ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Comparing Bernie 2020 To The 2016 Race

[ Posted Tuesday, April 2nd, 2019 – 17:16 UTC ]

Before attempting to draw any comparisons or contrasts between Bernie Sanders and the rest of the 2020 Democratic presidential field, what I find rather ironic is to compare his second bid for the White House to two of the candidates from last time around: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Because, whether he likes it or not, Sanders is now close to occupying the position that Clinton held the last time around, and (if he's lucky) he might just follow the path Trump charted in the 2016 race.

Four years ago, Bernie was the underdog, the scrappy counterculture hero taking on "The Man" (even though "The Man" was actually a woman). Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee from the get-go, she was "next in line" after her loss to Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries, and she was clearly the favorite to beat. However, she also carried a whole lot of baggage from her political past, which left her somewhat vulnerable.

This time around, Bernie is now the "next in line" candidate, after losing to Hillary last time. But while Bernie has held a clear and definitive lead in the polls of the declared candidates (I'll get to undeclared candidate Joe Biden in a moment), he also now carries quite a bit of baggage. If it's not an oxymoron, some of this is what I would call "good baggage," but some of it is decidedly negative. But as the polls clearly show, Bernie is currently the frontrunner in the Democratic race, far out ahead of the rest of the field. To put this in slightly different terms: it's going to be hard to run an underdog campaign when you are the one everyone else will be trying to beat.

But like it or not, Bernie is going to face a baggage problem sooner or later. Let's take a look at the bad side of this first. Bernie Sanders inspires strong feelings among the Democratic base. Some of these feelings are enthusiastic and positive, but not everyone is "feeling the Bern," so to speak. There are plenty of Clinton fans who still largely blame Bernie for her loss to Trump, whether this is justified by the facts or not. Even though Bernie did actually campaign very hard for Clinton after conceding the 2016 nomination, many Democrats think he somehow didn't do enough. They discount Hillary's own campaign shortcomings, and focus instead on the perceived number of Bernie supporters who either stayed home and didn't vote, or voted instead for Jill Stein or even Donald Trump. Again, the facts of these accusations are debatable (to put it mildly) but that doesn't really matter to the perception which many Democrats still have of what happened. And their perception is what really matters, heading into another Democratic primary season.

The Hillary/Bernie race was hard-fought, that much is for certain. As with any hard-fought race, this left some bad feelings behind. Lost in all of this is how divided the party was in 2008 when the Clinton/Obama race was perhaps even more viciously fought (and left even deeper resentments -- remember the "Party Unity My Ass" crowd?), but people do tend to remember the most recent race more vividly. And "vicious" is not too strong a word for how intensely the battle was fought between the "Bernie Bros" and the Hillary supporters, both online and in person. Some of the bad feelings and deep-seated resentments of that fight still linger among the Democratic voting base. This could even give rise to a Democratic "anybody but Bernie" movement in the 2020 primaries.

At the same time, Bernie has that "good baggage" to deal with as well. He's in danger of becoming a victim of his own successes. Historically, Bernie has singlehandedly realigned the Democratic Party's ideology in a way not seen since perhaps what Ronald Reagan did to the Republicans back in 1976 and 1980. Just look at what was dismissed as "too radical" and "pie in the sky" during the 2016 race versus what has now become not only the mainstream Democratic Party agenda, but indeed what the majority of the 2020 candidates wholeheartedly support. The shift, on issue after issue, is striking -- and most of it can be chalked up to Bernie Sanders and his enthusiastic supporters. The party has become much more progressive in a very short period of time, but what this means for Bernie in 2020 is that he's no longer the only one advocating for Medicare For All or tuition-free state colleges or raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires -- indeed, now there are multiple flavors of proposals to achieve all of these goals. The various Democrats running may have different paths to getting to these goals, but few are sneering that they are "pie in the sky" these days. Bernie caused this change, but what it means for him is that now he's got competition for all his various policy prescriptions. That's a big change from the 2016 race, when he was the only one advocating such positions.

Bernie Sanders has tackled one of his negative baggage problems proactively, when he met early on with women from his 2016 campaign who said they had been disrespected or worse by people on his campaign. The "Bernie Bro" label originally referred to his online supporters who were trashing Hillary supporters in (at times) highly offensive ways, but the problem apparently ran even deeper and reached into his campaign staff itself. Bernie announced that this time he'd be attempting to run a campaign with absolutely no tolerance for misogyny in any form, and so far this seems to be working. In the "#MeToo" era, such things are intolerable to Democratic voters, so Bernie was smart to try to squelch the problem before it arose in his 2020 campaign. But the complaints against Bernie's campaign were never personally directed at him, merely the people who worked for him.

Which brings us to the undecided elephant (or, more appropriately, donkey) in the room. A week ago, if the polls were to be believed, even though the Democratic field was historically wide, it was shaping up to be a two-man race for the frontrunner position. Now, nobody's really sure what is going to happen next. Is Joe Biden going to run after all? Again, a week ago, that looked to be a solid yes, but now we're all waiting for the next shoe to drop, as it were.

So far, the accusations against Biden have been fairly mild, as these things go. What's he's been accused of is "inappropriate behavior" and "not respecting personal space," which is a whole lot better than "sexual harassment" or "sexual assault." Only two women have so far gone public with such accusations. But the scandal (if it can even be called that) is still in its early days. If other women come forward, and if their stories are worse or somehow more graphic, then Biden could indeed be in trouble. We haven't gotten to that point yet, although sometimes these things progress rather swiftly. The next few weeks will be key.

For my second ironic comparison with the 2016 candidates to materialize, Biden would need to stumble badly in the polls, or decide not to run at all. Now, a word about the polls before I lay this comparison out -- it is still ridiculously early, most voters (even most Democratic voters) are simply not paying any attention at all yet, therefore the national polling that exists should be seen as nothing short of a measure of name recognition. Personally, I'm not going to take any horserace polling seriously until approximately two weeks after the first televised debate, because that's about when Democratic voters will begin seriously weighing the candidates. So until then, the numbers are largely meaningless. However, that isn't going to stop me from some rampant speculation, up front.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the polls do actually reflect what voters are thinking and furthermore that Biden decides to take a pass on running. That would leave Bernie Sanders in an unusual position, but one we have indeed seen before. Currently, both Sanders and Biden regularly poll at above 20 percent, while all the other candidates are pretty far behind. Only one or two of them have ever even broken into double digits in the polls, and none have come close to 20 percent. Most are in the very low single digits. If you remove Biden from that equation, then Bernie's support might even spike upwards to hit 30 percent (some polling has already indicated that Biden voters overwhelmingly would pick Bernie as their second choice, but again, this may just be a function of name recognition). This is all a lot of speculation, I realize, but bear with me just for the sake of argument.

One thing that is similar in the 2020 race from the last time around is the sneering disdain that the mainstream media pundits hold for Bernie Sanders. They still cannot see him as a "serious candidate," no matter what the numbers say. He fought this perception (and this lack of media coverage) throughout the 2016 campaign, and it's already pretty apparent that he'll be fighting the same battle for media attention this time around as well. The pundits have pigeonholed Bernie as someone who they should make fun of rather than treat seriously, which means they've spent a whole lot of their attention so far on "flavor of the week" candidates who are polling far behind Bernie (most noticeably: Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, and Pete Buttigieg). Does any of this sound familiar to what happened on the Republican side in 2016?

Donald Trump led the Republican pack in the polling pretty much from when he jumped in the race until when he wrapped up the nomination. But the media didn't really wake up to his political strength until just before he won the GOP primary race. They laughed at him, dismissed him, and ridiculed him -- even though he was polling higher than everyone else (sometimes by very wide margins), and even though he was winning primary after primary with pluralities of the vote. He didn't need to win by 50-plus percent, because there were so many others running. A 30-percent share of the vote often won the state for Trump.

Could Bernie chart the same course this time around on the Democratic side? It is certainly a possibility, especially if Biden takes himself out of the running. Now, the dynamics of the race are different on the Democratic side for two reasons -- they don't have as many "winner-takes-all" primaries, and there will be far fewer caucuses this time around (many states have abandoned caucuses in favor of primaries). So racking up the number of delegates to win the nomination might be tougher for a Democratic candidate who is only winning pluralities of the vote.

But even so, the possibility clearly exists. If all the other Democrats are fighting amongst themselves over who can best beat the frontrunner, and they expend all their energy attacking each other, it could lead to the same sort of outcome as we saw with Trump in 2016. There are already roughly the same number of Democrats running this time as the Republican field from last time, so the voter demographics may get sliced very thin indeed.

Of course, I am not predicting this as the most likely outcome -- not by a long shot. For it to happen, Joe Biden would either have to take a serious nosedive in the polls or decide not to run at all, and the media would have to continue to largely ignore Bernie Sanders once again. Also, there would need to be a lack of any other Democratic candidate catching fire with the voters in a big way, to even out Bernie's competition. None of these is certain, by far.

Perhaps it's all just laziness on my part to even attempt to shoehorn Bernie's 2020 bid into ironic comparisons between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's 2016 campaigns. Or outright delusion, for that matter (I've been feverish for weeks, fighting off the flu, so in the interests of full disclosure I must admit this is a real possibility).

Something to watch (other than what Biden decides) is how the media treats the first quarter fundraising results. Bernie announced today that he had topped $18 million from his army of small donors, which far outpaced the other two Democrats who have so far announced their totals (Buttigieg at $7 million and Harris at $12 million). The real one to watch will be O'Rourke (who also has his own army of small donors), but if Bernie does lead the field in fundraising and the media continues to largely dismiss his candidacy, then this will set up the possibility of Bernie following Trump's path while the media is busy obsessing over which other Democrat will be in which "lane" for the final contest. And that would indeed be an ironic outcome.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

173 Comments on “Comparing Bernie 2020 To The 2016 Race”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i think some of the reasons bernie doesn't do well with the pundits are similar to the reasons donald doesn't either. he uses sweeping generalizations, doesn't get too wonky with policy proposals, uses a small and focused cachet of talking points, and has a cult following of somewhat comical voters. that's a good recipe for winning a spread out race, but not their image of what a "serious" candidate ought to look like.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What's he's been accused of is "inappropriate behavior" and "not respecting personal space," which is a whole lot better than "sexual harassment" or "sexual assault."

    I think he's being accused of something far worse than that. He is accused of using his power to coerce or intimidate or whatever.

    His accusers have overplayed their hand if they think Biden is capable of that sort of behavior. And, yes, I think they may be playing a 'hand', so to speak.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me clarify …

    I meant the first paragraph of comment 2 to read: I think he's being accused of something far worse than "inappropriate behavior" and "not respecting personal space".

