ChrisWeigant.com

Biden Enters The Race As The Clear Frontrunner

[ Posted Friday, April 26th, 2019 – 17:14 UTC ]

[Program Note: Due to dealing with ongoing automotive problems, I was not able to do a full Friday Talking Points column today, so my apologies for the lack. Instead, I did have time to write the following extensive overview of what Joe Biden's entry has already meant for the Democratic presidential nomination race. It's not a full wrapup of the week, I realize, but it'll have to do for today. By next Friday, hopefully we'll be back up and running (both figuratively and literally, for the car) for our usual Friday Talking Points column.]

Former Vice President Joe Biden entered the 2020 Democratic presidential field as the clear frontrunner, which is a new experience for him. In his previous two runs for president, he never got to where he is now: comfortably leading the entire pack. Biden is polling ahead of the previous frontrunner Bernie Sanders by anywhere from a few points to a healthy margin of 10 or more, and both men are far out in front of all the other contenders, who are all struggling to even manage to break into double digits in the polls.

Add to that today's breaking news, that Biden outraised everyone else in his first 24 hours, and Biden has -- for now, at least -- cemented his frontrunner status. Biden raised an impressive $6.3 million in his first day, topping the other two highest candidates in this metric as well (Beto O'Rourke raised $6.1 million and Bernie Sanders raised $5.9 million on their first day on the campaign trail).

But even though he's never had the experience of leading the pack before, Biden is already acting like a frontrunner. His introductory video was a marked departure from the other candidates running, because Biden did not focus on any one political issue or lay out his plans for America's future or make the case why he's the best Democrat to win the nomination. Instead, Biden focused almost exclusively on what the entire election is about for many (if not most) Democratic voters: beating Donald Trump. Biden made the case that for America to remain true to its ideals, President Trump must not have a second term in office.

In particular, Biden spoke about what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia, while explaining why he decided to run for president again:

We saw Klansmen and white supremacists and neo-Nazis come out in the open, their crazed faces illuminated by torches, veins bulging, and bearing the fangs of racism. Chanting the same anti-Semitic bile heard across Europe in the '30s. And they were met by a courageous group of Americans, and a violent clash ensued, and a brave young woman lost her life.

Biden singled out Trump's "some very fine people on both sides" statement and shared his own reaction to it:

With those words, the president of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it. And in that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was unlike any I had ever seen in my lifetime.

Biden then laid out the moral case for replacing Trump, calling it a fight for the soul of the nation. If Trump is denied a second term, Biden said, history will record that this was simply "an aberrant moment in time." Biden continued: "But if we give Donald Trump eight years in the White house, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation."

Biden is making a moral argument; that it is absolutely imperative to deny Trump a second term. The future of our country and the soul of our country is at stake. Those are powerful arguments to make.

Of course, Biden has the luxury of beginning his campaign this way, for a number of reasons. He really needs no introduction to the public, having been Barack Obama's vice president. His name recognition is already the highest of anyone running. He is seen as such a force in Democratic politics that his name was added to all the polling up to this point even though he wasn't running yet. That right there is an indication of strength. And his name's inclusion was justified, since he's been leading all of the polls so far.

Biden's announcement was always going to make the biggest splash, which may be the reason why he waited so long to make it. This way his entry won't be overshadowed by any other campaign announcements, because everyone else has already jumped in the race.

Because he already has earned frontrunner status, Biden didn't have to prove himself to a Democratic audience. Instead of detailing his agenda or trying to differentiate himself from the pack, Biden was free to train his sights on Trump, rather than the rest of the field of candidates. By doing so, he may have reshaped the race, at least for the next few weeks. Biden's powerful video will challenge other Democratic candidates to remember what the ultimate goal of this race is: defeating Donald Trump. That's really what the race for the Democratic nomination is about, and the voters are quite likely to choose the candidate they think has the best chance of taking on Trump, no matter what actual policies the candidate champions. So Biden is already seen as leading on this front, taking the fight to Trump himself and framing the election as an absolute moral imperative.

Of course, there's no guarantee that Biden will remain the frontrunner. Will his first day on the campaign trail be his best, as voters now deal with the reality of Joe running rather than just hoping he would? It's too soon to say, but the other alternative is equally possible at this point: Biden's strength in the polls will add to his "electability" factor, and more people will begin supporting him because they see him as the best opportunity to beat Trump (in part, because so many others are supporting him). It could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially if it is fed by positive media coverage.

Biden is quite obviously aware of the electability argument, as seen by his choice of Western Pennsylvania for his first campaign rally. His message to Democratic voters is clear: If you want to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, I am the candidate who can do that.

Of course, the downside to being the frontrunner is that everyone else in the field will be gunning for you. To win the nomination, the other candidates now have to beat Biden, and so they'll be doing their best to highlight Biden's weaknesses to cast doubt on his electability. And there are a number of such weaknesses to be exploited.

The first became apparent with a story which ran in the New York Times the day Biden announced. In it, Anita Hill said that Biden had called her up a few weeks ago in an effort to apologize to her for her treatment in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee back in the 1990s. Biden chaired the committee at the time, and he has never fully apologized for the way the committee treated Hill. He has also never directly apologized to Hill, which he obviously was trying to rectify before he announced his candidacy.

From the Times article:

In a lengthy telephone interview on Wednesday, [Anita Hill] declined to characterize Mr. Biden's words to her as an apology and said she was not convinced that he has taken full responsibility for his conduct at the hearings -- or for the harm he caused other victims of sexual harassment and gender violence. She said she views Mr. Biden as having "set the stage" for last year's confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.... And, she added, she was troubled by the recent accounts of women who say Mr. Biden touched them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable.

Biden's problem, though, is wider than just the Anita Hill episode, because in general he (not unlike Trump) apparently sees apologizing as something a politician should never do because he believes it shows weakness. So Biden has been the past master of the "non-apology apology," in which "mistakes were made," but at the same time, because Biden sees his own heart as always having been in the right place, he can't actually apologize for any of his past behavior at all. So he winds up with some form of: "I'm sorry people were offended," rather than: "I'm sorry I did (or said) that." At times, as Anita Hill just pointed out, this falls far short of Biden offering a real and heartfelt apology. And, as many have pointed out, Biden had almost 30 years to apologize to Hill and did not do so -- he only reached out to her a few weeks before his presidential campaign announcement.

Biden has many other things in his political record many Democratic voters would like to see him apologize for as well, so this test is likely to come up again and again for him (especially in town halls or pointed media interviews). Biden has previously taken positions on political issues which are seen as wildly out of touch with where Democrats are today.

When he first started his political career in the 1970s and 1980s, he staked out a position against busing to desegregate public schools. This wasn't a popular position with African-Americans back then, and it has not gained in popularity over time, either.

Biden authored a "tough on crime" bill which became law in the 1990s, in an era when Democrats were falling all over themselves to prove how tough they were on criminals (because Republicans regularly beat up on them on the campaign trail over the issue). This led to millions getting locked up for what had previously been seen as low-level crimes, which disproportionately affected minorities. Part of this effort was to make crack cocaine insanely more penalized than powder cocaine -- a disparity of 100-to-1. African-Americans caught with five grams of crack got prison sentences while it took 500 grams of powder cocaine to draw the same sentence. Since crack affected the African-American community more than suburban powdered cocaine dealers, this seemed almost designed to punish minorities disproportionately.

Biden's home state of Delaware is the most corporate-friendly in the nation, which is why most big corporations incorporate there. Nowhere is this more evident than the banking industry. Biden wrote a bankruptcy bill while Delaware's senator that absolutely prevented anyone from ever getting out from under crippling student loan debt by declaring bankruptcy, which has contributed to the student loan crisis in the country.

Biden also voted for the Iraq War, which isn't as big a deal as it used to be, but some Democratic voters still cannot forgive such a vote.

Biden has said he regrets some of these past positions, but he swears he was trying to do good when he championed them. In other words, an argument that "the times were different." But again, this often falls short of actually apologizing for taking such positions. Biden will likely be called on the carpet by voters during the campaign for at least some of these things, and it remains to be seen whether he's going to fully support many policy positions that have now become mainstream in the Democratic Party. It's been over a decade since Biden ran for anything, so he's got some catching up to do to where the party is now. To give just one example, most Democratic candidates now favor (in some fashion) the legalization of marijuana. Biden used to be a drug warrior, and it's not yet apparent that he's changed his thinking much on the War On Weed, even though the electorate has gone through a major sea-change on the issue.

So Biden risks being seen as out of touch, although he can probably get over this perception as he lays out exactly what issues he now does and does not support. Just because he was on the wrong side of an issue decades ago doesn't mean he can't have "evolved" on the issue, and he'll have the chance to prove that as his campaign really gets up and running. But he likely won't evolve on all of these issues, as part of his brand as a candidate is going to be appearing as a moderate (as opposed to radical progressive) Democrat. Progressives may not support such positioning, but this may play much better with undecided voters.

Of course, there are three drawbacks to Biden's candidacy that he can do nothing about. He is white, he is male, and he is old. He would, in fact, be our nation's oldest president, should he win the race. And with so many minorities and women in the race, the electorate may be looking for more diversity than Biden can bring to the table. But again, it remains to be seen precisely how big a deal any of this will prove to be with the actual voters.

