand inevitable correlation between those two statistics?? Evidently more than most Democratics possess, right?

    However, allow me to point out the fascinating and incontrovertible fact that a VERY strong statistical case can be made for the premise that the relationship between high per-pupil expenditure and successful outcomes (graduation rates, literacy levels, going-on-to-college rates, etc) is INVERSE!

    Idaho and the rest of the intermtn. west ranks near the top of successful outcomes statistics, while New York, New Jersey, California, etc. spend the most $ per pupil and lead the country in dropout, crime and illiteracy stats.

    Oh, and BTW, I was not educated, either at the gradeschool or the university level, in Idaho (aka "Podunkia").

  44. [44] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [40]

    Actually, I think it ("the conclusion to be drawn") is the 'basketball-in-the-crib' and the 'science-textbooks-as-primers' thing, but that's pretty much another version of the same thing (for the black folks) as your "basketball at the neighborhood playground" thing, so yeah, we're basically in agreement, except you didn't offer your version (of the 'nature vs. nurture thing) for the Jews.

  45. [45] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Stucki-43

    Stop talking about statistics until you understand that a correlation between two measurements does not imply a cause and effect relationship. If you plot the number of churches vs the number of saloons (or whore houses) in different cities you will find they are highly correlated. Are you to conclude that churches cause people to drink? Or that drinking makes people more religious? (Or that religion makes you horny?) Or perhaps that the number of churches saloons and whore houses are to some extent all driven by the population sizes of sampled cities?

    Have you ever taken a statistics class? If so, were you paying attention?

    Avoid using the phrase "incontrovertible facts." Dogma is shorter and more accurate. All it takes to demolish an "incontrovertible" fact is new data.

  46. [46] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig [45]

    OK, agreed on all that in principle at least, but do you really mean to imply that any presumed possible connection between per-pupil education spending and successful outcomes could be on a par, even at the 'common sense' level, with any presumed possible connection between religiosity and hornyness??

    Do you also claim that the published numbers on public education expenditure vs successful outcomes ARE 'controvertible'? Please note that I never stated, nor even implied, causality between high per-pupil expendidture and outcomes, only that the relationship actually exist, as in "incontrovertible".

    Have you ever taken a reading comprehension class? If so, were you paying attention?

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You’ll just have to trust that I didn’t use the last 24 hours frantically scanning the internet for every mistake Biden has ever made in his life ;)

    As soon as Biden announces, the google won't be necessary.

  48. [48] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Good grief...Americans bickering over race is as predictable as right-wing Libertarians weighing the pros and cons of childhood vaccinations. This back and forth over race and predisposition was consigned to early nineteenth century pseudo-philosophy, and the likes of Houston Stewart Chamberlain and other seedy Wagnerian apostles. Has it occurred to you that people, all people are generational and not subject to strict gene assignment or 'race' as you blithely state it. If one were to become completely pedantic, one could quite easily maintain that all Blacks, Whites, Asians, and all peoples of faith have Neanderthal DNA as the tie that binds them most closely together.

    As you were.

    LL&P

  49. [49] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    The word is out! Mueller submitted his report to the Justice Dept. Trump is a goner, we never have to endure his shit again forever! But best of all, Kick and Paula can put away their razor blades, no wrist shlashing necessary, Right?

    Oh, hold on, Barr ain't talking and he isn't going to pass it along to Congress till Monday.

    But surely, there can be no question about whether getting dirt on Hillary from Russians just GOTTA BE ILLEGAL, RIGHT!!! How could it not be, when the girls have quoted the rules verbatim at least monthly for 2 freakin' years proving beyond any doubt that it IS ILLEGAL!

  50. [50] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CRS-46

    "Have you ever taken a reading comprehension class? If so, were you paying attention?"

    Yes, and yes. My school district offered "Speed Reading and Comprehension" class for 6th,7th and 8th graders. We were taught to scan pages downwards following a light beam, to not say the words in our head, and to hunt for and focus on key words. Direct sight to mind comprehension. It worked well for me and is likely responsible for my high SAT and GRE scores ... if you can understand a problem quickly you have more time to work on a solution.

    I have a serious problem with your notion of "incontrovertible" facts or conclusions. Incontrovertible literally means Unquestionable. Another word for unquestionable is Dogma...which I think is Greek for dog shite.

    I don't believe we can ever hope to know all the facts. I don't believe all things purported to be facts are facts...observers are fallible, instruments are subject to error, and some observations are just outright fabrications. Therefore, no conclusions are unquestionable. The only way to judge the validity of any hypothesis is to poke it frequently with a stick. Some of these sticks are pretty flimsy - like Flat Earth. Others are sharper - like dark matter and dark energy. Maybe those theories will pan out, maybe they won't.

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    10

    In reality, the Indian's horse, his rifle, and even the glass beads on his vest and moccasins, ALL came courtesy of the white man.

    You left out the land the Indian was walking on, Stucki. *laughs* In reality, it is the height of glaring stupidity to claim that anyone's horse came courtesy of "the white man."

    Please save your breath if you're going to claim that horses came to North America via the second voyage of Columbus since Columbus never set foot in North America, and whether he did or not, white man isn't responsible for horses. :)

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Women of Weigantia (including both those with and those without penises) REJOICE, your moment of victory and glory is about to come to pass!!

    who knew that crs was so trans-positive?

  53. [53] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    I've always thought it was my personal calling to make Weigantians aware of your level of ignorance, and I resent you encroaching on my territory!

    You really need to Google that horse thing. Horses were not found in the western hemisphere prior to the arrival of the Spanish conquistadores.

    However, at this special moment, please feel free to temper your embarrassment over the horse thingy by wallowing in the joy and Schadenfreude of being rid of Trump, and of having demonstrated monthly for two straight yrs that you were right and I was wrong about the legality of getting dirt on your political opponent from Russians!

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    49

    But surely, there can be no question about whether getting dirt on Hillary from Russians just GOTTA BE ILLEGAL, RIGHT!!! How could it not be, when the girls have quoted the rules verbatim at least monthly for 2 freakin' years proving beyond any doubt that it IS ILLEGAL!

    Several things:

    1. You are obviously confusing "rules" with "statutes" a.k.a. "laws," but people on this blog are quite acclimated to your serial ignorance so... nothing new there. Nevertheless, there is nothing you can spew or type or prattle on endlessly about that will change federal election statutes/laws of the United States of America. Nothing.

    2. People that commit crimes sometimes... quite frequently, actually... go unprosecuted because the law is very specific regarding the burden of proof required to secure conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt." The DOJ will frequently pass on charging individuals with crimes based on their assessment of "provability," particularly in high profile cases such as this one.

    3. Mueller has made 37 indictments within the scope of his office and also has "spun off" several criminal investigations that were beyond the scope of his mandate. Donald Trump is indeed the unindicted coconspirator referred to as "Individual 1" in one such case in SDNY.

    4. As we've previously discussed and you insisted, one need not commit a crime to be impeached.

    5. Lastly, I know something you don't. :) *big grin*

  55. [55] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    Of course horses weren't found in North America before the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors.

    After all, they couldn't find horses in North America until they found North America. :D

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    53

    I've always thought it was my personal calling to make Weigantians aware of your level of ignorance, and I resent you encroaching on my territory!

    Proceed, governor. :)

    You really need to Google that horse thing. Horses were not found in the western hemisphere prior to the arrival of the Spanish conquistadores.

    So you're claiming "Spanish conquistadores" are... your terms in quotes... "white man"... and "horses came courtesy" of them? :) *laughs*

  57. [57] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [53] CRS:Horses were not found in the western hemisphere prior to the arrival of the Spanish conquistadores.

    That's a bit overly broad. Surprisingly, it seems that Equus caballus actually originally evolved in North America and then spread out globally from there; then got wiped out in NA in the geologically very recent past of 10K years ago or so (maybe because humans? we are bad-asses after all); and finally were indeed re-introduced about 500 years ago. Interesting!

    See, e.g., https://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2014/10/07/north-americas-wild-horses-native/

  58. [58] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [56]

    I might be missing your point on that "white" thing. We're talking about two ethnic groups here, the natives (Indians) and the Spanish, are we not?

    Most rational people would consider the Spanish to be 'lighter-skinned' than the natives, but if you prefer something other than the traditional descriptions, go for it.

    Whatever color they were, the Spanish explorers introduced the critters we refer to today as "horses" to the Americas, an establish fact. Only by virtue of that introduction did your Hollywood "Noble Savage" come by his Palomino pony.

  59. [59] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don Q [55]

    Sweet Jesus, give me a break!

    ".. they couldn't find horses in N. America until they found N. America" ???? Who are "they", and What the hell does that mean???

    It's agreed by most people that he natives (indians) found N. America long before the Europeans (Spanish) did, right". Therefor I'm guessing that if horses existed here before the Spanish arrived, the natives would have 'found' them, wouldn't you say?

  60. [60] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    chazzb

    I'm presuming that that "original evolution" claim represents somebody's guesswork/supposition, however, it's beside the point. The argument here is, did the native Americans have horses before the Spanish introduced them in S. America, and the answer is unequivocally NO, is it not?

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    58

    I might be missing your point on that "white" thing.

    You must be missing your own point, Stucki, since it was indeed you who insisted that the "Indian's horse, his rifle, and even the glass beads on his vest and moccasins, ALL came courtesy of the white man."

    We're talking about two ethnic groups here, the natives (Indians) and the Spanish, are we not?

    I concede you were prattling on and on about an "Indian" and "his horse, his rifle" and "glass beads" and the "courtesy of the white man."

    Most rational people would consider the Spanish to be 'lighter-skinned' than the natives, but if you prefer something other than the traditional descriptions, go for it.

    Stucki, I have a negro friend who has lighter skin than me, but that doesn't make him a "white man" or me a "negro."

    Whatever color they were, the Spanish explorers introduced the critters we refer to today as "horses" to the Americas, an establish fact.

    Actually, that's not an established fact. The Spanish actually reintroduced the horse to North America where it originated without any help from "white man." Class dismissed. :)

  62. [62] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Let's see if I have this straight...The Trump mob are popping Champaign and jumping through hogsheads of fire because Mueller hasn't indicted them prior to him dotting the 'I's' on his report? I fail to see the victory here.

    A, If the Trumpeter's were to be believed, collusion (or my preferred noun, synergy.) isn't a crime, in the same way farting isn't a crime, it's just frowned upon in certain circumstances. So I think Mueller's probe being over is a bit of a non-event.

    B, Were I prone to paranoia, and an oiled cog in the Trump Organ, or indeed the Grinder himself, I'd be more concerned with the other investigations that have spun off the Mueller nose-about. Indeed, I would be seriously concerned about the frauds perpetrated on financial institutions, both here and abroad. Banks rarely, if ever take a fall for crooks, regardless of whether they were knee deep in the criminal act themselves.

    So, only time will tell, and or Mueller himself under oath in front of a few committee's, what Trump and his gang have spent the last two years trying to obfuscate from view, until then, I'd save the Baby Duck until all the noise dies down.

    LL&P

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Charles Brown, Esq. gets it. :)

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    62

    So, only time will tell, and or Mueller himself under oath in front of a few committee's, what Trump and his gang have spent the last two years trying to obfuscate from view, until then, I'd save the Baby Duck until all the noise dies down.

    Make mine Cristal... invented for Alexander II of Russia who commanded it be bottled with a flat bottom so that no bombs could be hidden underneath. :)

  65. [65] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Fine I can go with "re-introduced", but the fact remains that the Hollywood "Noble Savage" image (the original topic here) did indeed have his horse to ride "courtesy of the 'white man'", (or whichever skintone you prefer.

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Note for future reference: Stucki is positively adamant that "Spanish" is "white man." :)

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    but he's very inclusive of girls with penises.

  68. [68] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [60] CRS: The argument here is, did the native Americans have horses before the Spanish introduced them in S. America, and the answer is unequivocally NO, is it not?

    I'm sorry - I thought the argument here was "The Italian Race are a backward and savage people; they didn't even have tomato sauce until the tomato was brought to them in 1548."

  69. [69] 
    John M wrote:

    [44] C. R. Stucki

    "Actually, I think it ("the conclusion to be drawn") is the 'basketball-in-the-crib' and the 'science-textbooks-as-primers' thing, but that's pretty much another version of the same thing (for the black folks) as your "basketball at the neighborhood playground" thing, so yeah, we're basically in agreement, except you didn't offer your version (of the 'nature vs. nurture thing) for the Jews."

    Ok, well here it is then. The reason you find so many Jewish doctors and lawyers (or Nobel prize winners in science) is not because Jews as a group are more intelligent than anybody else, but because their Jewish parents push them to achieve in those particular areas.

    Glad to see that you finally agree with me and have refuted your own claim that certain groups have a racial or genetic predisposition advantage in certain areas.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Byron York: Five things that didn't happen in the Mueller investigation

    1. Mueller did not indict Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, or other people whose purported legal jeopardy was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

    2. Mueller did not charge anyone in the Trump campaign or circle with conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

    3. Mueller did not subpoena the president, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

    4. The president did not fire Mueller, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

    5. The president did not interfere with the Mueller investigation, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year. In his letter to Congress, Barr noted the requirement that he notify lawmakers if top Justice Department officials ever interfered with the Mueller investigation. "There were no such instances," Barr wrote.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-five-things-that-didnt-happen-in-the-mueller-investigation

    <BBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHbBBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABBBBBWWWWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I have been waiting a long time for that.. :D

    I had always stated that if Mueller released his report on a Monday, it was very bad news for President Trump..

    If he released it on a Friday, it was very bad news for Democrats...

    Suck ass, Dims!!! :D

    "Hasta lasagna, don't get any on ya..."
    -Emilio Estevez, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

  71. [71] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Michale! Hey man, missed ya!

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and it's a fair point, somehow donald managed not to do the thing that would have been deadly for him to do. for all his huffing and puffing, donald did not fire mueller nor use his authority to materially interfere with the SC's investigation.

    i'd say there's still jeopardy from other quarters, but the trump family definitely dodged one bullet.

    JL

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale! Hey man, missed ya!

    "I'm not back!!!"
    -Bill Paxton, TWISTER

    and it's a fair point, somehow donald managed not to do the thing that would have been deadly for him to do. for all his huffing and puffing, donald did not fire mueller nor use his authority to materially interfere with the SC's investigation.

    Illegal collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign is, was and always has been a wet dream for the Left in their quest to nullify a free, fair and legal election...

    It is the epitome of sore luser'ism....

    There is not a scintilla of a fact that proves the claim and even if there were, collusion is NOT illegal...

    And now, Democrats are going to CONTINUE to investigate collusion even though Mueller couldn't indict any for it, despite 675 days of investigating the claim..

    Democrats are going to look pretty stoopid trying the exact same thing that Mueller failed at..

    On the flip side, I wonder how long it will take Democrats to turn on Mueller.. A week?? A couple days??

    i'd say there's still jeopardy from other quarters, but the trump family definitely dodged one bullet.

    I highly encourage Democrats to continue to investigate and investigate and investigate..

    PROVE to the American people that they have NOTHING to offer this country but endless investigations...

    Dims might as well cede the House and the White House to the GOP now and save all the money and hassle of campaigning..

  74. [74] 
    TheStig wrote:

    nypoet-72

    Out of the frying pan, into the deep fryer. Trump picked an odd moment to French Kiss Kim-Jong. What is the Pentagon Brass thinking?

  75. [75] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    For Gawdsake man, do not ever again say ". . collusion is NOT illegal".

    You keep that up and the girls are bound to run across it, and all that wrist blood spilled will be on your conscience!!

  76. [76] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [69]

    Sorry man, absolutely no "refutation" intended on my part.