    Of course, any mention of 'sexual assault' or sexual harassment' - or mention of anyone accused of such - has no place in any serious discussion about Senator Biden's behavior. Because, for the record, it would only serve to diminish the very serious nature of sexual harassment and assault.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's he's been accused of is "inappropriate behavior" and "not respecting personal space," which is a whole lot better than "sexual harassment" or "sexual assault." Only two women have so far gone public with such accusations. But the scandal (if it can even be called that) is still in its early days. If other women come forward, and if their stories are worse or somehow more graphic, then Biden could indeed be in trouble. We haven't gotten to that point yet, although sometimes these things progress rather swiftly. The next few weeks will be key.

    We have now gotten to that point..

    TWO MORE ACCUSE
    Biden’s Tactile Politics Threaten His Return in the #MeToo Era

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bidens-tactile-politics-threaten-his-return-in-the-supernumbermetoo-era/ar-BBVydAC

    It's fascinating to compare ya'all's attitudes with Biden with the attitudess that ya'all WOULD have had if it would have been a GOP'er who was being accused..

    A FASCINATING case study..

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i think that biden, as a man of high character, will turn this adversity into an opportunity. this is unlike two other conspicuous politicians who denied their past behavior, turned accusations around and played the victim. regardless of whether or not he decides to run, i believe joe will distinguish himself by evolving on the issue, and setting an example for other men of character to follow.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said.. A fascinating case study..

    this is unlike two other conspicuous politicians who denied their past behavior,

    Did it ever occur to you that the reason the other politician(who happened to have an -R after his name) denied the past behavior because it never happened??

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

    Joe will be protected by Democrats... He won't be Franken'ed or Kavanaugh'ed because Democrats have too much to lose..

  7. [7] 
    John M wrote:

    [4] Michale

    "It's fascinating to compare ya'all's attitudes with Biden with the attitudess that ya'all WOULD have had if it would have been a GOP'er who was being accused.."

    Once again I have to ask you, do you even read your own articles that you cite??? Because if you use the actual quotes from them, they portray and paint an entirely different picture and narrative than the one you are trying to get across Michale.

    From your own article: "Mr. Biden has been touchy feely with men, too, and he is hardly the first politician to make waves for such displays. Former President George W. Bush was captured giving Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany a quick shoulder massage at a Group of 8 summit meeting in Russia, prompting a headline in The Guardian that read “Bush Rubs Merkel Up The Wrong Way.”

    But perhaps none have employed the use of touch as liberally as the former vice president. People who know Mr. Biden are virtually unanimous in their assessment of him as an inveterate hugger who has no ill intent — “a very affectionate individual who is a natural toucher,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine."

    Again, that's a far cry from the many instances of outright sexual assault and even rape that President Trump has been accused of. And it has nothing to do for us whether they have a -D or an -R after their name. But apparently it sure matters to you a lot Michale.

    Like you say, a fascinating case study to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel over this Michale.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and simply said, "Yea?? Well... THAT's different.."

    Haven't you ever noticed how, with ya'all, it's ALWAYS different for the person with the -D after their names?? It's uncanny..

    And, just for the record, I made no comments on the validity of the accusations against Biden or what they mean..

    I simply comment how ya'all react differently with a person with a -D after their name..

    Again, that's a far cry from the many instances of outright sexual assault and even rape that President Trump has been accused of. And it has nothing to do for us whether they have a -D or an -R after their name.

    Yea???

    Bill Clinton...

    'nuff said...

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    One difference between Trump's 2016 campaign and Bernie's 2020 campaign- the media ignoring Bernie's campaign because it is not considered serious while Trump got lots of coverage because his campaign was not considered serious.

    Maybe you should take a few more days to fully recover before continuing to write articles as you are still quite delusional regarding Bernie, Beto or anyone else that you claim has an army of small donors. No, that delusion existed BEFORE your illness.

    The one lesson you seem to be unable to grasp from 2016 is that when citizens think that the things the media and politicians want people to think are "too radical" or "pie in the sky" are NOT too radical or pie in the sky those things can become possible.

    So PLEASE do your part to meet your responsibility as a journalist to inform citizens aboot all ideas so they can make 2020 aboot a real change in our political process to have true small donor candidates instead of being suckered by the false narrative of candidates pretending their small contribution campaigns are small donor campaigns.

    Our elections should be aboot supporting candidates that offer real change instead who does a better job (with the aid of the media perpetuating the lies) of fooling people into supporting what they think is change when it is not.

    Your claim of small donors is A LIE!!!!!!!

    Cut the shit and address REALITY.

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    An interesting article from a speculative perspective, and indicative of the type of speculation possible this early in the process when all the candidates may not have even declared yet.

    Bernie got beaten unfair and square last time around, but even with the shenanigans, he was going to lose to Hillary. The shenanigans were not that evil, but enough to get the Bernie supporters riled up. This came across as an attack on Hillary supporters, and the bad blood spread. Some of the viciousness on both sides still hurts.

    Frankly, I'm just going to be ageist on this one - I'm not voting for anybody over 65. If you are too dumb to retire and do something with your life when you can at 65 (and all the over-65 politicians have much better guaranteed pensions than the rest of us do), then you are too dumb to get my vote. Totally unfair on my part, get over it.

    OK, with that aside, the early standout is definitely Major Pete. We'll see if he is a flash in the pan, or has real lasting ability.

    Some of the other non-geriatric candidates are plastering ads all over my internet (I assume by now we all know that Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. have individually customized the internet for each of us - i.e. we don't see the same one and I'll bet e.g. CRS sees a very different internet than I do) - Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar are particularly active from a digital spend perspective.

    Beto O'Rouke appears in a lot of click-bait (I take that as a good sign for him at this early "name recognition phase" of the process).

    Kamala Harris has disappeared from my internet - that can't be a good thing.

    I only remembered that Julián Booker and Cory Castro (I know) are running because I just checked a list of "front runners" on Rolling Stone and said to myself "oh yeah, them" and I'm a bit of a political news junkie. This isn't good news for them either. Especially if you got this far and are still puzzled by my "I know" aside earlier in this paragraph.

    The process is kicking off. It has added importance because it is one of the key steps to getting rid of an idiot, so the ability to not just beat the idiot, but humiliate him further is demanded of the perfect candidate.

    If I had to place money on a candidate (and I have to spend 2 days in Vegas next month) I'd split my bet on Pete and Kamala (note to anybody thinking I have a clue about the future, the size of my bet will be $5 - that is how much I value my powers of prediction).

  11. [11] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    As an old-timer who only very recently got to where he didn't have to rely on a grandkid to bring the internet up on my screen, I'm interested to hear about your idea that my internet experience is "customized" and lkely differs from yours.

    I'm actually not very deep into the whole internet thing. My kids have set up my desktop screen to automatically bring up my "favorites" , which are 1), TDAmeritrade, 2) Chris Weigant's blog, 3) Youtube for R D Wolff's stuff, 4) Youtube for music and shuffle dance videos 5) yahoo email, and 6) Huffpost for news (or anyway, their version of news).

    So, does my version of any or all of those possibly differ from yours?

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, does my version of any or all of those possibly differ from yours?

    And easy way to show this is to go to GOOGLE and type something in, just the few letters...

    Now got to another Search Site and type in the same few letters...

    Dollars to doughnuts, you get one autofill result from GOOGLE and a different result from another Search Site..

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hi CRS

    Re: [11]

    Michale is correct, I believe if we both typed "Hillary Clinton" into Google we'd get different results.

    At work we first discovered how much the Internet was becoming adjusted to us individually. The first clue came from a senior exec about 10 years ago when he was excited that one of our products was top of his search results - he thought it would be the same for everybody, but nobody could replicate his result (he sent a screen shot, and as more and more of us sent screen shots, the differences within the same product team were eye-opening).

    It isn't just search however, it is the clickbait articles at the end of any news article, the ads you see, etc. They are all customized to your unique profile that is built up via shared cookies, website history, etc. in your system.

    There is an interesting podcast from Sam Harris about this if you are interested - it starts by focusing on on Facebook, but the mechanisms are common to all the major vendors as the podcast progresses:

    https://samharris.org/podcasts/152-trouble-facebook/

    Cheers,

    Neil

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, with that aside, the early standout is definitely Major Pete.

    Why is he a standout??

    Of course, he hates Trump and he is gay, so he checks those boxes... :^/

    But why should I vote for him as the Democrat Candidate for POTUS??

  15. [15] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Michale [12]

    TL;DR

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    DOBL...

    WOW.. #12 was the one that taxed yer comprehension skills!??

    And easy way to show this is to go to GOOGLE and type something in, just the few letters...

    Now got to another Search Site and type in the same few letters...

    Dollars to doughnuts, you get one autofill result from GOOGLE and a different result from another Search Site..

    Yea... I can see why that was a toughie for ya.. :eyeroll:

  17. [17] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Michale [16]

    No, Michale, you don't see my point. Even if your posting was just one two-word sentence (like "Jesus wept", the most famous two-word sentence in history), my reply would still be TL;DR.

    Also, there is absolutely nobody posting on this site whose comprehension skills are taxed by your posts; none of us read them!

  18. [18] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    CRS-

    Further to Nielm's 13, let's take the same article from HUFPO.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pie-and-tart-recipes_n_1546845

    Since I spend much time in Central and South America and I am doing a reno on a bathroom at my rental the advertising algorithm has served me with an ad for Fabuloso, a cleaning agent (in Spanish) and for Wayfair.com shower fixtures (in english).

    If you go the article I linked to above it will serve you with completely different ads, just as it will for everyone else here.

  19. [19] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Biden is being Franken-ed. There's nothing you or I can do about it, and no immediate source of the oppo research that produced it (at least not yet). Like Franken, the complaints are all vapid, not based on any actual assault, but on sort of an uneasy feeling.

    Comparing Biden's 'assaults' to Trump's is instructive: no one is implying any sexual element to anything he's doing, compared to Trump's multiple actual assaults. But they're being treated the same way in the press.

    It's a shame that accusations like these can proliferate against such a decent man.

    Is it Republicans? Is it the tabloids? Or is it coming from a rival? Oop, the press hasn't gotten there yet. We'll find out one day that overzealous staffers mounted this attack, or that the GOP, sensing a real chance for him, decided to take him down. Have to wait and see.

    Either way, this is what the campaign is gonna look like. Not nice. This.

    Ugh!

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, Michale, you don't see my point.

    I see your point perfectly..

    Yer a whiner that doesn't have a dog in this hunt..

    I have talked with a LOT of Brits lately and they are ALL whiners about Trump..

    Also, there is absolutely nobody posting on this site whose comprehension skills are taxed by your posts; none of us read them!

    So, now you speak for everyone?? WOW..... :eyeroll:

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    If you go the article I linked to above it will serve you with completely different ads, just as it will for everyone else here.

    Sure the ads will be set up for the individual..

    Neil's point (I believe) is that it's NOT just advertising..

    Actual NEWS is catered to the individual..

    To put it into your context, if CRS goes to that HuffPoop "news", he will see DIFFERENT news headlines than you or Neil or probably even I would see...

    It's not that commercialism and advertising is targeted that is scary...

    It's the VERY news, so-called "FACTS" that are being targeted..