For the time being, at least, Biden seems to have weathered the storm of being accused of "handsiness." He offered up another non-apology apology on this one, saying once again that his heart was always in the right place and he's just a real physical guy when it comes to glad-handling, but he'll be more respectful of personal boundaries in the future. Biden also likely won't face as much grief over his "gaffes" either, because Donald Trump has completely obliterated the issue of making stupid mistakes of this sort (Trump recently tweeted that the terror attack in Sri Lanka had killed "138 million people," when the island doesn't even have a fraction of that living on it, to cite just one glaring example, where Trump was literally off by a factor of a million). Who cares if Biden has a minor slip of the tongue when Trump drops such whoppers on an almost hourly basis, at times?

Joe Biden entered the Democratic presidential nomination race by positioning himself as the best guy around to actually beat Donald Trump. That, at this point, is a convincing argument and one that the other candidates have barely touched upon. Biden has introduced the issue into the midst of the campaign, and it will now fall to all the other Democratic candidates (either all 20 or all 18 of them, depending on how you count) to make the case for why they would be a better person to take Trump on than Biden.

Personally, I see this as a healthy thing for the race as a whole. None of these Democrats should ever forget for even one moment that the race is not just to beat all the other Democrats running. That's only the first lap, after all. Becoming the Democratic nominee means having to take on Trump directly in the general election. Polls have already shown that this is the overwhelming litmus test among Democratic voters -- to the point where voters admit that they want the best candidate to beat Trump even if that candidate doesn't share their own agenda. Any Democrat would be better than Trump, to put this feeling in the bluntest terms. Democratic voters are looking for the best candidate to do precisely that.

Joe Biden enters the race by directly focusing on this key point. His message is crystal-clear: "We have to beat Trump, and I am the best chance of doing that." Biden still has a lot of convincing to do with Democrats, and he'll have to flesh out his own agenda in the coming weeks. But if he keeps to his central theme of running not against the other Democrats but against Donald Trump, he may not only hold onto his lead over the other candidates running, but he may actually expand it. Biden's entry is going to force all the other candidates to make the same claim -- of being the best chance to beat Trump -- whether Biden himself winds up on top or not. So far, he's got this issue all to himself, but that will likely soon change. Which is all to the good, because the voters really do want to see Democrats start making the case of how Trump can be beat. We're not trying to elect a leader of the Democratic Party, after all, we are trying to retake the White House from Donald Trump. Biden is going to force everyone else to refocus on this key goal, that's for certain.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

172 Comments on “Biden Enters The Race As The Clear Frontrunner”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't make a habit of providing links. However, I've been chomping at the bit to share this:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/opinion/in-praise-of-joe-biden.html

    This is, without a doubt, my all-time favourite article on Joe Biden, written by David Brooks in 2006 during the (Justice) Alito confirmation hearings when the senator waxed his usual lyrical.

    In this piece, Brooks equates Biden's verbosity to "senatorial arias of immense emotional range". I could not have said it better myself!

    As I have closely followed most of his public service career, I have always said that the more Senator Biden speaks - whether on politics in general or on specific issues - the more I learn.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    Great summary, CW.

    Go Joe!

    Anyone who can beat Benedict Donald has my support, and Joe is one of many that could definitely do that. :)

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden's explanations, nuanced and non-brief, are often mistaken by the casual observer for non-apologies.

    When has Biden never apologized or offered up a "non-apology apology" for something he has done?

    In this regard, there is no comparison between Trump and Biden except to say that they are polar opposites, any way you slice it.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, there are three drawbacks to Biden's candidacy that he can do nothing about. He is white, he is male, and he is old.

    If Americans have had enough of Trump, then I don't see these drawbacks as being much of a problem.

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Biden's powerful video will challenge other Democratic candidates to remember what the ultimate goal of this race is- defeating Donald Trump."

    Don't strain yourself.

    That strategy is what gave us Donald Trump in the first place. And just like it gave us Trump it will after another corporate big money Democrat sells us out again give us another Republican as worse than Trump as Trump was worse than Bush.

    Screw your wimpy all we can do is hope to defeat Trump with the same empty rhetoric and promises.

    This is fucking America.

    We can and need to stop buying the lowered expectations offered by the big money bullshitters of both CMPs and stand up to the big money interests now and demand better.

    And it's time you fixed the transmission problem here on your website as well as your auto.

    It's time fro you to refocus on the real problem and transmit some real information on how Americans can be Americans instead of wimps and fix the problem with our political process that caused Trump instead of being too afraid to do anything but try to deal with the symptom of Trump by repeating the same mistake of settling for not as bad.

    When Joe Biden, the epitome of the big money corporate Democrat, becomes the frontrunner and raises 6.3 million on his first day (without even a mention of a false army of small donors!) that is the whole problem and a harbinger of the impending doom that it is guaranteed to produce as it has repeatedly in the past.

    Don't you ever learn?

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This is no place for gratuitous foul language, Don. Please try harder.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When Joe Biden, the epitome of the big money corporate Democrat …

    What makes you say that, Don. Please explain.

  8. [8] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oh, come on! I'd vote for ANYONE other than Trump!

    So, in that respect, Biden's got my number. That said, as someone said, the best day he'll ever had was the day before he announced.

  9. [9] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, let me try that one again: the best day he ever had was the one before he announced.

    You get it.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, I don't get it at all.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Id it too hard to explain?

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That sounds about right.

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    4

    Of course, there are three drawbacks to Biden's candidacy that he can do nothing about. He is white, he is male, and he is old. ~ CW

    Hey, EM: I don't remember CW describing Bernie Sanders this way, do you? Did I miss that? Because I don't think I missed that. ;)

    Fact: No matter how long Bernie Sanders survives in this life, he will forever and always be:

    * Just as pasty white as he's ever been
    * Male in the biological sense
    * Older than Joe Biden
    * Wagging his finger and referring to "millionaires and billionares" as "immoral."

    Oh, wait... scratch that last one; it seems the purity test can be easily shifted in order to accommodate Bernie's assets.

    If Americans have had enough of Trump, then I don't see these drawbacks as being much of a problem.

    This American wholeheartedly agrees with that. :)

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wonders never cease. Heh.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just checked. CW didn't describe Bernie Sanders that way. Humph.

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, wait... scratch that last one; it seems the purity test can be easily shifted in order to accommodate Bernie's assets.

    Very nice!

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Damn … forgot the bold thingy.

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    5

    It's time fro you to refocus on the real problem and transmit some real information on how Americans can be Americans instead of wimps and fix the problem with our political process that caused Trump instead of being too afraid to do anything but try to deal with the symptom of Trump by repeating the same mistake of settling for not as bad.

    I like your refocusing on the "real problem" idea. Perhaps you could practice what you're preaching by refocusing all that energy on your education. It's never too late to stop reeking of ignorance. :)

    When Joe Biden, the epitome of the big money corporate Democrat, becomes the frontrunner and raises 6.3 million on his first day (without even a mention of a false army of small donors!) that is the whole problem and a harbinger of the impending doom that it is guaranteed to produce as it has repeatedly in the past.

    They're all millionaires and collecting millions, Don, so it goes without question that the frontrunner will raise millions. It's simple math.

    Don't you ever learn?

    Says the "average" guy with "no degrees, no years of running a successful business and no experience in political campaigns or activism." It would be funny if it was so perennially pathetic.

    And watch your language! :)

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    17

    Damn … forgot the bold thingy.

    Heh!

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I'm not a fan. I don't expect my vote to count, but I don't plan on voting for him. Just beating the orange ignoramus is not enough. Mitch McConnell's gotta go too.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're absolutely right, John.

    Just being capable of beating Trump is definitely not enough tp win the Democratic presidential nomination.

    There is so much more to Joe Biden than that. I encourage you to take a look at some of his senate speeches to get a sense of all that he brings to the table.

    Why do you think Obama picked Biden to be his running mate?

  22. [22] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    There are quite enough Grumpy Old White Men running things, or insisting that they should run things. Look, as a grumpy* old white woman myself, I'm married to a GOWM, most of my male friends fall into that category, and GOWM syndrome is part of my life.

    GOWMs grew up when white male privilege was almost entirely unquestioned, whatever their social or economic background, and even the liberals among them struggle to get past that and to take the concerns of the rest of the world as seriously as their own, or even to see the rest of the world as being as fully human and worthy as they believe themselves to be. Discovering that the world doesn't necessarily agree with them anymore is a big factor in the grumpiness. Add in the deposed old bull factor, even among those still with power and agency. GOWMs can do a lot of harm with complete assurance that because it's them doing something, it must be good. And if it's good for them, it must be good for everyone else. Not that some don't do a lot of good, to be fair, grumpy or not.

    I'll acquit Joe Biden of being grumpy, but he's still an old white man. Has he learned and changed? Bernie Sanders is a GOWM who gives no sign of wanting to learn or change. I'd vote for either to get Trump (extreme GOWM with added petulance) out, but so far my inclination is towards Warren or Harris, with Warren taking the lead for the combination of policy and experience.

    *The main cause of grumpy old women is Grumpy Old Men.

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John, I couldn't agree more about Mitch McConnell.

    I will forever remember him for saying that his top priority in the midst of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression was to do everything in his power to ensure that Obama would be a one-term president.

    I hope Biden has learned something from that. But, I think he knows that the Republican party today is not the one he used to work with in the Senate.

    The most important reason to vote for Biden is that he is capable of putting some meat on the bones of the phrase 'unite the country'.

