ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Trump's Immigration Hypocrisy

[ Posted Friday, May 17th, 2019 – 17:23 UTC ]

It's been yet another week of life so bizarre it'd be hard to even imagine it as satirical art. Who would best be able to capture the lunacy and doublethink emanating from Trump's White House? Joseph Heller? George Orwell? Douglas Adams? Or perhaps Dr. Seuss? In other words, just another glorious week in Trumpland, folks.

The highlights (or lowlights, really) of this lunacy came during Trump's rollout of his brand-new immigration policy proposal. In the future, Trump announced, the United States should give much greater weight to skilled immigrants and much less weight to family ties in deciding who will be allowed in. Under a normal president -- even a normal Republican president -- this would be par for the course. With Trump, however, we have to consider not the par but the course itself.

Donald Trump owns a bunch of golf courses here in America. He runs these golf courses using various forms of labor. Up until very recently, he relied on workers who were undocumented (or, as Republicans so charmingly call them, "illegals"). When this practice came to light in the media, all of these folks were hastily fired. But even beyond the illegal labor force, Trump also relies heavily on a visa used specifically for seasonal workers to hire foreigners as maids and other low-skilled labor to run his hotels and golf courses. His organization snaps up as many of these visas as they can each year, so that they can hire temporary summer help from other countries, rather than hire Americans to do the same jobs -- even though these are not high-skilled jobs. So much for all his talk about hiring Americans, eh?

That's a whole lot of hypocrisy, right there. But things got really surreal when he sent out (you can't make this stuff up, folks) his own son-in-law to make the case that people should be rated not on their family connections but rather on their actual skills. Seriously. His own son-in-law made the case that family connections should not be a consideration.

Maybe Jared Kushner is so skilled in his job that he was the best choice available? That would really be the only counterargument to make. Well, let's see how it all played out, shall we?

President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, faced pointed questions about his plan to overhaul the immigration system in a closed-door meeting with Republican senators Tuesday -- and failed to offer solutions to some key concerns, according to GOP officials who cast doubt on the viability of the proposal.

Publicly, senators emerged from their weekly Capitol Hill luncheon applauding the White House senior adviser's pitch to move U.S. immigration toward a merit-based system that prioritizes highly skilled workers, a task he undertook at Trump's behest.

But privately, Republican officials said Kushner did not have clear answers to some questions from the friendly audience, prompting Trump's other senior adviser, Stephen Miller, to interrupt at times and take over the conversation.

. . .

But some GOP senators left the meeting wondering whether Kushner understood the issue, the GOP officials said. Though some appreciated his efforts, they did not think his plan would advance anytime soon. No senator has stepped forward yet to turn Kushner's plan into legislation.

"He's in his own little world," said one individual familiar with the discussion in the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely describe the session. "He didn't give many details about what was in [his plan].... And there were a number of instances where people had to step in and answer questions because he couldn't."

. . .

The GOP officials said Kushner also appeared to struggle to answer Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who asked how the plan would deal with undocumented immigrants already in the country. The administration official said Cornyn instead offered praise for the plan. A spokesman for Cornyn declined to comment on the private meeting.

At times, Miller jumped in to assist Kushner, especially on questions about how the plan would deal with low-skilled workers. "Miller interrupted him a lot," the individual said.

The article also made a tangential point as well:

Kushner also has tried to produce a peace plan for the Middle East after decades of fighting by inserting himself into the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those talks have broken down, however.

So, nothing to worry about there! But let's get back to Donald Trump's flaming hypocrisy on immigration. Trump has long railed against using family ties as a basis for legal immigration, calling it "chain migration," where one family member makes it in and then sponsors all their other relatives to come in legally as well. But please remember, Trump's own wife is an immigrant. And he certainly didn't seem to object any when she used her new status as his wife to sponsor her own parents to get green cards. That's right -- Trump's own in-laws used the same "chain migration" to get in that Trump's new policy is attacking.

So, to review: Trump used to use undocumented immigrants as workers at his golf courses and hotels. Trump continues to use visas to give unskilled jobs to foreigners rather than hire Americans. Trump's own family has used "chain migration" to get in to America legally. And now he wants to change all that -- for everybody else, assumably. He wants only skilled immigrants not relying on family ties to be allowed in. This is why the whole scenario is worthy of Joseph Heller.

Thankfully, even Republicans are balking at doing anything towards achieving Trump's goals. Nancy Pelosi helpfully categorized his big new proposal as a "dead-on-arrival plan that is not remotely a serious proposal."

But getting back to Republican lunacy (and Joseph Heller), we have to preface this next item with the definitive excerpt from the novel Catch-22.

Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another approach. "Is Orr crazy?"

"He sure is," Doc Daneeka said.

"Can you ground him?"

"I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That's part of the rule."

"Then why doesn't he ask you to?"

"Because he's crazy," Doc Daneeka said. "He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to."

"That's all he has to do to be grounded?"

"That's all. Let him ask me."

"And then you can ground him?" Yossarian asked.

"No. Then I can't ground him."

"You mean there's a catch?"

"Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

This is a necessary reminder, because this week the state of Alabama passed a law which (are you sitting down?) makes all abortion illegal except for an abortion performed on a woman who doesn't know she is pregnant. That is exactly how one of the bill's sponsors explained it:

[Under the new policy] anything that's available today is still available up until that woman knows she's pregnant. So there is a window of time, some say seven days, some say ten. There is a window of time that every option that's on the table now is still available. […]

So she has to take a pregnancy test, she has to do something to know whether she is pregnant or not. You can't know that immediately. It takes some time for all those chromosomes and all that that you mentioned. It doesn't happen immediately.

Got that? When you ignore the "all those chromosomes" idiocy, it boils down to: if a woman doesn't know she is pregnant, she is free to have an abortion. If, however, she finds out she is pregnant, she cannot have an abortion.

Catch-22. Welcome to Alabama.

Alabama's new law is so extreme -- no exceptions for rape or incest at all -- that even people like Pat Robertson and the Republican leader in the House of Representatives are saying it goes too far. But that didn't deter the governor from signing the new law, which was quite obviously designed to entice the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. And with Justice Fratboy now on the court, anything is possible.

But let's move on to a more cheerful subject concerning the number 22. Or is it 23? Or maybe even 24?

This confusion is rampant in the media, as nobody's really sure what the total should be when discussing the Democratic 2020 presidential field. It all depends on who you count as a "serious" candidate, after all. There are really only three or four candidates who regularly get excluded from the totals, two for being non-politicians and one for running a vanity campaign.

Mike Gravel is running for president, kind of, but he's often the first guy people exclude when they're counting heads. But he may actually qualify for the first debates, which would pretty much argue for his inclusion in the list. The other two are not politicians currently, but then again neither was Donald Trump, right? Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson are often omitted from the totals of all the Democrats running, even though both have either raised enough money from enough sources (Williamson) or done well enough in the national polls (Yang) to also be included in the first debates.

The last guy who sometimes doesn't make the cut is Wayne Messam, who is a mayor from Florida. His fundraising numbers are the lowest of anyone's, and he does not register at all in the polls. So he really should be the first to be dropped from the "serious candidates" list, even though he often is included anyway (probably because Pete Buttigieg, another mayor, is doing so well).

We personally include everyone. This week, we had (hopefully) the last two candidates throw their hats in the increasingly-crowded ring, Steve Bullock and Bill de Blasio. Counting everyone -- Gravel, Yang, Williamson, and Messam -- this gives us 24 candidates currently running. But we are even more inclusive than that, as we set the absolute total Democratic field at 25 candidates. The one everyone else always misses is Richard Ojeda, who was the first candidate to officially drop out. But he was running at one point, so in any total of the whole field, he really should be counted as well. As we wrote earlier in the week, the question that is going to loom the largest over the Democratic race over the next few weeks is who will wind up debating whom in the first round of debates? The draw is going to be crucial.

Let's see, what else is going on? Trump is now apparently going to ask for another $20 billion (on top of the $12 billion already spent) to bail out all the farmers hit hard by his new tariffs -- or, to speak plainly, taxes. So how is that playing with his fellow Republicans? Let's check in with Senator Pat Toomey:

Think about what we're doing. We're inviting this retaliation that denies our farmers... the opportunity to sell their products overseas, and then we say, "Don't worry, we'll have taxpayers send you some checks and make it okay." That's a very bad approach.

Not exactly a rousing endorsement of the new plan, is it? Oh, and this program that is supposed to be helping American farmers apparently sent over $20 million in American taxpayer money to a pair of Brazilian brothers who have confessed their participation in a "massive corruption scandal." Nothing like putting America first!

This week, the first federal court case from Trump's stonewalling and obstructionism went before a judge, as Trump is suing to block the subpoena of his accounting firm. The official White House legal strategy (in this and multiple other court cases) is that because they have determined that Congress "has no legitimate legislative purpose" in investigating the president, then the president is free to ignore all their demands, requests, and subpoenas. The first judge to hear such a case was highly skeptical of such reasoning, and his decision is expected fairly soon, so we've got that to look forward to.

Something that we regularly look forward to is in the process of being completely ruined by Trump, however, as he's apparently now micromanaging what will happen in Washington D.C. on July Fourth, to (naturally) shoehorn himself into the arrangements. Back in February, Trump was roundly ridiculed for tweeting:

HOLD THE DATE! We will be having one of the biggest gatherings in the history of Washington, D.C., on July 4th. It will be called "A Salute To America" and will be held at the Lincoln Memorial. Major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me!

Hold the date? Really? Is Trump honestly that stupid? Well, it appears so -- he's now mucking with a celebration that has successfully used essentially the same format for a number of decades, in an attempt to turn it into a campaign rally. Trump was denied his big military parade, so this is apparently his revenge. Or something. One can only hope a whole bunch of protestors show up to his speech!

And we have to end on just as surreal a note as we began, because apparently -- for some unfathomable reason -- Gene Simmons appeared recently at the Pentagon briefing podium. Um, to explain what the Kiss Army is doing these days? We really are at a loss to even begin to explain this one. Maybe Joseph Heller or Douglas Adams could do so, but we find it beyond our humble abilities.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We've got two Honorable Mention awards to hand out this week, as well as two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week statuettes to boot, so let's just dive right in, shall we?

First some recognition must be given to all the House Democrats who participated in a marathon reading of all 400-plus pages of the Mueller Report on the House floor this week. It was a political stunt, although it didn't draw much media attention, but it certainly took an impressive amount of stamina to produce.