    THAT is what is scary..

    Those that control the information control the world..

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Comparing Biden's 'assaults' to Trump's is instructive: no one is implying any sexual element to anything he's doing, compared to Trump's multiple actual assaults.

    Assaults that are ONLY accusations.. As are Bidens..

    Only Biden knows if the assaults are sexual in nature.. His victims can only say how they feel about it.. If Uncle Joe sports a woody (yer welcome for the mental picture..) while he is sniffing someone's hair, they are sexual... FACT

    It's a shame that accusations like these can proliferate against such a decent man.

    Funny how it's a "shame" ONLY when the "decent man" has a -D after his name..

    Remind me again how -D/-R plays no part in your deliberations?? I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS to the contrary..

    Either way, this is what the campaign is gonna look like. Not nice. This.

    Democrats created this.. You have a beef?? STOP doing it..

  23. [23] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Michale [20]

    Oh, all right . . . I'm a whiner that doesn't have a dog in this hunt. (And I smell of wee!). Back of the net! One-nil to you!

    And I'll let you have the last word too! I know you'll really like that!

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    I have talked with a LOT of Brits lately and they are ALL whiners about Trump.

    I've talked to a lot of Germans, French, and Canadians, and they all laugh at Trump. I recently spent two weeks in the U.K. and another week in Germany and it was so nice to be able to read the local media and not see the buffoon staring out with some glaikit (https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/scottish-word-of-the-day-glaikit-1-2343273) look on his face every day.

    Of course, I had two weeks of non-stop Brexit in the U.K. But that was somebody else's train wreck.

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I may have to sue.

    Fabuloso was my name when I was a male supermodel.

  27. [27] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Don Harris [26]

    My middle name is "Fantabulosa". Small world!

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So Neil ... did you read Tom Friedman's latest column?

    It appears that the British government has so deeply stepped in it that they don't know how to get out of it. And, by 'get out of it' I mean end the absolute foolishness of Brexit.

    Friedman's excellent point is that while the rest of the world is becoming ever more connected and inter-dependent, Birtain is looking for isolation and good luck with that.

    I, of course, agree.

  29. [29] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller [28]

    There is a very simple way for us to get out of Brexit: revoke Article 50. Theresa May could do it with one phone call to Jean-Claude Juncker (paperwork to follow in snailmail). Unfortunately, our political system is so broken, and the political atmosphere is so toxic, that this simple remedy is beyond us.

    Perhaps we'd better stop here; all this is grossly off-thread and Chris may wade in at any moment swinging a knotted towel.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Trust me, Chris enjoys this kind of back and forth. Which is so excruciatingly rare around here.

    Would revoking article 50 result in the status quo ante and render the referendum null and void? Sorry, I'm not in the weeds on Brexit ...

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Also, I find it quite amusing to hear British pols so concerned about overturning what the people wanted to see happen. Ahem.

    If they had shown more of that sort of concern they might not be in this current mess.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, all right . . . I'm a whiner that doesn't have a dog in this hunt.

    But at least you recognize FACTS and REALITY..

    That's a plus in yer favor..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    I've talked to a lot of Germans, French, and Canadians, and they all laugh at Trump.

    Of course.. Because you only associate with those who share your social construct...

    Me, I expose myself to a lot of differing opinions.. Even those.. ESPECIALLY those I don't disagree with..

    That's why all you have is your Matrix and I live in the world of physical reality...

    Remember.. You and your fellow Trump/America haters thought that Trump was going to be taken down by Russia Collusion...

    How many times do you have to be wrong before you realize that your social construct is totally whacked and has NOTHING to do with the physical reality???

  34. [34] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller [30]

    Would revoking article 50 result in the status quo ante and render the referendum null and void?

    Yes to both of those — but only legally. Politically (and here's the problem) all hell would break loose. Many of the millions who voted to leave the EU in the referendum felt, and still feel, it was the only vote they ever cast that meant anything. If we just revoked Article 50 in the way I said, those millions would feel grossly betrayed and be very angry indeed. There would be riots, death threats and maybe an assasination or two. Seriously; no joke.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, I find it quite amusing to hear British pols so concerned about overturning what the people wanted to see happen. Ahem.

    If they had shown more of that sort of concern they might not be in this current mess.

    A-frakin'-MEN to that!!

    I get the same feeling when I hear from all the Trump/America haters and whiners..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Friedman's excellent point is that while the rest of the world is becoming ever more connected and inter-dependent,

    And maybe there are people in this world who DON'T want the kind of connection and inter-dependency that the liberals are promoting???

    Did ya ever think of that??

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    DOBL,

    Seriously! Not a joke!

    I had to laugh when you said that - that is one of my favourite Biden quotes.

    As for Brexit, do most of the people who voted for Brexit have any change of heart or could they be convinced that their concerns can be met without Brexit, assuming there are any pols capable of successfully making that argument?

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The world is interconnected and interdependent and that situation is only getting stronger.

    Deal with it.

  39. [39] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller [31]
    Also, I find it quite amusing to hear British pols so concerned about overturning what the people wanted to see happen. Ahem.

    Yes, the whole world's laughing at us. That really hurts those of us who woke up the day after, heard the referendum result, and for the last three years have known that the EU had us over a barrel and still have us over a barrel. The victory was 52% to 48% to Leave, so there are (slightly fewer) millions of us too.

    The only unexpected thing, for me, was just how ignorant and bigoted the Conservative Government and Parliamentary Party have shown themselves to be. You couldn't make this up. But I'll stop now, otherwise I'll never stop.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You misunderstand me..

    I am all for a One World government..

    But I want it to be patterned after the United Federation of Planets...

    Not the Klingon Empire...

    Read the book FEDERATION or PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC...

    You'll see the WRONG way to go about obtaining a One World Government...

    Or just look at Venezuela....

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, the whole world's laughing at us.

    So, maybe you should tend your own house and put it in order, rather than offer your useless and biased opinion on issues where you are obviously wrong..

    You want to counsel ME??

    I believe you Brits have a phrase I am searching for..

    Piss off...

  42. [42] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller[37]

    As for Brexit, do most of the people who voted for Brexit have any change of heart or could they be convinced that their concerns can be met without Brexit, assuming there are any pols capable of successfully making that argument?

    Well, the polls lately show a small majority for staying in. If we have a second referendum the result may be somewhere in the vicinity of 52%-48% to stay in. And if we then revoke article 50, the 48% will throw their teddies out of the cot, "with extreme prejudice" as I described. As my dear mother would say (God rest her soul!) we're really up a gum-tree, whatever happens!

  43. [43] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Michale [41]

    Michale, the grown-ups are talking just now. Mind your manners or you'll be sent to your room with no supper.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans trigger ‘nuclear option’ to speed Trump
    nominees

    Democrats blasted the move as a blow to the Senate and a sign the filibuster might soon be on its way out.

    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
    Senate Republicans used the “nuclear option” Wednesday to unilaterally reduce debate time on most presidential nominees, the latest in a series of changes to the fabric of the Senate to dilute the power of the minority.

    The move by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) immediately paves the way for quicker confirmation of President Donald Trump’s judicial and executive branch picks and comes amid deep GOP frustration with Democratic delays. Future presidents will benefit too, though McConnell and Trump stand to gain inordinately as they seek to fill 130 District Court vacancies over the next 18 months before the 2020 election.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/03/senate-republicans-trigger-nuclear-option-to-speed-trump-nominees-1253118

    OH FRABJOUS DAY!!!

    I bet Harry Reid and the Democrats regret the day the touched the filibuster..

    If only someone had logically counseled Democrats against doing that..

    Oh... Wait...

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

    (and, this is decidedly NOT a duplicate comment. sheesh.)

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, the grown-ups are talking just now. Mind your manners or you'll be sent to your room with no supper.

    "You and what army???"
    -Shrek

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    To be clear, 45 is in response to 43.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've been referred to as many things but, never an army. :)

  49. [49] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller[48]

    I've been referred to as many things but, never an army. :)

    "Do not despise the snake because it has no horns. Who is to say it will not become a dragon? Thus may one brave man become am army". (From
    The Water Margin, a classic Chinese novel of centuries ago).

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very nice.

  51. [51] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Sorry I have to leave this thread at such an interesting juncture, but it's 2234 BST here. So, up the wooden hills to Bedfordshire!

    Goodnight, one and all. If you can't be good, be careful!

  52. [52] 
    John M wrote:

    [33] Michale

    "Remember.. You and your fellow Trump/America haters thought that Trump was going to be taken down by Russia Collusion..."

    And Yet:

    1) We're still hearing about the Russian connection with the investigation into the Trump inauguration campaign, including all the dealings with Pro-Russian Ukrainians.

    2) There is still the ongoing investigation by the southern district of New York.

    3) The Mueller report while it could not find enough evidence to charge Trump with criminality regarding conspiracy with the Russians, has yet to say anything in public about the counter-intelligence findings about cooperation with the Russians, which is a whole other kettle of fish or can of worms as the case may be.

  53. [53] 
    John M wrote:

    [36] Michale

    "And maybe there are people in this world who DON'T want the kind of connection and inter-dependency that the liberals are promoting???

    Did ya ever think of that??"

    Yes, and it doesn't matter. They are modern day Luddites. There is no going back now, it's impossible at this point to put the genie back in the bottle.

    Oh, by the way, it wasn't the Liberals alone who promoted this. Remember all those very conservative Republican Free Traders? Do you remember Ronald Reagan's dream of a Free Trade Area of the Americas stretching from Alaska to Tierra Del Fuego in Argentina and Chile?

  54. [54] 
    John M wrote:

    [44] Michale

    "Republicans trigger ‘nuclear option’ to speed Trump
    nominees"

    Which will come back to bite them in the ass. I say be careful what you wish for.

    They will come to regret this sooner or later. Either in 2020, or 2024, when we get both a Democratic Senate and President again.

  55. [55] 
    John M wrote:

    [44] Michale

    "Republicans trigger ‘nuclear option’ to speed Trump
    nominees"

    Candidates including Sens.Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have all signaled an openness to overhauling the Supreme Court if they become President. Mayor Pete Buttigieg's plan is more specific. "One idea that I think is interesting is, you have 15 members.."

    Even Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders said Monday he was open to backing a major proposed reform to the makeup of the Supreme Court.

    The Vermont independent, following the lead of some progressive legal scholars, floated a plan that would effectively end lifetime, uninterrupted appointments for Supreme Court justices.

    "What may make sense is, if not term limits, then rotating judges to the appeals court as well," Sanders said at the We the People Summit in Washington.

    Every judge on the federal court of appeals would also be appointed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court 'panel' would be composed of nine justices, selected at random from the full pool of associate justices. Once selected, the justices would hear cases for only two weeks, before another set of judges would replace them.

  56. [56] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  57. [57] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [9] -

    I believe something like 99% of Bernie's donations have been under $100.

    So I have to ask... what exactly is your purity standard? $1 donation only, or what?