    My favourite Biden quote:

    America has always led best when we rely less on the example of our power and more on the power of our example.

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joe Biden is the opposite of grumpy.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry mezzomamma, I'm in sensitive mode for the next year and a half, or so … :)

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Biden wrote a bankruptcy bill while Delaware's senator that absolutely prevented anyone from ever getting out from under crippling student loan debt by declaring bankruptcy, which has contributed to the student loan crisis in the country.

    What bill was this? The one that passed in 2005?

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden also voted for the Iraq War, which isn't as big a deal as it used to be, but some Democratic voters still cannot forgive such a vote.

    That may be because some Democratic voters and candidates for president in 2008 - I'm thinking Hillary and Edwards who apologized for their "votes for war" are confused about what that vote was all about and about the context under which that vote took place.

    As for Biden's part, it is very instructive to listen to the October 2002 debate in the senate, particularly to Biden's statements.

    Also, name a Democratic candidate for president who worked tirelessly to find a political solution to the mess in Iraq and who would have been inclined to run for president in 2004 but was too busy working out his plan for US policy toward Iraq which received an unprecedented 73-25 sense of the senate vote in favour of it in September 2007.

    What did the other two presidential candidates in 2008 who believe they "voted for war" do to try to help fix US policy in Iraq? That would be nothing.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Biden also likely won't face as much grief over his "gaffes" either, because Donald Trump has completely obliterated the issue of making stupid mistakes ...

    Now I'm confused. I thought I read that you once described Biden's "gaffes" as inconvenient Washington truths, not stupid mistakes.

    I hope you're not comparing Trump's stupidity and ignorance as being in the same universe with anything Biden has ever uttered ...

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden has said he regrets some of these past positions

    He doesn't regret his vote for authorizing the use of military force in Iraq if certain conditions were met. People always forget the importance of that last bit of the AUMF.

    He regrets how incompetently Bush misused the authority Congress gave him.

    Often times, nuance and context cannot be ignored for fear of misrepresenting the truth of any given matter.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    When he first started his political career in the 1970s and 1980s, he staked out a position against busing to desegregate public schools. This wasn't a popular position with African-Americans back then, and it has not gained in popularity over time, either.

    My understanding is that Biden didn't think busing was the right or best way to desegregate. I don't know what solutions he thought were better. Maybe you or someone here can shed light on that for me ...

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris, I hope you'll be asking the Democratic candidates to provide their take on the issues as you did in 2008.

    I'd like to see Biden write about drug policy and how he's changed his opinions on that. His policy on drugs has always displeased me.

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think that's all … for now. Ahem.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all go on and on about how Biden can beat Trump..

    As or right now.... Maybe he can, maybe he can't..

    But what ya'all fail to concede is that it's inevitable that he will not get the chance...

    Considering the make-up of the Democrat Party in the here and now, there is simply no way that that an old white guy is going to be the Democrat Party nominee...

    SIMPLY..... NO...... WAY......

    And, if by some quirk of fate, Biden does manage to pull the win out of his hat, it will demoralize and discourage at least 2/3rds of the Democrat Party and they will stay home.. Or worse, vote for Trump out of spite..

    Remember the PUMA movement? It's not dead, it's just sleeping..

    If the DNC clears a path for Biden to be the Nominee, you can be PUMA will be back with a vengeance...

    What ya'all fail to see is that, while the party elites may be about electability, the Democrat Party as a whole is about purity...

    Biden simply does not pass the PURITY test.. If he tries to, if he apologizes throughout the whole primary A) it won't do any good and 2) even if it does some good and manages to win him the primary he will be fatally wounded for the general...

    If one looks at things logically, rationally and objectively, there is simply no way that Biden can win the primary...

    And, as was pointed out so eloquently and factually in the previous commentary, Biden runs the very real risk to destroying his reputation and his legacy.

    It's simply not worth it for a no chance of winning..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the plus side..

    If I am totally wrong (it's been known to happen) and Biden DOES win the nomination..

    Boy oh boy will I be able to rag on ya'all!!

    Ya'all have been ragging on and attacking and denigrating "old white guys" for the last 2 years..

    And then ya'all go and NOMINATE ONE!!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    So you see.... It's a win/win for me... :D

    "That rhymes, Marge!! That rhymes and you know it!!!"

    But I honestly wouldn't worry about me ragging on ya'all for nominating an old white guy..

    With the Democrat Party ya'all have made today, it's never going to happen..

    It's easy to pick the eventual nominee.. It's going to be the candidate that checks the most "woke" boxes...

    PURITY UBER ALLES THAT's who the nominee is going to be.. The most pure...

    My money is on Kamala I-FRAKED-MY-WAY-TO-THE-TOP Harris. Buttagig is a close second, but his GAY box he checks doesn't make up for the WHITE box he checks..

    So, Harris will likely be the nominee...

    Of course it's all for naught if Schulz makes a 3rd Party bid..

    That will simply destroy ANY possibility of Democrats prevailing.. :D

    It's gonna be a fun 18 months.. :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll acquit Joe Biden of being grumpy, but he's still an old white man. Has he learned and changed? Bernie Sanders is a GOWM who gives no sign of wanting to learn or change. I'd vote for either to get Trump (extreme GOWM with added petulance) out, but so far my inclination is towards Warren or Harris, with Warren taking the lead for the combination of policy and experience.

    So, you are not going to vote for Biden in the Primary???

    Exhibit A in my case that Biden won't win the Primary.

    The vast majority of the Democrat Party is made up of people like Mezzamomma...

    Purity over electability...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, in that respect, Biden's got my number. That said, as someone said, the best day he'll ever had was the day before he announced.

    Another example... Another representative of the Democrat Party who wants purity over electability..

    The vast majority of the Democrat Party thinks like MM and Balthy....

    The writing is on the wall...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm not a fan. I don't expect my vote to count, but I don't plan on voting for him. Just beating the orange ignoramus is not enough. Mitch McConnell's gotta go too.

    Exhibit B (or is it C??)

    The Democrat Party is shaping up to be THE WAR OF THE FIVE KINGS :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    RE: 23-32

    You have been hanging around me too long.. :D

    heh

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    The vast majority of the Democrat Party thinks like MM and Balthy....

    The writing is on the wall...

    AND JFC...

    The writing is, indeed, on the wall...

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is this..

    The Democrat Party has moved too far Left to choose Joe Biden as their champion..

    The facts that support this are undeniable..

    For Joe to actually have a chance at the nomination, he will have to move as far Left (if not father) as the Democrat Party has..

    As we see by Joe's mea culpa to the #METOO terrorists, he does not do FAR LEFT very well...

    Even if Joe Biden COULD move that far Left he would have to destroy everything that makes Joe Biden Joe Biden..

    If there is a rational fault in my logic.....

    "I'm all ears.."
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

    Ad honimem attacks cheerfully ignored. :D

  41. [41] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Liz: No, Biden isn't grumpy, and not all old white men are grumpy, for that matter. Biden has some real plusses, but is not perfect, just as no other candidate is perfect.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who said he was perfect?

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You may be right but I hope with all my heart that you are wrong.

    I hope that some of the Democratic women I've seen on TV since Biden announced are relics in the party, regardless of their age.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    You may be right but I hope with all my heart that you are wrong.

    I hope you are right to.. For Joe Biden's sake.. No one deserves what the Democrat Party is going to do to him...

    But no one ever went broke betting on the self-destructive capabilities of the Democrat Party...

  45. [45] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Why do you think Obama picked Biden to be his running mate?"

    He needed someone who voted for King George W's war resolution so he could appeal to Hillary voters? He needed a white guy to help with his endless, fruitless appeals to Republicans? He needed more of that Delaware campaign cash?

    "The most important reason to vote for Biden is . . ."

    I'm not registered with the Democratic Party and I don't get to vote in their primary. I don't believe that Biden will be their nominee.

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Nothing gratuitous about the language.

    FUCKING America would have been gratuitous.

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Why is Biden the epitome of a big money Democrat?

    Besides his years of being exactly that?

    Cw didn't mention the usual lie about an army of small donors and one of the first things I heard aboot Biden after his announcement was that he was on his way to a fundraiser with the big money Democratic donors.

    "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck- it's a crook!"
    -forget what show or movie I just saw that in

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (18)-
    Asshole.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm not registered with the Democratic Party and I don't get to vote in their primary. I don't believe that Biden will be their nominee.

    Yep....

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Old. White. Male.

    Still an American.

    Just the "drawback" we need to be discussing.

    Then we don't have to discuss any other real drawbacks like:

    Big. Money. Democrat.

    It reminds of the suckers that label (or accept the label from politicians or pundits) everything they don't like as socialism. That way they don't have to think aboot an issue- it's just bad because it's socialism.

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Putting lipstick on a pig is just a pig with lipstick.

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Take your language some place where it's appreciated.

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While I'm doing barnyard references:

    If you want the big money out of politics you have to stop voting for candidates that take big money.

    They are not going to buy the cow when you keep giving them the milk for free.

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He needed someone who voted for King George W's war resolution so he could appeal to Hillary voters? He needed a white guy to help with his endless, fruitless appeals to Republicans? He needed more of that Delaware campaign cash?

    Non-serious.

    Just answer the question I posed or is the above what you really think?

  55. [55] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Take your language some place where it's appreciated."

    Non-serious.