Next, another Honorable Mention goes to Senator Elizabeth Warren, for her scathing takedown of Fox News, as she announced she would not appear for a town hall hosted by the channel. Her entire Twitter thread on the subject is well worth reading, but the one quote that really made a splash was when Warren called Fox News a "hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists." Tell us how you really feel, Liz!

Warren also deserves credit for goading Congress to act on abortion rights. She is entirely right -- Democrats in Congress could have fended off a whole lot of the current legal challenges to Roe if they had acted thirty years ago or so, when the right wing really began this legislative onslaught. But it's still not too late, as Warren points out:

"Court challenges will continue. And the next President can begin to undo some of the damage by appointing neutral and fair judges who actually respect the law and cases like Roe instead of right-wing ideologues bent on rolling back constitutional rights," Warren wrote. "But separate from these judicial fights, Congress has a role to play as well."

. . .

The senator said Congress must create federal, statutory rights that parallel Roe v. Wade's constitutional rights. These rights would include barring states from interfering in a provider's ability to offer medical care or blocking patients' access to such care, including abortions. This would invalidate state laws like those in Alabama, Georgia and Ohio.

Warren also proposed that Congress pass laws to preempt states' efforts to limit reproductive health care in ways that don't necessarily violate Roe v. Wade. Such efforts include restrictions on medication abortion and geographical and procedural requirements that make it nearly impossible for a woman to get an abortion.

These weren't the only specific things Warren proposed Congress fix, she had a whole laundry list of them. She concluded by throwing down a rather large gauntlet:

"This is a dark moment. People are scared and angry. And they are right to be," Warren wrote. "But this isn't a moment to back down -- it's time to fight back."

But we have two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards, both for successfully moving good legislation. First up is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who has been busy passing important bills out of her chamber this week. The first addressed a problem that Democrats really should have taken care of a long time ago, say when they held both chambers of Congress and had Barack Obama in the White House. Just because gay people can now get married everywhere, they still face legal persecution in multiple states. The Equality Act would fix this by amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act that bars such discrimination on the basis of things like race and ethnicity.

The House passed sweeping legislation Friday to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity after an emotional debate that underscored the divide between the two parties.

Democrats cast the decades-in-the-making move to change the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a historic step to extend protections to LGBTQ Americans, with several gay and bisexual lawmakers emphasizing the need for the bill called the Equality Act.

. . .

The bill would prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, education, jury service and federal financing, protecting people from being fired or harassed for their sexuality or gender identity.

As Democrats cheered and applauded, the bill passed 236-to-173, with eight Republicans breaking ranks and joining all Democrats in backing the measure. It is unlikely to get a vote in the Republican-led Senate, and the White House has signaled President Trump would veto the measure if it ever reached his desk.

The Trump administration has taken several steps to roll back or limit rights for LGBTQ people, most notably Trump's broad restriction on transgender people serving in the military.

Despite a sea change in the past decade in public opinion regarding gay rights and the legalization of same-sex marriage nationally, 30 states have no laws protecting people, and proponents argued that the measure would create a national standard.

Pelosi has also been on a roll on the subject of healthcare. A lot of Democrats in the House got elected on promises to improve healthcare rather than the continued push from Republicans to destroy Obamacare, and this week was the culmination of the legislative efforts to do so.

House Democrats pushed through legislation Thursday to lower prescription drug prices, strengthen the Affordable Care Act and -- most significantly -- position themselves as the party on the side of health-care consumers as the 2020 election approaches.

The 234-to-183 vote, with every Democrat and five Republicans casting ballots in favor, gave a partisan hue even to three strategies to boost the availability of generic drugs that initially attracted GOP support. Those were merged, however, with measures that would block several Trump administration policies that Democrats characterize as "sabotaging" the ACA.

Both Pelosi and her Senate counterpart Minority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated strongly that Democrats would be using this issue against sitting Republican senators in next year's election:

"I have some news for the distinguished leader in the Senate, the Republican leader," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "The support for these bills is alive and well among the American people. He will be hearing from them because these bills are a matter of life and death and certainly quality of life for America's working families."

. . .

"Across the country, Americans are worried about rising costs, declining quality.... Nothing, nothing, nothing bothers people more than that," said Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). There has been a relentless campaign of sabotage by the Trump administration to deny people health care.... But the Republican-led Senate -- no movement, nothing, no debate, no legislation, no votes."

While the media is obsessed with impeachment and the 2020 Democratic presidential horserace, Pelosi has very quietly been passing bill after bill, constructing the 2020 Democratic platform for all the party's candidates. Democrats everywhere will be able to run on: "Look at this list of good legislation the House has passed -- the only way these things are going to happen is with a Democratic Senate and a Democrat in the White House!"

Which brings us to our second Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week, Washington Governor Jay Inslee, who is also running for president. This week, in his day job, he signed into law the first-in-the-nation "public option" for health insurance. Right there on the Obamacare exchange with all the private insurance plans will soon be (in 2021) a public option plan to compare them all to. Since it is only state-level and not national, it will not be called "Medicare" but that's essentially how it will function -- as "Medicare For All Who Want It." We wrote about this earlier in the week, in case anyone's interested in our further thoughts on the subject, but we have to applaud Jay Inslee for his state's bold and pioneering action with his very own Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. In the very near future, we'll all have some solid data to analyze in this ongoing debate. No matter what the data winds up telling us, the fact that Inslee is making it happen is indeed impressive.

[Congratulate Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on her House contact page, and Washington Governor Jay Inslee on his official state contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week isn't on the list because of anything in particular he did this week, it's more of a "just because we heard his name in the news again" award. Because we have to warn mothers and fathers to beware -- and lock up your daughters! -- now that Carlos Danger is on the loose once again.

That's right -- Anthony Weiner is now out of jail. Which means we were reminded once again of what a complete schmuck the guy is:

Weiner was sentenced in September 2017 to 21 months in federal prison over the sexting scandal and began serving his time in November of that year. He was released early in February of this year due to good behavior and transferred from a federal prison in Massachusetts to a halfway house in the Bronx. Altogether, he served 18 months of his sentence.

After serving nearly 12 years in Congress, Weiner resigned from the House of Representatives in 2011 when he was caught exchanging sexually explicit photos with women via social media.

He relaunched his career in 2013 with a run for New York City mayor but was caught sexting a 23-year-old woman under the alias "Carlos Danger" and lost the Democratic primary.

Weiner then became the subject of a federal investigation in 2016 following a report that he was sending sexually explicit photos to an underage girl. In addition to landing him in prison, that investigation led authorities to search his personal computer and find work emails from his then-wife, Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton. The discovery prompted then-FBI Director James Comey to reopen the investigation into Clinton's private email server in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign.

This wasn't some stupid scandal that had no real wider fallout, in other words. If Señor Danger had kept his (ahem) wiener in his pants, then Hillary Clinton might just have managed to surpass the whole F.B.I. emails scandal. But when Weiner was arrested, it blew up all over again -- right before the election. Meaning you could conceivably pin most of the blame for President Donald Trump directly on Weiner.

Which is why we're giving him yet another Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, just because.

[We have no contact information for Anthony "Carlos Danger" Weiner, but if his past is any prelude, it'd be best if you don't start an email or texting thread with him anyway. We're just sayin'....]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 527 (5/17/19)

The talking points are all over the map this week, since there was so much lunacy and idiocy emanating from Washington (and beyond). So without further ado, let's get right to them.

 

1
   Alabama getaway

Democrats need to point out idiocy when they see it, as a general rule.

"The state of Alabama has just made pretty much all abortion illegal, with a jail sentence of up to 99 years for a doctor who performs one. This is just the worst example of the ongoing Republican war on women, as they try to roll back women's reproductive rights in state after state. For decades, voters have been fairly confident that Roe v. Wade was secure, but as we can all now see, that just isn't so any more. One Republican sponsor of the Alabama bill helpfully explained that women would be free to get abortions right up to the moment when they realize they are pregnant. Just stop for a moment and think about such idiocy. What is an Alabama woman supposed to do? Walk into an abortion clinic every few weeks and demand to have an abortion because she has no idea whether she's pregnant or not? That is absolute insanity! And yet that's exactly what Republicans think should happen, apparently. Doc Daneeka and Yossarian would be so proud...."

 

2
   A merit-based son-in-law

Hypocrisy, thy name is Trump. Oh, and Kushner, too.

"Trump announced his new immigration policy proposal this week. Even though he personally profits from hiring undocumented immigrants on his golf courses, and even though he hires maids and other menial workers at his resorts from foreign countries rather than hiring Americans, he is now only for high-skilled immigrants being allowed in to the country. He wants a purely merit-based system, even though his wife is an immigrant who got her citizenship through their marriage. And even though her parents came in after Melania sponsored them, Trump is against what he calls 'chain migration.' And -- the most hilarious hypocrisy of them all -- he sent as his ambassador to Congress, to explain this merit-based system that would no longer take into account family ties, none other than his own son-in-law. Who couldn't even answer basic questions about the new policy from friendly Republican senators. I guess you've got to give Trump points for chutzpah, since he's obviously convinced everyone should just do as he says, not as he himself does."

 

3
   A Trump-made disaster

They left themselves wide open to this one.

"Last year, Donald Trump had to shovel a whopping $12 billion in U.S. taxpayer money at farmers to bail them out from his disastrous trade war with China. His tariffs -- which are nothing short of one of the largest tax increases on the American public ever instituted -- continue to make life hard for farmers, it seems. Nobody else affected by his new taxes got such welfare from the government, though, and even the farmers weren't treated evenhandedly. Last week, Trump indicated that he would need $15 billion in taxpayer money to hand over for free to farmers desolated by his trade policy. This week, though, that figure had somehow climbed to a jaw-dropping $20 billion. The most ironic aspect of this spiral of idiocy, though, was when the White House tried to get the Republican Senate to add the farmers' bailout money to a disaster relief bill. Think about that for a second -- a bill designed to offer relief to those affected by natural disasters would also be used to offer relief to those affected by an economic disaster of the president's own making. It is nothing short of a Trump-made disaster, folks. By even suggesting that the funding be attached to this bill, Trump is essentially admitting that his China trade war is nothing short of a full-scale disaster. I can't really argue with that, myself."

 

4
   Turning Michigan blue again

So let's see how it's playing in Peoria. Or, more to the point, Kalamazoo.