    Sheesh...

    -CW

  58. [58] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    DecayedOldBritishLiberal [29] -

    LizM's right. I don't know enough about Brexit, although I am certainly fascinated by the trainwreck aspects.

    From listening to BBC radio as one of two main news sources (the other being the Intl Herald Tribune) while living in France in the early 1990s, when Europe was just beginning to come together, the impression I got of Britain is that they still hadn't quite gotten over not being an Empire anymore. In all their news, they would refer to "Britain" as being separate from "Europe" ("...and in other news, over in Europe, the French government blah blah blah...").

    I was left with the impression that Britain wanted to see Europe set up a government on the following lines: all the other EC countries would collectively have one vote over any issue, and then Britian would have one vote. If there was a tie, Britian's vote would be the decisive one.

    Everything I've seen since then hasn't really changed this impression, for me. Brexit is merely the latest in this pervasive attitude, really.

    But I could be wrong, I'm just a bleedin' Yank after all...

    Heh.

    -CW

  59. [59] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [35] -

    (can't resist)

    But the American voters wanted Hillary by a margin of +3 million...

    :-)

    -CW

  60. [60] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I gotta go lie down now. Just reading and answering these has been exhausting.

    If at all possible, avoid this flu at all costs. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I'm into week three, and no signs of light at the end of the tunnel yet...

    Stay healthy, all...

    :-(

    -CW

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Chris, just about 12 more weeks to go, more or less ... take it eee - eeeeasy.

  62. [62] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    yeah, that article was pretty much the same thing i was thinking.

    and by the way, my purity standard is 100% pure pie.

    JL

  63. [63] 
    Patrick wrote:

    CW

    Are you sure you only have the flu? It should only last 3-4 days. Worst case less than 2 weeks.

    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/consumer/symptoms.htm

  64. [64] 
    Paula wrote:

    Until BS releases his tax returns he should not be treated as a serious candidate.

    HE DID run in 2016 and he didn't deliver the returns then. He has "promised?" - certainly he has "said" the returns are coming. Several weeks ago.

    We can't afford surprises. I think he has embarrassing - if not worse - stuff lurking in those taxes - there's really no other good reason for his continued failure to share them. Whatever he's hiding, the GOP will find out and use it. They probably already know and are holding off so they can get better value out of them.

    His blowing people off about it isn't attractive either.

    AS for Biden - he will weather his semi-MeToo or he won't. He released a pretty good apology video today, which he needed to do. Key points: his physicality has always been meant to be supportive but he recognizes that norms are changing and he pledges to be aware of that going forward.

    Fair enough.

    The accusations didn't bother me in that I think they're true, I think he meant no harm, but I think he was showing a kind of insensitivity. If he's "woke" now, fine.

    He looks good. He sounded - there's no other way to put it - old. His voice had that quality of elderliness. I make that observation without prejudice.

    I wish they'd both bow out but I'll pick Biden over BS if we're unfortunate enough to be left with that choice.

  65. [65] 
    Paula wrote:

    Obviously BS is BEING treated as a serious candidate - but he shouldn't be until he makes good on those taxes.

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm telling you - we need some young blood - there are too many skeletons in the closets with the 65+-year-olds - even if the skeletons today were Casper the Friendly Ghost in the past (e.g. the asinine debate about Biden being touchy-feely - if he realized it was an issue he'd have backed off decades ago - he isn't a bad guy, he's a guy given privileged messages and not realizing it. Now it is clear, it is also clear that the touchy-feelie has to become formal-handshakie.

    We learned not to say a lot of words we took for granted in the past. We've learned to become more respectful of people. We are not perfect, but I'll always forgive somebody sincerely trying to learn from their mistakes.

    Why?

    Because I'm trying to learn sincerely, hopefully from other people's mistakes, but we are not all perfect, and I assume I'll screw up.

    Motives are more important than instances. We need to absorb that lesson soon.

    Neil rant out. Sorry.

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, you meant to say 'Neil ageist rant. Very sorry', I will assume.

    You should know that this is Biden's time because he is the only Democrat who can not only beat Trump but clean up the Trump Mess (Augean Stables mess, that is), domestically and internationally, and revive the promise of America.

    And, that would be just the first day! Well, first term, anyway. It will be a Herculean effort, after all ...

  68. [68] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    [58] Chris Weigant

    From listening to BBC radio as one of two main news sources (the other being the Intl Herald Tribune) while living in France in the early 1990s, when Europe was just beginning to come together, the impression I got of Britain is that they still hadn't quite gotten over not being an Empire anymore. In all their news, they would refer to "Britain" as being separate from "Europe" ("...and in other news, over in Europe, the French government blah blah blah...").

    I was left with the impression that Britain wanted to see Europe set up a government on the following lines: all the other EC countries would collectively have one vote over any issue, and then Britain would have one vote. If there was a tie, Britian's vote would be the decisive one.

    Yes, Chris, that's just about it. For decades large numbers people who read the conservative tabloids have thought like that. This didn't matter much because they weren't interested in politics and the country was run by a collection of people containing a large enough percentage of non-cretins to keep the show on the road.

    But our politics has decayed so much that the cretins (the phrase "mad swivel-eyed loons" is perhaps more accurate) have, decade by decade within the Conservative party, taken over successively the card-carrying membership of local candidates, the local officials, the Parliamentary candidate list, the Conservative MPs in the House of Commmons and, finally, the Government. It was worse than we thought. But Brexit has brought it into the open.

  69. [69] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    [68] DecayedOldBritishLiberal

    Correction:

    "the card-carrying membership of local candidates" =>
    "the card-carrying membership of local Conservative parties"

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    1) We're still hearing about the Russian connection with the investigation into the Trump inauguration campaign, including all the dealings with Pro-Russian Ukrainians.

    Yea?? Of course ya'all are still hearing that..

    That's ALL you have been hearing for almost 3 years..

    You'll still be "hearing" that til the day you die.

    Thank you for proving my point..

    2) There is still the ongoing investigation by the southern district of New York.

    Yea.. There was a 675 day investigation with NO EXPENSE SPARED into Russia Collusion..

    We all know how THAT ended up... :^/

    Face reality, JM... You will NEVER remove President Trump from office..

    You are going to have to do it the old fashioned way.. At the ballot box.

    I know, I know.. Ya'all Democrats can't handle that reality..

    So, by all means.. Play with your social constructs til you get hairy palms. Makes me no never mind..

    Yes, and it doesn't matter.

    If it doesn't matter, why all the hyper-hysterical PTDS???

    If ya know yer gonna win anyways, why are ya'all so apoplectic???

    Candidates including Sens.Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have all signaled an openness to overhauling the Supreme Court if they become President. Mayor Pete Buttigieg's plan is more specific. "One idea that I think is interesting is, you have 15 members.."

    Yea, FDR thought about doing that too... He realized what a moronic thing it was to do..

    Go for it.. I double dog dare ya...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    RE: Stacking The SCOTUS...

    JM, so if you think it's such a good idea, you wouldn't mind if President TRUMP increased the number of Justices to 15 and made sure ALL the extra 6 Justices were all conservatives, right???

    No??

    Oh that's right. It's ONLY a good idea if it favors the Dumbocrat Party...

    Hysterical bigotry proven beyond any doubt..

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which will come back to bite them in the ass. I say be careful what you wish for.

    They will come to regret this sooner or later. Either in 2020, or 2024, when we get both a Democratic Senate and President again.

    Probably

    Just as Democrats were told that THEIR actions would come back and bite THEM on the ass..

    Funny how you were all supportive of the Democrats when they took those actions..

    Thereby proving once again, it's ALL about the -D/-R with ya...

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    But the American voters wanted Hillary by a margin of +3 million...

    And if the vanity vote was the way we chose our POTUS, you would have a point.. :D

    If ONE State's preference was how we chose our POTUS, you would also have a point..

    But OK.. I am ALL for ONE STATE selecting our President..

    As long as that state is Texas... Would YOU be OK with that???

    I don't think so...

    Hope ya feel better soon.. I am dying to know your thoughts on President Trump being completely and utterly exonerated on Russia Collusion..

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama Silent on Biden As Former VP Feels Heat Over Allegations of Inappropriate Touching
    https://freebeacon.com/politics/obama-silent-on-biden-as-former-vp-feels-heat-over-allegations-of-inappropriate-touching/

    It's funny how Obama is letting Joe twist in the wind...

    I would have thought Obama would be Biden's most staunchest defenders...

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democratic Party Is Radicalizing
    Extremism isn’t just affecting the GOP.

    To more fully grasp the leftward lurch of the Democratic Party, it’s useful to run through some of the ideas that are now being seriously talked about and embraced by leading members of the party—ideas that together would be fiscally ruinous, invest massive and unwarranted trust in central planners, and weaken America’s security.

    The Green New Deal, a 10-year effort to eliminate fossil fuels “as much as is technologically feasible” that would completely transform the American economy, put the federal government in partial or complete control over large sectors, and retrofit every building in America. It would change the way we travel and eat, switch the entire electrical grid to renewable energy sources, and for good measure “guarantee” high-paying jobs, affordable housing, and universal health care. It would be astronomically costly and constitute by far the greatest centralization of power in American history.

    Medicare for all, which would greatly expand the federal role in health care. Some versions would wipe out the health-insurance industry and do away with employer-sponsored health plans that now cover roughly 175 million Americans. This would be hugely disruptive and unpopular (70 percent of Americans are happy with their coverage), and would exacerbate the worst efficiencies of an already highly inefficient program.

    Make college tuition-free and debt-free, with the no-debt promise including both tuition and living expenses—a highly expensive undertaking ($50 billion a year or so just for the federal government)—that would transfer money from less wealthy families whose children do not attend college to wealthier families whose children do. It could also have potentially devastating effects on many private, not-for-profit colleges.

    Increase the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent from its current rate of 37 percent for those making more than $10 million, unwise in the 21st-century economy and far above the average top rate for OECD nations; and impose a “wealth tax” that would levy a 2 percent annual tax on a household’s assets—including stocks, real estate, and retirement funds—above $50 million. It isn’t even clear whether a tax on wealth rather than income would be constitutional, but that almost seems beside the point.

    Abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which upholds immigration laws; protect “sanctuary cities” (local jurisdictions that don’t fully cooperate with federal efforts to find and deport unauthorized immigrants); and take down existing walls on the southern border, walls which Speaker Nancy Pelosi has referred to as “an immorality.” These policies signal that Democrats don’t really believe in border security and are mostly untroubled by illegal immigration.

    Eliminate the Senate filibuster, pack the courts, and put an end to the Electoral College. The effect of these would be to weaken protections against abuses of majority power.

    Reparations for African Americans to provide compensation for past injustices like slavery, Jim Crow laws, and redlining. (Senator Elizabeth Warren believes Native Americans should be included as well.) Reparations would pose countless practical problems and create unintended consequences, as David Frum argued in these pages.