    Is it your point that only Jewish folks love their kids, and want them to be happy and successful? Wouldn't that itself be a manifestation of some degree of inferior native intelligence?

  77. [77] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Well folks, its ALL on Huffpost, 'Everything you always wanted to know about the Mueller report but were afraid to find out'!!

    Just as you've always known, Trump's win (and Hillary's loss) were the result of Russians having "sowed discord among the U.S. electorate" with Facebook postings.

    That constitutes a pretty sorry comment on the level of intelligence of the American electorate, but hey, there's nothing new there. After all, those are the same people who elected Johnson over Goldwater, because the Democratics convinced them that Goldwater was a "warmonger", and what was their reward for that case of egregious bad judgement again? Oh yeah, I remember now, it was called Vietnam, right?

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    For Gawdsake man, do not ever again say ". . collusion is NOT illegal".

    You keep that up and the girls are bound to run across it, and all that wrist blood spilled will be on your conscience!!

    You can rest assured that the girls will be in denial..

    They will either claim that no one knows yet if there was collusion because Mueller's report hasn't been released.. Even though one thing that IS definitive is that there will be no further indictments from Mueller..

    Or, they may go even further down the denial rabbit hole and claim that there WAS collusion and Mueller simply didn't find it, even though he had 675 days and unlimited access, power and money to find it..

    Pissant Democrats and their political committees will find it... :^/

    One way or another, I am guessing that, with a few possible exceptions, no one here will accept Mueller's final word on the collusion question..

    Which is exactly what I predicted would happen for the last couple years..

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    WTF is wrong with CRS - we don't know what is in the Mueller Report yet, and we may never know.

    Can you change your diaper and just sit and wait patiently like the rest of us.

    It has been a good show so far, six people connected to President Trump have been charged by the special counsel with an array of crimes, including financial fraud and lying to Congress and investigators. Five have been convicted or pleaded guilty. Twenty-eight others, including 26 Russians, also face charges.

    Let's see if there are any other roadmaps for prosecutors to follow. And remember, for the first two years of the administration there was a friendly House that ignored all of Trump's misdeeds, but the butt whipping in 2018 put some oversight back in place. The same thing could happen in 2020 if Trump loses and a new AG enters the scene.

    Nobody is expecting the Fox guarding the AG hen house to do anything with this report except try to whitewash it. Let's see what happens when some vindictive parties get their hands on it and the power to act.

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh - and I Michale - glad to see you back and hope all is well with you and your family!

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry "hi Michael"

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    And I hope you get over the flu CW.

  83. [83] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    WTF's wrong with neilm - he appears to have lost confidence in his soulmate Ariana and her successors at Huffpo. Never thought I'd see the day when that would happen.

    Course, it could just be a simple case of simple-mind denial, or maybe he's into 'sour-grapes mode', consoling himself with the fact that all of Trumps hangers-on are in the deep shit that thewy all deserve to be.

    Unfortunately, the consolation prize ain't really much of a prize at all in this case, right?

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    WTF is wrong with CRS - we don't know what is in the Mueller Report yet, and we may never know.

    We DO know what is NOT in the Mueller report...

    Indictments for collusion...

    It has been a good show so far, six people connected to President Trump have been charged by the special counsel with an array of crimes, including financial fraud and lying to Congress and investigators. Five have been convicted or pleaded guilty. Twenty-eight others, including 26 Russians, also face charges.

    NONE of which has anything to do with President Trump and his alleged collusion with Russians..

    Mueller spent 675 days and tens of millions of dollars and the SAME fact is present now that was present 675 days ago..

    There was NO collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia...

    Let's see if there are any other roadmaps for prosecutors to follow.

    TRANSLATION:

    Let's cast the widest net possible!! We're BOUND to find SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!!!

    The VERY definition of a fishing expedition/witch hunt...

    Oh - and I Michale - glad to see you back and hope all is well with you and your family!

    Hi Neil!! We're all doing great, thanx... :D

  85. [85] 
    neilm wrote:

    There was NO collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia..

    Firstly, you don't know that. Secondly, as far as we know there was NO parking in illegal spots in Tulsa by any of the Trump family! They also DIDN'T strangle any cats in any coffee shops to the best of our knowledge so far!

    However we are going to find out what they have been up to, if the report is released in full.

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    And fortunately for the blindly loyal Trump supporters, it isn't like Trump asked Russia to hack and release Hillary's emails, which they promptly did ... unless of course you count the time Trump asked Russia to hack and release Hillary's emails and they promptly did.

    No collusion my ass.

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    And the Moscow Tower deal which the gullible believe to be off the table, but it turned out that Trump was lying to them to get them to vote for him while dealing in the background with Putin's extended entourage.

    There is so much more fun to come in the next couple of years, and then, my hope is we get a seriously angry AG who hounds Trump and his family for years to bring them to account for all their crimes. And there are plenty.

  88. [88] 
    TheStig wrote:

    No discussion of horses in the New World is complete without this classic:

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ad/ff/33/adff336473e95a0e48c24a08eb4cce9c.jpg

    All the way back in 1984! Now, where did I put my Thagomizer...?

  89. [89] 
    neilm wrote:

    And while we are waiting for the Mueller Report, it isn't like we need to put away the popcorn. There are the Campaign Hush Money Payments; a Defamation Lawsuit; Emoluments Lawsuits; the irregularities around the Inauguration; and all the fun things the NY State prosecutors are looking into.

    Being happy that Mueller didn't frogmarch Trump out of the Oval Office is like celebrating a five yard holding penalty when your team is down by three touchdowns and your turned over the ball on the last four drives.

    It is a sign of the desperation on the right that the fact their conman isn't in jail yet is cause for celebration.

    Be patient, these things take time. And buy popcorn, it helps American Farmers who have been tragically crapped on by this administration.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Firstly, you don't know that.

    Yes, we do...

    Unless you want to claim that President Trump is smarter than Robert Mueller..

    Which directly contradicts how you have characterized President Trump in the past..

    Secondly, as far as we know there was NO parking in illegal spots in Tulsa by any of the Trump family! They also DIDN'T strangle any cats in any coffee shops to the best of our knowledge so far!

    All of which is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign..

    There were NO INDICTMENTS for collusion..

    NONE.. ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA....

    Now, if you want to claim that that DOESN'T mean there was no collusion, by all means..

    But such denial of reality smacks of desperation and sour grapes.. Neither of which are attractive in the context of a mature and adult discussion..

    And fortunately for the blindly loyal Trump supporters, it isn't like Trump asked Russia to hack and release Hillary's emails, which they promptly did ... unless of course you count the time Trump asked Russia to hack and release Hillary's emails and they promptly did.

    Then why didn't Mueller indict such an "obvious" crime??

    Maybe because it wasn't a crime, even if you WEREN'T mis-characterizing a campaign joke as a serious act...

    There is so much more fun to come in the next couple of years, and then, my hope is we get a seriously angry AG who hounds Trump and his family for years to bring them to account for all their crimes. And there are plenty.

    The last couple of years have proven me factually accurate at EVERY juncture in this issue.. And has proven ya'all (NEN) absolutely and 1000% factually full of kaa-kaa..

    Do you SERIOUSLY want ANOTHER two years of that??

    "Such masochistic tendencies warrant concern.."
    -Spock, STAR TREK, My Enemy, My Ally

    :D

    Being happy that Mueller didn't frogmarch Trump out of the Oval Office is like celebrating a five yard holding penalty when your team is down by three touchdowns and your turned over the ball on the last four drives.

    However you need to characterize it to make it thru these truly devastating times..

    I won't begrudge you that...

    Be patient, these things take time.

    Damn!! I just lost a bet...

    I figured it would take ya'all AT LEAST a day before ya'all counseled patience...

    Turns out it was mere hours..

    Ya'all had 675 days...

    Patience has run out.. Ya'all lost.. AGAIN... :D

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who could have POSSIBLY thinked that, when all was said and done, there would be NO FACTS to support an indictment of collusion...

    Oh... Wait.....

  92. [92] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re: "No collusion my ass!"

    I have NEVER denied the reality of your and Kick's version of "collusion" (or Kick's preference, "conspiracy" when it started to become obvious that 'collusion' was a dying issue).

    I have maintained from day one ONLY that "getting dirt on Hillary, even from Russians", regardless of how you characterize it out of desperation, never was and never will be illegal, so long as the First Amendment is intact.

    We may very well have elected a world-class asshole, but it was a totally legitimate election, and those who desperately try to de-legitimize it on grounds of "collusion" are well on their way to joining the asshole fraternity themselves.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    We may very well have elected a world-class asshole, but it was a totally legitimate election, and those who desperately try to de-legitimize it on grounds of "collusion" are well on their way to joining the asshole fraternity themselves.

    I dispute your notion that there is any controversy that we "may" have elected a "world class asshole"...

    Of course we did..

    But the FACT remains that, as you say, it was a COMPLETELY legal, fair and free election..

    And... MORE important..

    It was EXACTLY what the American people wanted after 8 years of Democrat skulduggery and incompetence...

    If Democrats want to seek someone to blame for the Trump administration...

    They need only look in the mirror..

    Odumbo beget Trump..

    It's THAT simple...

  94. [94] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Michale...You miserable Ha'dibah, good to see you, boy.

    I see your self-imposed sabbatical hasn't improved your wit and wisdom, how's life in the land of the three-toed people? Good, mehopes. I figured you would burrow your way back here as soon as Mueller threw you guys some faint hope. It will have to do for 20 months. A little bird hinted to me strongly that there are half a dozen sealed indictments awaiting four people, to be opened in the almost certain event Trump fails to win a second term. My little bird has never been wrong, considering his perch and flock, I have always taken his chirps as gospel. Furthermore, it's almost certain (though given Trump's inestimable ego, unlikely) that Trump won't be doing the a never-ending victory lap on the subject, as some would encourage him to do.
    On a completely unrelated subject ;) I gather the NRA will be keeping much to themselves during the next election cycle, much as they did for the midterms, that's going to be an interesting sideshow, to be sure.

    Glad to see you back, Michale, but not so glad as to wish you bon voyage were you to decide to scurry away again for some other delusional pouty snit...' “If it t'were done when ’tis done” drop by from time to time, we've kept your corner just as you left it, and dry-cleaned your conical MAGA cap...what are friends for, after all?

    LL&P

  95. [95] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    "witch hunt" is a ridiculous trope. it's already been proven that there were crimes committed, just uncertain exactly who committed them, and difficult to prove even were we to know. "fishing expedition" maybe, but there are already eight medium sized fish in the net, and it's not such a big pond. if one thought that hillary's e-mails were "gross negligence," this stuff takes it to a whole new level.

    "from what i understand, if this thing goes to court, they won't need a lawyer, they'll need a priest."

    @jtc,

    don't count your chickens. at the moment i give even odds that donald gets re-elected. even if anything were to stick, he'll be dead before he sees jail time. also, your klingon snark at michale is really not cool. i for one like having the perspective of someone who supports donald. perhaps we can all come together and agree on pie?

    JL

  96. [96] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I'm betting that for the women of Weigantia, both the penised and the unpenised ones, not even 108 "medium fish in the net" will offer the SLIGHTEST consolation when the 'big one' gets away!

    I promised previously, not to wallow in "told-ya-so" Schadenfreude, but Gawdamighty, it's getting harder by the minute!

  97. [97] 
    TheStig wrote:

    chaszzzbrown-57

    Thanks for the fascinating link. The article may well be on to something, but I interpret its ultimate conclusion to be premature. The scientists were working with mitochondrial DNA, not chromosomal DNA. Chromosomes are important (mild understatement). Modern humans share 99% of their DNA with chimpanzees, but the chimps have 48 chromosome pairs, humans have 46. Mating between species with different numbers of chromosomes can produce very healthy offspring (think mules), but the offspring are usually sterile. That outcome is a solid evolutionary dead end. Modern horses have 64 chromosome pairs, donkeys have 62. Different species of Zebra have different chromosome counts. Chromosome counts seems pretty plastic within the horse clade.

    The Horse Talk article states "The molecular biology evidence is incontrovertible and indisputable." Now where have I heard that phrase before? I don't know if the original paper goes that far out on a limb. If I were a reviewer I would slam them for saying any such thing. I would hope the authors of the original journal publication were a more cautious.

  98. [98] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Neilm-89

    "It isn't like we need to put away the popcorn. There are the Campaign Hush Money Payments; a Defamation Lawsuit; Emoluments Lawsuits; the irregularities around the Inauguration; and all the fun things the NY State prosecutors are looking into."

    Mueller's title says it all. Special Counsel. Not Special Prosecutor. His effort was legal recon with some preliminary skirmishing. He took some prisoners. The main battle has yet to begin. Watergate took 6 years. Trump may really be happy dancing, but I doubt it. It's mostly for the TV and electronic media. The Trumptown high won't last.

    I'm stocking up on microwave popcorn. Much cheaper in bulk!

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [93],

    Do my eyes deceive me!?

    After all, it has been said that what you see is not what is happening ...

  100. [100] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [70],

    Like a bad case of herpes, some things just never go away for good, it seems. Hahahahaha!

    1. Mueller did not indict Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, or other people whose purported legal jeopardy was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

    Strange that Mueller did not question Trump, Don Jr., Jared, or any of the Trump clan. The only time you don’t directly interview a suspect that you are investigating is when you DO NOT NEED to question them to get a conviction.

    2. Mueller did not charge anyone in the Trump campaign or circle with conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

    If Mueller followed DOJ policy, he couldn’t charge Trump while he still in office. It would also be foolish to charge anyone close to Trump while he is still in office, as he has made it clear that he isn’t afraid to pardon anyone who praises him like his suck-up crew! There is no way Mueller is going to broadcast if he filed sealed indictments with the courts — indictments that will be executed the day he leaves office.

    3. Mueller did not subpoena the president, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

    See my response to #1. Also, Mueller did have Trump provide written answers to questions he had for Trump. Trump’s attorneys could not allow him to testify because they know that it would have resulted in Trump being charged with perjury. How pathetic that your hero does not have the ability to answer questions without lying, even if he is aware that lying means he is charged with a felony!

    4. The president did not fire Mueller, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

    But it wasn’t that Trump did not want to fire Mueller or that he didn’t try to fire Mueller. His attorney had to threaten to resign to keep Trump from firing Mueller early on.

    5. The president did not interfere with the Mueller investigation, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

    Trump didn’t interfere with the investigation? Trump has trashed law enforcement and our intelligence agencies at every opportunity!
    Trump openly admitted that he fired Comey because he believed he could force the investigation to be shut down. Trump has stated countless times how he believes the role of the Attorney General is to protect him from being held accountable to our laws. It is why he fired Sessions, and it is why he hired Barr after Barr wrote a 17 page paper outlining why he believed the Mueller investigation should not exist!

    It’s a shame you still cheer for this narcissistic buffoon that lies with every breath, but not that surprising, I guess. Hope you are well, Michale.

    _Russ

  101. [101] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [95] " at the moment i give even odds that donald gets re-elected" lol...a personalized, touching moment, tbs.

    "your klingon snark at michale is really not cool" Oh, bollocks... Let go of your pearls for a moment, Michale is no shrinking violet, I'm sure he'll welcome the effort undertaken to look up the correct spelling of 'Ha'dibah'.

    As for Michale's input, I always welcomed it, I routinely dismissed it as vapid and uniformed. However, opinions aren't validated by their content, so much as they are by their existence.

    I shouldn't worry about so much about 'pie' if I were you, I'm sure Michale will carve out his usual double helping...That is until he manufactures another mouse to scream at, mount the furniture and burrows back to his right-wing rabbit hole. Hmmm?