"Donald Trump is convinced that his trade war with China is going to somehow win him re-election. Well, let's see... in a state that Trump won by a bare 10,700 votes (out of 5 million cast), how are the new Trump taxes going over? Here is Michigan Agri-Business Association president Jim Byrum, on the new round of tit-for-tat tariffs between Trump and China: 'The noose is getting tighter. The new Chinese tariffs [are] going to hurt even more.' That's from a farm trade organization, representing a whole bunch of people who voted for Trump. Farmers are going bankrupt in record numbers as a direct result of Trump's trade war, so it's really not all that surprising to hear that some of them have had enough. Think Trump has a shot at winning Michigan again? If he's still in a trade war with China, I seriously doubt it...."

 

5
   Walmart announces bad news for other Trump voters

This was inevitable, and it is now coming to pass.

"So, let's check the business pages to see how Trump's trade war is playing elsewhere, shall we? Reuters reported on two large retailers who just announced that they'll be hiking prices on their customers due to the new Trump tax:

Walmart called out the impact of tariffs on consumers after Macy's Inc delivered a similar warning on Wednesday. The department store chain's Chief Executive Jeff Gennette said tariffs on Chinese imports are hitting its furniture business and warned investors that additional levies would leave its clothing and accessory categories vulnerable.

They certainly won't be the only such stores forced to raise prices. No matter how many times Trump swears that China will be paying all the tariffs, his own economic advisor even had to admit last week that these taxes will instead be paid by you and me -- American consumers."

 

6
   The Bible says so....

This one was pretty funny, in a "what's good for the goose" kind of way. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted this week in support of the bill that she and Bernie Sanders have introduced in Congress that would cap all credit card interest rates at 15 percent. This is a real winner of an idea, but Ocasio-Cortez took it to a new level by challenging one particular group to get behind the effort, in a pair of tweets:

Usury - aka high interest - happens to be explicitly denounced in the Bible (& in many other religions).

Looking forward to having the religious right uphold their principles + sign onto my bill. ????

Unless of course they're only invoking religion to punish women + queer people.

But if Mitch McConnell wants to actually use religious principles for good + reinstate usury laws, he's more than welcome

 

7
   Speaking of tweets

This is sort of a reverse-talking point. If I were a Democrat who wanted to speak out against the rising aggressive moves Trump (or Bolton) is taking against Iran, I'd print the following out and keep it handy, just in case the subject came up. All of these are tweets that Donald Trump let fly back in the midst of the 2012 presidential race. And, obviously, it's time to throw them back in his face.

In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.

Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.

Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans!

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

256 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Trump's Immigration Hypocrisy”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just as important as legislation for a public option in health insurance is Governor Inslee's comprehensive plan for combating climate change he introduced this week.

    Biden should just sign on to it.

  2. [2] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re: TP6

    Here's an interesting sidelight on the usury theme. Sanders and OAC ae trying to get legislation passed to cap the interest rate on credit cards accounts at 15%.

    For the few here who have any grasp of basic economics, the interest rate is, by definition, the 'price' of borrowed money.

    Kick assures us that there are numerous local (state and city) laws against "price gouging". That fact begs the question, why are lenders who loan money at 'usurious' interest rates never prosecuted for "price gouging"?

    Could it possibly be that it's one of those things akin to getting "dirt" on your political opponent from Russians? Kick has PROMISED us repeatedly that getting "dirt" from Russians is definitely illegal because it's a "thing of value", but Mueller and associates don't seem convinced by her argument.

    That's SO sad because it has left Kick and a few of her unpenised buddies with terminal cases of PTSD!!

    P.S. Liz M, don't even bother to tell me that you tenderhearts don't believe this post "adds to the kindness level of the blog", etc. I've already assumed you would feel thusly.

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i really do hope that something is done to regulate prescription drug prices, especially for those drugs that are "captive markets." just last week my wife and i personally experienced the effects of the epi-pen saga, when we found out that like myself, our son is probably allergic to dairy. it is very scary that people's lives can be ransomed by drug companies who decide to arbitrarily raise their prices or suspiciously limit supply. i'm well aware of the risks inherent in price controls, but this is not baseball cards we're talking about, it's the well-being of our children.

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Democrats everywhere will be able to run on: "Look at this list of good legislation the house has passed- the only way these things are going to happen is with a Democratic Senate and a Democrat in the White House.""

    They can run on it. They can say it. They might even get away with it as long as the people in the media that are supposed to expose such lies fail to do so and even pass out awards to the perpetrators of the lies.

    I mean, who writes nonsensical shit like that?

    Oh yeah- you do.

    Why?

    It seems a bit hypocritical to write aboot Trump's hypocrisy when you claim to present a reality based blog and then make claims of aboot the Democrats empty promises as though it were reality.

    What is wrong with you?

    The only way any thing even resembling good legislation will ever be passed is when the legislators are small donor legislators that will represent ordinary citizens and not the big money interests that both the big money Republicans and big money Democrats (which includes Pelosi) represent.

    That is reality.

    To use the Alabama example as a guide:

    The big money Democrats will promises/pass anything right up until the moment when they gain control of the House, Senate and presidency.

    Wake up to reality and start doing your job to expose the lie.

    And then inform citizens what they can do to fight back.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seeing ya'all complain about Trump hypocrisy without acknowledging the "scathing" hypocrisy coming from the Democrats is the epitome of hypocrisy, eh??

    "The state of Alabama has just made pretty much all abortion illegal, with a jail sentence of up to 99 years for a doctor who performs one. This is just the worst example of the ongoing Republican war on women, as they try to roll back women's reproductive rights in state after state. For decades, voters have been fairly confident that Roe v. Wade was secure, but as we can all now see, that just isn't so any more. One Republican sponsor of the Alabama bill helpfully explained that women would be free to get abortions right up to the moment when they realize they are pregnant. Just stop for a moment and think about such idiocy. What is an Alabama woman supposed to do? Walk into an abortion clinic every few weeks and demand to have an abortion because she has no idea whether she's pregnant or not? That is absolute insanity! And yet that's exactly what Republicans think should happen, apparently. Doc Daneeka and Yossarian would be so proud...."

    And yet, Democrats feel it is important to make laws that allow the killing of babies EVEN AFTER BIRTH!!!

    Ya'all are definitely on the losing side of this debate, morally and ethically..

    I mean, look at what you are defending. A woman's "rights" do not extend to the right to murder their unwanted children..

    Is THAT the right ya'all are defending??

    "We have the right....!!"
    "...To wage war, Captain? To kill millions of innocent people? To destroy life on a planetary scale? Is that what you're defending?"

    -STAR TREK, Errand Of Mercy

    The Democrat Party = The Party of Easy Baby Killing because it's just so darn inconvenient to have a child...

    #sad

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller’s House testimony likely off until at least June

    House Democrats are backing away from plans to hold a blockbuster hearing this month with Robert Mueller after talks stalled out with the special counsel and his representatives.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/17/mueller-testimony-june-1331704

    Heh...

    Mueller told Dumbocrats to go pound sand.. :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's got US economy booming, Bill Maher admits in exchange with 2020 Dem: 'We can't ignore that fact'
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/maher-makes-rare-defense-of-trump-in-heated-clash-with-rep-tim-ryan-on-economy

    Even Bill Maher acknowledges President Trump's role in the booming economy!!!

    It's hilarious how Odumbo and his disciples claimed that a booming economy is impossible, how a high GDP is impossible, how getting those jobs back is impossible..

    When President Trump goes and does it, NOW Odumbo and his fanatical fanbois want to take credit for it..

    #sad
    #pathetic

  8. [8] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Great Piece of writing. I particularly like the use of Heller. Captures the idiocy of the moment.

    Maher tonight made the same point about Trump's Taxes (tariffs). Calling them the "Trump Tax" drives home the point that there has never been such a widespread or regressive tax on so many folks before.

    There you go Mike, wanna quote Maher? Quote that.

    And in case you missed it:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/02/13/6-reasons-trump-did-not-inherit-a-mess-from-obama

    Finally, Republicants have no idea what they've stirred up with the Abortion thing. Talked just last night with 2 women who were Trump voters. Not any more. Guess why?

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    There is an instructive lesson from Turkey going on at the moment.

    Their "strong man", Ergodan, has been accused of propping up the Lira by releasing central reserves via an undocumented back door to Turkish banks to buy dollars. This, it is claimed, is a desperate attempt to keep the economy going until the rerun of the Istanbul mayoral election in late June.

    Ankara is starting down the path of the Venezuelan "strong man" tactics that have brought complete collapse.

    Our "strong man" is also ripping off the common person via import taxes (he calls them, with pride no less, tariffs) and is also using central reserves to prop up parts of the economy that are failing (in particular, farmers).

    The age of the "strong man" is coming to an end. The World is learning, or rather, re-learning the lessons of the 1930's again, this time (at least I hope) without having to resort to war (although you can see that Iran is in the cross hairs of our buffoon).

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, so I'm behind Trump's attempt to alter our immigration policies to favor skilled labor. This just makes sense to me, and is a policy that is common in many other countries, for example, Canada, see: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/canadas-immigration-policy

    Like Canada, I think we should prioritize skilled immigrants over unskilled. We should also identify the top refugee crises around the World (e.g. Central America, Yemen, Syria) and prioritize those, regardless of skill. Lastly, we should prioritize family reunification, but only for spouses (including same sex) and children under 18. Melania's parents need not apply.

    Regardless of Trump's obvious venality in this arena, if he proposes a Canadian-like immigration policy, he has my support.

    The outstanding issue is illegal immigrants. I'm not going to say "undocumented" because that is a cop out. In other advanced countries, illegal immigrants are punished by returning them to their countries of origin.

    There are two classes of illegal immigrants, in my opinion. The first are those that have no ties to their "native" country. For example, somebody who was brought here as a three-year-old and is now in their twenties. For these people I advocate assimilation, as for all purposes, they are functionally Americans and at no point knowingly broke our immigration laws.

    For people who have ties to their home countries I think they should be sent home. I came to America legally thirty years ago, but if I had to go back to the U.K. I could fit back into society. I'd not be as rich as I am here probably, but I'd be on par with my fellow countrymen. One thing you can see this in many immigrant communities is the maintenance of ties to their home country - I still follow U.K. sports more than U.S. sports, know what is happening to the U.K. politically (they are acting like idiots) and keep up culturally with British TV shows (Fleabag is marvelous!). I contend I'm not the exception, but rather the norm.

    I do, however, object to the vilification of illegal immigrants for political purposes, and find the current Republican blood-lust disgusting.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    There you go Mike, wanna quote Maher? Quote that.

    *I* don't quote Maher much at all.

