ChrisWeigant.com

Attack The Tax

[ Posted Monday, May 13th, 2019 – 16:46 UTC ]

Donald Trump's trade war with China reached a new level of intensity over the past week, as the trade deal talks all but collapsed -- instead of, as had been promised, leading to an imminent signing ceremony of the best trade deal ever struck in all of history. Trump suddenly announced he was more than doubling the tariff on Chinese goods entering the country, and then for good measure threatened to slap the same 25 percent tariff on everything else China sells in America. This morning, China announced its own retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products, and the stock market sank 600 points. Trump continues in his role as cheerleader for the tariffs, which means Democrats are left to make the case -- once again -- that the emperor's new clothes don't actually exist. So far, they haven't been doing all that great a job in doing so, however.

Democrats are conflicted on the subject of tariffs in general and also on pressuring China to change some of its economically predatory behavior. Chuck Schumer has even issued guarded statements of support for Trump's tariffs. So the party as a whole is not united behind fighting Trump on this issue. China's unfair practices are real, and the only way they're going to change is by applying pressure on them, but the way Trump is going about doing so hasn't brought about any noticeable change in their overall attitudes. So making the case that something must be done -- just not what Trump is doing -- is more complicated than simply opposing his strategy outright.

However, the presidential contest is underway on the Democratic side, meaning there are plenty of candidates out there who could at least be better framing the issue for the American public, to counter the big lies that Trump has been telling. Here are three important ways Democrats could be doing so more forcefully, with samples of what Democratic candidates should really be saying -- especially when campaigning in the more rural states.

 

It's a tax

So far, Donald Trump has gotten away with falsely explaining how tariffs work, mostly because to the average American voter a tariff is a rather undefined concept. So instead, call it what it really is -- a tax. This serves not only to educate the public, but also to undermine the entire Republican Party's one remaining unifying core principle. How can, after all, Republicans be so gung-ho about a new tax on Americans? It contradicts their entire worldview, and Democrats should be pointing this out.

"Donald Trump has embraced tariffs as a way to conduct U.S. economic and foreign policy. He even proudly calls himself 'Tariff Man' to his supporters. But the word 'tariff' is an old-timey term that many people may have never encountered before Trump's trade war with China and the rest of the world. Maybe Trump should call himself the 'Tariff of Nottingham,' because that's about how old the term is. But what he and all the Republicans supporting his disastrous trade war won't actually admit to you is that there is a much better and more modern word to use. Because a tariff is nothing but a tax, plain and simple. So Republicans, led by Donald Trump, have instituted a huge new tax on all kinds of things average Americans buy. This is the first time in decades that the Republican Party has been so pro-tax, in fact. So the next time a Republican politician tries to dodge the damages caused by this trade war, it'd sure be nice if someone asked them why they're supporting a huge new tax on Americans when they've never been in favor of any other type of tax, ever. Tariffs are taxes, and we should start honestly calling them taxes in our political debate."

 

Americans are paying this tax, not China

This point is actually being adequately made by the mainstream media, at least since last week's increase in the tax. Up until now, the media hasn't been very focused on Trump's trade war with China, and when they do report on it they have allowed Trump to mostly get away with lying about how his tariffs work. But suddenly last week, they started educating the public about how this tax actually works. This weekend, a Fox News anchor even got the president's top economic advisor to admit that Trump's been lying about this all along.

"Donald Trump has been lying through his teeth about how tariffs work. He has said (and tweeted) over and over again that China is paying billions in tariffs straight into the U.S. Treasury, therefore it is a good thing for America because we're really sticking it to those unfair Chinese and as a result have a windfall of new money. Nothing about this fantasy has any relation to reality, though. A tariff is nothing more than a tax, and it is a tax on American companies and American consumers, period. Let me state that in slightly different terms: Neither the Chinese government nor Chinese businesses pay one thin dime of this tax, because it is all paid by all of us here in America. When Walmart buys products from China, they pay the tax to the Treasury, not China or the Chinese supplier. And then the American companies (not to pick on Walmart in particular -- this is true for anyone importing anything from China) turn right around and pass that new tax on to the American consumer in the form of higher prices. American companies don't out of the goodness of their hearts absorb this new tax, that's for sure. So let's be very clear -- when you go down to the store and buy a product made in China or even an American-made product with Chinese components, you are paying Trump's new tax. Not anyone in China -- you are the ones who pay."