    LL&P

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    JTC,

    A little bird hinted to me strongly that there are half a dozen sealed indictments awaiting four people, to be opened in the almost certain event Trump fails to win a second term.

    Facts to support??

    None??

    Of course not..

    This is as much wishful thinking as the idea that President Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election..

    Another Democrat wet dream that will never come to pass..

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Strange that Mueller did not question Trump, Don Jr., Jared, or any of the Trump clan. The only time you don’t directly interview a suspect that you are investigating is when you DO NOT NEED to question them to get a conviction.

    Strange that you think that Mueller is STILL investigating anyone or anything..

    The ONLY time a "suspect" is free and clear and innocent is when the investigator drops the case..

    If Mueller followed DOJ policy, he couldn’t charge Trump while he still in office. It would also be foolish to charge anyone close to Trump while he is still in office, as he has made it clear that he isn’t afraid to pardon anyone who praises him like his suck-up crew! There is no way Mueller is going to broadcast if he filed sealed indictments with the courts — indictments that will be executed the day he leaves office.

    There are no more indictments sealed or otherwise..

    What part of that do you not understand??

    The rest is just a rehash..

    Here are the facts..

    1. Mueller's investigation is over.

    2. President Trump and his children are free and clear with regards to collusion with the Russians.

    Now you may want to ignore these facts, but that does not make them any less factual..

    Ya'all lost... You placed so much faith and hope in the Russia Collusion fairy tale and it was for naught..

    Let's all be adult about it and take your well earned lumps..

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    "witch hunt" is a ridiculous trope. it's already been proven that there were crimes committed, just uncertain exactly who committed them, and difficult to prove even were we to know. "

    Crimes that had NOTHING to do with President Trump or Russia Collusion..

    With few exceptions, the crimes committed were PROCESS crimes. Crimes that were the result of the witch hunt itself.. Not "real" crimes as they are understood by real people..

    And THAT comes from a real person who understands REAL crimes...

    Regardless, the fact is that the results of Mueller's 675 days had NOTHING to do with President Trump or collusion with the russians..

    As much as it pains ya'all to read this, President Trump has been completely and utterly exonerated...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    "from what i understand, if this thing goes to court, they won't need a lawyer, they'll need a priest."

    Kudos on the quote.. :D

    @jtc,

    Thank you...

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have been binge-watching GAME OF THRONES.. Up to Season 4..

    It's uncanny how it parallels real life politics.

    President Trump is Daenerys Targaryen, going all over the countryside freeing American slaves from their captivity by the evil and nefarious Democrats....

    And the Lannister clan, with all their scheme'ings and machinations are a perfect representation of the Democrats and the Left Wing in general...

    Simply uncanny....

  106. [106] 
    John M wrote:

    [70] Michale

    "1. Mueller did not indict Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, or other people whose purported legal jeopardy was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year."

    Mueller did not. However the Southern District of NY still has to be heard from regarding indictments. It ain't over yet by a long shot.

    <BBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Suck ass, Repukes!!! :D

    [73] Michale

    "Illegal collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign is, was and always has been a wet dream for the Left in their quest to nullify a free, fair and legal election..."

    1.) It has NEVER been about nullifying an election. It has ALWAYS been about rooting out corruption and "draining the swamp."

    2.) If the Russians were heavily interfering in an American election with or without either active or inadvertent domestic help, how can you possibly call such an election "free" and "fair?"

    "There is not a scintilla of a fact that proves the claim and even if there were, collusion is NOT illegal..."

    As both you and CRS apparently both keep needing to be led by the hand and pointed out to, while collusion is not a crime, the word you are looking for is this instead, "conspiracy" IS A CRIME.

    "Dims might as well cede the House and the White House to the GOP now and save all the money and hassle of campaigning.."

    You mean like your endless claim that Democrats were going to lose, yet won the House in the Midterms by the biggest 40 seat gain landslide shellacking of Republicans since Watergate? Yeah, how did that work out for ya?

    [84] Michale

    "We DO know what is NOT in the Mueller report...

    Indictments for collusion..."

    There was NEVER going to be an indictment of Trump from Mueller. Period. Full stop. Because the DOJ would never approve such an indictment of a sitting President according to their own guidelines and rules.

    The solution ALWAYS has been a political one.

    1.) Either Trump gets indicted AFTER he leaves office due to losing the next election, or the voters simply punish him and turn him out. OR

    2.) Trump gets impeached

  107. [107] 
    John M wrote:

    [76] C. R. Stucki

    "Is it your point that only Jewish folks love their kids, and want them to be happy and successful? Wouldn't that itself be a manifestation of some degree of inferior native intelligence?"

    NO, that was NOT my point at all, as you very well know. Apparently when you can't counter an argument, you either choose to ignore it or choose to obfuscate instead.

    You know very well we were discussing the impact of genetics versus culture, which you still have yet to provide a scientific justification that supports your position.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Crimes that had NOTHING to do with President Trump or Russia Collusion..

    With few exceptions, the crimes committed were PROCESS crimes. Crimes that were the result of the witch hunt itself.. Not "real" crimes as they are understood by real people..

    Allow me to put it into a context that you can understand..

    President Clinton was impeached for a PROCESS crime.. His "crime" was one that resulted from the investigation itself.. If there had been no investigation, there would have been no "crime"..

    And, to further extrapolate the comparison, it is undeniable that Starr never proved criminality with the Whitewater investigation..

    Just as Mueller never proved any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia..

    Ergo, Mueller's witch hunt was no different than Starr's witch hunt...

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller did not. However the Southern District of NY still has to be heard from regarding indictments. It ain't over yet by a long shot.

    Yea, ya'all keep saying that and yet, NOTHING happens to President Trump..

    Sure you can throw all sorts of "Just Wait!!"s til the cows come home..

    But what you CANNOT do is deny the FACT that Mueller's investigation is over and President Trump was completely exonerated...

    2.) If the Russians were heavily interfering in an American election with or without either active or inadvertent domestic help, how can you possibly call such an election "free" and "fair?"

    If you believe that Russian interference is unique to THIS election..

    I have some swampland here in FL I wanna sell you..

    Face reality, JM... We wouldn't have heard a PEEP about Russian interference if Hillary had won..

    Ergo, the ***ONLY*** logical conclusion is that you don't care about Russian interference as long as you get the desired result..

    There was NEVER going to be an indictment of Trump from Mueller. Period. Full stop. Because the DOJ would never approve such an indictment of a sitting President according to their own guidelines and rules.

    And yet, ya'all went on and on about how Trump was going to be frog marched out of the oval office..

    There were NO FACTS that proved Russia collusion or that Russian interference impacted the results of the election.

    PERIOD... FULL STOP...

    1.) Either Trump gets indicted AFTER he leaves office due to losing the next election, or the voters simply punish him and turn him out. OR

    2.) Trump gets impeached

    OR...

    Democrats continue to try and prove something that never happened, The GOP wins back the House and President Trump is re-elected in a landslide and goes on to become the greatest US President since Ronald Reagan...

    "We can't discard the possibility just because we don't happen to like it.."
    -Martin Sheen, FINAL COUNTDOWN

    Let's face reality, my friend..

    Ya'all don't have a good track when it comes to predicting bad things happening to and because of President Trump..

    However, credit where credit is due..

    Ya'all *DO* have a perfect track record...

    Ya'all have ALWAYS been wrong..

    So, why do you think you have any credibility with these new predictions??

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller did not. However the Southern District of NY still has to be heard from regarding indictments. It ain't over yet by a long shot.

    In other words, the Mueller Investigation of Russian Collusion IS over..

    And ya'all were wrong.. AGAIN...

  111. [111] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Strange that you think that Mueller is STILL investigating anyone or anything..

    Stranger still is your lack of reading comprehension, as I never claimed, or even hinted that I believe Mueller is STILL conducting any investigations — because I do not believe that. Mueller is finished conducting investigations, but that does not mean that there are no investigations still being carried out by different branches of the DOJ. Gen. Flynn and Rick Gates have both had their sentencing dates pushed back as they are still providing assistance in ongoing cases.

    There are no more indictments sealed or otherwise..

    What part of that do you not understand??

    You know this how? Mueller may no longer be leading investigations, but that doesn’t mean there could not be more indictments eventually being prosecuted by other prosecutors.

    Ya'all lost..

    This is your problem — there is no “us” and “them”, there should not be sides when there is a legitimate question as to whether or not the current president was elected thanks to assistance from a foreign, hostile, government! Trump has continuously lied regarding everything to do with his ties to Russia. He grovels like a weak toady before Putin — believing Putin’s word over our own intelligence agencies.

    If you think investigating Trump is a partisan act, if you ignore the overwhelming evidence (including circumstantial evidence), if you ignore the questionable actions and dishonesty of Trump and his campaign... then it makes sense to pretend that this is all just political theatrics. But it also helps us to see how “ignore” is the foundation for the word “ignorance”.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know this how? Mueller may no longer be leading investigations, but that doesn’t mean there could not be more indictments eventually being prosecuted by other prosecutors.

    It's been widely reported that there are no more indictments, sealed or otherwise..

    I would show you the link that proves this, but I well remember how ya'all nit pick and obfuscate in your efforts to deny ya'all were ever wrong about anything..

    This is your problem — there is no “us” and “them”,

    On ppppuuullllleeeeezzeeeeee..

    These pages here in Weigantia are replete with US AND THEM mentality..

    It's funny how you Lefties always deny the "us v them" meme when ya'all have been proven wrong beyond any doubt..

    There was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign...

    Russian interference in the election never affected the outcome of the election.

    These are undeniable facts...

  113. [113] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Get well soon CW.

  114. [114] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    All of Weigantia

    You peoples claim(s) in support of the concept that the 2016 presidential was something OTHER than "Free and Fair" boils down to the following points:

    1) Trump Jr. willingly accepted an offer from a Russian lawyer to provide "political dirt" on Hillary. (Never mind that the promised dirt either never materialized, or turned out to be of no consequence.)

    2) The Russians revealed (with Trumps encouragement), that Hillary was a devious bitch, who with the help of the party establishment, cheated Bernie S. out of the nomintion, which supposedly alienated enough of her supporters to cost her the election (a premise discounted by most impartial observers).

    3) Russian 'hackers' "sowed 'discord' (whatever in hell that even means) among the U.S. electorate", presumably by posting some sort of subliminal messaging throughout social media, casting Hillary in a negative light, thereby turning off her voters from supporting her.

    Does it not occur to a single one of you people that each and every one of those points represents, in the world of reality, pure inconsequential BULLSHIT!

    Not a single one of those things is "illegal, immoral or fattening" as the old saying used to go. (Even though 'hacking' IS technically illegal, it turns out that it doesn't really matter when done by foreigners.)

    You people are simply SORE LOSERS, who cant stand the reality of having been beaten at your own game by a third rate reality TV host/simpleton/asshole, and you're going to keep grasping at straws forever in vain hopes of gettins some sort of revenge.

  115. [115] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS "All of Weigantia"

    Go boil your head. We don't get trolled that easily round here.

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Go boil your head. We don't get trolled that easily round here.

    What you call "being trolled" is simply a recitation of bona fide FACTS...

    So, in essence, what you are saying is

    "We don't need no stinkin' FACTS...."

  117. [117] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CRS

    So you predict the Mueller Report will back you up? All the other legal Investigations will cease?

    We don't need no stinkin' legal system. We got Stucki! Knows all, sees all and never shuts up.

  118. [118] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Actually you'd likely be astounded at how easy it seemed to me!

  119. [119] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig

    See "Sore Losers" section in [114].

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you predict the Mueller Report will back you up? All the other legal Investigations will cease?

    I see nothing to indicate that CRS said that..

    Yes, other investigations will go on..

    Hyper Hysterical President Trump Derangement Syndrome is strong and prevalent..

    But what is simply undeniable is the **FACT** that the Mueller 675 day investigation produced NOTHING in the way of bona fide FACT to indicate that President Trump illegally colluded with the Russian Government to win the election..

    Ya'all pinned your hopes on Mueller and you lost.. You were wrong..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed.."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  121. [121] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CRS, M

    Dept. of Right Up Your Alley

    Oxford’s Free Course Critical Reasoning For Beginners Teaches You to Think Like a Philosopher

    "recognize problematic arguments, whether they be a straw man, an appeal to authority, or an ad hominem attack. Faulty arguments are all-pervasive, and the mental biases that underlie them pop up in media coverage, college classes, and armchair theorizing *. Want to learn how to avoid them? Look no further than Critical Reasoning For Beginners, a top rated collection of lectures led by Oxford University’s Marianne Talbot."

    http://www.openculture.com/2019/03/oxfords-free-course-critical-reasoning-for-beginners-teaches-you-to-think-like-a-philosopher.html

    * The Italics are mine. Armchairs will not be provided.

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oxford’s Free Course Critical Reasoning For Beginners Teaches You to Think Like a Philosopher

    And how critical was ya'all's reasoning when you went on and on hysterically about Mueller's investigation and Trump colluded with the Russian's etc etc etc??

    "Critical reasoning" was non-existent...

    So, perhaps it's ya'all who should take the course.. You might actually come up with a valid and factually accurate prediction...

  123. [123] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS: Actually you'd likely be astounded at how easy it seemed to me!

    The ease you find being a troll says everything we need to know about you.

    You fall into the sad class of people who can't experience joy for themselves, so need to inflict injury to make everybody else seem as miserable as they are.

    I'm too old for that nonsense, and so are most of the people around here. If you need mental help, it is time to admit what is obvious and go and see a professional.

  124. [124] 
    neilm wrote:

    And how critical was ya'all's reasoning when you went on and on hysterically about Mueller's investigation and Trump colluded with the Russian's etc etc etc??

    Yeah, if only that had happened. Instead, if you could grasp reality, which you can't because it interferes with your self-righteousness, you'd see that you and CRS are the primary posters mentioning Mueller, and usually to tell us we are wrong and you are right, because you are both so clever and we are all so stupid.

    To even a causal observer it is amusing to see you both try to whip up some controversy about Mueller when the rest of us keep telling you to stop soiling your diapers and just wait for the facts to come out.

    So stop soiling your diapers, and just wait for the report to be released.

  125. [125] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [108] Lol..."President Clinton was impeached for a PROCESS crime.. His "crime" was one that resulted from the investigation itself.. If there had been no investigation, there would have been no "crime".."

    In all of this sophistry lies the awkward notion that-- were it not for action 1, action 2 would never have occurred-- Well that can't be said of both investigations, surely a child could understand the obvious difference; Ken Starr created Clinton's crime of perjury in the pursuit of his set directive. Mueller did not mind-meld or jump in his TARDIS and coerce or compel Manafort, Gates and Cohen to commit their crimes.
    If you can't see the difference between the two, 'you're away in the head'*

    [104]...Lol, "As much as it pains ya'all to read this, President Trump has been completely and utterly exonerated..."
    No doubt. Much in the same way Manafort was unequivocally deemed 'not guilty' on ten of his eighteen charges due to mistrial, and not acquittal...Hmm? I love to see how this mentality ticks. It's almost like it has to twist facts inside out to support its own embarrassingly wrong conclusions. let's not forget either...Manafort later went on to plead guilty and confess his crimes for the ten so-called 'not guilty' charges.

    [112] Lol..."There was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign...
    Russian interference in the election never affected the outcome of the election.
    These are undeniable facts..." The first sentence destroys the next two...We know for a fact that Manafort gave voting data to a Ruskie intel officer, even he hasn't denied it. Was he not campaign manager for Trump at some point? Also, note how Manafort's deputy, Gates, now sits in prosecutorial limbo while he co-operates with authorities. Whatever he's talking about, we know it has to be Manafort/Trump campaign related, all other criminality has been spoken to.