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    When all I get is non-serious response or no response to serious language, then greater emphasis is needed.

    If you want it to stop then encourage CW and the rest of the crew to provide serious responses instead of just critizing my reaction.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Old. White. Male.

    Still an American.

    Not to the majority of Democrats.

  58. [58] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Just answer the question I posed or is the above what you really think?"

    As a former pothead, he felt the need to balance his ticket with somebody who was all in on The War On Some Drugs? He had a bizarre affinity for Strom Thurmond fans? He needed a handsy white guy who would hug him at campaign rallies?

    I'm not sure why this is an important point.

  59. [59] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Michale [35]: I only said 'so far, my inclination is'. There's a lot of time before the primaries and a lot can happen between then and now. I don't have a 'purity test'.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mezzo,

    Michale [35]: I only said 'so far, my inclination is'. There's a lot of time before the primaries and a lot can happen between then and now. I don't have a 'purity test'.

    Fair enough.. My apologies for the presumption..

    Given the state of the Democrat Party (More Left than it has been in our lifetimes) do you think that it's important that the Party NOT be represented by an old white guy??

    Would you rate "electability" higher or lower than "reflecting Party values"??

    In short, is beating President Trump the number 1 priority??

  61. [61] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ...is beating President Trump the number 1 priority?

    Yes. Yes it is.

    Biden may or may not be the one to do it. Don't yet know. I say: there's time. Let's do some information collecting first.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is it just me???

    Or has anyone else noticed what HORRIBLE shots every species on ORVILLE is??

    I mean, my gods... They couldn't hit the broad side of an earth type moon!!

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    ...is beating President Trump the number 1 priority?

    Yes. Yes it is.

    OK, great...

    Nothing else matters but beating President Trump..

    Even if you have to nominate a Trump-like Democrat to do it..

    Right??

  64. [64] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    63: You're putting words into my mouth.

    All I said was nothing else matters but beating Trump.

    Full Stop.

  65. [65] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And there are no "trump-like" democrats.

    Silly.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    All I said was nothing else matters but beating Trump.

    Full Stop.

    OK, so does that mean you would vote for a Trump-Like Democrat if said Trump-Like Democrat had a chance of beating President Trump..

    It's a fair question...

    If beating President Trump is the ONLY priority to the exclusion of all else, would you vote for ANYONE who could beat Trump, regardless of any baggage??

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    And there are no "trump-like" democrats.

    Of course not.. Democrats are as pure as the driven snow.. :D

    Gods yer easy.. :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, if beating Trump is your ONLY priority and NOTHING else matters...

    You are going to vote for Biden in the Primary...

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    68: Maybe. That's the best I can give you right now.

    You see, it's much harder than voting for the most right-wing President of our lifetime, as you will.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know, I know.. You think I am being pedantic..

    But I am proving a point.

    NOTHING else matters to you but beating Trump.. Not honor, not integrity nothing..

    The **ONLY** goal is to beat Trump and that end justifies any means...

    Is that an accurate assessment??

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Has the Recession Been Cancelled?
    The strength of the U.S. economy continues to confound the liberal establishment.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/has-the-recession-been-cancelled-11556311511

    I know, I know..

    Ya'all were hoping for the pain and suffering of an economy imploded and in free-fall..

    Doesn't it SUCK that things are so good!!?? :D

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm not sure why this is an important point.

    Obviously.

  73. [73] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    NOTHING else matters to you but beating Trump.. Not honor, not integrity nothing..

    If those things did not matter, then there would be no desire to get rid of Trump!!! Your support of Trump demonstrates that those things mean nothing to you!

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    If those things did not matter, then there would be no desire to get rid of Trump!!! Your support of Trump demonstrates that those things mean nothing to you!

    Of course that's your claim..

    But it's YOUR desire to get rid of Trump by any means necessary..

    We're not talking what matters to me..

    We're talking what matters to YOU..

    Which you dodge...

    So, answer the question..

    How far will you go to defeat Trump??

    Will you support a Trump-like candidate to beat Trump??

    Yes or No???

  75. [75] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Interesting how One Demand was no good because it only concentrated on one thing and now only one thing matters- beating Trump.

    If you're going to have only one thing matter it should be the one thing that effects everything else- getting the big money out of politics.

    Big Money in politics was a major factor in Trump being elected. The system that allowed Trump to be elected was set up by the Democrats and Republicans at the behest of and to be manipulated by the big money interests.

    The big money interests want citizens to only concentrate on defeating Trump so that they are too busy with that and fighting with each other to work together on fixing the system and fighting back against the big money interests.

    All the Democratic candidates are similar to Trump in that they all take big money.

    So whether or not they will admit it, all the Democrats or anyone voting for the Democratic candidates will be voting for a Trump-like candidate in the one instance where it is most important.

    Because if candidates are taking big money the campaign promises they make are just empty rhetoric and promises they have no intention of keeping, so all those differences in the campaign rhetoric makes little difference in the sum total.

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    All the Democratic candidates are similar to Trump in that they all take big money.

    You see, Don, here is the problem. While all the Democratic candidates may take big money, they are most decidedly not similar to Trump - in any way, shape or form.

    When statements like the above are made, credibility in the core argument being put forth is lost.

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, let me suggest that priorities need to be set for the time being and through the next presidential election with priority number one being to elect a new president.

    Now, I can hear you lament that there never seems to be a good time to get big money out of politics and political decisions and that, in reality, there is no time better than the present to do it.

    E would tend to agree with you. But, in this unprecedented and dangerous time of Trump, this president must be stopped or your hopes of getting big money out of politics may, quite conceivably, never happen.

  78. [78] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, answer the question..

    How far will you go to defeat Trump??

    Will you support a Trump-like candidate to beat Trump??

    Yes or No???

    No.

    What would be the point of trading in one incompetent idiot for a newer version of the same thing?

    Plus, the likelihood of finding a candidate that is a copy of Trump that is not running as a Republican is minimal.

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, Michale, I hope I'm never going to hear you say that Biden is a Trump-like candidate, okay?

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because, if you do, it's all Chris's fault.

  82. [82] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    When you donate money to a candidate, what is the candidate expected to do for you?

    Obviously you expect that they will do something for you, since you believe those that give larger donations expect something for their donation.

    When I ran a non-profit that was fully funded by local donors, the vast majority of my donors gave between $10 to $25 a month. I did have one donor that gave $5,000 a month. I met him one time — he ran a national restaurant chain and chose to give because he believed in me and liked what I was doing. What did he expect to get in return for his money? Nothing. I literally spoke to him, personally, only two times in 4 years.

    Now I had one or two of $10/month donors who seemed to think they were getting a direct line into the decision making of our group with their donation, but they quickly discovered that giving came with no strings or not all — it was an investment in their community.

    My point is that you maintain that large donors are corrupt. But how do you know the motivations of anyone who donates more than you think they should?

  83. [83] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    I can only echo Balthy and Listen in saying that getting Trump out is a priority but that I don't believe that means voting for someone 'like Trump'. Come primary time, I will consider a number of factors. Good principles are essential, but a person in high office also must be effective in putting good principles into practice, for example.

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can only echo Balthy and Listen in saying that getting Trump out is a priority but that I don't believe that means voting for someone 'like Trump'.

    That goes without saying. Or, what are you trying to say … ?

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    No.

    What would be the point of trading in one incompetent idiot for a newer version of the same thing?

    And ANOTHER Sherman!! :D Very good..

    Plus, the likelihood of finding a candidate that is a copy of Trump that is not running as a Republican is minimal.

    Heh... Of course.. Democrats are pure as the driven snow..

    It's only a REPUBLICAN who have nothing but bad candidates.. :D

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    No.

    What would be the point of trading in one incompetent idiot for a newer version of the same thing?

    So, what you are saying is that, given the choice between keeping a GOP Trump in office or voting for a Democrat Trump, you won't vote for the Democrat Trump. You would prefer to keep the GOP Trump in office..

    Kudos, Russ... Principles before Party.. I knew you had it in you! :D

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can only echo Balthy and Listen in saying that getting Trump out is a priority but that I don't believe that means voting for someone 'like Trump'.

    That goes without saying. Or, what are you trying to say … ?

    So, you and Mezzo agree with Russ..

    It's better to keep a GOP Trump in office rather than compromising your principles and voting for a DEM Trump...

    WOW..

    Principles are breaking out all over!! :D

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    48

    Asshole.

    Yes, you are, Don. Sounds like you got around to reading your bio and realizing that anybody with your credentials who'd troll the author of this blog in the repetitive fashion you do certainly qualifies as one, although I would have prefaced that with "inveterate."

    Congratulations on your breakthrough, Don. It's never too late to get an education. With your bio, the skills you've demonstrated on this forum and your own pathetic attempt at a website, you've got nothing to lose with the exception of your obvious ignorance. :)

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    51

    Putting lipstick on a pig is just a pig with lipstick.

    I can't speak for everyone else, but I am inclined to take the pig's word for it; however, my advice for you would be to try a different shade, little piggy. :)

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    73

    If those things did not matter, then there would be no desire to get rid of Trump!!! Your support of Trump demonstrates that those things mean nothing to you!

    Whoomp there it is. Russ obviously wins the point here.

    Michale started out asking what the number one priority was, and then he moved the goalposts in the usual fashion to the asinine statement that it was the "ONLY priority and NOTHING else matters."