 

Taxpayer bailout dollars aren't what farmers want

This is another aspect of this trade war that Democrats have so far failed to adequately shine a spotlight on. Which is really political negligence, because the Chinese specifically targeted these farmers in a bid to undermine Trump's domestic political base. So why aren't Democrats accepting this political gift and making the attempt to cut into Trump's support in the rural heartland?

"Last year, twelve billion dollars of American taxpayer money went to struggling farmers who are the hardest hit by the Chinese retaliation for Trump's trade war. This time around, Trump is apparently planning on using fifteen billion in taxpayer money to bail out farmers he has personally harmed with his trade war. The market for soybeans has all but collapsed, to the point where the price per bushel is so low that farmers are losing money the minute they stick a soybean seed in the ground. The market for these soybeans in China has completely collapsed, and China is now buying their soy from other nations. This market is not going to magically return to where it was in the aftermath of this trade war, either. It could take years to rebuild, in fact. Meanwhile, farm bankruptcies are skyrocketing as more and more farmers are going broke due to Donald Trump's mishandling of foreign policy. Last year's $12 billion didn't fix this, and it's doubtful that another $15 billion this year is going to reverse the trend either. For the second planting season in a row, there is simply no end in sight to the damage Trump is doing to American farmers. Farmers don't really want a bailout financed by American taxpayers -- they would much rather have solid markets to sell their produce in, for a fair price. Republicans used to be against the concept of 'redistributing wealth' and 'picking winners and losers in the marketplace,' and yet they remain silent while American taxpayer money is desperately used in a futile attempt to undo the damage that the president has done to family farming in America. And that means yet another way that all of us are the ones paying the price for Trump's failed trade war."

 

These are three key points to make in the debate over Trump's trade war with China. They are all core definitional issues, rather than getting into the policy weeds of the actual trade negotiations. They are basic political framing, in other words. And yet, to date, I haven't heard much of this talk from any prominent Democrats, whether they're running for president or not. Maybe I just haven't been listening hard enough, that's certainly a possibility. But these things seem rather obvious, to me.

The media is even being helpful on that second issue, as they've included a basic explanation of why Trump is flat-out lying about how the tariffs work with pretty much every news story or segment aired. That's certainly helpful, because up until now Trump has largely been able to get away with repeating his big lie over and over again that China is somehow paying this tax.

But where are the Democrats pointing out to Iowa farmers the dangers to their livelihood of this unending trade war? The farmers don't really need to be convinced of this fact, because it is all around them every day. If they are not struggling financially because of Trump's trade war, they certainly have friends and family who are. Ideally, Democrats would promote their own trade policies to draw a clear contrast to what Trump is doing, but at the very least they should be pointing out the damage that Trump has already caused and the likely damage that will happen in the near future.

Every Democrat who opposes Trump's trade war policies should be hammering all these points home every chance they get. Whenever asked about the tariffs, Democrats should interrupt the question with: "Oh, you mean Trump's gigantic new tax on Americans?" Refuse to use the word "tariff" in favor of "tax" -- how hard is that to do?

Republicans have really left themselves wide open on this issue, because in staying in lockstep with Trump they are now championing increasing taxes on American consumers. They're pro-tax. Using the money from the tariffs to pay off farmers is nothing short of "tax and spend," after all. You could even use the word "welfare" for these payments. Republicans will never face the shame of their complete about-face on whether taxes are good or bad if Democrats don't forcefully point this hypocrisy out.