    The truth is, the 2016 election was decided by 107,000 votes in the electoral college system. We know the Ruskies were operating a dis-information campaign to skew public opinion in favour of Trump, and against Clinton. The only question we need to be asking ourselves is...Could the Ruskie effort have effected 107,000 votes out of 35,410,402 ballots cast in GA, NC, FL, ME, AZ, MI, WI and UT, all states that Trump won by half a percentage to claim the electoral college win? I think the logical mind would see that given those numbers, the Ruskies could easily have been central players in the 2016 Trump win. Feel free to look up the numbers and do the math for yourselves, I assure you, the numbers, unlike Trump and his entire gang, do not lie.

    *https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7120662/
    Derry Girls...well worth the time.

    LL&P

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, if only that had happened. Instead, if you could grasp reality, which you can't because it interferes with your self-righteousness, you'd see that you and CRS are the primary posters mentioning Mueller, and usually to tell us we are wrong and you are right, because you are both so clever and we are all so stupid.

    Once again..

    Ooohhhh puuulleeeeessseeeee

    Ya'all have talked NON-STOP about Mueller and President Trump's collusion with the Russians...

    And NOW...... Now that ya'all have been made to look completely and utterly foolish.....

    NOW you come back with "Well, we never really talked about Mueller and President Trump collusion..."

    Such an utterly predictable response...

  127. [127] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    You fall into the sad class of people who, having failed at their first calling (political analyst), now strive to fail at their second (shrink).

    Re: "Stop soiling your diapers and wait for the facts to come out"!

    Translation: "We can't LIVE with the facts, so for Gawdsake, let us keep pretending as long as humanly possible".

  128. [128] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ya'all have talked NON-STOP about Mueller and President Trump's collusion with the Russians...

    so posting some links should be no problem then.

  129. [129] 
    neilm wrote:

    We can't LIVE with the facts

    So, you've read the report then, and know all the facts?

    You know nothing. Be patient, if you can.

  130. [130] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    JTC

    Re: That "Russian disinformatio campaign"

    You naturally mean the one where they revealed to the whole world that Clinton and her backers had stacked the primaries deck against Bernie Sanders, which antagonized his supporters? That "disinformation campaign"?

    Wait a phuqueing minute - every bit of that was 100% true, as verified by their hacked emails, right?

    So how do you get away with defining the truth as "disinformation"???

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:
  132. [132] 
    neilm wrote:

    so posting some links should be no problem then.

    So, no links to comments here then. Not so simple, having to deal with reality, is it Michale?

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    Great posts. You're making way too much sense.

    Have you ever in your entire life known a law enforcement officer who'd carry on in such a manner? Every law enforcement officer that I know (an exhaustive lot, to be sure) would naturally know how the law works. Barring pure ignorance of certain law, there's also not a single law enforcement officer I've ever known who wouldn't have watched and learned based on patterns of things. Based on these and other facts, I come to the same conclusion we've reached before.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that you're fully aware of what that conclusion happens to be. :)

  134. [134] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    88

    Nice! :)

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    FLASHBACK: DEMS, MEDIA PREDICT MUELLER PROBE RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT, PRISON
    ‘My impression is after all of this is said and done that some people end up in jail’

    https://news.grabien.com/story-flashback-dems-media-predict-mueller-probe-results-impeachme

    BBBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Of course you don't accept the facts..

    YOU still believe that Trump colluded with the Russians..

    FACTS and REALITY figure very little to none in your delusions..

  137. [137] 
    neilm wrote:

    ‘My impression is after all of this is said and done that some people end up in jail’

    And they did. Manafort. Cohen. Papadopoulos. van der Zwaan. Pinedo.

  138. [138] 
    neilm wrote:

    YOU still believe that Trump colluded with the Russians..

    You still think, after hearing him beg Russia to hack Hillary's emails, which they subsequently did, that Trump is innocent.

    I've always maintained that the Russians are too clever to involve Trump in anything because he is too stupid to trust, so the criminal problems Trump should be worried about are around his financial shenanigans. And I'm being proven right.

    That is not to say that Russia didn't try to interfere with the election, which is what Mueller was asked to investigate.

    It was only the desperate National Enquirer types such as yourself and CRS who have been scared of "collusion" - I wonder why?

  139. [139] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-122

    "So, perhaps it's ya'all who should take the course.."

    Way ahead of you. I've already finished the first video and found it very worthwhile. It never hurts to brush up on your skill sets. Life long learning. Fight like train, train like you fight, you're ex-military, you've heard that.

    Your arguments are flabby. You argue with the tools of a 3rd grader at recess - Straw man, appeal to authority, and ad hominem attacks, plus endless repetition and a dollop of folksiness - that's your arsenal. It's pathetic. Neilm is right...you need a professional intervention.

  140. [140] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-134

    I think it's the best Larson cartoon, and that is saying a lot. The awestruck expression of on the face of the horse viewing the mountains is priceless.

  141. [141] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-122, one more thing.

    Your primary technique is misdirection. Your act is the equivalent of 3 card monte, everybody knows it's a scam, and it's fun to watch for a while, but ultimately it's just a nuisance blocking foot traffic.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    And they did. Manafort. Cohen. Papadopoulos. van der Zwaan. Pinedo.

    None of which had anything to do with Trump, the Election or the Russians..

    But hay.. You hang your hat on whatever shred of pride you can...

    You have to be feeling so low and chagrined, I won't begrudge you that.

    Why, you probably feel as low and as disillusioned as the night the American people elected Donald Trump as President..

    I won't begrudge you trying to scrap together SOME minute semblance of dignity...

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    All so serious.. :D

    Look, I get it.. You guys are hurting... Ya'all probably haven't been this butt-hurt since President Trump was elected...

    It's unworthy for me to wallow in ya'all's butt-hurt and despair...

    But, daaaamn... It feels so good.. :D And it's not as if I haven't EARNED it..

    But, I'll have it out of my system soon...

    Surely by Nov of 2020 :D

  144. [144] 
    Kick wrote:

    CLEANUP ON AISLE 108

    I generally subscribe to the idea that people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. It is in that spirit that I should like to post some facts to clear up some misinformation (operative word there being some misinformation).

    In May 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit against William Jefferson Clinton and another for sexual harassment etcetera. The lawsuit of Ms. Jones had nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation of Robert Fiske Jr., the independent counsel appointed by Janet Reno who was in charge of investigating "financial irregularities" in the issue of the Whitewater property company. The Whitewater issue became colloquially known as the "Starr investigation" in August 1994 when Mr. Fiske was replaced by Kenneth Starr as the independent counsel.

    Cutting to the chase, the impeachment of President Clinton was initiated by the House in December 1998, which let to a trial in the Senate based on two charges: perjury and obstruction of justice in the case of Paula Jones. Both of the charges for which the President was impeached arose from the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones.

    And there you have it, and the rest is history. I love history. :)

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    Just when we thought the MAGAts were loving them some Robert Mueller, the Ignorant Tool Devin Nunes has informed "Fox & Friends" that Mueller's report should be burned.

    It almost sounds like Devin Nunes might know something. Wasn't he the one that was on that committee thingy? ;)

  146. [146] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well, it's official: the right has lost its mind.

    We know nothing, yet. Is that not a good reason to step back and hold fire? Certainly.

    Not these guys. Having no shame helps, cause if they're wrong, they just reverse direction without regret. Must be nice.

    We'll hold our fire, for now. Kick makes a great point in 144. He's toast, one way or another.

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooohhh Russ????

    Mueller’s investigation is known to have concluded without a recommendation for further indictments
    https://apnews.com/f4f1ea3c16884b49ae853e12e78e42ad

    Ya'all lost..

    You don't get to nullify a free, fair and legal election..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."

    These are the facts.. Deal with it..

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    We know nothing, yet.

    YOU know nothing..

    YOU have never known anything..

    The facts are all around you, BURYING you...

    And yet, you think that, any second now, President Trump will be frog marched from the oval office..

    YOU lost...

    Deal with it...

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, the resemblance between ya'all and the Lannisters....

    It's uncanny...

  150. [150] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Sorry all to hell folks, but Barr just released his summary! NO COLLUSION!!!Whoda EVER guessed???

    You guys fooled yourself for two long and expensive gawdam yrs that 1), Having a discussian with Ruskies is automatically collusion/conspiracy, and 2), That collusion is automatically a de-facto crime.

    But don't let that throw you into despair, just keep telling yourself that the summary doesn't count, and you ain't gonna slash your wrists until every last word has been made public.

    Knowing you people, that will be good far at LEAST two MORE yrs.

    (Bad news is, I ain't gonna wait along with you. I'm gonna quietly shout, TOLDYASO, dumbasses, RIGHT NOW!

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller investigation finds no Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia

    BOOOYAAAAAAAA... grandma..... BOOOOYYYYAAAAAAAA

    NOW we know..

    Ya'all pinned yer hopes of a wet dream...

    And now ya'all are covered in spoooge....

    Congrats...

    It looks really good on you...

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

    Ya'all LOST!!!

    BBBBBBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Like I said..

    The Democrats' remnant of a wet dream....

    It really looks good on ya'all...... :D

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    TOLDYASO, dumbasses

    In spades........

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    OHMYGODS, how ya'all must be hanging your heads in shame!!

    I bet ya'all haven't felt THIS low since ya'all backed that college girl who loved to attend high school child rape parties....

    THAT was a pretty low point for ya'all...

    But I imagine this far surpasses that point....

  155. [155] 
    Steedo wrote:

    It was fun while it lasted but he was obviously lying about staying away. I refer to the resident apologist and Donnie's cockholster (speaking of spewing bodily fluids) who was so upset about about his fantasy of our collective support for child molesting (or pizza sex ring or whatever) that he swore he was done with CW's blog. He is clearly a liar just like his daddy. Big surprise.

  156. [156] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale [153],

    Since you are not inclined to engage in thoughtful discourse here, then I would suggest that you leave again. But, this time, don't come back until you can resist your ever present urge to insult your fellow commenters.

  157. [157] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS [150],

    Shocking. Positively shocking.

  158. [158] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS,

    You might also consider leaving this blog's comments sections until you can demonstrate that you are capable of thoughtful comments.

    Chris's blog is exceptional in the blog world. On the other hand, there are countless blogs out there that welcome the kind of comments you post here.

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since you are not inclined to engage in thoughtful discourse here,

    You mean, like the "thoughtful discourse" ya'all engaged in when you backed the word of a college girl who loved to participate in high school child rape parties???

    Who you backed SOLELY because she was saying, politically, what ya'all wanted to hear??

    Is THAT what ya'all call "thoughtful discourse"???

    Yea... I don't want to participate in that..

    Sue me..

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Steedo,

    "Who are you again???"
    -Tony Stark, CAPTAIN AMERICA, CIVIL WAR

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why is it that, when it comes to REALLY consequential things.... Like.. oh I dunno... a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION or a nearly THREE YEAR INVESTIGATION OF A PRESIDENT...

    Why is it that, when all is said and done, I am sitting on the top of the mountain and ya'all are in the dregs covered with the spooge and slime of the remnants of a Democrat wet dream??

    Why is that??

    Is it because maybe.... JUST MAYBE... I am governed by FACTS and reality and ya'all are spurred on, wearing blinders of Party Slavery???

    Could that possibly be it??

    Well.... The FACTS clearly show that THAT just may be the reality.... :D

  162. [162] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz

    All my comments are thoughtful, even the "positively shocking" ones!

    Why are you not upset about the "positively shocking" crude and insulting comments that are directed at me?

    I'd never hope that you left this blog, but truth be known, you're the one that doesn't belong here. The only girls that belong here are the ones WITH penises. The unpenised ones are simply too sweet, too genteel and too dainty to have to deal with political fanatics, most especially of the left.

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's this???

    TRUMP WINS!
    CAMPAIGN DID NOT COLLUDE WITH RUSSIANS
    NO PROOF OF CRIMES
    BARR TEXT
    MAXINE MELTDOWN
    MEDIA ROCKED
    DC ON EDGE

    Oh, wow....

    There is ONLY one quote that is apropos here..

    "Oh Johnny, Johnny... Did YOU back the wrong horse"
    -Peter Venkmen

    Face reality, people...

    YA'ALL LOST....

    The American people won...

    Gods, ya'all must feel SOOOOO much shame....

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election did not find that any U.S. or Trump campaign officials knowingly conspired with Russia, according to details released on Sunday.

    Oh my gods, the SHAME and EMBARRASSMENT ya'all must feel..

    To have ya'all's hopes raised so high and mighty....

    And then to DASH them to the ground with facts and reality....

    Oh you poor poor Left Wingers... How utterly depressed and pathetic ya'all must feel...

    I really feel for ya!!! :D Really!!!! :D :D :D

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's get a cross section of the commentariat...

    Best President Ever...DONALD J. TRUMP ! ! ! ! !

    SUCK IT LIBSCUM ! ! ! !

    And....

    The VERY BEST PRESIDENT, EVER!!!

    And....

    ....................../´¯/)
    ....................,/¯../
    .................../..../
    ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
    ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
    ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
    .........\.................'...../
    ..........''...\.......... _.·´
    ............\..............(
    ..............\.............\...

    THAT one is especially apropos, don'tcha think??? :D

    And....

    MAGA ! And Go Trump for another term. Love the liberals wallowing n their own doo doo....LOL!

    Oh wow.... Looks like the verdict is in...

    President Trump is the greatest thing since sliced pizza and Democrats are the dogshit you scrape off your shoe...

  166. [166] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    It's been a while since I've checked the site more than weekly and didn't want to go through all of the comments.

    Did CW take a vacation or something? Don't recall a program note or anything. Does anyone know if he's alright?

    S

    PS (Michale [165]: Classy. A large reason why I don't look too often anymore; but you be you, even if you be a [expletive deleted]).

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    500 witnesses; 2800 subpoenas: No collusion...

    JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DELIVERS MUELLER CONCLUSIONS TO CONGRESS – NO COLLUSION
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/24/justice-department-mueller-report-congress/

    And to think that there are people out there who STILL believe that collusion happened...

    You REALLY have to feel sorry for those Party slaves...

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    PS (Michale [165]: Classy. A large reason why I don't look too often anymore; but you be you, even if you be a [expletive deleted]).

    Would you like some cheese to go with yer whine??

    You were a sucker and bought into the entire bullshit..

    Don't expect me to go easy on you and cry for your loss of innocence..

    You had the facts and choose to believe the bullshit..

    That's on you, sunshine...

    Live with that.....

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh Russ??????

    The secret report was handed to Barr on Friday with the announcement that no new indictments were forthcoming.

    Is there something you want to say to me??

    Maybe something along the lines of "You were right.. There are no further indictments... I was wrong..."

    Anything at all you want to say??

    No???

    Of course not.. As I said.. No one here can admit when they are wrong...

    Even though the FACTS prove conclusively that WRONG is all ya'all have EVER been....

    How does it feel to be on the ass end of FACTS and REALITY???

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    ****SPOILER**** ****SPOILER****
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    I haven't been this happy and pumped since Joeffery Lannister choked on his own vomit!!! :D

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Today marks the day that President Trump has been completely and fully vindicated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, exposing the Russia collusion conspiracy theory for the sham that it always was and catching Democrats in an elaborate web of lies and deceit. ”
    -Trump Campaign Manager

    And what a FRABJOUS DAY it is!!!

    Vindication, thy name is TRUMP **AND** Michale

    :D

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    MSNBC’s Tur on Mueller Report: ‘This Vindicates the President on Collusion’
    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2019/03/24/msnbcs-tur-mueller-report-vindicates-president-collusion

    OHMIGODS, how ya'all (NEN) must be crying in yer corn flakes this day, eh???

    I mean, the shame and embarrassment ya'all must be feeling must be utterly brutal and devastating...