    So, Maher is right about Trump being responsible for the great economy??

    OK, great... Now yer starting to accept reality...

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Alabama's comical attempt to eliminate abortion for poor people (the rich ones, including most "religious" and Republicans will just fly for a "vacation" to California or New York) should be seen as a way of convincing the Religious Right that the ends justify the means.

    The stupidity, venality, and economic harm being inflicted by Trump's policies can be ignored by the glee the losers get from hearing the screams of indignation from the "enemy" (i.e. the economically successful coastal states).

    The law is so stupid it can't be taken as serious policy.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, so I'm behind Trump's attempt to alter our immigration policies to favor skilled labor.

    So, President Trump is doing something you approve of!!????

    OK, Who the hell are you and what have you done with Neil!!!!???

    The outstanding issue is illegal immigrants. I'm not going to say "undocumented" because that is a cop out. In other advanced countries, illegal immigrants are punished by returning them to their countries of origin.

    There are two classes of illegal immigrants, in my opinion. The first are those that have no ties to their "native" country. For example, somebody who was brought here as a three-year-old and is now in their twenties. For these people I advocate assimilation, as for all purposes, they are functionally Americans and at no point knowingly broke our immigration laws.

    For people who have ties to their home countries I think they should be sent home. I came to America legally thirty years ago, but if I had to go back to the U.K. I could fit back into society. I'd not be as rich as I am here probably, but I'd be on par with my fellow countrymen. One thing you can see this in many immigrant communities is the maintenance of ties to their home country - I still follow U.K. sports more than U.S. sports, know what is happening to the U.K. politically (they are acting like idiots) and keep up culturally with British TV shows (Fleabag is marvelous!). I contend I'm not the exception, but rather the norm.

    Oh who cares where the old Neil is!!

    I like this new Neil!!!! :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    (i.e. the economically successful coastal states).

    BBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    California is a Sinkhole State without enough assets to cover its debt. California only has $100.1 billion of assets available to pay bills totaling $369.9 billion. Because California doesn't have enough money to pay its bills, it has a $269.9 billion financial hole.
    https://www.statedatalab.org/state_data_and_comparisons/detail/california

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, Maher is right about Trump being responsible for the great economy??

    Yeah, about that, it turns out that states run by Democrats are doing well and those run by Republicans are struggling, with the exception of petro-states, where both sides are booming due to the recent technological advances.

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    California is running a budget surplus.

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    Texas earns a "D" grade for its finances:

    https://www.statedatalab.org/state_data_and_comparisons/detail/texas

    (Note Michale, this is the same source you used.)

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:
  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    State Data Lab isn't really being honest in its analysis. It is taking a snapshot of the current balance sheet, but not looking at the ability to grow.

    Let's take two people, one person is a poor farmer in Africa who has no debt, but has a home built house on a small farm he owns that generates enough wealth to just feed his family at near starvation levels. His kids need to help on the farm and at best get a primary level education.

    This farmer has a net worth of let's estimate $1,000.

    On the other side, let's look at a recently graduated medical student who is earning $50,000/year as an intern, and has student debt of $250,000 - net Worth negative $250,000.

    Which would you rather be?

    California has the ability to generate more wealth than any other nation with the exception of the U.S. (because it is part of it) or maybe 4-5 other countries. Its unfunded pensions are a political problem that will be solved using the same tools that Illinois and New Jersey will be forced to make. This will likely be a re-evaluation of pension levels (i.e. no $300K/year pensions for police chiefs who have gamed the system, etc.), increased participation from current state employees, and sales taxes on the population. The alternative is Kansas under Brownback.

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    In the end, the bond market rules the World. Turkey is about to collapse economically because the bond market is pricing more risk into their lending due to the bad policies of Ergodan.

    The bond market will punish profligate states if they can't show that they can raise enough taxes to maintain somewhat sensible cash flow.

    The only entity on the planet the bond market can't punish is the U.S. because we can print the World's reserve currency. That only lasts as long as everybody keeps buying in to the belief that the dollar is stable. That is not guaranteed, and Trump's $1T deficit is chipping away at this confidence.

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Something that we regularly look forward to is in the process of being completely ruined by Trump, however, as he's apparently now micromanaging what will happen in Washington D.C. on July Fourth, to (naturally) shoehorn himself into the arrangements.

    Nixon and his ilk did the same thing back in the 1970s... calling it the "Honor America Day." Nixon had expanded the Vietnam War by invading Cambodia, and antiwar demonstrations were breaking out all over the United States, most notably a protest where students had been killed at Kent State.

    Back in February, Trump was roundly ridiculed for tweeting:

    HOLD THE DATE! We will be having one of the biggest gatherings in the history of Washington, D.C., on July 4th. It will be called "A Salute To America" and will be held at the Lincoln Memorial. Major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me!

    It was announced as "the biggest celebration in America's history." Trump is just determined to dance to Nixon's tune, and I would wager he's completely unaware.

    Plans called for Reverend Billy Graham to lead a religious service from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in the morning, and then for Bob Hope to emcee an all-star program of music and comedy at the Washington Monument that evening. The entire extravaganza, Hope told reporters, would show the world that “Americans can put aside their differences and rally around the flag to show national unity.”

    Hold the date? Really? Is Trump honestly that stupid?

    Trump is definitely "that stupid" but more dishonestly and in a pathologically lying kind of way.
    I wouldthere is absolutely no honesty involved in Well, it appeSomething that we regularly look forward to is in the process of being completely ruined by Trump, however, as he's apparently now micromanaging what will happen in Washington D.C. on July Fourth, to (naturally) shoehorn himself into the arrangements. Back in February, Trump was roundly ridiculed for tweeting:
    HOLD THE DATE! We will be having one of the biggest gatherings in the history of Washington, D.C., on July 4th. It will be called "A Salute To America" and will be held at the Lincoln Memorial. Major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me!
    Hold Something that we regularly look forward to is in the process of being completely ruined by Trump, however, as he's apparently now micromanaging what will happen in Washington D.C. on July Fourth, to (naturally) shoehorn himself into the arrangements. Back in February, Trump was roundly ridiculed for tweeting:
    HOLD THE DATE! We will be having one of the biggest gatherings in the history of Washington, D.C., on July 4th. It will be called "A Salute To America" and will be held at the Lincoln Memorial. Major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me!
    Hold the date? Really? Is Trump honestly that stupid? Well, it appears so -- he's now mucking with a celebration that has successfully used essentially the same format for a number of decades, in an attempt to turn it into a campaign rally. Trump was denied his big military parade, so this is apparently his revenge. Or something. One can only hope a whole bunch of protestors show up to his speech!the date? Really? Is Trump honestly that stupid? Well, it appears so -- he's now mucking with a celebration that has successfully used essentially the same format for a number of decades, in an attempt to turn it into a campaign rally. Trump was denied his big military parade, so this is apparently his revenge. Or something. One can only hope a whole bunch of protestors show up to his speech!ars so -- he's now mucking with a celebration that has successfully used essentially the same format for a number of decades, in an attempt to turn it into a campaign rally. Trump was denied his big military parade, so this is apparently his revenge. Or something. One can only hope a whole bunch of protestors show up to his speech!

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Texas earns a "D" grade for its finances:
    Alabama: also a "D" grade:

    (Note Michale, this is the same source you used.)

    I agree with you, Neil..

    "State Data Lab isn't really being honest in its analysis. It is taking a snapshot of the current balance sheet, but not looking at the ability to grow."

    California is a shithole state..

    Cities have to have Poop Patrols to pick up human feces...

    Gas prices are way to high, which won't be a problem because California will be banning combustion engined vehicles soon..

    I would rather live in North Korea than live in California..

    Best thing for California to do is either secede or fall into the ocean..

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    COMPUTER WENT NUTS... DO OVER

    CW: Something that we regularly look forward to is in the process of being completely ruined by Trump, however, as he's apparently now micromanaging what will happen in Washington D.C. on July Fourth, to (naturally) shoehorn himself into the arrangements.

    Nixon and his ilk did the same thing back in the 1970s... calling it the "Honor America Day." Nixon had expanded the Vietnam War by invading Cambodia, and antiwar demonstrations were breaking out all over the United States, most notably a protest where students had been killed at Kent State.

    Back in February, Trump was roundly ridiculed for tweeting:

    HOLD THE DATE! We will be having one of the biggest gatherings in the history of Washington, D.C., on July 4th. It will be called "A Salute To America" and will be held at the Lincoln Memorial. Major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me!

    Nixon's attempt to hijack the Fourth was announced as "the biggest celebration in America's history." Trump is just determined to dance to Nixon's tune, and I would wager he's completely unaware.

    Plans called for Reverend Billy Graham to lead a religious service from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in the morning, and then for Bob Hope to emcee an all-star program of music and comedy at the Washington Monument that evening. The entire extravaganza, Hope told reporters, would show the world that "Americans can put aside their differences and rally around the flag to show national unity."

    Hold the date? Really? Is Trump honestly that stupid?

    Trump is definitely "that stupid" but more dishonestly and in a pathologically lying kind of way.

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    California is running a budget surplus.

    And, the person responsible for that is Governor Jerry Brown.

    For this reason and many more, I hope Biden chooses Brown for his running mate.

    As for your qualified support for Trump's legal immigration … I hesitate to say 'policy' - I know that doesn't translate into a vote but, for me, I can't get past the outrageous and wholly INCOMPETENT separation of children from their parents that, by the way, has just been reported to be far bigger in terms of numbers of children involved.

    This will be Trump's legacy in my mind. And, it will take an extraordinary administration to succeed Trump to remedy this horrific situation.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You can add 'former' to Governor Brown but his positive impact continues, particularly on the global fight to mitigate the crisis of climate change.

    He knows that there is no middle ground in that fight!

  26. [26] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Neilm

    Re: "I'm not going to say 'undocumented' because that is a cop out."

    Being myself a critic of "the age of the euphemism", I'm pleased (and surprised) to read those wordscoming from you.

    Euphemisms are literally the hallmark of left wing liberalism. "Gay" in place of "Queer" in place of "homosexual". "Special needs" in place of "retarded" in place of "handicapped" or "disabled".

    The obvious problem with euphemisms is, as soon one achieves universal acceptance and common usage, it has to be promptly replaced with a new one, otherwise it risks offending liberal sensibilities.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, California has a budget surplus...

    IF one ignores the trillion dollar under funded pensions..

    So, yea.. California has a budget surplus.. IF you ignore California's debts...