In other words, it is time for the Democrats to attack the tax.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

56 Comments on “Attack The Tax”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump's Trade War is deranged economics. Clothed or naked, the title of Emperor is way too grand. "The Sundowning King" is more to the point. Geriatrics and politics have fused. On a bad day, and there seem to be more and more of them, "When he reigns, it pours. "

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    YAAAWWWNNNNNN

    Ya'all have been making the same stale bullshit argument for years now..

    AARRRGGGHHHH!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!

    And yet, NOTHING ever comes of it..

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry

    WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful.

    John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.’s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.

    His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/barr-assigns-us-attorney-in-connecticut-to-review-origins-of-russia-inquiry/ar-AABjF9U

    Democrats are running scared... :D

    The coming takedown of the Democrat Party is going to be glorious..

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I thought all taxes had to originate in the house. What makes tariffs subject to executive authority?

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought all taxes had to originate in the house.

    Which explains why Tariffs are not taxes.. :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all have been making the same stale bullshit argument for years now..

    AARRRGGGHHHH!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!

    And yet, NOTHING ever comes of it..

    I mean, think about it people..

    For the last 2 plus years, every time Trump imposed tariffs ya'all would scream hysterically about the end of the world..

    And it NEVER happens.. There is some short term pain, to be sure, but it's simply undeniable that the US is in a stronger position vis a vis China than Odumbo EVER was able to put us in...

    President Trump is doing a GREAT job!!

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny.....

    Odumbo imposted tariffs on Chinese tires..

    Where was all yer hysterical fear-mongering then??

    Here, let me help ya'all out..

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

    It always is with Party slaves... :D

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No michale, tariffs are indeed taxes. In order for the president to control them there must be a law delegating that authority

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    No michale, tariffs are indeed taxes.

    Well, apparently, they are a different kind of tax. Because, as you say, taxes must originate in the House..

    And it still leaves the unanswered question as to why no one here complained when Obama imposed tariffs on China...

  10. [10] 
    John M wrote:

    [2] Michale

    "YAAAWWWNNNNNN

    Ya'all have been making the same stale bullshit argument for years now..

    AARRRGGGHHHH!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!

    And yet, NOTHING ever comes of it.."

    Glaciers and Ice Ages, as well as Tsunamis, all take a while to reach their destination, but they all have one thing in common, they overcome and eventually destroy any object in their path, given enough time. Just because something is slow (according to your perception of it), doesn't mean it is not inexorably and awesomely destructive.

  11. [11] 
    John M wrote:

    [4] nypoet22

    "I thought all taxes had to originate in the house. What makes tariffs subject to executive authority?"

    [5] Michale wrote:

    "I thought all taxes had to originate in the house.

    Which explains why Tariffs are not taxes.. :D"

    [9] Michale

    "No michale, tariffs are indeed taxes.

    Well, apparently, they are a different kind of tax. Because, as you say, taxes must originate in the House.."

    Tariffs are indeed a TAX.

    1) The "Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917" allows the president to hit a nation with tariffs as high as he wants. Under the law, the president can restrict all types of trade "during time of war." That definition is very loose though.

    America doesn't have to be at war with a particular nation -- it just has to be "at war" somewhere in the world in order to apply tariffs against other countries.

    For example: In 1971, President Richard Nixon used this act to impose a 10% import tariff (not directed at any particular nation) citing the Korean War, which had ended nearly two decades prior. Technically, America was still in a state of emergency which had not lifted.

    2) The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

    It gives the president authority to use tariffs on another country during a "national emergency." Again, defining an emergency is vague. Losing manufacturing jobs to China would suffice as one. Also, courts have never rejected a president's reasoning.

    3) The Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Ronald Reagan used this one. It allows the president to slap targeted tariffs on certain industries, like steel. It's not as broad, but Trump can raise tariffs as high as he wants on specific things.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Glaciers and Ice Ages, as well as Tsunamis, all take a while to reach their destination,

    Not over 2 years, it doesn't.