    Michale is obviously desperate to paint Democrats as people who would vote for somebody who would "stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody."

    Misery loves company. :)

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    76

    You see, Don, here is the problem. While all the Democratic candidates may take big money, they are most decidedly not similar to Trump - in any way, shape or form.

    Absolutely!

    When statements like the above are made, credibility in the core argument being put forth is lost.

    And that in a nutshell is Don's entire problem and always has been... the repetitive and ridiculous assertion that money itself is inherently evil and that any candidate who would take money over a paltry amount set by Don Harris isn't worthy to receive a citizen's vote. It's laughable on its face and absolute nonsense. :)

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's better to keep a GOP Trump in office rather than compromising your principles and voting for a DEM Trump...

    I believe you got that ass-backwards, Michale.

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's better to keep a GOP Trump in office rather than compromising your principles and voting for a DEM Trump...

    I believe you got that ass-backwards, Michale

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, what you are saying is that, given the choice between keeping a GOP Trump in office or voting for a Democrat Trump, you won't vote for the Democrat Trump. You would prefer to keep the GOP Trump in office..

    That, Michale, is one of the most asinine comments I've ever seen on this blog.

  95. [95] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    "When statements like the above are made, credibility in the core argument being put forth is lost."

    Were you referring to my statement above in that comment or yours?

    My statement said that the Dems that take big money are similar to Trump because they are big money candidates.

    My entire comment that you chose to quote explained that this one thing was the same while other things are different and how those differences are superficial and mostly irrelevant when the candidates
    are similar in taking big money.

    Your statement acknowledges that the Dem candidates take big monmey, which is how I said they were similar to Trump- and then claims there are no similarities.

    Your next comment is pure rationalization.

    It is better, after all, to leave a spouse that hits you with a baseball bat for one that only punches scratches and kicks you.

    But I believe it is better to be without either until I can find a spouse that will do neither.

    I think your mistake is that you seem to be confusing the definition of similar with the definition of identical.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    That, Michale, is one of the most asinine comments I've ever seen on this blog.

    But isn't it factually accurate???

    You, Russ and Mezza said you would not vote for a DEM Trump-esque POTUS...

    I mean, jesus.. I am giving ya'all a COMPLIMENT and you STILL cap on me.. :^/

  97. [97] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    A local non-profit does not make legislation.

    "How do know the motivations of anyone that donates more than you think they should?"

    I don't- and neither do you.

    And it's not more than I think they should. When the majority of citizens can only afford to give a total of 100 or 200 dollars to one or two candidates and someone else is giving 2800 dollars to one or two or 25 candidates (not to mention what they also give to the DNC, DCCC, etc., it's more than the majority of citizens can afford to give.

    And since we cannot know what the motivations of those large donors are- in order to ensure that there are no donors that have nefarious purposes in mind the donors are limited to 200 dollars per person so that there is no question aboot the motivations of large donors (or the candidates) because there are no large donors.

    While this will not stop the large donors from donating to the DCCC or DNC, etc., it is unlikely the DNC or DCCC, etc. will be working for the small donor candidates or that the small donor candidates would accept their help if offered because then they would no longer be small donor candidates.

  98. [98] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mezzo-
    One way of putting good principles into practice is for candidates to commit to running small donor campaigns NOW instead of continuing to take big money now and only promise to do something aboot it in the future.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    One way of putting good principles into practice is for candidates to commit to running small donor campaigns NOW instead of continuing to take big money now and only promise to do something aboot it in the future.

    WHich anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows they never will..

  100. [100] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (91)-
    You are the one making ridiculous and false statements.

    I never said money is evil.

    As explained in comment 97 (again), the amount you consider paltry is considered substantial by the majority of citizens.

    I chose that amount for that purpose and am offering this approach to people that agree with my position.

    Citizens that agree can vote in this manner if they choose to do so.

    That's called democracy. Each citizen gets to decide for themselves the standards for the candidates they vote for.

    You are free to give larger amounts and vote for those candidates that will take those amounts and citizens that do not want candidate to take big money can only vote for candidate that do not take big money.

  101. [101] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (88,89)-
    Asshole.

  102. [102] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Did you mean they will never commit to running small donor campaigns now, do something aboot it in the future- or both? :D

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did you mean they will never commit to running small donor campaigns now, do something aboot it in the future- or both?

    Oh, I am sure they would "commit" to it if they thought it would get them more votes..

    But does anyone think a politician is going to refuse money??

    The only time you hear about a candidate returning campaign contributions is when public shame forces them to...

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But isn't it factually accurate???

    Not even remotely.

    You, Russ and Mezza said you would not vote for a DEM Trump-esque POTUS...

    First off, there isn't a Trump-esque Democrat in sight and, hopefully, not another Republican one, either.

    I mean, jesus.. I am giving ya'all a COMPLIMENT and you STILL cap on me.. :^/

    No, you are presuming we are idiots - and, watch your language. :)

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think your mistake is that you seem to be confusing the definition of similar with the definition of identical.

    No. My mistake is continuing to read your comments to the last character.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not even remotely.

    No??

    Then you DIDN'T agree with Mezzo when she said:

    "I can only echo Balthy and Listen in saying that getting Trump out is a priority but that I don't believe that means voting for someone 'like Trump'."

    So, you are saying you WOULD vote for a DEM version of Trump???

    First off, there isn't a Trump-esque Democrat in sight and, hopefully, not another Republican one, either.

    I was posing a hypothetical...

    And you and Russ and Mezzo took a Sherman..

    Now you don't like it???

    Fine..

    "Let's brass some tacks"
    -Metatron, SUPERNATURAL

    Would you vote for a DEM version of President Trump in order to defeat President Trump in an election???

    It's a simple question.. I don't understand why ya'all are falling all over yerselves to answer, then don't answer then claim you never answered..

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just don't understand you Michale.

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would you vote for a DEM version of President Trump in order to defeat President Trump in an election???

    Given that choice, I would move to Canada.

    Is that clear enough for you?

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, what has any of this got to do with Biden, anyway? Eh, Michale?

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Pardon my grammar.

  111. [111] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    We learned in 2016 that the promise to "move to Canada" (if Trump won) was insincere, as in BIG LIE!

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you understand the significance of the Big Lie?

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz is just being melodramatic.. :D

    She already lives in Canada...

    But yea.. All those morons who claimed that they would move to Canada if Trump won??

    A bunch of lying pissant morons..

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    So a politician might commit to running a small donor campaign if they thought it would get them more votes.

    And the only time they return contributions is when public shame forces them to.

    And I do believe, without any sarcasm, that a candidate might run a small donor campaign if they thought it would get them more votes and would thus refuse money exceeding the small donor amount.

    Public shame is one thing that makes politicians do something they don't really want to do.

    Voting for them when they are not doing what they should be doing is not an effective way to get them to change their behavior.

    That is basic democracy and the approach of One Demand.

    It demands that a basic good principle be put into action now by politicians to EARN our vote rather than continue to validate their improper behavior and empty promises with our vote.

  115. [115] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (105)-
    non-serious.

  116. [116] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    In a serious discussion you would point out why you think I am wrong or mistaken just as I pointed out why I think you are wrong or mistaken in my comment.

  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did you miss my last few comments, Don?

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A bunch of lying pissant morons..

    Or, maybe they were just joking. :)

    You know, like me … and, ah, the president.

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    A bunch of lying pissant morons..

    Or, maybe they were just joking. :)

    Well, they are a joke all right...

  120. [120] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So the last 24 hours demonstrated why Democrats will win the election.

    Trump rallied his troops in Green Bay, Wisconsin, which is on the wrong side of the state, but has an airport which will accommodate AF1. There he called his immigration policy 'sick', which is strangely appropriate. He also called the FBI 'scum'.

    Meanwhile, back in DC, there was a Correspondent's dinner, which had a historian as guest speaker, rather than a comedian. Luckily, the historian made his speech about comedy, so the crowd loved it.

    But of course, none of this can stay the same.

    Eventually, we'll get back to the President attending the Correspondent's Dinner, which will include jokes. And celebrities.

    Y'know, normal. Normalcy will once again rule in Washington. Believe it or not.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    So the last 24 hours demonstrated why Democrats will win the election.

    Funny...

    That's what ya'all said prior to the election of 2016.. :D

  122. [122] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    I saw comments 6,7,52,76,77 and 105 that were directed to me.

    I chose to explain in response to 6 that the language is me trying harder.

    I also explained in response to 7 why Biden is a big money candidate.

    Your response to that (76,77) was responded to in 95 where it was clearly demonstrated that you were (similar to Trump) contradicting yourself within the same sentence.

    You responded to that with 105 where your point is what?

    That your mistake is that you might find out that you are mistaken?

    That sounds an awful lot like a mistake waiting to happen- again.

    Learning from mistakes doesn't come from not finding out if you made a mistake.

    It comes from recognizing the mistake so you don't keep repeating it.(see 2016)

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's interesting to note.

    ALL of the negative attacks against Joe Biden are coming from the Democrats and the Left Wing..

    So much for Party unity, eh?? :D

  124. [124] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ALL of the negative attacks against Joe Biden are coming from..

    Joe Biden? It's possible, his team figuring that it's better to get all of this out now than spar about it later.

    Sorry, Michale.

  125. [125] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    You give me kudos for not being willing to support a Dem. version of Trump just to get rid of the Republican Trump, which pretty much means you can no longer claim that my opposition to Trump is based on partisan allegiances. So thank you for that in advance!