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    2

    Yes, I do live rent free in Stucki's head, and I can report that it is notably devoid of gray matter.

    That's SO sad because it has left Kick and a few of her unpenised buddies with terminal cases of PTSD!!

    Thanks for letting us all know you need attention, Stucki; it must be hard being a lonely old man. :)

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Yea, California has a budget surplus...IF one ignores the trillion dollar under funded pensions..

    Oh, not at all. Budget surpluses can indeed be discussed without specifically talking about the debt situation. They are two different animals, in other words.

    So we can applaud the California budget surplus as a direct result of the visionary policies of its Governor while acknowledging the debt situation.

    Just like we can view the economic policies of a president like Trump without acknowledging the huge amount of debt those same policies have added to the national debt, to say nothing of the deficit.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula (and Kick?),

    Bill Maher said it best Re. Democrats appearing on Fox News better than I ever have.

    He likened Democrats to a resistance having to fight behind enemy lines to win. The Democrats must infiltrate the FoxNews bubble or they can give up the fight.

    It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with "legitimizing" the network.

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the board trolls share the common trait of posting their comments in multiple sentences rather than expressing themselves in paragraph form? Seriously, those who are inclined to troll the author and/or the other posters on the forum can't seem to express themselves in anything but single sentences piled one on top of the other. What's up with that?

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    There is something that you always ignore in any discussion of the current annual growth in the US economy.

    You never acknowledge that the global financial crisis of 2007/08 was handed to the Obama administration of a silver platter.

    You also don't acknowledge that the Obama administration - and by that I mean Treasury Secretary Geithner, of course - saved your country from financial ruin. Yes, the growth coming immediately out of the Great Recession was anemic but it was growth. They turned the economy around in a relatively short period of time.

    By the end of the administration, the economy was on a solid upward trend. Which you also never acknowledge.

    My main point is that the Trump administration inherited an economy that was on the rise. The Obama administration inherited an economy circling the drain. Which is another point you fail to recognize here.

    I thank our collective lucky stars on a near daily basis that the Trump administration wasn't in the position of inheriting an economy circling the drain.

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the board trolls share the common trait of posting their comments in multiple sentences rather than expressing themselves in paragraph form?

    It may be. I don't like reading long paragraphs. I much prefer shorter sentences. And, that goes especially from the gang you refer to. Heh.

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    24

    For this reason and many more, I hope Biden chooses Brown for his running mate.

    If Biden becomes the Democratic nominee, I can assure you now that Jerry Brown will not be his choice for VP. Seriously, if there is a "white guy" regardless of age sitting atop the Democratic ticket in 2020... which actually hasn't happened since 2004... he will likely be choosing a woman of color for his running mate. Think Biden/Abrams or Biden/Harris.

    This will be Trump's legacy in my mind. And, it will take an extraordinary administration to succeed Trump to remedy this horrific situation.

    Yes, ma'am. Here's hoping that Hair Dick Tater Benedict Donald lives long enough to reap what he has sown.

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm aware of the "white guy(s)" argument, Kick.

    I know how Biden thinks, most of the time. I've been following him too, too long.

    Not to toot my own horn BUT, long before Biden said in one of the 2008 debates that he would choose Chuch Hagel for his vice president, I was saying to anyone who would listen that Biden would do just that.

    I would be EXTREMELY surprised if Biden were to choose his running mate from the current crop of Democratic candidates with the possible exception of Governor Jay Inslee.

    I suppose I should keep all of that to myself until at least the Democratic convention is over. :)

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chuck Hagel, ahem.

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    26

    Euphemisms are literally the hallmark of left wing liberalism. "Gay" in place of "Queer" in place of "homosexual". "Special needs" in place of "retarded" in place of "handicapped" or "disabled".

    "Ignorant old man" in place of "benighted geezer." :)

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, ma'am. Here's hoping that [Trump] lives long enough to reap what he has sown.

    I doubt he would care enough to actually reap what he has sown.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, not at all. Budget surpluses can indeed be discussed without specifically talking about the debt situation. They are two different animals, in other words.

    Really???

    So, you can be under budget if you don't pay all your bills...

    Sounds like Left Wing wishful thinking..

    Ignore all the debt behind the curtain, just look at the wonderful wizard of budget surplus.. :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    My main point is that the Trump administration inherited an economy that was on the rise. The Obama administration inherited an economy circling the drain. Which is another point you fail to recognize here.

    And what YOU always ignore is the FACT that the Odumbo* administration stated that the economy would NOT get any better than what he had made it..

    Remember??

    "those jobs aren't coming back"

    "2% GDP is the New Normal"

    You want to give Odumbo credit for an economic explosion that HE DENIED could ever happen.

    Why do you ignore that FACT??

    Also, you ignore how wrong all of you were with your predictions on what would happen to the economy if President Trump was elected..

    Why do you ignore THAT fact???

    * I figured you would be OK with "ODUMBO" since you were OK with "Hair Dick Tater Benedict Donald"....

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You missed my point(s), Michale. Completely.

    Which, I am sorry to say, has sadly become par for the course.

    I still really wish this could be a place for enlightened discourse but, I hold out little hope for that outcome.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    * I figured you would be OK with "ODUMBO" since you were OK with "Hair Dick Tater Benedict Donald"....

    Wrong Michale. Read my post again where I deleted that part. That should stand for something.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    You missed my point(s), Michale. Completely.

    No, I got your point.. You just didn't like the facts.. You prefer the illusion that Democrats are as pure as the driven snow and everything bad and wrong is the fault of the GOP and President Trump...

    Obama deserves credit for not making the economy worse after Bush.. But the economy got better IN SPITE of his actions as POTUS.. Not because of.

    But to give him credit for something he claimed could NEVER happen?

    That's the epitome of illogic...

    I still really wish this could be a place for enlightened discourse but, I hold out little hope for that outcome.

    It's been said that Lincoln was quoted as saying, "I am against slavery but, if there must be slaves and masters I would prefer to be the master"

    That sounds similar to what you are saying..

    "I would prefer this to be a place for enlightened discourse. But if people have to be assholes, it's OK for the Left to be assholes, but not anyone else.."
    -The Warden Of Weigantia

    :D

    It's OK... I honestly don't expect you be able to clean up the assholes on the Left.. :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrong Michale. Read my post again where I deleted that part. That should stand for something.

    Simply not quoting it is not the same thing as actively condemning it..

    I would never use the term ODUMBO or DUMBOCRATS if not for the childish and immature name-calling committed by quite a few here...

    As they say, when in Rome.. :D

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't you think I've already actively condemned it enough.

    NO ONE HAD CONDEMNED IT MORE THAN ME!!!!!!!!!!!

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You are the only one around here who can rile me up like that.

  47. [47] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [32]

    Re: That economy Obama inherited that was "circling the drain".

    The economy collapsed when 6 million borrowers who never should have been granted mortgage loans all defaulted on their mortgages. You likely have forgotten that the three people behind the impetus to move millions of poor people in the middle class by means of homeownership (Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Elizabeth Warren), all had the big "D" after their names!

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    30

    He likened Democrats to a resistance having to fight behind enemy lines to win. The Democrats must infiltrate the FoxNews bubble or they can give up the fight.

    If candidates want to appear on Fox News propaganda television, that is certainly their prerogative, but I understand why the DNC as an institution would choose not to allow the equivalent of state-run media to host a debate designed to help choose their Party nominee.

    If candidates aren't going to be discerning regarding the media outlets on which they choose to appear, it is my fervent wish that they are at the very least selective in regards to which shows on Fox they choose to be seen... might as well be appearing on RT and Sputnik for that matter... simply going to the places where right-wingnuts are found.

    It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with "legitimizing" the network.

    Of course it does, and their primarily geriatric average audience isn't large enough to fret about regardless. Multiple Fox News employees are under federal investigation for their communications with WikiLeaks and the GRU among others. The DNC obviously knows this and has wisely decided to steer clear at the present time. What would possess the DNC to legitimize any network who was connected to those directly responsible for the criminal hacking and dissemination of their institution? Nothing... and rightly so.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    NO ONE HAD CONDEMNED IT MORE THAN ME!!!!!!!!!!!

    My apologies if I implied other wise..

    Of all people, I know the efforts you put into making this a better place.. I named you WARDEN OF WEIGANTIA after all.. :D

    You are the only one around here who can rile me up like that.

    That's because you are a good and caring person.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Democrats who appear on Fox News are only legitimizing their own policies which run counter to most of what is being shown on that network.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    CRS raises a good point..

    It was Democrats who created the drain circling economy...

    Even Bill Clinton said as much...

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My apologies if I implied other wise..

    Your apologies are happily accepted and you most certainly did. :)

    Sigh. I'm feeling better now ...

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the overall point is, President Trump deserves credit for the current state of the economy...

    ESPECIALLY when one consider the hysterical, fear-mongering SKY WILL BE FALLING predictions made prior to President Trump's election...

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale.

    It was Democrats who created the drain circling economy...

    False.

    Because there was plenty of blame to go around, especially when considering policies of the Bush II administration.

    Democrats should acknowledge their role in this. They may have to if they want to hold Trump to one term only.

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But the overall point is, President Trump deserves credit for the current state of the economy...

    Fair enough, Michale.

    I just hope against hope that this administration's trade proclivities and eagerness to tempt war with Iran don't rain on the parade.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ESPECIALLY when one consider the hysterical, fear-mongering SKY WILL BE FALLING predictions made prior to President Trump's election...

    My big fear once Trump won election, Michale, was that it was going to be hard for anyone, domestically or internationally, to believe anything he or his administration would say, about anything but, particularly with respect to any rationale to go to war.

    That fear has only grown over the course of this administration.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats should acknowledge their role in this. They may have to if they want to hold Trump to one term only.

    Yes they should.. But you know they won't..

    My big fear once Trump won election, Michale, was that it was going to be hard for anyone, domestically or internationally, to believe anything he or his administration would say, about anything but, particularly with respect to any rationale to go to war.

    That fear has only grown over the course of this administration.

    Except that the fear is based on lies, hysterical innuendo and outright bullshit..

    The Russia Collusion delusion proves this beyond ANY doubt...

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    35

    Not to toot my own horn BUT, long before Biden said in one of the 2008 debates that he would choose Chuck Hagel for his vice president, I was saying to anyone who would listen that Biden would do just that.

    I remember that, and I also remember thinking that Joe dropping that nugget into the debate wasn't going to help him win the nomination.