    When are we going to see ANY of the catastrophes ya'all have been promising???

    Just because something is slow (according to your perception of it), doesn't mean it is not inexorably and awesomely destructive.

    And just because it's President Trump doesn't mean it's awesomely destructive..

    Ya'all have ZERO credibility...

  13. [13] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Leaving aside wartime and national emergencies, the point of tariffs is to make foreign goods more expensive to the consumer than home-produced ones, which is why trade unions and farming groups used to be in favour of them. The drawbacks were the same as now: the other country institutes or increases its tariffs, making your goods more expensive there, or the increased cost of essential supplies may have an adverse effect on your economy.

    Potential harms and benefits need to be carefully weighed against each other before tariffs are imposed. These could include showing disapproval of social or commercial practices, knowing that this disapproval will have a cost.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Potential harms and benefits need to be carefully weighed against each other before tariffs are imposed. These could include showing disapproval of social or commercial practices, knowing that this disapproval will have a cost.

    Would you agree that the POTUS imposing the tariffs has NO bearing on the cost/benefit analysis??

  15. [15] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    The material welfare (standard of living) of the whole world is maximized if every person, every area, specializes in producing the thing for which they have what economist refer to as a "comparative advantage". If Minnessota has iron ore but a cold climate, and Florida has no iron ore but a warm climate, MN should produce iron FL should produce oranges, and they should trade both commodities.

    And as Adam Smith pointed out 300 yrs ago, the tailor does not produce his own shoes, and the shoemaker does not sew his own suits.

    China has an abundance of labor, but a scarcity fertile farmland. The U.S. has a much smaller population, but an abundance of farmland.

    From an economist's standpoint, anything that inhibits trade is detrimantal to everybody. Nobody wins trade wars, everybody loses. Law of economics.

    Things like 'national defense' issues can complicate the practice of free trade, but nothing changes the laws of economics.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    That's what I like about you.. You clear out all the BS and make economics even someone like me can understand.. :D

  17. [17] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    Happy to help.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    From an economist's standpoint, anything that inhibits trade is detrimantal to everybody. Nobody wins trade wars, everybody loses. Law of economics.

    While everyone likely loses the BATTLE, if the battle alters the behavior of one country to the benefit of the other, then I would submit that the WAR is won...

    China has for too long been able to screw the US over time and time again and previous Presidents, both D and R let China get away with it..

    Thar's a new sheriff in town.. :D

  19. [19] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    I understand about the "screwing" thing, that means that they buy less from us than we buy from them (an 'unfavorable balance of trade' in economist's lingo), but I've always claimed that attitude makes no sense.

    What the 'imbalance' amounts to is , they send us high-quality, relatively inexpensive manufactured goods, representing great expense of labor and material to them, in exchange for little green pieces of paper (dollars) that we can print essentially for free.

    That's another way of saying, we can now afford to consume far more hi-quality manufactured goods than we would otherwise have to use, which clearly, raises out standard of living. If that's the kind of screwing you're talking about, I'm saying, "Way to go China, keep ON screwing us every chance you get"!!!

    What would you say?

  20. [20] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Of course, all of this is really unnecessary.

    We had the TPP. Every Pacific Rim country except China signed it. Over time, China would have had to change or be boxed out of trade.

    But Trump tore it up without even looking at it.
    Because it was Obama's deal.

    Now, see, Trump's trying to accomplish the same without a TPP. Much tougher.

    And though it's likely to be just a distraction from what's really going on in the world (see Iran), it's gonna hurt us right before the election. Think about that.

  21. [21] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oops - make that raises OUR std of living, not "raises out"

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Trump tore it up without even looking at it.
    Because it was Obama's deal.

    Because it was a bad deal... Putting the US in a subservient role to foreigners...

    Because it was Obama's deal.

    And you don't like the tariffs because they are Trump's tariffs.. YOu LOVED Odumbo's tariffs..