    The real question is why do you support this president? You are a big supporter of law enforcement, for which I am grateful. Yet, Trump has constantly bashed the rule of law and those in law enforcement whose job it is to investigate him — and you aren’t just silent in voicing any disapproval, you defend his attacks! He is actively opposed to Congress’ Constitutional duty in oversight of the Executive Branch, and you cheer him on. It is strange to see someone who claims to be so pro-law enforcement not being pro-rule of law.

    And before you say that you are only concerned with how well the economy is performing and are willing to ignore all of Trump’s flaws as long as the economy is strong... Why wasn’t the economy’s performance your only concern when it came to Obama? Trump took an already strong economy and claimed that he turned it around. Obama did the hard part, but you had no problem attacking him at every turn.

  126. [126] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris

    And since we cannot know what the motivations of those large donors are- in order to ensure that there are no donors that have nefarious purposes in mind the donors are limited to 200 dollars per person so that there is no question aboot the motivations of large donors (or the candidates) because there are no large donors.

    Sure there are still going to be “large donors” — those that are donating $200! That one donor bring in the same amount that 200 donors who only give $1 each bring in. So who should the candidate focus their fundraising time on — the one donor who gives the maximum or trying to find 200 people to give $1???

    The other problem with your plan is that you concern yourself with trying to weed out “nefarious donors”, which as you pointed out in your response, we can never know the motivations of a person who donates. Their reasons should be moot if the candidate is of high moral character and refuses to be bought.

    So instead of focusing on trying to prevent countless nefarious donors from having the opportunity to tempt our candidates, wouldn’t it seem smarter to just find the best candidates that won’t give into temptation?

  127. [127] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "That was the most humiliating experience I've had in my entire life and I was Vice President of the United States." - Selena Meyer

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden? It's possible, his team figuring that it's better to get all of this out now than spar about it later.

    Oh sure.. I am certain that Team Biden LOVES all the attacks from Democrats..

    Nice spin, Balthy.. :D

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    You give me kudos for not being willing to support a Dem. version of Trump just to get rid of the Republican Trump, which pretty much means you can no longer claim that my opposition to Trump is based on partisan allegiances. So thank you for that in advance!

    Your welcome.

    See, people.. *HE* gets me.. :D

    Why wasn’t the economy’s performance your only concern when it came to Obama?

    It was.. Which is why I think Obama sucked.. Because the economy sucked..

    As to why I support President Trump..

    2 words..

    2nd Amendment..

    But it's more than just that.. Obama ran this country into the ground and made America the laughing stock of the world.. Our friends hated us and our enemies laughed at us...

    Now, our friends may hate us, but at least they respect our strength. SEE NATO... And our enemies?? They fear us..

    President Trump gave America back her pride that Obama took away...

    And for that (and Supreme Court Justices), President Trump will always have my vote..

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    New York Times apologizes again for 'offensive' Trump, Netanyahu cartoon that 'included anti-Semitic tropes'
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/new-york-times-apologizes-again-for-offensive-trump-netanyahu-cartoon-anti-semitic-tropes

    What IS it with all this Left Wing antisemitism of late??

    Shooting up synagogues, publishing antisemitic cartoons??

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    USA Today op-ed slammed for arguing Kamala Harris' gun ownership is ‘disqualifying’
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/usa-today-slammed-for-arguing-kamala-harris-gun-ownership-is-disqualifying

    Kamala Harris is a gun owner??

    Hmmmm... Her stock is rising...

    "Yer stock is rising, Number One.."
    -Dr Evil

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    As Trump backers never cease to point out, the Mueller report undermined the supposedly rock solid case for “collusion.” Whatever the truth, a solid majority of Americans believe the Russiagate brouhaha was politically motivated. Some progressives, like Rolling Stone’s contributing editor Matt Taibbi, believe Mueller represents “a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.”

    Ironically, Trump, the man the media wanted to bring down, was largely their creation. At a party in 2016, my wife and I were regaled by a CNN account executive crowing about the company’s strategy of using Trump rallies, at the exclusion of others, to boost ratings. Once having created President Frankenstein, CNN then tried to keep up the ratings by chronicling his disposal — this worked for MSNBC which, unlike CNN, never much pretended to be an objective network. Today, CNN’s audience share has fallen below not only leader Fox, but MSNBC, Home and Garden, Discovery and Food networks.

    Ideology over journalism

    By some estimates some 92 percent of all major network coverage of Trump outside Fox has been negative. This reflects a decay in journalistic standards. When I was a cub reporter at the Washington Post, I once tried to inject my opinion into an article. My editor came back with a remark that “no one gives a [expletive] about what you think.” Today the notion that news reporters should first and foremost inform, letting readers come to their own conclusions, seems almost quaint.

    Today, many reporters ride fact-free, neglecting alternative views on such key issues as climate change, where even mild skepticism is ignored, or even the Trump tax cuts. This increasingly ideological cast has been worsened by journalism schools' shift toward social justice advocacy; even well-placed writers at The New York Times complain about the stridency of younger journalists shaping coverage to fit their accepted ideological narratives.
    http://www.newgeography.com/content/006285-the-twilight-america-s-mega-media

    President Trump is more popular than ya'all's Leftist Media.. :D

    THIS really gave me a chuckle..

    Today, CNN’s audience share has fallen below not only leader Fox, but MSNBC, Home and Garden, Discovery and Food networks.

    CNN is watched LESS than HOME & GARDEN and FOOD NETWORK!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Ya'all gotta admit.. THAT is hilarious.. :D

    Ya'all get your "news" from a "news" organization that is LESS popular than the HOME AND GARDEN NETWORK!!!

    :D Com'on.. THAT is funny!! :D

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    The third and final presidential debate, on Oct. 19, 2016, was notable primarily because Trump refused to say he would accept the election results, arguing they might be rigged against him.

    “I will look at it at the time,” Trump said. “I will keep you in suspense.”

    Hillary Clinton immediately declared herself shocked, saying: “That’s horrifying. He is denigrating — he is talking down our democracy. And I am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that position.”

    Convinced Trump made a fatal error, she pressed the point to reporters afterward, saying “we’ve had hot, contested elections going back to the very beginning, but one of our hallmarks has always been that we accept the outcomes of our elections.”

    America has “free and fair elections,” she continued. “Somebody wins and somebody loses. So what he said tonight is part of his whole effort to blame somebody else for his campaign.”

    Hypocrisy alert! She became the person she warned us against.
    https://nypost.com/2019/04/27/battling-the-democrats-big-lie-about-donald-trump/

    This is so hilarious about Democrats and Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters..

    During the campaign, they went on and on about how Trump claimed he wouldn't accept the results of the election.

    And then when it came down to it, it was the Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters who wouldn't accept the results of the election!!

    The Democrat Party = The Hypocrisy Party!

    "It is to laugh..."
    -Daffy Duck

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden just lost the election..

    ‘Very Fine People on Both Sides’

    Well, that didn’t take long.

    Former Vice President Joe Biden, well known for his gaffes, announced for president — and immediately stepped in it.

    Looking into the camera — with a prepared script no less — Biden said this of the violence in Charlottesville in 2017:

    Charlottesville is also home to a defining moment for this nation in the last few years. It was there on August of 2017 we saw Klansmen and white supremacists and neo-Nazis come out in the open, their crazed faces illuminated by torches, veins bulging, and bearing the fangs of racism. Chanting the same anti-Semitic bile heard across Europe in the ’30s. And they were met by a courageous group of Americans, and a violent clash ensued and a brave young woman lost her life.

    Yes, indeed, there were Klansmen, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis there. But they were not “met by a courageous group of Americans.” They were met by an equally violent prone group — the masked hoodlums of the notoriously violent and far-left Antifa.
    https://spectator.org/bidens-first-campaign-gaffe/

    No patriotic American will vote for a guy who calls a terrorist group a "courageous group of Americans"...

    Sorry, Joe...

    My defense of you is at it's end..

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:
  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden Is Hillary Clinton 2.0 — Democrats Would Be Mad to Nominate Him

    “THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY,” Einstein didn’t say, “is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”

    Have the Democrats gone mad? Are they really planning on putting up the same type of candidate against Donald Trump in 2020 that they put up against him in 2016? Is the party bent on nominating Hillary 2.0?

    How else to describe Joe Biden, the former vice president and ex-senator from Delaware, who is leading in the polls and has hinted that he’d reveal whether he’s running for president in “a few weeks” and might select a running mate early in the process?

    Forget, for a moment, his “blue-collar-uncle-at-the-end-of-the-bar persona.” Ignore also his recent, and ridiculous, claim to have the “most progressive record of anybody” running for president. Consider, instead, the sheer number of similarities he seems to have with the vanquished Democratic presidential candidate of 2016.
    https://theintercept.com/2019/03/21/joe-biden-2020-hillary-clinton/

    A retread of 2016.. We all know how THAT ended up for the Democrats.. :D

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Communist Antifa Attacks Police And Pro-Cop “Blue Lives Matter” Demonstrators In Philadelphia
    https://www.trevorloudon.com/2018/08/communist-antifa-attacks-police-and-pro-cop-blue-lives-matter-demonstrators-in-philadelphia/

    Supporting AntiFa terrorists is simply un-American...

    But, Democrats will tell you that they are "very fine people" and "a courageous group".. :^/

  138. [138] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    As to why I support President Trump..