    Maybe I could be the good kind of winner who would let ya'all wallow in your misery in peace...

    NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

    This winner has EARNED the right to gloat...

    SO...

    SUCK IT, DEMS!!!!

    This is where ya'all's adherence to Party slavery has brought you...

    Ya'all have EARNED this special place in hell...

    ENJOY.....

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone wanna talk about Jussie Smollets???

    Another Democrat fiction ploy that went totally to the shitter....

    We can re-visit all the Democrats bullshit of the last couple months.. I am HAPPY to point it all out to ya'all...

    Just say the word... :D

  174. [174] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I almost forgot how tedious it could be to scroll through the comments.

    It reminds of when I'm a watching a movie about the middle ages such as the "bring out your dead" scene in the Monty Python movie and I say:

    Ah... the good old days.

    "Welcome back"
    -John Sebastian
    Theme from Welcome Back Kotter

  175. [175] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well, Barr's bullshit has a limited life span.

    No collusion? After the Assange thing, the multiple contacts with Russians, and attempts to conceal same,
    oh, come on!

    No obstruction? After he admitted it? Are you kidding?

    Barr (and Mueller) have a lot of questions to answer.

  176. [176] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    PS: Stig: C.W. has the flu. He'll be back soon.

  177. [177] 
    neilm wrote:

    Anybody heard from Michale recently?

  178. [178] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale who?

  179. [179] 
    neilm wrote:

    It looks like the right are doing the happy dance because they think they have been let off of their crimes.

    If that is the case, then there should be no problem with a complete release of the Mueller Report tomorrow then.

    Right right?

  180. [180] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [133]

    Thank you, I appreciate that. It is almost comical how overly thrilled Trumpstumps are about the letter (from a man who only was hired after he wrote a 17 page letter stating how he would protect Trump from the Mueller investigation) from our Attorney General (a position that Trump had only one criteria for — willingness to protect Trump from the Russia investigation) claiming that Mueller had cleared Trump of any wrong-doing.

    I am pretty sure if we checked the metadata on the letter Barr sent saying Mueller cleared Trump, we’d see that it was actually created prior to his being appointed AG.

    I want a bumper sticker made that says:

    NO COLLUSION!!!!
    (Other than Manafort giving polling data to the Russians, Trump asking the Russians to go after Clinton’s emails during a press conference, the meeting at Trump Tower of Terrorist’s with Don Jr., Roger Stone’s seeking the release of the hacked emails from the DNC, Kushner seeking a “backdoor” line of communication with Putin with the Russian embassy, and God knows how many other ones I am leaving out because you can only get so many words to fit on a bumper sticker!)

    Here’s the funniest thing in all of this: The Mueller investigation and all of the other investigations that resulted from it all came about because Trump and all of the people involved in his campaign LIED about their contacts with Russia — contacts that weren’t illegal!!!

    Think about it, ALL of the investigations stem from Trump lying about something he did not need to lie about!!! The genius destroyed his own empire and ruined his presidency lying about something that wasn’t worth lying about! If Mueller’s report is being accurately depicted by Barr, then this actually makes Trump look like the biggest idiot of all time!

    Enjoy your Sunday!

    Russ

  181. [181] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Anyone wanna talk about Jussie Smollets???

    Surprised that you think he did anything wrong — he lied to authorities for self-serving reasons. Duh! He’s black and gay! But I am sure that isn’t why you think what he did is different from what Trump does all the time!

    Also, does Trump still believe that the Mueller investigation was tainted since it was led by a man who was not elected? Or does he think Mueller was a trustworthy individual, now that Trump is happy with the findings? Which reality bubble does Trump want us to believe in today?

  182. [182] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Just as we suspected...Trump, guilty as sin.

    Even by stacking the deck and raiding the game, Trump could not get his own appointees to exonerate him and his gang.

    Tough break, pro-Trumpers...next time, don't put all your eggs in the same basket-case.

    Obviously, the next discussion to be had is...When will the report, in its entirety, become available...the American people deserve to know the depths to which Trump and his henchmen went to rule out unequivocal acquittal…

    For shame, GOP, for shame...

    LL&P

  183. [183] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LWYH-180

    Great post from you. Two full days to put a happy spin on a still secret report is not exactly the same as exoneration. From what has been released, the findings seem to be a mix of one part insufficient evidence and one part decline to recommend prosecution on account of executive priviledge. The investigations that Mueller spun off cannot be reeled back and will likely dog Trump until his dying day.

  184. [184] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the biggest tragedy in all this is the entire country has suffered a loss of a common reality based on the same facts. or even a common understanding of what facts ARE.

  185. [185] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [179] Right!

  186. [186] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    JTC [182]

    Re: "Tough break pro Trumpers. ."

    Curious, could your specify please, who are those people?

  187. [187] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well, at the moment it appears that russian electioneering in 2016 was done without donald's knowledge or cooperation. i for one will be relieved if it is confirmed that at least that much is the case.

    yes, donald still seems to have been involved in corruption, bribery, fraud, money laundering, hiring shady characters to play dirty political games, using charitable foundations as personal slush funds, etc, etc... but that's been the norm in washington for over a century. yes, he ran on a promise to get rid of that stuff, then turned around and did it bigger and bolder. but then, hypocrisy in washington has also been the norm for just as long. he's fitting in famously.

    JL

  188. [188] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    184

    the biggest tragedy in all this is the entire country has suffered a loss of a common reality based on the same facts. or even a common understanding of what facts ARE.

    The entire country!?

    Nah. :)

    Bill Barr wrote a memo... about what we'd expect from him if we knew his history, and we do.

    The Barr memo is the new "Nunes memo." :)

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL

    well, at the moment it appears that russian electioneering in 2016 was done without donald's knowledge or cooperation. i for one will be relieved if it is confirmed that at least that much is the case.

    What would it take for you to have confirmation??

    I mean, apparently, a massive almost 3 year witch hunt by a HIGHLY motivated group of political partisans couldn't find a SINGLE iota of a fact to prove collusion with the Russians to win the election..

    THAT is not "confirmation"???

    So, what WOULD be??

    the biggest tragedy in all this is the entire country has suffered a loss of a common reality based on the same facts. or even a common understanding of what facts ARE.

    And would you say that there is blame on BOTH sides for this sad and sorry state of affairs??

    I mean, I am ready and willing to acknowledge the Right's responsibility..

    Are you ready and willing to do the same for the Left???

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Surprised that you think he did anything wrong — he lied to authorities for self-serving reasons. Duh! He’s black and gay! But I am sure that isn’t why you think what he did is different from what Trump does all the time!

    That he lied was not his crime..

    He tried to indict a large group of people for a crime that wasn't even committed..

    You remember how you Lefties were so up in arms and hysterical when Susan Smith blamed a black man for car jacking her and kidnapping her two children..

    Smollets did the EXACT same thing..

    Funny how you Lefties in here didn't condemn Smollets, eh??

    Also, does Trump still believe that the Mueller investigation was tainted since it was led by a man who was not elected? Or does he think Mueller was a trustworthy individual, now that Trump is happy with the findings? Which reality bubble does Trump want us to believe in today?

    Trying to deflect and dodge again..

    You were WRONG... But, as usual, it's all about Trump..

    You cannot concede you were wrong..

    Just like you were wrong when you questioned my NO MORE INDICTMENTS claim..

    You were wrong then as well..

    You have always been wrong..

    When it comes to President Trump, you will always be wrong...

    It's THAT simple..

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    If that is the case, then there should be no problem with a complete release of the Mueller Report tomorrow then.

    I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO problem with the full release of the Mueller Witch Hunt..

    Will simply give me more FACTS to pound into... :D

    I mean, look what I was able to do with the summary...

    JUST THINK how many comments I could get out of the entire witch hunt report... :D

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    A short two-minute video for those of you in the media pitifully insisting that no media reckoning is needed and journalists performed beautifully, soberly and responsibly throughout this whole saga:
    https://twitter.com/i/status/1110027367882346496

    -Glenn Greenwald

    Good @WashingtonPost article on the reckoning that major parts of the US media owe the public for the historically humiliating role they eagerly played in misleading millions of people for 2+ years
    -Glenn Greenwald

    It's not only the Democrats and hysterical Trump/America haters who are being frog-marched to justice..

    It's also it's propaganda arm, the Mainstream Media...

    Could this day get ANY better???! :D

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Just as so many people call on congressional Republicans to stand up on principle" this "is certainly a time for congressional Democrats to stand up too" -
    -Ari Melber

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1110006831286571008

    Will we see Democrats concede they were wrong???

    Judging from what we see in here (with a couple notable exceptions) that represents the Democrat way of thinking.......

    Probably not...

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooohhhhh RRRRRRRuuuussssssss???

    The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public.
    -Barr Report

    Don't you have an apology you want to render???

    Don't you have a concession you need to make???

    That is what a person of integrity does...

    What say you??

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    It sure didn't take long for Democrats to turn on Mueller

    Let me be clear, I CONCEDE NOTHING! If #MuellerReport didn’t look into Trump’s business ties with the Russians before the elections and didn’t look into his secret meetings with them after the election, then this is an epic debacle that looked into the exact wrong things.
    -Cenk Uygur

    Exactly as I predicted would happen..

    If Democrats didn't get the results they wanted, they would tar and feather their "hero", Robert Mueller...

    Gods, it's really tough being factually accurate all the time..

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    REWIND: WATCH THE MEDIA SPEND TWO YEARS HYPING A NOW-DEBUNKED STORY

    Bombshells! Treason! Impeachment! Prison!
    https://news.grabien.com/story-flashback-dems-media-predict-mueller-probe-results-impeachme

    When all is said and done...

    Democrats are nothing but a bunch of 911 Truthers...

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    End of Mueller probe a boost for Trump, a warning for Democrats

    Special counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his report to the Department of Justice, ending his investigation into election meddling and potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    In an important win for President Trump, the Mueller report made no new recommendations for indictments, and there is every indication we will not see any substantial new developments within the Trump campaign’s orbit.

    It is hard to overstate how positive of an impact this has for the president’s 2020 reelection campaign.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435459-end-of-mueller-probe-a-boost-for-trump-a-warning-for-democrats

    Yes, this is indeed a warning for Democrats..

    A warning not to pursue the reckless and bullshit agenda of trying to nullify a free, fair and legal election..

    The only question that remains is will Democrats heed the warning??

    Or will they double down on stoopid...

    I think we ALL know the answer to that question...

    Ya'all Democrats have too much of yer collective SOULS invested in this agenda..

    Doubling down on stoopid is ya'all's ONLY course of action...

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Today’s Democrats must take note that, throughout the two-year Mueller probe, the Department of Justice did not find any instances in which the investigation “was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.”

    Put another way, Mueller was given all of the latitude he needed to complete a thorough and comprehensive report that answered all questions of potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    Despite the obvious temptation to continue investigating Trump, based on political differences and an intense dislike of him as an individual, the Democrats must put this issue to bed. The Mueller investigation is over, and the president will not be indicted.

    If Democrats continue to look backward at the 2016 election and cry foul, it will seriously hurt their electability in 2020 and create the conditions for Trump’s reelection.

    By all means, Demcorats...

    Double down on stoopid.....

    Put President Trump back in the White House in a landslide election...

    Hand over the House to the GOP....

    Give the GOP a filibuster proof majority in the Senate..

    Double down on stoopid.. I DARE you!

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    The vast attempt to undo the 2016 election has failed
    History moves on. The NeverTrumpers cannot

    Well, I am going to miss the full-bore SWAT-team raids at dawn against aging political factota like Roger Stone and Paul Manafort. It was really very courteous of CNN to have been parked outside the homes of those hapless victims so that television audiences all across the country could all be edified by these exhibitions of the coercive arm of state power in action. Mr Mueller could just have had one of his 17 Obama-and-Hillary supporting prosecutors ring up the latest mark and ask him to pop down to headquarters. But that would not have been as dramatic, as expensive, or as cruel.

    How that announcement must have stung the NeverTrump fraternity. Here they were, huddled around Bill Kristol’s Twitter feed for the last two-plus years, praying, predicting, posturing that very soon now, any day in fact, Robert Mueller would descend into their midst, the deus ex machina through whose instrumentality they were to be delivered at long last from the nightmare of Donald Trump and his unacceptable record of robust economic growth, hundreds of constitutionally-minded judicial appointments, rising wages, historically low unemployment, a more rational and business-friendly regulatory environment, deeper ties with Israel, a revitalized military, and serious attention to our immigration crisis and the growing threat of an increasing militant China. Yes, it’s been a bad couple of years for the NeverTrumpers.
    https://spectator.us/undo-2016-election-mueller/

    It's almost tempting (not really) to feel sorry for the Trump/America haters...

    Ya'all invested SOOO much of yer heart and souls into Robert Mueller and now ya'all have absolutely NOTHING to show for it, save a bruised ego, even more pent up hysterical hatred and a mouthy commenter who loves to gloat..

    Well, ya'all can't say you weren't warned.. I told ya'all time and time again that, when Mueller came up with nothing, ya'all would hear about it.. Incessantly..

    And here we are... :D

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh my, what have we here!!!! :D

    As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

    After nearly three years and millions of tax dollars, the Trump-Russia collusion probe is about to be resolved. Emerging in its place is newly unearthed evidence suggesting another foreign effort to influence the 2016 election — this time, in favor of the Democrats.

    Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-emerges

    I am sure ya'all will pursue this abhorrent and heinous instance of a presidential candidate getting campaign help from a foreign power as diligently and as hysterically as ya'all pursued President Trump..

    Right??? I mean, THAT is what people of integrity and honesty do...

    RIGHT????

    I look forward to reading ALL of ya'all's hundreds and thousands of comments voraciously condemning Hillary for her collusion with a foreign power to win an election...

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD
    The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it

    Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.

    As has long been rumored, the former FBI chief’s independent probe will result in multiple indictments and convictions, but no “presidency-wrecking” conspiracy charges, or anything that would meet the layman’s definition of “collusion” with Russia.

    With the caveat that even this news might somehow turn out to be botched, the key detail in the many stories about the end of the Mueller investigation was best expressed by the New York Times:

    A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments.

    For those anxious to keep the dream alive, the Times published its usual graphic of Trump-Russia “contacts,” inviting readers to keep making connections. But in a separate piece by Peter Baker, the paper noted the Mueller news had dire consequences for the press:

    It will be a reckoning for President Trump, to be sure, but also for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for Congress, for Democrats, for Republicans, for the news media and, yes, for the system as a whole…

    This is a damning page one admission by the Times. Despite the connect-the-dots graphic in its other story, and despite the astonishing, emotion-laden editorial the paper also ran suggesting “We don’t need to read the Mueller report” because we know Trump is guilty, Baker at least began the work of preparing Times readers for a hard question: “Have journalists connected too many dots that do not really add up?”
    https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million?

    Connected a LOT of dots that just didn't add up...

    That is the defining statement of Democrats and their sad and pathetic pursuit of something that just wasn't there...

    Ya'all WANTED it to be true.. So it became ya'all's truth... Ya'all's ONLY truth...

    Thereby proving beyond a doubt that there is, indeed, a difference between TRUTH and FACT..

    Ya'all had TRUTH... YOUR Truth...

    But the FACTS were completely and utterly different..

    "THEIR TRUTH IS NOT YOUR TRUTH!!!"
    -Oracle Of Yonada, STAR TREK

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    Want even MORE irony???

    Nothing the MSM ever says about Trump will be believed by any logical or rational person..

    The MSM set the narrative for what "really" happened with the Trump campaign and the Russians..

    The MSM was as wrong as wrong can be...