    And though it's likely to be just a distraction from what's really going on in the world (see Iran), it's gonna hurt us right before the election.

    Facts to support???

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's another way of saying, we can now afford to consume far more hi-quality manufactured goods than we would otherwise have to use, which clearly, raises out standard of living. If that's the kind of screwing you're talking about, I'm saying, "Way to go China, keep ON screwing us every chance you get"!!!

    What would you say?

    I'de say if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is...

    You ever play the PC Game HOMEFRONT-THE REVOLUTION? :D

    BIG downside... HUGE....

  24. [24] 
    Paula wrote:

    In passing:

    JUST IN: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Tuesday after a meeting with FBI officials that Russian hackers successfully penetrated the election systems of two Florida counties in 2016.

  25. [25] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Bookmark that, Paula, 'cause we're gonna need it later.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    JUST IN: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Tuesday after a meeting with FBI officials that Russian hackers successfully penetrated the election systems of two Florida counties in 2016.

    Of course, you ignore the ONLY relevant part..

    NO votes were changed and the outcome of the election was not affected in any way

    Do you know how many voter databases were hacked in 2012?? In 2018??? Tons...

    Do ya'all care??? Not a bit..

    You only care about it in 2016 because YOUR shitty candidate lost..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    The hacking did not affect any vote tallying and DeSantis said there is no evidence of “manipulation.”
    https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2019/05/14/russians-accessed-voter-records-in-two-florida-counties-fbi-confirms-1015760

    Bookmark THAT, Birthers.. :D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Judge Napolitano: Trump's vow to 'investigate the investigators' is finally going to happen

    After news broke on Monday evening that Attorney General William Barr appointed U.S. attorney in Connecticut John Durham to investigate the origins of the Russia probe, Judge Napolitano argued that the move marks the concrete beginning of President Trump's call to "investigate the investigators."

    During an appearance on "Fox & Friends" on Tuesday morning, Napolitano discussed the fact that Durham has prosecutorial abilities - which would theoretically allow him to indict individuals if his investigation found sufficient evidence.

    "This is the investigation that the president has been calling for and that the president has promised," he said. "Who and how, and under what circumstances, did the whole thing get started?"
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-napolitano-trump-barr-investigation-us-attorney

    Democrats are crappin' their pants.. :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Alyssa Milano: Why the time is now for a #SexStrike
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/13/opinions/alyssa-milano-sex-strike-now/index.html

    Moron Milano says that ABSTINENCE is the way to prevent pregnancy!! :D

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    DeSantis said there is no evidence of “manipulation.”

    Sure there wasn't. That's why the FBI is involved. The Russians went in, didn't find anything, and left.

    Sure.

  31. [31] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Democrats are crappin' their pants..

    No, they're not. There's no evidence of this anywhere in the left media, because they're not worried.

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Meanwhile, Trump has found a way to tax the little guy!

    Good going...

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "Who and how, and under what circumstances, did the whole thing get started?"

    The answer to that question could be awfully embarrassing to the Republicans, in fact.

  34. [34] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    [24] Re: " Russian hackers successfull penetrated election systems . . ."

    What exactly defines an "election system"? Voting machines themselves are not connected to the internet, and are therefore immune to 'hacking'.

    My guess is that it likely refers to the registration rolls. So what do you think happened? Maybe the Russians emailed or called the voters and told them not to vote for Hillary? Actually, a helluva lot of people called me and told me to vote for Trump, but I don't recall any of them having Russian accents!

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure there wasn't. That's why the FBI is involved. The Russians went in, didn't find anything, and left.

    Once again.. Do you have any FACTS that says otherwise??

    No you do not...

    As usual..

    No, they're not. There's no evidence of this anywhere in the left media, because they're not worried.

    No, there are no facts in the Left Media because they refuse to report it...