    2 words..

    2nd Amendment..

    I am a little confused, what has Trump actually done for the 2nd Amendment — I mean I know he claims to love it, support it, and on a few occasions even claimed to have written it, himself — but what has actually been done by him?

    Trump canceled regulations that prevented buckshot from containing lead, which poisons animals that ingest it and long, painful deaths for animals shot but not killed by it. But that’s about as close to the 2nd Amendment that Trump has been.

    And the 2nd Amendment has never been threatened despite what the gun makers lobbyists at the NRA have told you in the hopes of increasing their sales.

    Obama ran this country into the ground and made America the laughing stock of the world.. Our friends hated us and our enemies laughed at us...

    Now, our friends may hate us, but at least they respect our strength. SEE NATO... And our enemies?? They fear us..

    1. Obama is responsible for this economy that Trump tries to claim his economic policies are the result of.
    2. The laughing stock of the world — you mean like when Trump addressed the United Nations?
    3. And you have completely lost your mind if you think anyone but Trumpkins view anything Trump has done as showing “strength”! Trump brags about the LOVE affair he and North Korea’s leader share for each other. Trump crumbled when standing next to Putin in Helsinki like a star-struck teenager. Yes, Trump has made our friends question our commitments to them, but if they hate anyone it would be Trump.

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am a little confused, what has Trump actually done for the 2nd Amendment —

    He has insured that a Left Wing SCOTUS will never nullify the 2nd Amendment in my lifetime...

    And the 2nd Amendment has never been threatened despite what the gun makers lobbyists at the NRA have told you in the hopes of increasing their sales.

    Yea, right.. :D

    1. Obama is responsible for this economy that Trump tries to claim his economic policies are the result of.

    I am sure you believe that.. Just as I am sure that it's not factually accurate..

    2. The laughing stock of the world — you mean like when Trump addressed the United Nations?

    If you have to use the UN in yer argument, you have already lost.. :D

    Yes, Trump has made our friends question our commitments to them, but if they hate anyone it would be Trump.

    And yet, Israel and the US are 1000x closer now than they were under Odumbo..

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the 2nd Amendment has never been threatened

    Lawmakers in Hawaii Propose Repealing Second Amendment
    This is not the first time Democratic senators in Hawaii have called for congressional action on guns and gun violence.

    fee.org/articles/lawmakers-in-hawaii-propose-repealing-second-amendment/

    Democrats, 39 percent, do indeed want to repeal Second Amendment
    washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/28/repeal-2nd-amendment-cry-resonates-39-percent-demo/

    Repealing the Second Amendment isn't easy but it's what March for Our Lives students need

    A full repeal of the Second Amendment is hard work, but it is the only way March for Our Lives won't be hijacked by political figures wanting to harness energy and votes more than save lives.
    usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/03/28/repealing-second-amendment-march-our-lives-students/463644002/

    To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment
    nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/repeat-repeal-second-amendment.html

    Michael Moore - My Proposal to Repeal the Second Amendment ...
    facebook.com/mmflint/posts/my-proposal-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-and-replace-it-with-thisproposed-28th/10154778028796857/

    REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT ALREADY
    We do not need a well-regulated militia (or any militia) to have a free society. We need fewer guns.

    psmag.com/social-justice/repeal-the-second-amendment-already

    You were saying...???

    There are additional (THOUSANDS) examples...

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Trump will win in 2020 and it won't even be close

    Last week’s message from a booming economy should have rocked the Democratic field

    Small wonder then that Trump dominates the GOP with an approval rating above 80 per cent.

    His administration’s deregulatory push is accelerating. More and more rule-of-law judges, disinclined to accept bureaucrats’ excuses for over-regulation, are being confirmed to the bench. Readiness levels in the US military have been renewed. America’s relationship with its strongest ally, Israel, is at its closest in decades. Meanwhile, the Democrats are facing a Hobbesian choice of Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris, or former vice president Joe Biden.

    Sanders and Harris are too far to the left, Sanders by a lot. Biden is far past his best years. The nice folk lower down are looking for other rewards. The nomination going to someone such as Pete Buttigieg, mayor of Indiana’s South Bend, is possible, I suppose, but what happens when the dog chasing the car catches it?

    What was an entertaining and amusing aside suddenly becomes a commitment and, with that, well, comes a barrage of attacks. Where Trump deflects incoming with ease, the Democrats scatter, some limping away, some blown out of the picture.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-win-2020-election-polls-recession-bernie-sanders-a8889826.html

    If Democrats are smart, they will cede 2020 and start gin'ing up for 2024...

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    I understand what drives Democrats, I really do..

    "Hate is good as any to keep a person going, better then most."
    -Sandor "THE HOUND" Clegane

  143. [143] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    I assume you were just trying to be funny with the 1 dollar nonsense.

    "Their reasons should be moot if the candidate is of high moral character and refuses to be bought."

    "...wouldn't it be smarter to just find the best candidates that won't give in to temptation?"

    A candidate that takes big money has demonstrated with their actions that they are not of high moral character and they can be bought.

    But the answer to your final question is yes.

    It would be smarter to find candidates that won't give in to temptation.

    So anyone that wants to do the smart thing will participate in One Demand and only vote for and support candidates that do not give in to the temptation of taking big money.

    And thus citizens will not have to decide if a candidate that takes big money is of such high moral character that the candidate can resist the temptation to give preferential treatment to big donors.

    The only way to make that determination a moot point is to eliminate the question aboot a candidate by eliminating the large donors from the campaign.

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Not only didn’t I vote for Clarence Thomas, I believed her from the beginning. I was against Clarence Thomas, I did everything in my power to defeat Clarence Thomas and he won by the smallest margin anyone ever won going on the Supreme Court.”
    -Joe Biden, 2019

    "It was clear to me from the way she was answering the questions, Hill was lying about a key part of her testimony."
    -Joe Biden, 1998

    While Biden's backpedaling will help him in the Primary, it will destroy him in the General...

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    COMBAT VET WHO STOPPED THE SYNAGOGUE SHOOTER: ‘I SCARED THE HELL OUT OF HIM’
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/28/combat-vet-stopped-san-diego-synagogue-shooter/

    Once again.. A good guy with a gun stopped a massacre...

    Thank the gods for the 2nd Amendment.. :D

  146. [146] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I recently sistened to somebody on PBS interview one of the Democratic candidates for 2020, a congresswoman from Hawaii name of Gabbert (Sp?).

    I was very impressed. If she actually were to get the Dem nomination, I'd have to vote for her over Trump. Would be the 1st vote this Libertarian ever cast for a Dem president. It would really be more of a vote against the moron-in-chief than it would be a vote for Gabbert.

  147. [147] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oops, make that LISTENED, not "sistened".

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops.. Scratch that.. A good guy with a very mean look on his face stopped a massacre..

    With help from the good guy with the gun.. :D

    My bust..

  149. [149] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    You were saying...???

    There are additional (THOUSANDS) examples...

    And which one of those things are an actual threat to the 2nd Amendment??? Let’s see....NONE of them!

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    And which one of those things are an actual threat to the 2nd Amendment??? Let’s see....NONE of them!

    And WHY weren't they a real threat??

    Because a conservative SCOTUS had brought down the hammer in favor of the 2nd Amendment...

    THAT is thanks to President Trump...

    As long as their is a coordinated effort from the Left to repeal the 2nd, there is ALWAYS a threat..

    But being that we have solid conservative SCOTUS, with Judge Amy Berman Jackson waiting in the wings (If RBG ever keeps her promise or Democrats kill her by forcing her to work long past what her health can stand) then there will be even LESS of a threat..

    Thanks to President Trump..

    But the threat is still present..

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was very impressed. If she actually were to get the Dem nomination, I'd have to vote for her over Trump. Would be the 1st vote this Libertarian ever cast for a Dem president. It would really be more of a vote against the moron-in-chief than it would be a vote for Gabbert.

    Tulsi has a consistent record of advocating for sensible gun control. She has long called for reinstating a federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, requiring comprehensive pre-purchase background checks, closing the gun-show loophole, and making sure that terrorists are not allowed to buy guns. Tulsi has an F-rating from the NRA, a 0% rating by the Hawaii Rifle Association, and a 100% rating by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. She is focused on building bipartisan solutions that can actually be passed into law, rather than using the issue as a partisan political football.

    Nope..

    "I can't go for that, noooo.. No can do..."
    -Hall & Oates

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Heh

    48%: TRUMP OBAMA SHARE SAME APPROVAL AT THIS TIME IN PRESIDENCY, SAYS POLL..
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/prez_track_apr29

    Funny how, as bad as Trump is according to the Hysterical Left, his approval rating is comparable to Obama's.. :D

    For those that put all their faith in polls... :D

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jerusalem Post Diaspora
    FLOOD OF CONDEMNATIONS OF NEW YORK TIMES FOR ANTISEMITIC CARTOON
    Congressmen join former ambassador to Israel and journalists in slamming the newspaper.

    https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Antisemitism/Flood-of-condemnations-of-NYT-for-anti-Semitic-cartoon-588044

    Once again, you just HAVE to ask...

    What *IS* it with Left Wingers and their hate and their intolerance???

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you are fighting an enemy who can raise the dead...

    Is it REALLY a good idea to seek sanctuary in crypts???