    Opposition to any limits on even third-trimester abortions, and opposition to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, legislation clarifying that babies who survive attempted abortions must receive medical care. Abortion is a very difficult issue that requires empathy on all sides—but for many of us, this stance of Democrats is morally incomprehensible.

    Increasing antipathy aimed at Israel, one of the most estimable nations in the world. Two freshmen Democrats, Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, have embraced the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement targeting Israel, and House Democratic leaders faced a fierce backlash in their efforts to condemn the anti-Semitic remarks by Omar, who has a record of anti-Semitic comments and who most recently accused supporters of Israel of dual loyalties. (The Democratic House, unable to pass a measure that focused solely on anti-Semitism, eventually passed a resolution condemning “hateful expressions of intolerance.”)
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/progressivism-making-democrats/586372/

    Anyone who likes the way the Democrat Party is heading should have their heads examined..

    I mean, honestly.. OPPOSING medical care to babies who survive abortion attempts!!????

    Getting rid of ALL fossil fuels, cows and air travel in 10 years!!!????

    Giving money to people unwilling to work!!???

    The Democrat Party is whacked.. There is simply no other way to explain it..

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Three more women accuse Biden of improper contact, say his video wasn't enough
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/three-more-women-accuse-biden-of-improper-contact-say-his-video-wasnt-enough

    Yep.. Biden is going to be Franken'ed..

    Hopefully he won't be Kavanaugh'ed...

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Detective Ben Campbell
    Maine State Police, Maine
    End of Watch: Wednesday, April 3, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  78. [78] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    [76] Michale

    TL;DR

  79. [79] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Michale: TL;DR on all your posts. If I actually replied to each one I'd get RSI.

  80. [80] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Investigators: Report Had More Troubling Details About Trump Than Barr Revealed

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/special-counsel-investigators-mueller-report-william-barr_n_5ca58baae4b082d775e038b4

    There you go, Mike. The UN-leakiest investigation in history is finally starting to leak, apparently because Barr has his facts wrong. Guess it had to happen sooner or later...

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    2020 Democrats go silent after Senate’s Green New Deal debacle

    To quote John McEnroe: ‘You cannot be serious!’

    OPINION — In the awkward aftermath of the Green New Deal’s rollout, perhaps the most appropriate question for its supporters, especially the Democratic presidential field, is one often posed by tennis bad boy John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!”

    But, apparently, when New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey introduced their proposal in February, they were deadly serious, and breathless progressives couldn’t wait to hop aboard the climate change express. First in line, the Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate who were eager to offer up their enthusiastic support.

    There was just one snag. The Green New Deal, in reality, wasn’t serious. These weren’t well-thought-out ideas or vetted policies. They were far left talking points that couldn’t possibly survive any real scrutiny. And they didn’t.

    The blowback was epic. Critics pounced on the resolution’s absurd provisions. America would have to retool every structure in the country to maximize energy efficiency. No cars. No planes. Trains to everywhere. Well, except from L.A. to San Francisco, where fiscal reality has already ended that green dream.
    http://www.rollcall.com/news/the-green-new-deal-you-cannot-be-serious

    Once again.. Democrats captured by their social constructs at the expense of the physical reality..

    How embarrassing it must be for Occasional Cortex that not a SINGLE Democrat voted for her hysterical delusion..

  82. [82] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ways and Means chair directs IRS to turn over Trump tax returns

    From TRMS. 6 years' worth. Sounds like Trump's in it now..

  83. [83] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    How embarrassing it must be for Occasional Cortex that not a SINGLE Democrat voted for her hysterical delusion..

    Not embarrassing at all:

    "Nearly all members of the Democratic caucus voted “present” when the resolution came up for a vote on Tuesday, with just four breaking and voting against it. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), and Doug Jones (D-AL), all lawmakers from more moderate or conservative states voted “No” on the resolution. Sen. Angus King (I-ME), an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, also voted against it.

    Democrats predominately voted “present” on the resolution as a means of calling out Republicans, who had set up this vote to highlight potential splits in the Democratic caucus and force lawmakers to splinter from a high-profile, progressive idea."

    "“The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government,” Ocasio-Cortez said on Tuesday. “What McConnell’s doing is that he’s trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing, without any markups, without working through committee — because he doesn’t want to save our planet. Because he thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned.”"

    https://www.vox.com/2019/3/26/18281323/green-new-deal-democrats-vote

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    PIERS MORGAN: If Joe ‘Hugger’ Biden, one of America’s most decent men, isn’t virtuous enough to be President – then who the hell is?

    And as a result, I hope he resists the temptation to bow to this insane puritanical pressure and announces that he WILL run.

    Because right now, he’s the best hope the Democrats have of beating Trump.

    And frankly, if a man as inherently decent, civilised, patriotic, compassionate, loyal and empathetic as Joe Biden is deemed unfit to be President of the United States, then nobody is fit for it.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6877497/If-Joe-Biden-isnt-virtuous-President-hell-is.html

    This one's for you, Liz..

    I can't argue with any of the points made...

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    You can spin it all you want..

    But the FACTS remain the same..

    Not a SINGLE DEMOCRAT voted for Occasional Cortex's pie in the sky bullshit plan...

    They ALL had a chance to go on the record and say "YES.. THIS PLAN IS A GOOD PLAN AND IS NEEDED!!"

    And not a SINGLE DEMOCRAT did that....

    NOT.... A..... SINGLE..... DEMOCRAT..... voted for this bullshit idea...

    You can try to cover your embarrassment with spin until the cows come home.. Just like you do with Mueller completely exonerating President Trump on Russia Collusion..

    But FACTS are stubborn things.. They remain the same, despite ALL the spin...

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ways and Means chair directs IRS to turn over Trump tax returns

    On what grounds??

    "WE DON'T LIKE TRUMP" is not grounds to invade an American's privacy..

    Funny how ya'all are BIG on personal privacy.. Unless the person has an -R after their names..

    Hypocrisy at it's finest..

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale: TL;DR on all your posts.

    You don't have to ANNOUNCE how stoopid you are... We all know you read each and every one of my posts faithfully..

    Just like you are reading this one..

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Only an Anti-American moron would mock a post honoring a fallen police officer..

    Of course, I expect nothing more from a Trump/America hating dipshit..

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    There you go, Mike. The UN-leakiest investigation in history is finally starting to leak, apparently because Barr has his facts wrong. Guess it had to happen sooner or later...

    Huffpoop!!????

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Does Huffpoop have any **FACTS** to support the bullshit claims??

    No?? Of course not..

    But hay.. You keep holding out the hope you won't have to fight President Trump at the ballot box...

    I know how much that terrifies you and your fellow Dumbocrats.. :D

  90. [90] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    [87] Michale

    It's pronounced sh-chew-pid. Where were you dragged up?

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's pronounced sh-chew-pid. Where were you dragged up?

    "Didn't read" my ass...

    BBBWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    For someone who claims that "no one reads" my comments, you sure hang on my every word..

    Like this one..

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jorge Ramos: Amnesty for Illegals, Migrants—‘Nothing We Can Do to Stop Them’
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/03/jorge-ramos-amnesty-for-illegals-migrants-nothing-we-can-do-to-stop-them/

    Democrats for open borders... :^/

    And I am sure you will accept Brietbart links as valid, just as you expect me to accept HuffPoop links as valid..

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Three lords walk into a tavern, a Stark, a Martell and a Lannister. They order ale, but then the barkeep brings them over, each of them finds a fly in his cup.

    The Lannister, outraged, shoves the cup aside and demands another.

    The Martell plucks the fly out and swallows it whole.

    The Stark reaches into his cup, pulls out the fly and shouts: ‘Spit it out, you wee shit! Spit it out!'”
    -Tyrion Lannister, GAME OF THRONES, No One

    :D

  95. [95] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "Historically, Bernie has singlehandedly realigned the Democratic Party's ideology in a way not seen since perhaps what Ronald Reagan did to the Republicans back in 1976 and 1980. Just look at what was dismissed as "too radical" and "pie in the sky" during the 2016 race versus what has now become not only the mainstream Democratic Party agenda, but indeed what the majority of the 2020 candidates wholeheartedly support."

    All the above is a pretty impressive feat of community organization. Life long community organizer Sanders ought to be pretty pleased about it. Assuming he can continue his streak into the White House, you have to wonder how well he can organize the House, Senate and yes, the Court Communities and actually change the current face plant trajectory of the USA.

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Are you purposely not getting it?

    The size of the donations/contributions does not matter.

    It is always presented as the contributions when it should be the contributors.

    I saw one article that said Bernie got 18 million from aboot 900,000 contributions, an average of aboot 200 dollars per contribution. Another article said there were aboot 500,000 contributors which would be an average (at this point of over 300 dollars per contributor.

    The limit is 200 dollars per contributor.

    Did you get the article I sent? You seem to be capable of reading. Read it. It is all explained in the article.

    Then lets have a real discussion of the issue instead of your obvious bullshit of avoiding the real issue and seizing on your imagined flaw that fits what you want to believe instead of reality.

    I don't know what is worse for me and more pitiful for you- when you ignore my posts or when you dismiss them with a bullshit answer that avoids addressing the issue.

    Man up, See Bubble You.

    Stop hiding behind your bullshit, tell me whether or not you got the article I sent, whether or not you read it and actually address this issue.

  97. [97] 
    John M wrote:

    [71] Michale

    "JM, so if you think it's such a good idea, you wouldn't mind if President TRUMP increased the number of Justices to 15 and made sure ALL the extra 6 Justices were all conservatives, right???

    No??

    Oh that's right. It's ONLY a good idea if it favors the Dumbocrat Party...

    Hysterical bigotry proven beyond any doubt.."

    You know very well that what you are getting now from the Democrats is a counter-reaction to all the dirty Court tricks Mitch McConnell and the Republicans including Trump have already been playing over the last few years starting with Merrick Garland.

    Look in the mirror for your own hysterical bigotry.

  98. [98] 
    John M wrote:

    [72] Michale

    "Funny how you were all supportive of the Democrats when they took those actions.."

    Really??? Point to me one post where I said I supported what the Democrats did regarding the Courts.

    Go for it.. I double dog dare ya...

  99. [99] 
    John M wrote:

    [70] Michale

    "2) There is still the ongoing investigation by the southern district of New York.

    Yea.. There was a 675 day investigation with NO EXPENSE SPARED into Russia Collusion..

    We all know how THAT ended up... :^/"

    No, we don't KNOW how that ended up.

    1) The full Mueller report has not been released yet. Only what Barr says the 400 pages says in his own paltry 4 page release, which by the way, even he acknowledges can't exonerate the President from obstruction!

    2) We don't know what other embarrassing items might be in the report regarding:

    a) Bank fraud

    b) insurance fraud

    c) tax fraud

    d) the counter intelligence operation

    e) all BESIDES the no COLLUSION finding

  100. [100] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-57

    It's all explained in the OneDemand website...just substitute 2019 for 2015 and $200 for $100 and arm waving for logic. ;-)

    Don-96, why don't you post your article on your web page so we can all have a look? Oh, one other minor thing - you misspell aboot on your web page.