    But just keep yer head in the sand, Birther.. It will make the frogmarch of the Democrats that much more enjoyable..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Reelection of Donald Trump
    You might almost say he’s a shoo-in.

    https://spectator.org/the-reelection-of-donald-trump/

    You people are really intent on re-electing President Trump.. :D

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hey Michale,

    I actually read that article. Pretty good, too, if you ignore the author's politics. The author, in fact, gets one thing right off the bat:

    To millions of Americans, President Trump is an outlier, an anomaly of sorts. His inflammatory Tweets and extemporaneous “speeches” are troubling, to say the very least. Trump, in the eyes of his detractors, is an atypical assemblage, an erratic unicorn “put together” by a disgruntled populace. To them, the septuagenarian is a jumped-up vulgarian with all the class of a seedy strip club.

    Which is spot-on, save for one telling passage. Trump is an "erratic unicorn “put together” by" a team of seasoned professionals, and sold to "a disgruntled populace". There. Fixed it.

    Because, for all the hero worship, there is one inconvenient fact here: Trump, from the beginning, was surrounded by guys like Robert Mercer, who has messed around in British politics as well.

    Answer this: Kellyanne Conway, former Mercer employee, is still in the White House. Why?

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Answer this: Kellyanne Conway, former Mercer employee, is still in the White House. Why?

    I don't know and, unlike you, I don't speculate without facts..

    But, once again, you miss one vital point.

    You hate President Trump with every fiber of your being..

    Ergo, everything you say and think is suspect..

  39. [39] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I don't know and, unlike you, I don't speculate without facts..

    You know what? This is actually a true statement. You don’t speculate because you do not bother to directly answer most questions posed to you. Instead, you throw up your “what-about-isms” and false comparisons, claim that everyone but you is a slave to party propaganda, and do your best to not actually defend Trump’s actions.

    But, once again, you miss one vital point.

    You hate President Trump with every fiber of your being..

    Ergo, everything you say and think is suspect..

    So everything you say and think about Obama must be suspect, correct? I mean you do not ever refer to him using his actual name. I know you will say that you only do it because everyone does the same thing with Trump...a pussified response if there ever was one, but even as a group we do not come close to doing it to the degree that you do.

    And it’s funny that you are now commenting how mean and hateful everyone who disagrees with you are — one of Trumps bad habits. You are such a fanboi!

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know you will say that you only do it because everyone does the same thing with Trump...a pussified response if there ever was one, but even as a group we do not come close to doing it to the degree that you do.

    Once again, you are completely wrong and the facts PROVE you completely wrong..

    Yer simply another Birther who hates without facts or reason...

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know what? This is actually a true statement.

    Of course, it's a factual statement.

    I *ALWAYS* deal in facts..

    Unlike ya'all (NEN) who only deal in hate, bigotry, intolerance and bullshit..

    And what is so hilarious is that, even though ya'all have **ALWAYS** been wrong in **ALL** your hysterical Trump/America hating predictions..

    Ya'all actually believe ya'all have an IOTA of credibility!!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOITkxy18dY

    Hilarious!!!! :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Constable Willie West
    Lowndes County Constable's Office - Precinct 1, Mississippi
    End of Watch: Thursday, May 9, 2019

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

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    BIDEN BEGS DEMOCRATS "CALM DOWN!!!"

    Joe Biden Defends His Record on Climate Change, Tells Critics to ‘Calm Down’
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/14/joe-biden-defends-his-record-on-climate-change-tells-critics-to-calm-down/

    Uncle Joe isn't long for the race.... The hysterical radicals of the Left will eat him alive...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I will be damned if the same politicians who refused to act then are going to try to come back today and say we need to find a middle-of-the-road approach to save our lives."
    -Occasional Cortex

    And SHE knows what she is talking about! Because she said we only have 12 years before the planet is destroyed!!!

    Gods, the fact that ya'all think Occasional Cortex has ANY credibility??

    "Fascinating..."
    -Spock, STAR TREK

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Instead, you throw up your “what-about-isms”

    As opposed to YOUR "whataboutisms" now that you have been thoroughly and utterly DISGRACED on yer Russia Collusion delusion!??