    I would be EXTREMELY surprised if Biden were to choose his running mate from the current crop of Democratic candidates with the possible exception of Governor Jay Inslee.

    Honestly, EM, I will be surprised if Biden ever finds himself in the position to be choosing his running mate at all.

    I suppose I should keep all of that to myself until at least the Democratic convention is over. :)

    Too late. ;)

    Honestly, Joe Biden is crazy if he doesn't choose a woman as his running mate... that is, if he manages to defy historical norms and actually win the Democratic nomination. If Joe wants to avoid the mistake Hillary made, he'll choose a candidate that unites the Democratic Party "centrists" and "progressives," and that running mate would be better if female, namely and in this order:

    * Stacey Abrams
    * Kamala Harris
    * Elizabeth Warren

    :)

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He'd be crazy if he were to choose any of those three. He'd choose Jennifer Granholm (sp?) over any of them.

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think he would be wise to put Warren in charge of the CFPB, though. It's time now for her to take that position.

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If I were you, Kick, I wouldn't judge the chances of Biden winning the nomination on the basis of his first two runs for the presidency. They are not relevant.

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Except that the fear is based on lies, hysterical innuendo and outright bullshit..

    Precisely!

    And, I give the president no chance when it comes to changing his modus operandi. :(

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    61

    If I were you, Kick, I wouldn't judge the chances of Biden winning the nomination on the basis of his first two runs for the presidency. They are not relevant.

    You're naturally assuming I judged Biden based on his prior runs for the presidency and not a whole host and myriad of other historical factors!? Well, all I can say is that you have assumed incorrectly. The prior runs were considered using a factor of zero... meaning, not at all. :)

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    62

    Except that the fear is based on lies, hysterical innuendo and outright bullshit..

    Precisely!

    And, I give the president no chance when it comes to changing his modus operandi. :(

    Zing. Nailed it... dead on the money, and whoomp, there it is! :)

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM

    If Biden makes it to Super Tuesday, and I believe without reservation that he absolutely will, he certainly has my vote... for a myriad of reasons. :)

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, I give the president no chance when it comes to changing his modus operandi. :(

    You misunderstood me..

    I am saying YOUR fear is based on lies, hysterical innuendo and outright bullshit..

    For example... Ya'all's fear that President Trump colluded with the Russians was unfounded and based SOLELY on the machinations of those nefarious Democrats who couldn't handle that the actually lost the election...

    President Trump is a different kind of POTUS and those who are against him do not understand him....

    And many always fear what they don't understand..

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    66

    You misunderstood me..

    Believe me when I tell you she knew exactly what you meant. :)

    President Trump is a different kind of POTUS and those who are against him do not understand him....

    You needn't keep supplying the proof that you've "bought all in" to the con.

    And many always fear what they don't understand..

    And many live on Earth II, are susceptible to right-wingnut conspiracy bullshit, and believe they understand when they actually have no clue whatsoever. :)

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    And many always fear what they don't understand..

    Are you talkin' to me?

    Are you talkin' TO ME?

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you talkin' to me?

    Are you talkin' TO ME?

    Ya gotta put that in quotes..

    "Are you talkin' to me?

    Are you talkin' TO ME?"

    heh

    Of course not...

    Well, yea.. talking to you about others.. :D

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I would have put it in quotes if you hadn't got me so riled up, you know.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know that you are the LAST person here I would want to intentionally offend..

    Ergo, if you feel offended by something I post, rest assured it's just my ham-handed way of commenting.. :D

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Offended? Who said I was offended!?

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's talk Kick-off rallies. in Philidelphia ...

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hope you'll be watching, Michale, because I will want a full report when I get back from work.

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Getting riled up every once in a short while is a good thing, Michale!

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Getting riled up every once in a short while is a good thing, Michale!

    OK.. :D

    Let's talk Kick-off rallies. in Philidelphia ...

    Head ta head match up.. Gonna be wild.. :D

  77. [77] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ya'all's fear that President Trump colluded with the Russians was unfounded and based SOLELY on the machinations of those nefarious Democrats who couldn't handle that they actually lost the election...

    That's complete bullshit. "Collusion" was based on reports from other countries' intelligence services of contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russians. Don't let 'em muddy that up.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's complete bullshit. "Collusion" was based on reports from other countries' intelligence services of contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russians. Don't let 'em muddy that up.

    And yet, Mueller spent 2 years and over 35 million dollars and couldn't find a SINGLE Fact to corroborate those reports..

    YOU LOST...

    You couldn't handle losing the election so you made up a bullshit Russia Collusion delusion and YOU LOST AGAIN...

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Collusion" was based on reports from other countries' intelligence services of contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russians.

    And was it "COLLUSION" with the reports of all the contacts between the Hillary campaign and Russians???

    Of course it wasn't...

    You see how completely untenable and FACT-less your position is???

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And was it "COLLUSION" with the reports of all the contacts between the Hillary campaign and Russians???

    What on earth are you talking about, Michale?

    If there were contacts between Hillary and the Russians, then she's lucky to be alive. ;)

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    77

    That's complete bullshit. "Collusion" was based on reports from other countries' intelligence services of contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russians. Don't let 'em muddy that up.

    Yes, sir. Before the election was ever held. :)

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    What on earth are you talking about, Michale?

    It's this kind of willful ignorance that makes it hard to have a serious discussion...

    If there were contacts between Hillary and the Russians, then she's lucky to be alive. ;)

    Are you saying that there has never been any contact between Hillary Clinton and Russians???

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Scott Morrison clinches unlikely victory over Bill Shorten in bombshell election result
    Prime Minister Scott Morrison has swept to a sensational win over Bill Shorten in a shock election result that keeps the Coalition in power.

    https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/scott-morrison-clinches-unlikely-victory-over-bill-shorten-in-bombshell-election-result/news-story/c5cc6418729e21fc01e0f7e442771300

    Once again.. Polls predicting a LIBERAL victory are utterly and completely WRONG...

    You think Liberals would learn...

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you saying that there has never been any contact between Hillary Clinton and Russians???

    Of course their were contacts and lots of them while she was Secretary of State.

    Is that what you were talking about?

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    make that 'there'

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course their were contacts and lots of them while she was Secretary of State.

    Is that what you were talking about?

    No, I am talking about Hillary's contacts with Russians and Ukrainians during the election..

    It's well documented...

    Either you believe it's improper for a candidate to be in contact with a foreign government during a campaign or you don't...

    It's not a variable position...

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison has swept to a sensational win over Bill Shorten in a shock election result that keeps the Coalition in power.

    Good news for Australia since Scott Morrison is indeed the current Prime Minister of Australia and the Leader of the Liberal Party.

    Once again.. Polls predicting a LIBERAL victory are utterly and completely WRONG...

    Polls were predicting a victory for the Labor Party.

    You think Liberals would learn...

    Are you seriously this misinformed? You should stop listening to right-wingnut propaganda, and perhaps you'll be the one who learns. :)

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    No, I am talking about Hillary's contacts with Russians and Ukrainians during the election..

    What did Chris have to say about this?

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Australia’s Conservatives Win Surprise Election Victory
    Voters in mining areas turned on center-left opposition that had campaigned on climate change issues, preliminary results show

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/australias-conservatives-appear-set-to-win-surprise-victory-11558186774

    The complete and utter ignorance of the Party slaves and morons is a continued source of amazement...

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    What did Chris have to say about this?

    Not a thing..

    But the facts are clear..

    Hillary and the DNC met with Ukrainian and Russian officials to obtain opposition intel against Donald Trump..

    This is documented FACT..

    Yet Mueller spent two years and over 35 million dollars and couldn't document a SINGLE FACT to support Trump/Russia collusion...

    So, the question has to be asked..

    Trump talking to Russians.. BAD

    Hillary talking to Russians and Ukrainians.. No problem...

    WHY???

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    We'll have to continue this discussion tomorrow..

    It's my bed time.. :D

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    I still don't belong to any Party and never will, but your pathological lying is again duly noted.

    The complete and utter ignorance of the Party slaves and morons is a continued source of amazement...

    Once again.. Polls predicting a LIBERAL victory are utterly and completely WRONG...

    You think Liberals would learn... ~ Michale

    I agree wholeheartedly that you're a moron because it truly takes a special kind of utter stupidity to claim the polls predicted a "LIBERAL victory" when the polls were actually predicting a LABOR victory. The current Prime Minister is the head of the Liberal Party that forms Australia's Coalition government. The Liberals in Australia didn't lose, moron. Exactly the opposite. :)

  93. [93] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hillary talking to Russians and Ukrainians.. No problem...

    So you're saying that Clinton 'talked' to either the Russians or Ukrainians outside her regular duties. If that's true, I need to see evidence. Couldn't find anything about it on the web.

    It's my bed time..

    Which is about right, if you're in Russia. :)

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    I wonder if CW knew that Hulu was premiering their "Hulu Original" Catch-22 with George Clooney on May 17th... the exact same day he wrote about it. Mere happenstance or coincidence?

    https://tinyurl.com/y2lanymq

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [93]
    Heh.

  96. [96] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Still trying to track down the dirt that Michale says he has on Hillary. There was one thing, a Ukrainian-American who worked for the Democrats, who stepped in with intel about Manafort. As she told Politico:

    Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.

    A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political party.

    In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.

    She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, Chalupa said. In January 2016 — months before Manafort had taken any role in Trump’s campaign — Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump’s campaign, “I felt there was a Russia connection,” Chalupa recalled. “And that, if there was, that we can expect Paul Manafort to be involved in this election,” said Chalupa, who at the time also was warning leaders in the Ukrainian-American community that Manafort was “Putin’s political brain for manipulating U.S. foreign policy and elections.”

    She said she shared her concern with Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar, during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy. According to someone briefed on the meeting, Chaly said that Manafort was very much on his radar, but that he wasn’t particularly concerned about the operative’s ties to Trump since he didn’t believe Trump stood much of a chance of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency.

    That was not an uncommon view at the time, and, perhaps as a result, Trump’s ties to Russia — let alone Manafort’s — were not the subject of much attention.
    That all started to change just four days after Chalupa’s meeting at the embassy, when it was reported that Trump had in fact hired Manafort, suggesting that Chalupa may have been on to something. She quickly found herself in high demand. The day after Manafort’s hiring was revealed, she briefed the DNC’s communications staff on Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia, according to an operative familiar with the situation.

    A former DNC staffer described the exchange as an “informal conversation,” saying “‘briefing’ makes it sound way too formal,” and adding, “We were not directing or driving her work on this.”