  101. [101] 
    John M wrote:

    [75] Michale wrote:

    "I mean, honestly.. OPPOSING medical care to babies who survive abortion attempts!!????

    Getting rid of ALL fossil fuels, cows and air travel in 10 years!!!????

    Giving money to people unwilling to work!!???"

    AGAIN, that is a GROSS MIS-CHARACTERIZATION, and NOT what either the Green New Deal ACTUALLY says or even the Democratic positions.

    Stop spreading hysterical lies Michale!

  102. [102] 
    John M wrote:

    [85] Michale

    "But FACTS are stubborn things.. They remain the same, despite ALL the spin..."

    Yeah, FACTS are stubborn! Too bad you don't have ANY Michale!

    So far all we have seen from you is gross hysterical exaggerations!

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    You know very well that what you are getting now from the Democrats is a counter-reaction to all the dirty Court tricks Mitch McConnell and the Republicans including Trump have already been playing over the last few years starting with Merrick Garland.

    Which, in turn, were counter-reactions to all the dirty tricks that Dumbocrats have played...

    You're problem is you can't be objective about it.. I concede that BOTH sides play their dirty tricks.. It's called POLITICS..

    You demonize and castigate the GOP for their dirty tricks and act like Democrats are as pure as the driven snow...

    Really??? Point to me one post where I said I supported what the Democrats did regarding the Courts.

    Silence gives assent..
    -Democrat Charlottesville Rule

    No, we don't KNOW how that ended up.

    Yes, we do... You just can't accept that ya'all lost..

    e) all BESIDES the no COLLUSION finding

    SO, you concede that none of that has ANYTHING to do with the Russia Collusion..

    Let me lay it out for you.. Easy and succintly..

    President Trump has been COMPLETELY exonerated on the bullshit and baseless Russia Collusion accusation..

    COMPLETELY.... EXONERATED....

    This fact, despite ya'all's constant and ongoing claim that he was guilty..

    YOU.... WERE.... WRONG....

    So, what makes you think you won't be WRONG AGAIN on all you other accusations...

    There is only ONE way you will remove President Trump from office..

    The ballot box..

    So why not just do it THAT way??

    Because you and I both know you can't..

    AGAIN, that is a GROSS MIS-CHARACTERIZATION, and NOT what either the Green New Deal ACTUALLY says or even the Democratic positions.

    Nope.. That is a factual assessment of what the Democrats believe in...

    Of course they had to walk back a few things when even THEY realized how blatantly un-American their positions are...

    We have a PERFECT example of Democrat Party rule..

    Venezuela...

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, FACTS are stubborn! Too bad you don't have ANY Michale!

    As usual, you lie..

    NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTED FOR OCCASIONAL CORTEX's BULLSHIT LEGISLATION..

    THAT is a FACT...

    I'll accept your apology for the false accusation now...

  105. [105] 
    John M wrote:

    [86] Michale wrote:

    "Ways and Means chair directs IRS to turn over Trump tax returns

    On what grounds??"

    He doesn't NEED ANY. Under IRS code 6103, the Joint Committee on Taxation and chairs of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee have the authority to request the tax returns of individuals.

    That's ANY American individual. No reason needed.

    "WE DON'T LIKE TRUMP is not grounds to invade an American's privacy..

    Funny how ya'all are BIG on personal privacy.. Unless the person has an -R after their names..

    Hypocrisy at it's finest.."

    Little late to object NOW Michale, since the provision has been law SINCE 1924!

  106. [106] 
    John M wrote:

    [104] Michale

    "I'll accept your apology for the false accusation now..."

    Since you are still WRONG, and I am RIGHT, I guess you will be waiting until Gre'thor freezes over! :-D

    (If you need help with that reference, look up KLINGON mythology.)

  107. [107] 
    John M wrote:

    [103] Michale

    "Nope.. That is a factual assessment of what the Democrats believe in..."

    NO, IT IS NOT.

    Here is the ACTUAL TEXT:

    ...the goals described in subparagraphs of paragraph (1) above (referred to in this
    resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal goals’’) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal mobilization’’) that will require the following goals and projects—

    building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;
    repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including—

    (i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;

    (ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;

    (iii) by reducing the risks posed by flooding and other climate impacts; and

    (iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;
    meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—

    (i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading existing renewable power sources; and

    (ii) by deploying new capacity;
    building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘‘smart’’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity;

    upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

    spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;

    working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—

    (i) by supporting family farming;

    (ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and

    (iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;
    overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

    (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

    (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and

    (iii) high-speed rail;
    mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies;

    removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution, including by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as preservation and afforestation;

    restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency;

    cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites to promote economic development and sustainability;
    identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to eliminate them; and

    promoting the international exchange of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services, with the aim of making the United States the international leader on climate action, and to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal;

    NO WHERE does it mention: Getting rid of ALL fossil fuels, cows and air travel in 10 years!!!????

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since you are still WRONG, and I am RIGHT, I guess you will be waiting until Gre'thor freezes over! :-D

    Really??

    A Democrat voted FOR the Ridiculous green deal???

    Who??

    "Nope.. That is a factual assessment of what the Democrats believe in..."

    NO, IT IS NOT.

    Here is the ACTUAL TEXT:

    That's the actual text of the REVISED version.. The initial version had all the things I pointed to but had to be changed when public outcry and ridicule forced the change..

    So, once again.. You are wrong..

  109. [109] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    Yes, it is all explained at the One Demand website and if visiting the website you, CW or anyone would have to transpose a few dates.

    That should not be a problem as CW and many here seem to have no problem changing what One Demand is to fit their arguments against it to avoid addressing the actual issues.

    While it is true that what is on the One Demand website was written in the beginning of 2015, the issues have remained the same.

    In fact, it was written before Bernie ever declared he was running and changed the perception on small contributions. While Bernie did not run a small donor campaign it was a step in the right direction toward an ultimate goal- kind of like a public option for health care could be a step in the right direction toward the ultimate goal of universal healthcare.

    As for you reading the article, CW could publish it as a guest article or use it as a guide to write his own article addressing the issue.

    But you could easily review my comments as the article is made up of many of the same points made in my comments.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/03/19/elizabeth-warren-not-afraid-to-be-bold/#comment-132179

  110. [110] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal offers ‘economic security’ for those ‘unwilling to work’

    House Democrats unveiled their “Green New Deal” Thursday that seeks to shift the U.S. completely to renewable energy in 10 years.

    An overview stated that the plan will offer “economic security” even to those “unwilling to work.”
    cnbc.com/2019/02/07/ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-offers-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work.html

    Switching US COMPLETELY to renewable energy within 10 years..

    Provide economic security to those UNWILLING to work..

    AOC blames aide for 'farting cows' Green New Deal document
    washingtonexaminer.com/news/ocasio-cortez-blames-staffer-controversial-green-new-deal-farting-cows-document

    Farting Cows....

    Green New Deal: "Air Travel Stops Becoming Necessary"
    atr.org/green-new-deal-air-travel-stops-becoming-necessary

    Ending air travel....

    And you honestly think these are SERIOUS proposals???

    Once again, the difference between social constructs and physical reality...

  112. [112] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-109 and 110

    So, what are you bitching about? You posted two links, your message is out and aboot, problem solved. Was that so hard?

  113. [113] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    How exactly did that solve the problem of CW perpetuating lies aboot small contribution candidates pretending to be small donor candidates and not addressing the issue of the difference between small donor candidates and small contribution candidates with large donors making many small contributions?

    That should not be so hard.

    No wonder you can't understand solutions when you can not even properly identify problems.

  114. [114] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the problem is simple, not enough pie. let's not confuse real pie candidates with those who make cake while pretending it is pie.

  115. [115] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Jorge Ramos: Amnesty for Illegals, Migrants—‘Nothing We Can Do to Stop Them’
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/03/jorge-ramos-amnesty-for-illegals-migrants-nothing-we-can-do-to-stop-them/

    Democrats for open borders... :^/

    And I am sure you will accept Brietbart links as valid, just as you expect me to accept HuffPoop links as valid..

    The links are valid, your assessment is not. Are you going to accept my summary if I post any random article and stick, “Trump legalizes incest in hopes of marrying his daughter” after it — as you seem to expect us to do?

    The article is about the views of a host on Univision... not a Democratic Party spokesperson, not an elected politician. So “Democrats for open borders” is more of your “posting filler” for your lack of having actual supporting arguments.

    You want to end illegal immigrants from coming to the US, have Trump make it a felony to hire anyone without proper documentation... huge fines and mandatory prison time. But then Trump would have to pay Americans full wages to work at his properties...

  116. [116] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Illegals, Green New Deal - I'll tell you what's going on. The other side is trying to throw chaff into the air. Barr's under pressure.

    The other side will tell you that it doesn't matter what Mueller found. They'll say, "you'll never move us." And they're right. Only that's not the game, and they know it.

    Legislation is the game, and they keep losing, or winning by such narrow margins as to make it a slog. Why did McConnell change the rules? Because it was getting harder and harder to get one of Trump's ridiculous nominees through.

    Mueller's report may not cause Trump's impeachment, but it can sure go a long way to making him more toxic. We have elections coming up, after all.

    So sit back: things are just warming up...

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    The other side is trying to throw chaff into the air. Barr's under pressure.

    Nothing but wishful thinking..

    Legislation is the game, and they keep losing, or winning by such narrow margins as to make it a slog.

    And yet Democrats have not forwarded ANY legislation.. All they are interesting in is bringing down Trump..

    Why did McConnell change the rules? Because it was getting harder and harder to get one of Trump's ridiculous nominees through.

    Of course, then you believe that Harry Reid changed the rules because it was getting harder and harder for Democrats to get Odumbo's ridiculous nominees thru, right??

    "Oh. er...uh... well.. THAT'S different!!"

    Of course it is.. :^/

    Mueller's report may not cause Trump's impeachment, but it can sure go a long way to making him more toxic.

    And THERE it is.. You don't care about country or anything else.. You just want to make Trump toxic.. And ANY dirty trick or illegal activity is justified in pursuit of making Trump toxic..

    Glad you finally declared yourself..

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    So sit back: things are just warming up...

    yyyyaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn

    You have been saying that for almost 4 years now!!!!

    Ever since 15 Jun 2016 all of ya have been saying, Ohhh!! It's heating up now!!! or Ohhhh!! Trump is going down!! or TRUMP IS TOAST!!!

    And you have ****ALWAYS**** been wrong.. ALL of you have...

    You have ***NEVER*** correctly predicted Donald Trump's demise...

    NEVER.. NOT ONCE....

    I STILL think it's cute that ya'all believe you have ANY ingot of credibility in this matter..

    Mueller, your Trump slaying hero, has completely, utterly and totally exonerated President Trump when it comes to Russia collusion..