    The paper was signaling it understood there would now be questions about whether or not news outlets like itself made galactic errors by betting heavily on a new, politicized approach, trying to be true to “history’s judgment” on top of the hard-enough job of just being true. Worse, in a brutal irony everyone should have seen coming, the press has now handed Trump the mother of campaign issues heading into 2020.

    Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base. As Baker notes, a full 50.3% of respondents in a poll conducted this month said they agree with Trump the Mueller probe is a “witch hunt.”

    Stories have been coming out for some time now hinting Mueller’s final report might leave audiences “disappointed,” as if a President not being a foreign spy could somehow be bad news.

    Openly using such language has, all along, been an indictment. Imagine how tone-deaf you’d have to be to not realize it makes you look bad, when news does not match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without pants.

    There will be people protesting: the Mueller report doesn’t prove anything! What about the 37 indictments? The convictions? The Trump tower revelations? The lies! The meeting with Don, Jr.? The financial matters! There’s an ongoing grand jury investigation, and possible sealed indictments, and the House will still investigate, and…

    Stop. Just stop. Any journalist who goes there is making it worse.

    Good advice..

    Just stop.... The Left, the hysterical Trump/America haters will just make things worse.. Make them look even more sad and pathetic than they do right now..

    Just stop... Ya'all lost... Go back, lick your wounds and contemplate on how bad ya'all have lost...

    THAT is the best course of action for the Trump/America haters...

    Let's see if they have the wisdom to do that....

    I am guessing they won't.. They will double down on stoopid...

  203. [203] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    What would it take for you to have confirmation??

    reading all the pertinent sections mueller's actual report, rather than just the AG's comments on it.

    And would you say that there is blame on BOTH sides for this sad and sorry state of affairs??

    yes, but not equally. the left has plenty of its own delusions just as the right does, but to my knowledge no explicit "alternative facts." as long as you guys can't process stuff like climate science or media fact-checking, i'm not going to buy into talk of equivalence.

    also, there are now a few distinct additional sides beyond just "left" and "right."

    JL

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2dKY3vWsAICn8F.jpg

    Perfect...

    Sums up the Left PERFECTLY.....

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    reading all the pertinent sections mueller's actual report, rather than just the AG's comments on it.

    How would that change the meaning of the AG's summary??

    I mean, if Mueller says UP, would reading the rest of the report show that Mueller said DOWN...??

    Or is it your belief that AG Barr is lying??

    If so, what would that belief be based on??

    The undesirable outcome???

    I am not being snooty (well, not MUCH... :D) I am sincerely curious...

    Do you think Barr lied and that Mueller's report doesn't say what Barr said it says?? I mean, AG Barr was pretty distinct and clear. No ambiguity at all..

    Do you think that Mueller would remain silent if AG Barr mis-characterized the report??

    In absence of Mueller correcting Barr, I think you have to accept as fact that the report says exactly what AG Barr said it says...

    Anything else and you seem to be holding out hope that the report says what you want it to say..

    yes, but not equally. the left has plenty of its own delusions just as the right does, but to my knowledge no explicit "alternative facts." as long as you guys can't process stuff like climate science or media fact-checking, i'm not going to buy into talk of equivalence.

    Climate science is a discussion for another time...

    As to Media Fact Checking??

    WHAT Media **Fact** Checking are you referring to??

    See the comments above about how the Media, aided and abetted by the Left, totally and utterly scrooed the pooch over the Mueller saga...

    "Media Fact Checking" vis a vis the Mueller saga PROVES that the Left is as equally guilty of "alternate facts" as you think the Right is..

    also, there are now a few distinct additional sides beyond just "left" and "right."

    Not for the purposes of this particular discussion...

    When it comes to the Left's debacle over Mueller, there are really no non-combatants..

  206. [206] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    When it comes to...Mueller, there are really no non-combatants..

    I'd say that's true..you think so, else you wouldn't be back. Fox thinks so, else they'd wait for another shoe to drop, and Barr thinks so.

    So don't play coy. Your guy got in there first. Now there's gonna be a fight to see the rest, and surely, they'll say, "That doesn't count" and we'll fight about that.

    You and I know that there's just one way to get rid of Trump. See you in 2020.

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:
  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd say that's true..you think so, else you wouldn't be back. Fox thinks so, else they'd wait for another shoe to drop, and Barr thinks so.

    So don't play coy. Your guy got in there first. Now there's gonna be a fight to see the rest, and surely, they'll say, "That doesn't count" and we'll fight about that.

    I am not sure what you are trying to say here...

    Please clarify...

    You and I know that there's just one way to get rid of Trump. See you in 2020.

    ***NOW*** you know that..

    It's a shame you didn't realize that BEFORE you got hysterical about nullifying a free, fair and legal election and supporting a witch hunt that wasted almost 3 years and spent 30 million + in taxpayer money..

    As for 2020, if Democrats can't move on from trying to nullify a free, fair and legal election....

    You will be just as disappointed in Nov of 2020 as you were in Nov of 2016 and Mar of 2019....

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:
  210. [210] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "How would that change the meaning of the AG's summary??"

    It would provide direct confirmation, partially refute or fully refute the conclusions of that summary. Personally I'm curious why you asked about that and not why I'd feel relief.

  211. [211] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "Not for the purposes of this particular discussion..."

    Especially for the purposes of this particular discussion. An entire dimension cutting across the political spectrum is based on the divide between traditional and "alternative" views regarding fact/myth

  212. [212] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Really there are now about four different political axes that divide wing from wing. I'll get into that after work.

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    It would provide direct confirmation, partially refute or fully refute the conclusions of that summary.

    Doesn't Mueller's lack of contest of the summary provide the same confirmation albeit indirectly??

    I'm curious why you asked about that and not why I'd feel relief.

    I am sure there will be no relief, regardless.. :D

    Especially for the purposes of this particular discussion. An entire dimension cutting across the political spectrum is based on the divide between traditional and "alternative" views regarding fact/myth

    Considering what the Left has just proven beyond any doubt, it's impossible to put the blame for "fact/myth" solely or even mostly at the feet of the right..

    The climate changing issue is simply an extension of the suspension of reality and belief in FACTS that has been PROVEN the Left suffers from.....

    Really there are now about four different political axes that divide wing from wing. I'll get into that after work.

    I look forward to that...

    Me?? I'll be busy in Hope County, Montana... There's a new dawn... :D

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's Told-You-So Moment Rattles Democrats

    (Bloomberg) -- It's a new day in Washington, as Democrats’ hopes that Robert Mueller would deliver a body blow to Donald Trump have evaporated.

    The special counsel's conclusion there was no conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 election has emboldened the president. That’s even as a four-page Justice Department interpretation of Mueller’s findings stopped well short of the “complete and total exoneration” Trump claimed. Russia urged Trump to seize the opportunity to reset relations.

    Democrats, who had long anticipated Mueller’s report would provide enough ammunition to politically handicap the president, if not impeach him, now find themselves in perilous territory.

    They must re-calibrate their approach to House investigations they’ve launched into the administration and the financial affairs of Trump and his family as the focus shifts to federal and state probes in the president's home state of New York.

    And, as Justin Sink writes, Democrats face new questions about their own credibility after years of allegations that could hamper their efforts to force the full release of Mueller's report.

    Voters may feel the special counsel has spoken and it’s time to move on — just as Trump's 2020 campaign begins in earnest.
    https://news.yahoo.com/trump-apos-told-moment-rattles-102002900.html

    As I said... Democrats continue to obsess over Russia Collusion do so at their own risk..

    It's over.. Democrats lost...

    Move on or be trampled by those looking towards the future...

    It's that simple..

  215. [215] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Where was Michael before the Mueller Report was delivered (but not yet released to the public)?

    What we have here is a Sunshine Superpatriot. When the going gets easy THIS "tough" gets going.

    The Investigation of Trump is far from over. If Trump was innocent, why did he tell so many lies? The truth wasn't good enough?

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    What we have here is a Sunshine Superpatriot. When the going gets easy THIS "tough" gets going.

    No.. What you had was someone thoroughly disgusted with ya'all's defense of a woman who, as a college adult, loved to attend high school parties where children were drugged and raped..

    But the chance to rub ya'all's face in the FACTS and reality was greater than my disgust of ya'all...

    The Investigation of Trump is far from over. If Trump was innocent, why did he tell so many lies? The truth wasn't good enough?

    President Trump **DID** tell the truth... There was no collusion between his campaign and the Russians.

    But ya'all chose to believe the lies and the bullshit of your fellow Trump/America haters..

    And you have been proven a FOOL for doing so..

    Suck it...

    You've earned it..

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    On an unrelated note...

    CW, have you ever considered changing the format here to a DISQUS format??

    It's an awesome package that allows time-limit editing of comments, in-line photos and videos and is VERY well formatted for these kinds of discussions..

    It's admin and moderation functions are also very easy and quite intuitive...

    Might be something to check out...

    Just a thought..

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don’t want a summary of the Mueller report. I want the whole damn report.
    https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1109927464590032897

    I agree.... Release the whole damn report..

    Let hysterical Trump/America haters pour over it, nitpick and spin it to death...

    The longer the Left tries to re-fight this battle that is already lost, the worse it will be in 2020 for Democrats..

    If President Trump really wanted to frak with Trump/America haters, he would piecemeal the release out.. Stretch it out over a years time....

    Show the American people exactly what Dumbocrats are all about... :D

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:
  220. [220] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Cool, now Trump is threatening his own 'night of the long knives' to punish the people who instigated the Mueller probe, I wouldn't want to be the Republicans who inaugurated the Steel Dossier or deputy AG Rosenstien-nothingburger. Tough break kids.

    "In a letter to key members of Congress, the top Justice Department official said Mueller wrote that the report "does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." For the more dense, simply put, collusion isn't a crime, ego you can't be guilty of it.

    Here's something I thought interesting, and will further the narrative of Trump being a Ruskie shill if he tries to follow the Kremlin's lead...which we all know he will... "Two years of unceasing lies. Two years of the highest-level policy built on the allegation of collusion. A conspiracy explaining the allegedly pro-Russian position of Trump, because of which he was essentially forced to impose more and more stringent measures against our country." and "That is why two years were not just lost for Russian-American relations, but simply crushing for them. Someone will answer for this damage? apologize? Someone will adjust something?" Kosachev added.

    Yes my little commie friend...Trump, your fucking shill, that's who will do what you wanted from the beginning, the reason you put him there, he will unseal your bank accounts and rid you of your sanctions...

    LL&P

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    James T Canuck wrote:

    WAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAA RUSSIA!!!! COLLUSION!!!! WAAAAAAa WAAAAAAAA TRUMP IS A MEANIE!!! WAAAAAAA WAAAAAAA WAAAAAAA TRUMP!!! COLLUSION!!! RUSSIA!!! WAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAA....

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    What to Know in Washington: New Day for Trump After Mueller Report
    Posted March 25, 2019
    By Zachary Sherwood
    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Share on LinkedIn
    Donald Trump’s political fortunes changed in an instant after the Justice Department announced that Special Counsel Robert Mueller hadn’t found evidence that the president or his campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election.

    Trump’s oft-uttered and equally oft-mocked claim — “no collusion” — proved true. The president won’t face re-election under a cloud of distrust about his connections to the Kremlin. He and his staff are freed from an investigation that preoccupied his White House.

    Democrats who had long hoped Mueller’s report would provide enough ammunition to politically handicap the president, if not impeach him, face new questions about their own credibility after years of insinuations and conspiracy-mongering. The opposition party must re-calibrate not only its approach to the Russia investigation, but also its messaging on a host of fresh investigations House Democrats have launched into the Trump administration and the financial affairs of the president and his family.

    The hope for Trump, and the danger for Democrats, is that probe-weary voters may feel that Mueller has spoken and it’s time to move on — just in time for his 2020 re-election campaign to begin in earnest.

    The president emerged strengthened, claiming exoneration even though Attorney General William Barr was careful to note that Mueller said while his report “does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

    That’s a distinction without a difference in the Oval Office, where Trump’s absolution in the inquiry reinforces his political brand, long rooted in personal grievance and his depiction of himself as a victimized outsider. Justin Sink has more on what the report means for Trump.
    https://about.bgov.com/news/what-to-know-in-washington-new-day-for-trump-after-mueller-report/

    Democrats are playing true to form..

    Just like they could not concede that President Trump won the election fairly, freely and legally... NOW they can't concede that their OWN chosen hero with a CHOSEN group of Trump/America haters, could not find a SINGLE fact to support collusion, even though they had unlimited resources and unlimited time..

    The Democrats are toast in 2020 unless they get their shit together and move forward past this..

    But ya'all know that Democrats won't do this..

    They have too much of their souls invested in their own wet dream..

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats’ Plan B: Mueller’s final report robbed Democrats of what they hoped would be a devastating blow to Trump. And, after defending the special counsel’s integrity for more than a year, they have little room to challenge his conclusion there was no conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 election. Yet, even before the special counsel’s 22-month probe ended, Democrats were already working under a Plan B to undermine Trump going into the 2020 presidential race, through investigations led by House committees now under their control.

    “We’re going to move forward with our investigations of obstruction of justice, abuses of power, corruption, to defend the rule of law, which is our job,” House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler(D-N.Y.) said yesterday at a news conference in New York. “It’s a broader mandate than the special prosecutor had.”

    The strategy poses risks for the Democrats, particularly if voters prove tired of talk of investigating Trump now that Mueller has completed his work. In addition, the probes could overshadow their agenda, particularly on issues like health care that helped the party take back the House in 2018. Read more from Billy House.

    As I said...

    Democrat's "PLAN B" is to double down on their own stoopidity....

  224. [224] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I'm betting that the Democratics, especially the local ones, are going to be hoping and praying that the full Mueller never gets made public, so that they can perpetually claim that the unrevealed part is hiding the "collusion/conspiracy" they've been hanging their hopes on for 2 yrs.

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    "In a letter to key members of Congress, the top Justice Department official said Mueller wrote that the report "does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." For the more dense, simply put, collusion isn't a crime, ego you can't be guilty of it.

    Yea.. Something that me and CRS has been telling you Trump/America haters for the last 2+ years..

    Glad you finally got over your DENSE and utterly moronic position and see the FACTS..

    I accept your concession...

  226. [226] 
    Michale wrote:

    Deputy Sheriff Peter Herrera
    El Paso County Sheriff's Office, Texas
    End of Watch: Sunday, March 24, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1c1f544ea7b54a58eeb922b13ed887fee999c194c40e07aed62a98eda2ef6593.jpg

  227. [227] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Bottom line here will FOREVER be that it simply could never have been possible for a third-rate washed-up unethical reality TV host to beat Hillary in a fair contest, ERGO, he MUST have cheated, so if we can't find anything he did that was illegal under known laws, we'll simply have to invent something NEW to declare to be illegal, and that is trying to get political dirt on her from Russians.

  228. [228] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bottom line here will FOREVER be that it simply could never have been possible for a third-rate washed-up unethical reality TV host to beat Hillary in a fair contest, ERGO, he MUST have cheated, so if we can't find anything he did that was illegal under known laws, we'll simply have to invent something NEW to declare to be illegal, and that is trying to get political dirt on her from Russians.

    Spot on..

    And THAT is the Democrat Party's inherent weakness..

    The inability to recognize their own fallibility...

    Like most everyone here, they simply CAN'T conceive ANY possibility that they are wrong..

    As a result, they go to greater and greater lengths to change the facts and change reality...

    JL and I had discussed this vis a vis GOP vs Dem..

    He clearly wanted to put more blame on the Right, but the FACTS clearly show that it's the Left who is far more delusional and far more willing to ignore facts and to twist reality to be more palatable to their delusions..

    This entire sad debacle that is Mueller has proven that as fact beyond ANY doubt...