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOITkxy18dY

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    JUST IN: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Tuesday after a meeting with FBI officials that Russian hackers successfully penetrated the election systems of two Florida counties in 2016.

    And then what...

    What did the "hackers" do once they "penetrated" the system???

    Do you have ANY facts that shows what they did??

    No, you do not..

    As usual, you are big on hysteria and fear-mongering..

    And not a SINGLE fact to be found...

    Why is that ALWAYS the case????

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Do you have ANY facts that shows what they did?

    Russian hackers successfully penetrated the election systems of two Florida counties in 2016

    I think that's enough, but I suggest way more investigation. Unlike you, I care.

    But why is this? Suddenly, there isn't a Russian that Republicans don't like. It's weird, like you're all hallucinating.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think

    No, you really don't..

    So, the Russians got a peek at voter lists..

    How does that change a single vote???

    What did they do with it once they hacked it??

    Any FACTS that shows what they did with it??

    No, there aren't.. You NEVER have a single FACT to support your hysterical bullshit claims..

    NEVER... A.... SINGLE..... FACT....

    Yer just another Birther, screaming that the sky is falling..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    China Loses More From This Trade War
    It is vulnerable because it is a much poorer country with more fragile political institutions.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-13/china-loses-more-from-this-trade-war

    As I said.. China needs us more than we need China..

  50. [50] 
    John M wrote:

    [49] Michale

    "China Loses More From This Trade War
    It is vulnerable because it is a much poorer country with more fragile political institutions.

    As I said.. China needs us more than we need China.."

    China has one ace in the hole. Trump faces re-election. Hear that Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota soybean farmers etc.? Xi Jinping does not.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    China has one ace in the hole. Trump faces re-election. Hear that Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota soybean farmers etc.? Xi Jinping does not.

    So, you Democrats will join with a foreign enemy and fight against your own President..

    How is that any different than what you accuse Trump and his supporters of??

    But it's noted that you support China in hurting America to push your Trump/America hating agenda...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Xi Ping were to call you up and say, "I can guarantee that Trump will lose in 2020, but you have to collude with my government to do so.."

    Sounds like you would take Xi up on the offer..

    Which is no different than what you accuse Trump and Trump supporters of doing...

    Noted....

  53. [53] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    Re: "Russian hackers penetrated some Florida voter lists . . ."

    I've heard that they used to scour American telephone directories before everybody got cellphones. Think how scary that is!!

    If you still have a landline, and you get a call from a guy with a Russian accent telling you the manufacturer's warranty on your Toyota has expired, and you should renew it with him, I'm betting that's really a coded message to vote for Trump in 2020!

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    39

    I like the way you think!

    And it’s funny that you are now commenting how mean and hateful everyone who disagrees with you are — one of Trumps bad habits.

    I know, right!? What kind of moron would spend an inordinate amount of time on a board full of majority Democrats telling them over and over how hateful they are while spewing his hate toward them in every comment box? Self-awareness is indeed not his strong suit, and projection is his daily hallmark.

    You are such a fanboi!

    That was such a nice way of calling Michale a "Trump Hump"... which he demonstrably and indubitably happens to be. :)

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've heard that they used to scour American telephone directories before everybody got cellphones. Think how scary that is!!

    If you still have a landline, and you get a call from a guy with a Russian accent telling you the manufacturer's warranty on your Toyota has expired, and you should renew it with him, I'm betting that's really a coded message to vote for Trump in 2020!

    Heheheheheheh

    These guys are COMICAL in their hysterical Trump/America hatred, eh? :^D

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    These guys are COMICAL in their hysterical Trump/America hatred, eh? :^D

    Hatred? Nope. How many times do I have to inform you that hatred requires passion, and Trump ain't worth?

    Pity? Of course. It's always sad to watch the rubes bent over by the con artist who sold out the United States.

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]