    THIS is FACT...

    You were WRONG... AGAIN...

    THIS is FACT...

    Sure, you can throw up a whole bunch of shit against the wall and hope and pray something sticks..

    Why not?? That was your strategy with Mueller and Russia Collusion.. And that worked SOOOOOOO well for ya'all... :D

    But the ***ONLY*** way you are going to make Trump leave is by voting him out..

    And, considering how ya'all so viciously attack Americans who don't toe ya'all's political line??

    That will never happen..

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    You want to end illegal immigrants from coming to the US, have Trump make it a felony to hire anyone without proper documentation... huge fines and mandatory prison time. But then Trump would have to pay Americans full wages to work at his properties...

    And Democrats would have to pay full wages for their servants..

    Which explains why DEMOCRATS didn't make it a felony to hire anyone without proper documentation..

    Which proves you really don't care about employers who hire illegals..

    You just care when it's a guy with a -R after his name does it..

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    The article is about the views of a host on Univision... not a Democratic Party spokesperson, not an elected politician. So “Democrats for open borders” is more of your “posting filler” for your lack of having actual supporting arguments.

    Ramos is a Democrat... A lot of Democrats want open borders.. Several of the declared candidates have stated they are for open borders..

    My "filler" was factually accurate and THAT is why it bothers you so much..

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Biden Runs, They’ll Tear Him Up
    The old Democratic Party was warm, like him. The new one rising is colder, less human and divisive.

    Don’t do it, Joe.

    Don’t run for president. It won’t work, you won’t get the nomination, your loss will cause pain and not only for you.

    And your defeat will be worse than sudden, it will be poignant.

    Right now operatives for the other candidates are trying to scare you out of jumping in. We all know that what you intended as warmth is now received as a boundary violation. You addressed this in a video that was crisp and friendly: You never meant to cause discomfort, you intend to change your ways.

    But it’s not going away. It will linger, and more will come.

    Democratic operatives do not fear you will win the nomination—they think you’re too old, your time has passed, you’re not where the energy of the base is, or the money. But they do not want you taking up oxygen the next six to 10 months as you sink in the polls. And they don’t want you swooping in to claim the middle lane. Others already have a stake there, or mean to.

    In the past you were never really slimed and reviled by your party; you were mostly teased and patronized. But if you get in the race this time, it will be different. They will show none of the old respect for you, your vice presidency or your past fealty to the cause. And you are in the habit of receiving respect. Soon the topic will turn, in depth, to Anita Hill, the Clinton crime bill, your friendliness to big business. You have opposed partial-birth abortion. Also, the old plagiarism video will come back and be dissected. It was more than 30 years ago, and for a lot of reporters and voters it will be a riveting story, and brand new.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-biden-runs-theyll-tear-him-up-11554420280

    Can't argue with Noonan's logic..

    The old Democrat Party had a soul..

    This new Democrat Party is a soul-less beast that demands Party Purity and enslaving social constructs..

    Joe can't win with this Party and he'll be slaughtered if he tries..

    Don't do it, Joe...

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    The press too will have certain biases, and not only because they’re 30 and 40 years younger than you and would like to see their careers associated with the rise of someone their age. Their bias is also toward drama, as you well know—toward pathos, and the end of something. They love that almost as much as the beginning of something. They can’t wait to write their Lion in Winter stories. “The Long Goodbye.” “The Last Campaign.” “Biden faltered for just a moment when a white-haired woman put her hand to his face and said, ‘I remember you from ’88, Joe. We all do, and we love you.”

    And that is apart from those young reporters who consider themselves culture cops, and who enjoy beating people like you with the nightstick of their wokeness.

    That's a nice turn of the phrase..

    consider themselves culture cops, and who enjoy beating people like you with the nightstick of their wokeness.

    That describes PERFECTLY today's Democrat Party...

    Everything is a shiny new club, a PR-24 or an ASP, with which to beat their political opponents over the head with..

    They don't care about the issue... It's the beat-down that is it's own reward...

    I miss the old Democrat Party..

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-2020-candidates-factbox/factbox-big-democratic-field-taking-shape-for-2020-u-s-presidential-race-idUSKCN1RG2BL

    Good run down of the Democrat Party candidates..

    NONE of them, with the possible exception of Biden (pre-accusations) has a chance of successfully taking on President Trump..

    The vast majority of them are Far Left radicals who will never appeal to mainstream patriotic Americans..

    Who's going to win the Dim nomination??

    The candidate who is the farthest Left...

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats in 2020: Unelectable Nonentities
    https://amgreatness.com/2019/04/03/democrats-in-2020-unelectable-nonentities/

    Also a good take on the crop of Democrat nominees...

    If things continue to move further Left, as it looks like they will do, President Trump is going to win a second term in a landslide hitherto undreamt of since Reagan and 1984..

    "Did you seriously just say "hitherto undreamt of?"
    -Tony Stark, AVENGERS INFINITY WAR

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    The last and not the best hope of sane Democratic contenders is that very tired old plough-horse Joe Biden. With all his malapropisms and foolish ideas, the amiable survivor whose first run for the White House failed 31 years ago because he was caught plagiarizing from one of Britain’s most unsuccessful opposition leaders, Neil Kinnock, is at least not a terrifying radical. And now, he is being sandbagged because he allegedly touched two or more women many years ago, perfectly legally, with no discreditable intent, out of affection with no claimed sexual aspect. It is to this unimaginable depth of idiocy that the American Left’s pursuit of victimhood to be lionized and avenged, and its lust to degrade the straight, adult, white male has descended.

    Heh.....

    "It's funny cuz it's true."
    -Homer Simpson

  126. [126] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-113

    You posted your rebuttal. That is all you are entitled to. If you don't like it, go someplace else and/or update your own worthless web site.

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    You posted your rebuttal. That is all you are entitled to. If you don't like it, go someplace else and/or update your own worthless web site.

    Ah yes... The famed "tolerance" of the Left Wingery...

    Warms the cockles of me' heart...

    NOT!!!!!

  128. [128] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As it turns out CW can't use the article I sent because he didn't get it.

    I took a guess at an email address and it was not returned in an hour or so as usually happens with a wrong address so I thought it may have gotten delivered.

    But it was just returned after several days because the mailbox was full. This either means that CW has been too sick to clear his email or it's just an address that he doesn't actively use.

    What is the proper way to send you this article, CW?

    If you are capable of reading but not writing this does seem like an opportunity to publish a guest article and cover this important issue while you are under the weather without having to miss some other issue that may or may not be more important.

  129. [129] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And now you have posted your rebuttal.

    And I am entitled to post a rebuttal to that nonsense.

    I am also entitled to request or demand anything I want in my comments as either a comment or a rebuttal.

    And you are entitled to post your comments aboot the website and other distractions that have nothing to do with the content of my comments.

    And even if you weren't I would encourage you to continue because it just shows how you are unable to address the content of my comments because if you could, you would.

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:
  131. [131] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-57

    First, a hearty Welcome Back!!!!

    According to the NY Times (April 2, 2019) 88% of donations to the Sanders campaign in the previous six weeks were less than $200.

    According to the Open Secrets website the percentage of individual donations less than $200 have been closer to 75% during the years 2013-2018. Less than 2% of donations during this period came from PACs.

    That said, I stand behind the spirit of your sheesh....and add some exasperated drumming of fingers.

  132. [132] 
    John M wrote:

    [108] Michale

    "That's the actual text of the REVISED version.. The initial version had all the things I pointed to but had to be changed when public outcry and ridicule forced the change..

    So, once again.. You are wrong.."

    Bullshit. You are so FULL of it Michale. It is NOT the REVISED version. It is the ORIGINAL version as introduced into CONGRESS.

    Show me the original version then as you CLAIM it. I double dare you! It should be easy enough for you to find and post IF IT WERE TRUE.

  133. [133] 
    John M wrote:

    [111] Michale

    "Provide economic security to those UNWILLING to work.."

    What about those unable to work and technology change? What happens when millions of jobs are eliminated like truck driving when self driving cars and artificial intelligence becomes a reality by 2030 in less than 15 years?

    Technology is quickly displacing a large number of workers, and the pace will only increase as automation and other forms of artificial intelligence become more advanced. One third of American workers will lose their jobs to automation by 2030 according to McKinsey. This has the potential to destabilize our economy and society if unaddressed.

    A solution that has been proposed is the Universal Basic Income, ‘The Freedom Dividend,’ of $1,000/month, $12,000 a year for every American adult over the age of 18. This is independent of one’s work status or any other factor. This would enable all Americans to pay their bills, educate themselves, start businesses, be more creative, stay healthy, relocate for work, spend time with their children, take care of loved ones, and have a real stake in the future.

    A Universal Basic Income at this level would permanently grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent—or about $2.5 trillion by 2025—and it would increase the labor force by 4.5 to 4.7 million people.

    Universal Basic Income, or UBI, is a version of Social Security where all citizens receive a set amount of money per month independent of their work status or income. Everyone from a hedge fund billionaire in New York to an impoverished single mom in West Virginia would receive a monthly check of $1,000. If someone is working as a waitress or construction worker making $18,000, he or she would essentially be making $30,000. UBI eliminates the disincentive to work that most people find troubling about traditional welfare programs – if you work you could actually start saving and get ahead.

  134. [134] 
    John M wrote:

    [117] Michale

    "And yet Democrats have not forwarded ANY legislation.. All they are interesting in is bringing down Trump."

    AGAIN, NOT TRUE.

    Just a partial list of legislation that House Democrats have passed so far:

    Violence Against Women Act

    Voting Rights Expansion and H.R. 1

    Gun Control Background Check Bill

    And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

    Ready to take back or correct what you said and eat some much deserved crow now Michale?

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://youtu.be/9_jt3l3pvYU

    My gods, what a whiner....

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ready to take back or correct what you said and eat some much deserved crow now Michale?

    Sure.. Just as soon as you do when you claimed I didn't have a single fact about Occasional Cortex's bullshit legislation..

    Gotcha :D

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    What about those unable to work and technology change?

    And, because you can't address the question, you have to move the goal posts..

    We are talking about providing aid to those UNWILLING to work..

    Do you want to address that?? Or just concede that it's bullshit and NO ONE in leadership should want to provide cash assistance to the lazy...

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Universal Basic Income at this level would permanently grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent—or about $2.5 trillion by 2025—and it would increase the labor force by 4.5 to 4.7 million people.

    In other words, the Democrat Party is the Party of Free Stuff, including money..

    Which basically means, Democrats are trying to buy people's votes...

    Like I said, you Democrats have moved so far Left you can't even SEE the Center anymore..

    By all means.. Continue your Leftward jaunt... Tell everyone how you want to make America into Venezuela...

    Trump landslide will be the result...

  139. [139] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    There you go, that wasn't so hard.

    At least you attempted to address the issue.

    But all you provided was information on the size of donations, not the size of the donors.