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea....

    NewsWhip, a social-media analytics company, whipped up this astonishing data for Axios' Neal Rothschild:

    Since May 2017, 533,074 web articles have been published about Russia and Trump/Mueller.

    Those generated 245 million interactions (likes, comments and shares) on Twitter and Facebook.
    Be smart: Now, think of how much cable time the coverage consumed.

    https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-am-57b5b5c6-65c5-4278-b450-9cb63bbe3f3f.html?chunk=1#story1

    "No one" has been talking about Trump and Russia and Collusion... :eyeroll:

    See what I mean about Democrats altering basic facts and reality to conform with their delusions??

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apologies to President Trump

    With the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe now known to a significant degree, it seems apologies are in order.

    However, judging by the recent past, apologies are not likely forthcoming from the responsible parties.

    In this context, it matters not whether one is a supporter or a critic of President Trump.

    Whatever his supposed flaws, the rampant accusations and speculation that shrouded Trump’s presidency, even before it began, ultimately have proven unfounded. Just as Trump said all along.

    Yet, each time President Trump said so, some of us in the media lampooned him. We treated any words he spoke in his own defense as if they were automatically to be disbelieved because he had uttered them. Some even declared his words to be “lies,” although they had no evidence to back up their claims.

    We in the media allowed unproven charges and false accusations to dominate the news landscape for more than two years, in a way that was wildly unbalanced and disproportionate to the evidence.

    We did a poor job of tracking down leaks of false information. We failed to reasonably weigh the motives of anonymous sources and those claiming to have secret, special evidence of Trump’s “treason.”

    As such, we reported a tremendous amount of false information, always to Trump’s detriment.

    And when we corrected our mistakes, we often doubled down more than we apologized. We may have been technically wrong on that tiny point, we would acknowledge. But, in the same breath, we would insist that Trump was so obviously guilty of being Russian President Vladimir Putin’s puppet that the technical details hardly mattered.

    So, a round of apologies seem in order.

    Apologies to President Trump on behalf of those in the U.S. intelligence community, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, which allowed the weaponization of sensitive, intrusive intelligence tools against innocent citizens such as Carter Page, an adviser to Trump’s presidential campaign.

    Apologies also to Page himself, to Jerome Corsi, Donald Trump, Jr., and other citizens whose rights were violated or who were unfairly caught up in surveillance or the heated pursuit of charges based on little more than false, unproven opposition research paid for by Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    Apologies for the stress on their jobs and to their families, the damage to their reputations, the money they had to spend to hire legal representation and defend themselves from charges for crimes they did not commit.

    Apologies on behalf of those in the intelligence community who leaked true information out of context to make Trump look guilty, and who sometimes leaked false information to try to implicate or frame him.

    Apologies from those in the chain of command at the FBI and the Department of Justice who were supposed to make sure all information presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is verified but did not do so.

    Apologies from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court judges who are supposed to serve as one of the few checks and balances to prevent the FBI from wiretapping innocent Americans. Whether because of blind trust in the FBI, or out of ignorance or even malfeasance, they failed at this important job.

    Apologies to the American people who did not receive the full attention of their government while political points were being scored; who were not told about some important world events because they were crowded out of the news by the persistent insistence that Trump was working for Russia.

    Apologies all the way around.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/435552-apologies-to-president-trump

    And apologies to CW.. I know that you are not thrilled with large postings copied verbatim from the web into here..

    But I felt, given the seriousness of the situation and the gross and heinous nature of the transgressions committed against President Trump...

    I felt that such a mea culpa deserved a verbatim airing...

    Apologies if you feel otherwise.. Feel free to delete or curtail the comment... I would understand..

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    In light of Mueller concluding his investigation, we’ve compiled a list of some of the worst media screwups in the history of Russia theories.

    1. CNN Accuses Don Jr. Of Wikileaks Collusion

    2. ABC Tanks Stock Market With Fake Flynn News

    3. The Mooch Is NOT Under Investigation

    4. Bloomberg’s Dirty Deutsche Bank Scoop

    5. Sessions Exonerated

    6. Russians Aren’t Just Hacking The Election — They’re Hacking Our Power Grid

    7. Republicans Funded The Dossier!

    8. CNN Gets Comey Prediction Wildly Wrong

    9. The ’17 Intel Agencies’ Lie

    10. Manafort Notes Are A Nothing Burger

    11. NBC Issues Cohen Correction

    12. Did Cohen Go To Prague?

    13. Busted BuzzFeed

    14. Lanny Davis Obliterates CNN’s Trump Tower Story

    15. NPR Accuses Don Jr. Of Perjury

    16. Mic Claims Russian Spy Infiltrated The Oval
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/media-russia-collusion-mueller-report-fake-news/

    Quite a list of all the Media bullshit in conjunction with the Russia Collusion hoax...

    Now, some deniers might say, "Oh these were honest mistakes.."

    If these were HONEST mistakes then some would go against Trump and some would go FOR Trump..

    But these "honest mistakes" all went towards a single solitary agenda... Thereby proving that these weren't mistakes but rather targeted and specific bullshit designed to push a bullshit agenda..

  232. [232] 
    Paula wrote:

    Barr's refusal to release the report tells us all we need to know.

  233. [233] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Paula

    See [224]

    Thanks

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barr's refusal to release the report tells us all we need to know.

    Yes... yes it does..

    It tells the world that you hysterical Trump/America haters simply CAN'T admit to the facts...

    If Barr had mis-characterized Mueller's report, you can bet that Mueller would set the record straight.. He has done that before..

    So, Mueller's silence means Barr is dead on ballz accurate with his summary.

    And you unable to accept reality and facts means you wouldn't accept ANYTHING that is contrary to your delusions..

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm betting that the Democratics, especially the local ones, are going to be hoping and praying that the full Mueller never gets made public, so that they can perpetually claim that the unrevealed part is hiding the "collusion/conspiracy" they've been hanging their hopes on for 2 yrs.

    Exactly.....

    As I said.. I am ALL for releasing the full Mueller report...

    What ever keeps Democrats focused on this hoax to the exclusion of all else will only be good for President Trump, the GOP and this country...

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for the Democrat Party....

    Michael Avenatti under arrest, charged with extortion, prosecutors say
    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/michael-avenatti-under-arrest-charged-extortion-prosecutors-172005794--abc-news-topstories.html

    The hits just KEEP ON COMING...

    The one time hero of the Party, the Trump-Slayer goes down in flames!!!

    Could this day get ANY better for the country and for President Trump!!?? :D

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stick a fork in impeachment. It’s dead.

    Victory doesn’t get any sweeter for the winners. Or more important for our country.

    The results of the probe by special counsel Robert Mueller are a tremendous vindication for President Trump and the many millions of Americans who never doubted his innocence. The findings prove, once and for all time, that he won the 2016 election fair and square.

    Let me repeat the point: It is now a fact beyond any doubt whatsoever that Donald Trump is the legitimate 45th president of the United States.

    “Hail to the Chief,” this time with feeling.

    The great news of that settled truth is not limited to Republicans and Trump supporters. Every American can take comfort in this historic reaffirmation of our nation as exceptional, as the shining city on the hill for all mankind.

    Think of it this way: Yes, Russians tried to tip a presidential election, especially through hacking into email systems. They even tried to help Trump.

    Yet Mueller, after conducting the most exhaustive test ever of election integrity, reached this stunning conclusion: “The Special Counsel did not find that any US person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated” with Russians “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

    No American — not a single one — took the Russian bait. And that includes every member of the Trump campaign.
    https://nypost.com/2019/03/24/we-should-all-be-celebrating-the-collapse-of-hillarys-big-lie/

    Justice doesn't get any sweeter than this.... :D

  238. [238] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well, it seems that Michale has decided that quantity makes up for quality. Sorry, it doesn't.

    Funny, the way that Democrats just WON'T take the word of one Trump appointee of how the Mueller investigation went. Wonder why that is?

    At this point, there are multiple investigations beginning, stacked up like planes waiting to leave LaGuardia. This is just one of them.

    Bide your time well, little one. Lots more to come...

  239. [239] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    238

    Great points, and I would simply add another point to ponder in the form of a question:

    Do you think Robert S. Mueller III or the Department of Justice recommends soft sentences to felons in exchange for a proffer of nothing? :)

  240. [240] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    See [224]

  241. [241] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    no time for extensive discussion, but no, silence is not assent. mueller is incredibly deliberate, and would only refute barr right away if he'd said something truly ridiculous. they may or may not have a difference of opinion, and only the primary source or mueller testimony will tell us for sure whether or not that is the case.

    hopefully barr is right though. it would really suck for our country if it turned out the president had been directly involved in helping a foreign power manipulate our elections. i

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    no time for extensive discussion, but no, silence is not assent.

    Sorry, JL.. But you are wrong..

    You people here and Democrats all over the country made the rule at Charlottesville..

    Silence DOES give assent..

    hopefully barr is right though. it would really suck for our country if it turned out the president had been directly involved in helping a foreign power manipulate our elections. i

    The question to that has been answered by Robert Mueller..

    NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT COLLUSION...

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    At this point, there are multiple investigations beginning, stacked up like planes waiting to leave LaGuardia. This is just one of them.

    And not ONE of those investigations has to do with Colluding With Russia to Win The Election..

    You lost, Balthy..

    You just don't have the integrity to admit it..

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay... Like I said.. I encourage ya'all to deny the facts and deny reality to ya'all's hearts content..

    NOTHING will insure a President Trump landslide re-election more than ya'all going on and on about Trump investigations..

    Ya'all had yer shot.. You failed.. AGAIN..

    By all means.. Continue to wallow in the morass and mire of Luserdom....

  245. [245] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look... It's real simple..

    Ya'all have been hysterically spewing TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!! COLLUSION!!!" for the better part of THREE FRAK'IN YEARS!!!

    And now Mueller, **YA'ALL'S** chosen champion, has told you in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS... NO COLLUSION...

    There is simply NO WAY ya'all can spin that or equivocate that to mean anything but a complete, utter and unmitigated DISASTER for ya'all and yer fake reality...

    YOU LOST....

    It's REALLY that simple...

  246. [246] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    poet Re: Your[241]

    Help me out here. I'm curious as to exactly what mechanism in your opinion "a president" (any pres., any party) who actually desired to "be involved in helping a foreign power manipulate our election(s)" would pursue to accomplish that goal?

    In fact, give me your best idea(s) for what I could do, if I wanted to "assist a foreign government in manipulating our election(s)?

  247. [247] 
    Kick wrote:

    I'll give you a really big hint, Stucki:

    Follow the money. :)

  248. [248] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Sorry, I don't follow. What money? You thinking the pres. would give money to the foreign power, and then what would the foreign power do with the money that would manipulate the election?

    If you're thinking like buy Facebook advertising, why not he just buys the ads himself?

  249. [249] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [239],

    I would also remind people of the judge in Flynn’s sentencing who flat out questioned the prosecution whether or not they had considered charges of TREASON against Flynn!!!

    The judge later apologized for asking that in open court, but that does not mean the content of his question was invalid — it was simply not his place nor the right time to raise it.

    For a federal judge to even suggest based on his reading of the evidence collected that charges of treason might be warranted is pretty huge. I will be surprised if this judge is as forgiving of Flynn as Manafort’s first sentencing judge was of him.

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    I would also remind people of the judge in Flynn’s sentencing who flat out questioned the prosecution whether or not they had considered charges of TREASON against Flynn!!!

    The judge later apologized for asking that in open court, but that does not mean the content of his question was invalid — it was simply not his place nor the right time to raise it.

    For a federal judge to even suggest based on his reading of the evidence collected that charges of treason might be warranted is pretty huge. I will be surprised if this judge is as forgiving of Flynn as Manafort’s first sentencing judge was of him.

    None of which has NOTHING to do with the **FACT** that Mueller has completely exonerated President Trump when it comes to collusion with the Russians.

    You can deflect and dodge all you want.. Just like you did with the NO FURTHER INDICTMENTS bullshit you spewed...

    But the simple fact is, YOU LOST....

    There was NO COLLUSION between the Trump Campaign and the Russians..

    You banked your ENTIRE existence on that and you came up holding your dick in your hand and nothing else.. :D

    Dodge and deflect all you want..

    But FACTS are facts...

    You lost...

  251. [251] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    248

    Sorry, I don't follow. What money? You thinking the pres. would give money to the foreign power, and then what would the foreign power do with the money that would manipulate the election?

    *laughs* Can you really not think of a single thing that a candidate could pay foreign nationals to do on their behalf? If you really can't, then you will have to concede that several posters on this board have been correct in their assessment about your intellect. :)

    If you're thinking like buy Facebook advertising, why not he just buys the ads himself?

    You said "any" president, Stucki, and I said nothing about Facebook so I have no idea why you're prattling on about that.

    A president (any president, any party [your definition]) could "be involved in helping a foreign power manipulate our election(s)" in a myriad of ways. In light of the current national discourse, I shouldn't think it would be at all necessary to have to explain how that could be accomplished by "any" candidate.

  252. [252] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    249

    I would also remind people of the judge in Flynn’s sentencing who flat out questioned the prosecution whether or not they had considered charges of TREASON against Flynn!!!

    Another good point.

    For a federal judge to even suggest based on his reading of the evidence collected that charges of treason might be warranted is pretty huge. I will be surprised if this judge is as forgiving of Flynn as Manafort’s first sentencing judge was of him.

    OSC recommendation for Flynn was no prison time due to his "substantial assistance."

  253. [253] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Oooohhhhh RRRRRRRuuuussssssss???

    The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public.
    -Barr Report

    Don't you have an apology you want to render???

    Don't you have a concession you need to make???

    That is what a person of integrity does...

    What say you??

    Apologize for what? Your poor reading comprehension skills are more the fault of a poor education than they are mine to apologize for.

    You can quote as many different media outlets reporting that there are no future indictments coming from the Mueller investigation, they all rely on the same source for that info — the Barr letter.

    Forgive me for not being willing to put my full trust in a man who got his job because he fit the one requirement the president set as the criteria to be his Attorney General : someone willing to protect the president above all else.

    Also, why would Mueller alert the White House of any unknown sealed indictments, if the purpose of sealing the indictment is so that once he is out of office, they can criminally charge the president for the crimes he committed while in office??? Trump would simply pardon everyone involved if he is fore-warned.

    As for your comment on Smollets, he lied and accused people of crimes they never committed — no different than Trump. You pitch one of your “whataboutisms” of liberals being upset when a white woman intentionally wrongly accused men of color for taking her children, but weren’t you upset by her actions, as well? Or are you always willing to forgive whites who lie to get out of trouble? Jussie deserves the charges he is facing, as will Trump when he leaves office.

    Michale, there is no doubt Trump is guilty of lots of things — the fool openly spouts confessions in his rants all the time. There might not be enough evidence to guarantee a conviction, but Trump is a traitor — that much a blind man can see. Just watch him cower in subservience to Putin at their press conference in Helsinki. That you champion a man who is so ethically and morally corrupt — a man who does nothing to help anyone but his own circle of cronies — simply out of your disdain for liberals is your damage.

    Trump was never going to be charged with “collusion”, so keep cheering his slogan all you want. Trump wasn’t charged for a crime that doesn’t exist in our legal system....congratulations!

  254. [254] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [217]

    On this point, I completely agree! Love DISQUS’ format!

  255. [255] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick Your {251]

    OK, now I do understand. There is really no realistic viable way for a pres. to pay a foreign power to influence U.S. elections, but you were unwilling to admit that, so you launched another of your ad hominems.

    Don't worry, I can easily understand how after you being SO wrong for SO long on the "collusion/conspiracy" insanity thing, that you would be out of sorts, and magnanimous guy that I am, I'm willing to make allowances.