    So she wasn't SENT to Ukraine, and only came onto the radar after Trump picked up Manafort.

    Doesn't sound like anything to me.

  97. [97] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Sorry about the length of that, but lately, I feel that each and every gloat and guffaw of Michale has to be answered, else someone will think that we're being had. Further, HE has to know that is another side to all of it.

    THIS is what the next President has to do: to counter each and every lie put out there. Tedious? yes. Necessary? Yes, because someone believes a Trump lie as soon as he tells it.

  98. [98] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    alexandra chalupa? inventor of the taco bell chalupa?

    "I think simon pheonix has finally matched his meet... you really licked his ass."

    ~demolition man

  99. [99] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Seeing ya'all complain about Trump hypocrisy without acknowledging the "scathing" hypocrisy coming from the Democrats is the epitome of hypocrisy, eh??

    umm... yes?

    you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means.
    ~inigo montoya - the princess bride

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I feel that each and every gloat and guffaw of Michale has to be answered

    That should be the job of the Moderator-in-Chief, ahem.

  101. [101] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    are you volunteering for the position?

    JL

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    absolutely, positively, unequivocally … mo

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I mean … no

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm in pretty bad shape tonigjt … can ya till?

  105. [105] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry about the length of that, but lately, I feel that each and every gloat and guffaw of Michale has to be answered, else someone will think that we're being had. Further, HE has to know that is another side to all of it.

    Which is exactly why I do what I do.. But there is only one of me and there are a dozen of you.

    So I have my work cut out for me.. :D

    Doesn't sound like anything to me.

    Of course it doesn't.. Yer a Party slave, Birther...

    So ANYTHING that puts your Party in a bad light "doesn't sound like anything" to you...

    Which is about right, if you're in Russia. :)

    No, it comes from getting up at 0100 hrs and putting in a 17hr work day..

    Not that you would know anything about that.. :eyeroll:

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seeing ya'all complain about Trump hypocrisy without acknowledging the "scathing" hypocrisy coming from the Democrats is the epitome of hypocrisy, eh??

    umm... yes?

    "Yes? Yes.. well Thank you..."
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    Thank you..

    Such honesty and acknowledgement of the facts is refreshing around here..

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    BIRTHER

    bir·ther
    /?b?rTH?r/
    noun

    a person, predominantly of the Right Wing, who subscribes to or promotes the incorrect belief that former US president Barack Obama was born outside the United States and was therefore ineligible to be president under the provisions of the US Constitution.

    TRUTHER

    tru·ther
    /?tro?oTH?r/
    nounINFORMAL•US

    a person, predominantly of the Left Wing, who doubts the generally accepted official account of the 9/11 terror attacks, believing that an official government conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation; a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

    COLLUSIONER

    col·lu·sion·er
    /k??lo?oZH?n er/
    noun

    a person, predominantly of the Left Wing, who subscribes to or promotes the incorrect belief that US President Donald Trump worked with the Russians to win the 2016 Presidential Election. Despite an unprecedented multi-year investigation that brought the totality of the US investigative apparatus to bear and was unable to locate a SINGLE FACT that supported the accusation, a COLLUSIONER still believes that Donald Trump is in the employ of the Russians and/or Russia President Putin.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Birther, Truther, Collusioner..

    All could be summed up thusly.

    A brain dead moron who is nothing but a fanatical Party slave and hasn't had an original thought that wasn't Party approved in decades...

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know it's all early primary hype, but damned if Biden isn't looking like a real contender...

    I still haven't forgiven him for his "very fine people" to describe antifa terrorists comment..

    But all of the sudden, Biden as the Dem nominee is actually beginning to sounds possible..

    And if he is, I'll be able to rag on the Dumbocrat Party as the Party of old white men!!!! :D

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

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    I still haven't forgiven him for his "very fine people" to describe antifa terrorists comment..

    https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/gettyimages-830775558.jpg
    -Courageous Americans

    Beating up on a crippled guy... :^/

  112. [112] 
    John M wrote:

    [18] Michale

    "Yes, baby killing zealots are pushing their murderous agenda that allows babies to be killed even after birth.."

    "Irregardless, it will all be moot when the SCOTUS rules that infanticide is against the US Constitution.."

    The IGNORANCE is strong with this one!!! - Star Wars

    1) Absolutely no where in the USA is it legal to kill a baby after birth, either now or in the past EVER. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

    2) Even if the Supreme Court OVERTURNED or REVERSED Roe v Wade, it would NOT be the Supreme Court making ABORTION ILLEGAL NATIONWIDE. It would leave it up to each INDIVIDUAL state to DECIDE.

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    1) Absolutely no where in the USA is it legal to kill a baby after birth, either now or in the past EVER. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

    Only because the Virginia law failed...

    2) Even if the Supreme Court OVERTURNED or REVERSED Roe v Wade, it would NOT be the Supreme Court making ABORTION ILLEGAL NATIONWIDE. It would leave it up to each INDIVIDUAL state to DECIDE

    Yer right.. I stand corrected..

    It would be up to individual state governments to decide whether or not they want to allow infanticide...

    :^/

    You democrats are weird...

  114. [114] 
    John M wrote:

    New York, Illinois, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont have all advanced bills through at least one chamber of their legislature so far to protect abortion rights. More states coming...

    Maine, Nevada and Delaware are among those that joined the list above.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does Anyone Actually Want Joe Biden to Be President?
    What ‘electability’ seems to mean in 2020 — and what it meant in 2018.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/opinion/joe-biden-president.html

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    New York, Illinois, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont have all advanced bills through at least one chamber of their legislature so far to protect abortion rights. More states coming...

    Maine, Nevada and Delaware are among those that joined the list above.

    Yes, I know.. They are called Casey Anthony Laws..

    Democrats states are rushing laws thru allowing mothers who can't be bothered with children to kill said children..

    Not something I would think ANYONE would want to brag about...

    But I am not a Party slave/fanatic, so maybe that's just me..

  117. [117] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "THIS is what the next president has to do: to counter each and every lie put out there."

    "That should be the job of the Moderator-in-chief, ahem."

    But for some reason the Moderator-in-chief, as well commenters here, seem to be mostly concerned with countering the lies from the "other side" with their own lies.

    What we need is politicians (and Media) to expose "each and every lie put out there" instead of pretending that their lie is the truth.

    Buying into the lie that the big money Democrats are an alternative to the big money Republicans even though they both work for the big money interests is not going to achieve a president or any politician that will expose each and every lie as they are part of the lies.

    But for some reason that defies logic, CW and the commenters here believe that exposing the lies of the other side (other half of the same side in reality) is all that is needed to prove that your lie is not a lie.

    It is both tedious and necessary to keep pointing this out.

    And if all CW and the commenters here are willing to do is trade talking points on your lies back and forth it will only lead to more lies from both sides and more Trump in 2020 or another useless Democrat in 2020 that will lead to another Republican even worse than Trump when the pendulum swings back to the Republican lies in a subsequent presidential election as the lie that the big money Democrats are an actual alternative to the Republicans is what got Trump elected in the first place.

    As Elizabeth Warren said in a recent speech, the influence of money is the reason that nothing gets done on every other issue and we need Big Systemic Change.

    Of course, she then claimed to have the biggest anti-corruption plan since Watergate and listed a bunch of proposed legislation that will never be passed into law by the big money Republicans or Democrats.

    While Warren did recognize the problem, she is way off target on the solution.

    The only way her anti-corruption legislation can be passed is if we first replace the big money legislators form both CMPs with small donor candidates.

    So the solution that requires a big systemic change cannot be found in legislation- it has to start with citizens demanding small donor candidates and using their votes to force the candidates to meet the demand.

    Basic democracy.

    You, CW, have available the biggest anti-corruption plan since the founding of our country that is based on the founding principle of our country that if the politicians don't do what we want then we don't vote for them any more- One Demand.

    It's time for the rest of country to be informed aboot this option and opportunity so they can have this option available should they choose it.

    It's time for you, CW, to stop hiding from this counter to your lie that the big money Democrats are a real alternative to the big money Republicans and address the issue through a column or an explanation here in the comments on why citizens should not use basic democracy the way it was intended to be used.

    And it has to be more than just a comment where you claim that One Demand is something that it is not, making an argument against that and then saying you are done. It has to be aboot what One Demand really is and needs to continue as a complete discussion so that you do actually have to addreews what One Demand is and not what you need it to be to fit the argument you want to make against it.

    Reality doesn't stop being real just because you choose to ignore it.

    It is not at all like teeth- ignore them and they will go away.

    But democracy is very much like teeth. Keep ignoring it and all you will be able to eat is the gruel that is offered which could and probably will be made from soylent green if we don't start addressing reality now.

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
    Credentialed authorities are comically bad at predicting the future. But reliable forecasting is possible.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/how-to-predict-the-future/588040/

    Interesting corollaries here. :D

  119. [119] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Chris's "Talking Points" really got short shrift on this one. Seems almost nobody can get past Russiagate.

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The long, hot summer is upon us and I have something I want to tell you.

    I have decided that, going forward, I'll be spending my free time, such as it is these days, lounging poolside and, you know, following the Biden for President campaign.

    This is supposed to be a reality based blog and one would hope that the comments sections would at least purport to be the same. Sadly, this is not the case.

    I have little time to waste setting the record straight on Biden or on any other given issue and call out the BS, most of it, I am so very sorry to say, coming from you.

    So, I can only speak for myself when I say emphatically that my silence does decidedly NOT give ascent to the many deliberately false and otherwise meanspirited statements that permeate this excellent blog's comments sections,

    On the contrary, you can count on the fact that my silence, more often than not, indicates complete and total disgust with what is being said. Plain and simple.

    I'll still be here to read Chris's pieces because they are, as always, more than worthy of my time. And, I'll even comment now and again and actually discuss things with my fellow commenters who actually have something to say and who deserve a response.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is supposed to be a reality based blog and one would hope that the comments sections would at least purport to be the same. Sadly, this is not the case.

    YOu don't have to tell me..

    With only a single exception, NO ONE here acknowledges the **REALITY** that President Trump has been completely and utterly exonerated on the Russia Collusion delusion...

    If this were really a REALITY based forum, there wouldn't be any Collusioners...

    But sadly, it's not a reality based forum..

    I have little time to waste setting the record straight on Biden or on any other given issue and call out the BS, most of it, I am so very sorry to say, coming from you.

    Other than that one mistake (which was a big one) I was rooting for Biden.... No one else here (sans you) can make that claim..