    CW and the rest of the media keep referring to small donors without defining what a small donor is.

    The public perception on small contributions has begun to catch up to where I was on the viability of small contributions long before Bernie and it's time that CW and the rest of the media catch up with me in defining what a small donor is and the difference between small donor candidates and small contribution candidates.

    I stand behind the facts.

    The fact is I am apparently the only one that has the courage to address this issue.

    If CW is going to use the term he should have the courage and/or integrity to define what the term means.

  140. [140] 
    TheStig wrote:

    What are looking for? Height? Weight? Girth? Shoe size?....something below the belt maybe?

    It's politico slang for a donation that doesn't have to be itemized in a political campaign's Federal Report. $200 or less.

    "We" might decide to "catch up" with "you" if "you" would stop repeating your patter and provide an organizational plan detailing how "One Demand" is going to work - from start up to mature organization. Who will run it...how it will be funded...why a politician should fear it...how a politician and his or her payed consultants might game it? Mostly I want to know "Why YOU?!" A detailed resume. You have been stuck in place for a long time. Maybe a better hobby or career path is worth considering. Otherwise, man up and take yer lumps. Nobody is forcing you to post.

  141. [141] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [133]

    Re: Technology displacing workers.

    Every single technological advancement since the industrial revolution has "displaced workers", thereby creating unemployment.

    Henry Ford put gazillions of people out of work, teamsters, harness makers, tannery workers. farriere, wheel wrights, wagon wrights, hay growers, etc etc. Do we need to go back to horse & buggy days?

    Technological progress has always CREATED jobs far in excess of jobs obsoleted. Why will it suddenly be different this time?

    You have no idea what the results and effects of UBI would turn out to be. These things are highly vulnerable to the law of unintended consequences.

    What the world needs is Universal Basic Production, where every able-bodied person contributes. That would CREATE universal basic income, right?

  142. [142] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    People who tout UBI as "economic stimulus" (meaning something that would add to GDP, making us all better off) simply aren't living in the real world.

    Their rationale boils down to the erroneous concept that the money rich people earn gets socked away in their mattresses, because there is only so much one person can consume.

    Not true, rich people's savings get invested, meaning the $ get spent, just not on the necessities of life (food, shelter, etc.), but rather on factories, equipment, infrastructure, etc.

    Taxing their savings away and transferring it to the unemployed would not increase GDP at all, only change the mix of what it gets spent on.

  143. [143] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not true, rich people's savings get invested, meaning the $ get spent, just not on the necessities of life (food, shelter, etc.), but rather on factories, equipment, infrastructure, etc.

    And fine art, at inflated prices, because there is more money chasing Picassos than potatoes.

    How, exactly, do two multimillionaires bidding up the price of an apartment in a city add to the economy? They are taking wealth from productive, fast moving parts of the economy and socking it away in stationary, non-productive parts of the economy (no matter how much you pay for a Van Gogh, he ain't producing any new ones).

    Asset price inflation of low volume goods (luxury yachts, city center apartments, fine art, etc.) drains wealth from the economy. Only the rich can afford to waste money outbidding each other for these goods - and they swap the money between themselves (almost by definition, if you own a Van Gogh, you are wealthy).

    Putting money into the hands of people who use it to purchase manufactured goods increases production.

  144. [144] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why is Trump covering up the contents of the Mueller Report.

    We've been told by him and his numbnuts that it completely clears him.

    Why can't we see for ourselves?

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    People who tout UBI as "economic stimulus" (meaning something that would add to GDP, making us all better off) simply aren't living in the real world.

    It's the difference between social constructs and the physical reality..

    Some people live in the former.. Others live in the latter...

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why is Trump covering up the contents of the Mueller Report.

    We've been told by him and his numbnuts that it completely clears him.

    Why can't we see for ourselves?

    Odumbo said that Fast & Furious documents exonerated his administration...

    Why would Odumbo not release the full range of documents so we could see for ourselves...

  147. [147] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mueller delivered a series of "public ready" summaries of each section of the report. They were meant to be distributed to congress, and fairly quickly, the general public.

    They are being suppressed - what is Barr hiding from everybody?

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller delivered a series of "public ready" summaries of each section of the report. They were meant to be distributed to congress, and fairly quickly, the general public.

    ANd yet, Mueller is assisting Barr in the redactions to make the report legally able to be released...

    They are being suppressed - what is Barr hiding from everybody?

    You asked the same question of Trump vis a vis Russia collusion..

    "WHAT IS TRUMP HIDING??"

    Turns out he was hiding nothing.. The fact is there WAS no Russia Collusion..

    This is simply more of the same Trump/America hatred..

    Nothing more..

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller delivered a series of "public ready" summaries of each section of the report. They were meant to be distributed to congress, and fairly quickly, the general public.

    Facts to support??

    No??

    Of course not...

  150. [150] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Turns out he was hiding nothing..

    If it's really nothing, why hide it?

  151. [151] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In fact, why hide his taxes, too?

  152. [152] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Actually, there WAS "Russia Collusion", if you choose to consider an (unfulfilled) offer of derogaory info (aka "dirt") on Hillary to Junior from the Russian lawyer, and if you include Trump's public plea/exhortation to them to hack the (highly embarrassing) Dem e-mails.

    The problem is, I don't care how bad it offends Kick's and paula's sense of justice, it just simply is not nor never could be, illegal. After all, it contravenes the 1st amend, for gawdsake!

  153. [153] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    He hides his tax returns because they would reveal him for the phony blowhard he is, I'm betting. But that should be his right!

  154. [154] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [143]

    Yeah, some rich folks "squander" a some of their money, but that represents your (and my) personal value judgement.

    Likely the rich guys think you squander some of your money (alcohol, cigarettes, wild women, Big Macs), but that should be your right, also!

  155. [155] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The problem is, I don't care how bad it offends Kick's and paula's sense of justice, it just simply is not nor never could be, illegal. After all, it contravenes the 1st amend, for gawdsake!

    You've left a lot out. After all, it wasn't one event, where everyone said, "let's collude now" - it doesn't work that way. There were multiple instances of Trump guys in contact with Russians that were only divulged under penalty of jail. That's what we know about.

    He hides his tax returns because they would reveal him for the phony blowhard he is, I'm betting. But that should be his right!

    Actually, though, it's not. Very clear federal law grants the Congress the right to see it.

  156. [156] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    What am I looking for?

    You really can't figure that out from "CW and the rest of the media keep referring to small donors without defining what a small donor is."?

    What a small donor is not is "political slang for a donation that doesn't have to be itemized in a political campaign's Federal Report. $200 or less."

    A donor is a person that makes a political contribution. The total of all contributions made by that donor determines whether or not that donor is a small donor or a large donor. The size of each of the contributions does not matter in determining whether the donor is a small donor or a large donor.

    That is not patter- it is FACT.

    Your nonsense aboot the website, organizational plan, etc. is just patter used as a dodge to avoid addressing the issue/fact you are unable to address.

    No one forces you to keep proving your inability to understand basic facts.

    You have several choices. Address the issue, ignore my posts or keep making a fool of yourself.

    But if you continue to choose the last option I will continue to point out your incompetence.

  157. [157] 
    neilm wrote:

    Likely the rich guys think you squander some of your money (alcohol, cigarettes, wild women, Big Macs), but that should be your right, also!

    It isn't a matter of "rights" - it is a matter of economics - parking wealth in non-productive assets worse for the economy that alcohol, cigarettes, big macs, etc. that need replaced and so stimulate the economy.

    I'll let my wife decide if she is a "wild woman". If you are very brave, you can ask her yourself the next time we drive to Yellowstone ;)

  158. [158] 
    Patrick wrote:

    Michale,

    4
    6
    8
    12
    14
    16
    20
    21
    22
    33
    35
    36
    40
    41
    44
    46
    (sleep time)
    70
    71
    72
    73
    74
    75
    76
    77
    81
    84
    85
    86
    87
    88
    89
    91
    92
    93
    94
    103
    104
    108
    111
    117
    118
    118
    120
    121
    122
    123
    124
    125
    127
    130
    135
    136
    137
    138
    (nap time)
    145
    146
    148
    149

    You are useless. Time for my nap time. I just can't take the stupidity anymore.

  159. [159] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @patrick,

    i suggest pie.

    JL

  160. [160] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH -156

    Holy moley, I must have struck a nerve. Do your worst Don. You have a talent for it, and it's easier than doing your homework. It's troll season again at CW.com, but it will pass and I have blocking software.

  161. [161] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Nypoet22

    A slice of pie sounds delicious. Maybe a couple of origin slices on the side.

  162. [162] 
    Patrick wrote:

    Pie does sound soooooo good.

  163. [163] 
    Patrick wrote:

    thestig

    "blocking software"????????

    Where do I get that? I won't have to make moronic lists anymore.

  164. [164] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    Struck a nerve? No.

    Tickled my funny bone, yes.

    You actually think you annoy me? I am laughing at your stupidity.

    What "homework" did I fail to do?

    You however, once again have failed to do do your homework to find some way to explain how my comment is not factual.

    How will troll software stop you from being a troll?

    Nothing I have posted here in this thread could be considered trolling. Only what you are doing in this thread could be considered trolling.

    You are really getting desperate.

  165. [165] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    These childish comments are adding nothing to this blog.

  166. [166] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Hey, folks -- new column up!

    :-)

    OK, so it's not a real FTP column, but I'm still taking things day by day here...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/04/05/trump-faces-reality-twice-in-one-week/

    -CW

  167. [167] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    pie is not childish, it's sweet and delicious!

  168. [168] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [163] Patrick:

    If you have TameperMonkey for Chrome installed, I have a script that allows you to collapse Michale's, umm, excessively exuberant posts into one liners. You can still expand and see his posts if you wish; it just removes the visual clutter when Michale is on a roll such as today, when his comments are 35% of the total.

    You can see an example of how that works at:

    http://chasbrown.com/cwWeedBlocker/cwExample.html

    from a day when he was even more loquacious than usual, at 62% of all comments.

    TamperMonkey is a ChromeExtension; you might want to google it first to see if it's something up your alley.

  169. [169] 
    Kick wrote:

    I like the pie idea. :)

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Patrick

    You are useless. Time for my nap time. I just can't take the stupidity anymore.

    Says the guy who made a comment that just had a bunch of numbers..

    You can always use CB's I AM A TOTAL LUSER AND CAN'T HANDLE FACTS AND REALITY script..

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    In fact, why hide his taxes, too?

    Same reason Odumbo hid his school transcripts..

    Duh...

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    So, no FACTS to support your bullshit claim, eh??

    Figures....

  173. [173] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    obama is no longer president so it's not really relevant to him, but i think it's a great idea to add school transcripts to the things it's expected for a president to show. donald should do so right away. he's willing to do that, right? umm... right? no?

    https://www.teenvogue.com/story/school-administrators-pressured-to-hide-donald-trump-high-school-records

Comments for this article are closed.