  256. [256] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @crs,

    if i were running for president and wanted to help a foreign power interfere in an election to my benefit, i'd share campaign information with them, such as voter profiles, registration data, oppo research on my opponent. i might also coordinate my campaign narrative with their government sponsored hackers and trolls, to have the maximum combined impact on voters. there are many types of information they could use to benefit me, which would also benefit themselves. if barr is right and mueller is saying that's definitely not what donald did, it's a great weight off our country's shoulders. an incompetent buffoon is par for the course in washington, a traitor is a horse of a different color.

    JL

  257. [257] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    255

    OK, now I do understand. There is really no realistic viable way for a pres. to pay a foreign power to influence U.S. elections

    If you believe that, then you obviously don't understand. Despite the fact that my hint was "follow the money," and it was your interpretation that this necessarily meant that the money in question would be flowing to a foreign national, I answered your additional question in utter amazement that in light of the national discourse of the moment you are at a loss for how it could be accomplished.

    but you were unwilling to admit that, so you launched another of your ad hominems.

    If you were looking for somebody to admit to the utterly asinine and nonsensical notion that "there is really no realistic viable way for 'any pres.' to pay a foreign power to influence U.S. elections," then what you're looking for is an ignorant rube. My suggestion would be to drive to downtown Podunk and find you a old guy approximately your own age... look for a red hat with white lettering.

    Since you clearly and quite obviously can't think of a single way that a candidate for political office could interfere in U.S. elections, I merely suggested that you were living up to others' assessments of your intellect. You can't be completely ignorant if you understood my meaning; however, I submit that it's kind of self-evident that somebody who routinely refers to posters on this board in the manner that you do actually doesn't really have a problem with "ad hominems." And while we're on the topic of "ad hominems," if you can dish them out freely but you whine like a little child when somebody suggests you're living up to what other people say about you, then that makes you a snowflake of the highest order, but I digress.

    Don't worry, I can easily understand how after you being SO wrong for SO long on the "collusion/conspiracy" insanity thing, that you would be out of sorts, and magnanimous guy that I am, I'm willing to make allowances.

    Perhaps you have confused me with an ignorant old man.
    I never worry. :)

  258. [258] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    not only is silence not assent, that false conclusion its very own logical fallacy.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/57/Argument-from-Silence

  259. [259] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Poet

    OK, but what would the foreign power DO with all that info? Are you thinking Facebook related stuff? I doubt that any of that would really amount to anything.

    I just watched somebody interview Noam Chomsky about his opinion of what if any effect the Russian meddling had on the outcome of 2016. His opion was essentially zero effect.

  260. [260] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    noam chomsky is a brilliant linguist, but when it comes to politics the guy is an ignoramus - and that goes well beyond his views on russian electioneering.

    the foreign power uses the info provided to them to effectively target voters with information warfare, including paper, phone, e-mail, social media, word-of-mouth, fabricated news stories, pretty much every form of communication out there. because they are not based domestically, our government has no ability to regulate their financing, nor is their activity constrained by domestic election laws that require a certain degree of truthfulness or transparency. their goal is not to change any particular voter's mind, but to motivate one side to vote and de-motivate the other side.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump

  261. [261] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Personally, I find it hard to believe that subliminal messaging on Facebook caused Hillary to lose the election, but as others have mentioned elsewhere, my lack of involvement with "social media" could well be contributing to an 'irrational' level of disdain for that form of communication.

    However, if other's claims to the contrary actually have any validity, it further adds to my bragging rights for being (along with Chris), one of the "last two people in the world not on Facebook"!

  262. [262] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    not only is silence not assent, that false conclusion its very own logical fallacy.

    And yet, SILENCE IS ASSENT is **EXACTLY** what you people in here (by omission or commission) established during Charlottesville....

    Funny how you can't (or won't) address this FACT...

  263. [263] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    On this point, I completely agree! Love DISQUS’ format!

    "I know, right!"
    -Felix, WRECK IT RALPH

    :D

    Yea, it's a great format.. Easy to navigate, easy to admin and a whole bunch of sweet features...

  264. [264] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, there is no doubt Trump is guilty of lots of things — the fool openly spouts confessions in his rants all the time.

    And he's the SAME Trump he was when he had a -D after his name..

    Funny how Democrats LOVED him then, eh??

    Trump was never going to be charged with “collusion”, so keep cheering his slogan all you want. Trump wasn’t charged for a crime that doesn’t exist in our legal system....congratulations!

    And yet, ya'all have been screaming COLLUSION for the last almost 3 years..

    Funny how you didn't concede in all that time that the crime doesn't exist..

    I accept your concession that myself and CRS has been factually accurate all this time and you podunks have been doing nothing but spewing bullshit for the last two plus years...

  265. [265] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    CRS:
    Regardless of whether you find it easy or difficult to believe, it does seem to be what happened. Now did it actually cause Clinton to lose the election? Some people speculate, but it is impossible to ever know, and for obvious reasons. We can not recreate the 2016 election perfectly the same in every way except for the Russian interference, and see if Clinton wins. Personally, I wouldn’t even venture a guess, given how many complicated factors are involved in election outcomes. And as I see it, it doesn’t really matter. If interference by a foreign power is happening, we have a problem regardless of whether it successfully changed the outcome of the election.

    I don’t really understand why the very idea of it it so hard for you to believe. You are doubtless aware of the existence of advertising. A lot of advertising sends subliminal and subconscious messages. A funny thing is that everybody seems to believe that they themselves are immune to advertising, that it only works on other people. I think that is because we know on a rational level that(for example) a beautiful woman drinking a Coke in a commercial doesn’t mean it is a good product. But it still makes our subconscious want a Coke. Ads don’t only work on stupid people. They work on most everyone. This is why the advertising industry is a 200 billion dollar industry in the US alone. It works. And whether we are talking about selling Coca Cola or political ideas, the better they know their target, the more effective they are. If they know your fears, prejudices, aspirations, and political leanings they can manipulate you very effectively. Their manipulation becomes even more effective if it isn’t obvious that they are trying to sell you something. If you aren’t aware you are being given a pitch, your guard will be down. And then, if they aren’t bound by consumer protection laws that restrain advertisers(somewhat) from intentionally misleading or outright lying to you, the manipulation becomes even more effective.

    So I think the Russians use some of the same techniques that advertising does. My understanding is that it’s even more effective because they create fake social media accounts to fool people into thinking they are engaging with a regular person who is politically like-minded. People are more willing to believe something if it comes from someone they perceive as an in-group member(“one of us”), especially if it corresponds to their general wordview(e.g. people are always willing to believe something terrible about a politician they already hate). Otherwise, they use typical propaganda techniques. Political propaganda has existed in various forms for a long time. I’m sure you wouldn’t deny it’s existence and effectiveness historically.

    I also am not on Facebook. Never have been. It just seems boring and insipid to me. And to get to those parts that aren’t boring or insipid, it seems you have to sift through a lot that is. At least this is what I have observed from watching my significant other browse Facebook.

  266. [266] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don’t really understand why the very idea of it it so hard for you to believe.

    You do realize that Russians have tried to interfere in every election here in the US since Russia was the USSR and long before, right??

    So, why is THIS interference so special to you??

    Because Hillary Clinton lost..

    THAT is your SOLE reason for the interest..

    We wouldn't be hearing a THING about Russian influence in the election if Hillary had won..

    What does this tell us??

    It tells us beyond ANY doubt that this is NOTHING but a case of Sore Luser'ism...

    That is ALL that this is about..

  267. [267] 
    Michale wrote:

    You do realize that Russians have tried to interfere in every election here in the US since Russia was the USSR and long before, right??

    Just as the US has also tried to interfere in other country's elections...

    The **ONLY** reason ya'all care about THIS interference is because President Trump won..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that Democrats would care about Russian interference if Hillary had won??

    Do you HONESTLY believe that you people in this forum would be calling for investigations if President Trump had lost???

    If you believe that then I have some real sweet swampland down here in FL I wanna sell you...

  268. [268] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    Re: 262

    When the person in question has on multiple occasions retweeted white supremacists(including one with “white genocide” in their username), I don’t think it’s completely insane to read something into that person’s “silence” on Charlottesville. And anticipating your response, if retweeting a white supremacist was something that just happened once, I would dismiss it as accidental, and assume he didn’t know the person he retweeted was a white supremacist(though in the case of “@whitegenocideTM” I think it’s hard to make that case). But when it happens multiple times, you start wondering if he is following these people. It raises the question of whether the reason these people’s tweets show up in his feed, and the reason he chooses to retweet them is because he actually shares quite a few beliefs and attitudes in common with them. So then things like him hesitating to criticize David Duke(and seemingly denying knowing enough about the Ku Klux Klan to be willing to condemn them) start to look less like an innocent mistake or coincidence, and more like part of a pattern.

    And he didn’t stay silent in Charlottesville for long, did he? We know what he thinks about the people at the Unite the Right rally. “Good people on both sides” pretty obviously implies that not all of the people shouting “Jews will not replace us” were bad people. That participation in that rally doesn’t preclude one from being a good person. Well, the President was sadly misinformed on that count. I have seen quite a bit of footage from the rally. You tuber “Shaun” has a video called “Charlottesville: the True Alt Right” analyzing the event, and it contains lots of footage from various Unite the Right attendees’ livestreams of the event, if anyone is interested(it’s a long video, but well worth watching IMO). Suffice it to say, the livestream footage is full of hate symbols and virulent racism.

    So I think Trump’s behavior shows a pattern. In view of that, it seemis not unreasonable to perceive his silences as conveying a message of their own. Especially as President, since it is expected that presidents will comment on major political events such as the Unite the Right rally. When your political and social role creates an expectation that you will say something and you don’t, people are going to read into your silence. In fact, this is something that presidential PR teams are probably well aware of. Considering how... ahem.. outspoken Trump usually is, a silence becomes even more likely to be remarked upon.

  269. [269] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bclancy,

    So, what you are saying is that Silence ONLY gives assent when it's a Right Winger who is being silent..

    The Left's silence does NOT give assent..

    OK, I accept that as factual as it is what I have always suspected..

    I won't bother pointing out that even though ya'all yelled and castigated Trump for being "silent" he really wasn't.. He condemned the racists and the nazis as voraciously as Left Wingers did..

    But it was the Left Wingers who established that if Trump DID remain silent (which he didn't) that means that he was giving assent..

    I also won't bother to point out that it was the Left Wingers and AntiFa terrorists who instigated the violence at Charlottesville, aided and abetted by Democrat so-called "leadershit"....

    But that's a discussion for another time...

  270. [270] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    I’m sorry, I must have missed something. Could you please point out to me where I said I think this particular election meddling is more “special” than any other?

    CRS expresses disbelief that subliminal messaging caused Clinton to lose. I said, no way to know whether it caused her to lose, but meddling is happening, and it is a problem.

    So you seem to suggest I only care about election meddling because I think it caused Hillary to lose.

    But I said I have no clue if it caused her to lose. I said meddling is happening, and it is a problem. And I’m not even sure you disagree. You are trying so hard to find something to taunt me over, you are attacking me for something I didn’t even say.

    I am not still sore about Clinton’s loss. How about that?

    I would still care about election meddling, even if she won. I don’t disbelieve you when you say it was a problem before 2016. But I hadn’t heard about it before then. Presumably it was one of the many important issues ignored by media. And they dont just ignore stuff due to partisan bias. There is also a conflict bias. They want juicy stories with conflict in them, because that is more exciting.

    I also think you are off the mark if you think all the Democrats are still obsessing over their 2016 loss. Oh, they still hate Trump, and he will continue to draw their ire as long as he is in power. But by this point, Democrats are looking to 2020, obsessing over their prospects to win this time. Same as with Republicans in 2015. Republicans took Romney’s 2012 loss pretty hard, but by 2015 they were looking to the future. It’s a stages of grief type thing.

  271. [271] 
    Michale wrote:

    I’m sorry, I must have missed something. Could you please point out to me where I said I think this particular election meddling is more “special” than any other?

    I am sorry, I must have missed something. Could you please point to where you condemned Russia meddling in past US elections..

    You can also point where you condemned Obama meddling in the Israeli election while yer at it..

    CRS expresses disbelief that subliminal messaging caused Clinton to lose. I said, no way to know whether it caused her to lose, but meddling is happening, and it is a problem.

    Is it a problem??

    Would it have been a problem if Clinton had won??

    Would you have condemned Russian meddling then?? No, you would not have..

    I am constrained to point out that every Democrat who has commented on it up to and including the Leftist Messiah, Obama has stated that the election was "free, fair and legal" and that Russian interference had "NO IMPACT ON THE RESULTS"

    So, Russians meddled... It's what Russians do.. And I speak from the experience of having first hand dealings with Russia, back when it was known as the USSR...

    You are trying so hard to find something to taunt me over, you are attacking me for something I didn’t even say.

    I am taunting you (and by extension everyone else) for what ya'all DIDN'T say..

    Namely, no one here cared about Russian meddling in elections until THEIR candidate lost...

    The very epitome of hypocrisy....

    I also think you are off the mark if you think all the Democrats are still obsessing over their 2016 loss.

    Two years of wasted time and over 30 million dollars in taxpayer money proves you wrong..

    But by this point, Democrats are looking to 2020,

    Yea??? And yet, everything has been about Trump's PAST..

    What happened in the PAST...

    So, that puts lie to the claim that Democrats are looking to 2020....

    Unless you are conceding that Democrats are operating under the precepts of politics of personal destruction..

    Is that what you are conceding??

  272. [272] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bclancy...

    "Let's brass some tacks here.."
    -Metatron, SUPERNATURAL

    Do you think that President Trump is the freely, fairly and legally elected President Of The United States..

    It's a simple yes or no question..

  273. [273] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Belancy

    What happened to Russian election meddling in the '18 midterms?

    Did they quit, or did they change allegiance?

  274. [274] 
    Michale wrote:

    What happened to Russian election meddling in the '18 midterms?

    Did they quit, or did they change allegiance?

    Are you kidding??

    Democrats won the House.. OF COURSE there was no Russian meddling in the election..

    It's only Russian meddling if the desired result is not achieved...

  275. [275] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    And he's the SAME Trump he was when he had a -D after his name..

    Funny how Democrats LOVED him then, eh??

    Sorry, but you are way off on this one. Trump has always been an obnoxious narcissistic POS who made my skin crawl — the type of man who actually believes the women he dates are attracted to HIM rather than his money!

    I won't bother pointing out that even though ya'all yelled and castigated Trump for being "silent" he really wasn't.. He condemned the racists and the nazis as voraciously as Left Wingers did..

    Trump saying there are good people amongst the racists and Nazis really isn’t a condemnation. After the slaughter in NZ, Trump claimed white nationalism isn’t a big deal — just a small number of people. He then went on to use the same trigger word - invaders - that the shooter used to describe Muslims to describe asylum seekers on our southern border!

    Seriously, don’t bother with comments about how Trump is tough on anyone spewing hate speech...it really does not reflect well on your judgement.

  276. [276] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And yet, SILENCE IS ASSENT is **EXACTLY** what you people in here (by omission or commission) established during Charlottesville....
    Funny how you can't (or won't) address this FACT...

    umm, that's not a fact, it's the same fallacy repeated. we assented to silence being assent by being silent?

    excuse me, mr. president, if you look in the dictionary under redundant it says, "see redundant"
    ~robin williams, live at the met

  277. [277] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i should say, the same fallacy compounded by a second fallacy, circular reasoning.

    What are these electrolytes? Do you even know?
    - They're what they use to make Brawndo!
    But why do they use them to make Brawndo?
    - Because Brawndo's got electrolytes!
    ~idiocracy

Comments for this article are closed.