  155. [155] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale has taken to repeating himself, not unusual.

    How about answering some questions? Like:

    Will William Barr testify before congress?

    Will Mueller testify before congress?

    Will Kline testify before congress?

    Will Mnuchin hand over the tax returns, or do jail?

    Will Mazak cooperate?

    Will the full, unredacted Mueller Report reach congress?

    Will SCOTUS really back the President?

    Trump is reaching a tipping point when it comes to all this. Putting a lot of eggs in the SCOTUS basket...

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    How about answering some questions? Like:

    It's funny.. You people always demand I answer stuff, but with few exceptions, you don't answer crap..

    But hay..

    I'll play..

    Will William Barr testify before congress?

    Depends. Will Democrats drop the witch hunt and fishing expeditions??

    Will Mueller testify before congress?

    Mueller has spoken.. You didn't like what he had to say.. Waaa Waaa

    Will Kline testify before congress?

    Who???

    Will Mnuchin hand over the tax returns, or do jail?

    Neither..

    Will Mazak cooperate?

    Who???

    Will the full, unredacted Mueller Report reach congress?

    Nope.. Grand Jury testimony is sealed..

    Will SCOTUS really back the President?

    Depends on which area.. But the SCOTUS has been hesitant to take sides in a turf war between the branches of government.. So, it's unlikely SCOTUS will side with Congress against the Executive..

    Trump is reaching a tipping point when it comes to all this.

    Balthy, yer repeating yerself.. You have been saying Trump has reached a "tipping point" for the last 2 years...

    Why on earth would you think you have ANY credibility left??

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You still following SUPERNATURAL??

    What do you make of that Season 14 finale???

    Chuck's become a real prick...

  158. [158] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Will Democrats drop the witch hunt and fishing expeditions?

    Nope.

    Mueller has spoken..

    To some extent. But there's nothing like hearing it from the horse's mouth.

    Who???

    Interesting..ignorant of the guy who gave Kushner his security clearance, and of the Trump Foundation's accounting firm, all of whom got threats from Trump's lawyers this week not to testify. Keep up.

    it's unlikely SCOTUS will side with Congress against the Executive..

    Really? Name one case. Normally goes the other way.

    What I'm saying is that Trump has (in the words of one pundit) got "a lot of pots coming to a boil".

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I'm saying is that Trump has (in the words of one pundit) got "a lot of pots coming to a boil".

    Yes.. I know you are saying that..

    You and most everyone else here has been saying that same thing since Nov of 2016...

    Who knows... Maybe ONE day ya'all may be right.. :D

    But, to date, ya'all's track record is dismal.. :D

  160. [160] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well, there's a 40-60 chance you're right.

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, there's a 40-60 chance you're right.

    No.. Given ya'all's track record, there is a 99.8-.2 chance I am right.. :D

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, this is the exact problem ya'all have..

    No matter HOW ya'all try to spin things, the SIMPLE FACT is ya'all have been **WRONG** at every turn when it comes to President Trump..

    Ya'all have as much credibility as they hysterical fear-mongering morons who say the world is going to end in 12 years.. :D

    So, I get how ya'all have to keep a stiff upper lip and all that..

    But, jeeeze... Reality just HAS to be a pisser, eh? :D

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know what yer thinking..

    Yer thinking, "Good things come to those who wait.."

    And yer absolutely right..

    I waited for almost TWO YEARS and lo and behold..

    Democrat Hero Robert Mueller totally and completely exonerated President Trump over Russia Collusion..

    So yer right..

    I waited and good things came! :D

  164. [164] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    What do you make of that Season 14 finale???

    Chuck's become a real prick...

    I could not remember if there was going to be a season 15 prior to watching the finale, so I was extremely pissed at the thought that the show’s creators had ended the show by giving the fans the middle finger.

    It took me all of one minute to find out that season 15 is going to be the last season — so I don’t have to hunt down the creator of the show and make a throw rug out of his hide — which is a good thing. I really liked seeing a world without people being able to lie (even you gotta admit their president’s truth bombs were funny), but I am not sure that the chaos portrayed would actually happen.

    Chuck is a dick, but it seemed a little out of character from what we knew of him that all this time he was really just a sadistic turd getting his jollies off our pain. That’s not how I view God, and I am a little disappointed with the show’s writers for choosing to change Chuck’s character in such a nasty way. But that said, I cannot wait to see what Bobbi (Death) wants to talk to Jack about!

  165. [165] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Robert Mueller totally and completely exonerated President Trump over Russia Collusion..

    Bullshit. That's Barr's interpretation. Mueller said that there wasn't enough evidence, mostly because Trump kept trying to bury it.

    Mueller also produced ample evidence of obstruction, which Republicants are ignoring.

    Why else is Trump suddenly in a defensive posture?

    Seems that a man with nothing to hide would hide nothing.

  166. [166] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @balthasar,
    Mueller said there wasn't any evidence of conspiracy with Russia. My interpretation is that Russia wasn't interested. As for obstruction, if you order people to obstruct and they ignore you and you forgot what you ordered, have you committed obstruction?

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chuck is a dick, but it seemed a little out of character from what we knew of him that all this time he was really just a sadistic turd getting his jollies off our pain. That’s not how I view God, and I am a little disappointed with the show’s writers for choosing to change Chuck’s character in such a nasty way. But that said, I cannot wait to see what Bobbi (Death) wants to talk to Jack about!

    Yea, Chuck has always been an OK guy.. I get the feeling that this is all one big grand lesson that Chuck is teaching the Winchesters..

    That we're in for a LOST-esque ending, where it's all been a journey of redemption...

    Can't wait..

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bullshit. That's Barr's interpretation. Mueller said that there wasn't enough evidence, mostly because Trump kept trying to bury it.

    And since Trump did NOT succede in burying it, then where is the evidence??

    There is none..

    You can spin it all you like to help you make it thru your day.. But at the end of the day, President Trump is completely innocent of Russia Collusion..

    Why else is Trump suddenly in a defensive posture?

    Suddenly!!??? According to ya'all, Trump has been in a "defensive posture" since the moment he announced..

    You see the problem??

    Ya'all are so hysterical with hate, you are saying things that contradict other things ya'all have said...

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for obstruction, if you order people to obstruct and they ignore you and you forgot what you ordered, have you committed obstruction?

    Attempted Obstruction...???

    "Well, that's different..."
    -Memphis, HAPPY FEET

  170. [170] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    100

    You are the one making ridiculous and false statements.

    I never said money is evil.

    I won't ask if you are seriously this thick because your bio expressly defines your ignorance while your posts confirm it repeatedly, but it takes a ridiculously special kind of stupid to spend 3+ years defining voting for any candidate who takes your asinine definition of "Big Money" as voting for the "lesser of two evils" when your pathetic attempt at political activism defines such a candidate as one who accepts $201 or more. Are you seriously so ignorant that you're actually incapable of connecting the obvious dots of your own pathetic spew?

    You've already admitted there are zero candidates on the planet who meet your purity test. Are you now going to claim you haven't posted on this forum ad nauseam about "lesser of two evils" voting when you've defined $201 as "Big Money" and what constitutes the corrupting factor? Go find someone as ignorant as you and try that ridiculous drivel on them; however, if you're looking in this forum for your intellectual equal, you've obviously come to the wrong place... try your local elementary school.

    As explained in comment 97 (again), the amount you consider paltry is considered substantial by the majority of citizens.

    Only an inveterate moron would claim to know what a majority of citizens consider "substantial," but your bio admits your ignorance so you've already identified your own problem.

    Citizens that agree can vote in this manner if they choose to do so.

    Not voting for a "lesser of two evils" candidate as defined ad nauseam by you couldn't exactly be characterized as a "vote in this manner," now could it? Not voting isn't voting! A write-in vote is the equivalent of not voting in the vast majority of states.

    That's called democracy. Each citizen gets to decide for themselves the standards for the candidates they vote for.

    While not voting might be considered "democracy" in the alternate universe you've created where it's your definitions that decide what is acceptable, the dictionary defines democracy as "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

    Your bullshit doesn't exactly qualify as being "democracy" because it encourages eligible members to not participate in electing representatives who don't meet your self-defined monetary purity test... which is every candidate in America.

  171. [171] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    101

    Asshole.

    I've already agreed to your description of yourself in your bio and in your comments... there's absolutely no need to keep reiterating your already admitted ignorance.

  172. [172] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    166

    Mueller said there wasn't any evidence of conspiracy with Russia.

    No, he didn't. He said "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that's a big difference when you consider that lawyers and prosecutors parse their words very carefully. There was quite a bit of evidence as set forth in Mueller's report, but there wasn't enough evidence that Mueller believed a jury would convict "beyond a reasonable doubt"... a very high bar to clear. The FBI doesn't generally bring cases to trial that do not meet at least the "preponderance of the evidence" test... and certainly not high profile cases like this one.

    My interpretation is that Russia wasn't interested.

    The GRU didn't need Trump's help, but they were definitely interested; they simply used their common practice of using cutouts to reach out to the campaign... with the exception of Roger Stone.

    As for obstruction, if you order people to obstruct and they ignore you and you forgot what you ordered, have you committed obstruction?

    Yes. One does not have to successfully obstruct justice in order to have committed obstruction of justice; one needs only to "endeavor" to obstruct, as defined by statute.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

    18 U.S.C. Section 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

    Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

    Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

    Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Comments for this article are closed.