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chris's "Talking Points" really got short shrift on this one. Seems almost nobody can get past Russiagate.

    EXACTLY.....

    Kinda defines the conversations, eh? :D

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, until such time as ya'all concede that ya'all were wrong about Russia Collusion..

    Until ya'all concede that President Trump has been completely and utterly exonerated on Russia Collusion..

    Ya'all simply CANNOT lay claim to being grounded in reality..

    It's really THAT simple...

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, good news for me...

    Until such time as ya'all can concede the reality...

    I will always have the factual and reality-based high ground.. :D

  125. [125] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I will always have the factual and reality-based high ground.

    Fantasy! Unadulteraded dribble. That's what you've got.

    Barr's weak defense of Trump doesn't pass the giggle test, much less set any precedent.

    And every democrat thinks they can beat him, so the field is overcrowded. Voters are already planning to vote for ANYONE but Trump. And unlike 2016, Dems will be united.

    We've got about a year, year-and-a-half before the far right wing has to go back to muttering to themselves.

    Question is: have you got the fortitude to lose?

    Jus' wondering..

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fantasy! Unadulteraded dribble. That's what you've got.

    Barr's weak defense of Trump doesn't pass the giggle test, much less set any precedent.

    It was Mueller's report, not Barr's...

    That's the FACT, the REALITY that you just can't stand or acknowledge..

    And every democrat thinks they can beat him, so the field is overcrowded. Voters are already planning to vote for ANYONE but Trump. And unlike 2016, Dems will be united.

    Yea, you said the same thing in 2016...

    And tell me that Dumbocrats are united when they start tearing each other apart in the primary...

    Between your quote and Russ' quote, ya'all are going to be eating crow for the next 17 months..

    The simple fact you can't grasp..

    President Trump has been completely and utterly exonerated on Russia Collusion..

    This is fact based on Mueller's report that even JL acknowledges..

    Until you can acknowledge this reality, yer no better than a Birther...

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is fact based on Mueller's report that even JL acknowledges..

    Sorry to keep dragging you into this, JL.

    But dammit, besides CRS and myself, yer the only one with a brain that can actually think fer themselves..

    Such a trait should be celebrated..

  128. [128] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [108 & 109]

    Birther’s are the spawn of Donald Trump — the Father of All Lies! Trump is the original BIRTHER! He is the very definition of “birther”.

    All could be summed up thusly.

    A brain dead moron who is nothing but a fanatical Party slave and hasn't had an original thought that wasn't Party approved in decades...

    So why do you follow Trump if he is all of those things? Except Trump’s Party has never been the GOP... it’s always been about Trump and ONLY TRUMP!

    Truther’s aren’t liberals, they are the Alex Jones groupies! They are Trump followers, like yourself! They are the ones claiming Sandy Creek was staged as well as believing the planes loaded with fuel could never bring down the Trade Center buildings. Again, this illness effects (Not)Right Wingers.

    As for “Collusioners”, nothing in your definition for it was factual. Nada! Zilch! Na-Na NOTHING! You bury your head in the sand, do not bother to read the report you faithfully misrepresent the findings of in a pathetic attempt to justify the further obstruction of justice by Trump.

    You ignore that Trump still denies the established fact that Russia interfered in the election in an attempt to help him win. Or that Trump’s campaign had over 160 verified contacts with Russia that they lied about.

    As for “Collusioner’s” definition, the real conspiracy is that Trump was innocent (You don’t exclaim “My presidency is fucqed!” If you are innocent!) and that Mueller’s investigation completely exonerated Trump of ANY wrong doing!

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fantasy! Unadulteraded dribble. That's what you've got.

    "Wait til Mueller finishes his investigation!!! You'll see!!! Collusion baby!!!!"
    -Weigantian Peanut Gallery

    Mueller finished his investigation.. Completely exonerated President Trump on Russia collusion...

    "Wait til the report is released!!! You'll see!!! Collusion baby!!!"
    -Weigantian Peanut Gallery

    Mueller's report is released with less than 2% redacted by DEMOCRAT law....

    It completely exonerates President Trump on Russia collusion...

    ALL you people **EVER** have is "Wait and see!!!" "Wait and see!!!!"

    And ya'all have ***ALWAYS*** been wrong...

    Ya'all have ALWAYS been full of shit...

    Ya'all simply cannot accept reality....

    These are the facts... And they are indisputable...

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for “Collusioners”, nothing in your definition for it was factual.

    Show me in the Mueller report where it concludes Trump is guilty of collusion with the Russians..

    You can't because you are completely and utterly full of shit..

    Yer no better than a birther...

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    and that Mueller’s investigation completely exonerated Trump of ANY wrong doing!

    I never claimed that..

    And the fact that you have to make claims I didn't say proves how full of shit you are...

  132. [132] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I never claimed that..

    Good! Now we're getting somewhere. Now, all we need is for Trump to honor some subpoenas, so that we can get to the bottom of it.

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, all we need is for Trump to honor some subpoenas, so that we can get to the bottom of it.

    We already got "to the bottom" of Russia Collusion..

    You were full of shit..

    Why should President Trump submit more, when you can't acknowledge the FACTS and REALITY??

    Where is the incentive to submit to MORE harassment when ya'all have already PROVEN beyond ANY doubt that ya'all won't accept the facts???

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously, Birther..

    THINK about it, if you have at least two brain cells to rub together..

    You accuse President Trump of "A"... Two years and 35 million dollars later, the FACTS clearly show that President Trump did not commit "A"...

    But you REFUSE to accept the facts.. You STILL continue to accuse President Trump of "A"...

    But THEN you add the accusations of "B", "C" and "D" and you demand President Trump submits, while still refusing to acknowledge that President Trump is COMPLETELY exonerated of "A"....

    What kind of FRAKIN' MORON would expect ANYONE to submit to MORE harassment, when it's been PROVEN beyond ANY doubt that the FACTS don't matter to said FRAKIN' MORON!!???

    You won't accept the facts and you won't accept reality... This has been proven beyond ANY doubt..

    So President Trump says go kindly fuck yourself and he has the backing of PATRIOTIC Americans everywhere...

    You really have to be brain dead to pursue the path you are pursuing..

  135. [135] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    We already got "to the bottom" of Russia Collusion..

    Not really, but taking your admittance that that's not everything, it makes sense to pursue the rest. I mean, what else has he given them to do?

    It was Mueller that added "B" and "C" to the list of charges, after all.

    And then there is other stuff that Mueller didn't look at: emoluments, taxes, security clearances, etc. Don't you think that Congress has a right to look into those?

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nothing illustrates the utter idiocy and brain dead aspects of the Trump/America haters more than their continued insistence that Trump continue to submit to their harassment...

    Even though they have PROVEN that NOTHING matters.. They will continue to believe whatever they chose to believe..

    Regardless of ANY facts that prove them utterly and completely WRONG....

  137. [137] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    President Trump says go kindly fuck yourself

    Sure, and Congress says, respectfully, "Sorry, but fuck yourself back." And THEY have the full support of patriotic Americans, too. That's how the system is set up.

    Don't like it? Move to a country where the executive has the authority to do that. You wouldn't like it.

  138. [138] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    They will continue to believe whatever they chose to believe..

    Right. Now you're getting it.

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not really,

    Yes, we have.. But you refuse to accept the facts and reality..

    It was Mueller that added "B" and "C" to the list of charges, after all.

    And yet, refused to find Trump guilty of ANY of it..

    But we're not talking about "B" and "C" because you REFUSE to accept that President Trump is innocent of "A"....

    Let's deal with "A" first..

    THEN we can discuss "B" and "C"...

    But you CAN'T deal with "A" because you can't accept that you were WRONG about "A"...

    Sans JL, **NO ONE** here can accept that they were wrong about "A"...

    Not even CW....

    And then there is other stuff that Mueller didn't look at: emoluments, taxes, security clearances, etc. Don't you think that Congress has a right to look into those?

    No, they don't..

    Not unless they accept that they were completely and utterly WRONG about "A"...

    Because, if the refuse to accept they were wrong about "A", then it doesn't matter WHAT Trump says or shows..

    Because they (and YOU) have PROVEN you refuse to accept the facts..

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Right. Now you're getting it.

    Oh, I got it LONG ago.. Even back before HHPTDS set in around here..

    Ya'all refuse to accept the FACTS that ya'all don't like..

    THAT has been proven beyond any doubt..

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure, and Congress says, respectfully, "Sorry, but fuck yourself back." And THEY have the full support of patriotic Americans, too.

    No, they don't..

    They have the support of morons, ingrates and total idiots who refuse to accept facts that are counter to their HATE TRUMP/AMERICA agenda...

    Those morons who refuse to accept the legitimacy of the 2016 election BECAUSE THEY LOST...

  142. [142] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No, they don't..They have the support of morons, ingrates and total idiots who refuse to accept facts

    Your opinion. I call them patriots.

    But we're not talking about "B" and "C"

    Yes, we are. You've admitted that Mueller didn't COMPLETELY clear Trump (even if you're wrong about the details of it). Why stop there? Is there some rule that I'm not aware of that says that Congress can only look into one thing at a time?

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, we are.

    No, we're not.. We're talking about Russia Collusion..

    Finish "A" and then we can talk about "B" and "C"...

    But you CAN'T finish "A" because you were WRONG and can't even ACCEPT that you were wrong..

    Yer like a child who stamps his feet and whines and cries..

    Yer a Birther...

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why stop there?

    Because you have PROVEN you can't accept the facts..

    No further until you acknowledge the facts..

    But you can't because yer a whiny Party slave who can't admit they were wrong..

  145. [145] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale

    I never claimed that..

    And the fact that you have to make claims I didn't say proves how full of shit you are...

    So this wasn’t your post to Paula on Wednesday?

    Your Dumbocrats don't have the cajones to impeach because they know that A) They will be fired if they do and 2) There is not a single valid and/or factual charge to impeach over..

    If there is not a single valid and or factual charge than can be taken from the Mueller report to start the impeachment process, then that would be you saying it exonerated Trump of Everything!!!

  146. [146] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No further until you acknowledge the facts..

    Why? Because the Republicants say so? That's not the way it works. Congress can investigate ANYTHING and no one can stop it. Sure, you can slow it down, every President does that, but you can't stop it.

    Dumbocrats don't have the cajones to impeach

    Sure they do, but it's not time yet. Getting there.

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    You said "wrongdoing" and I never claimed President Trump was innocent of wrong doing..

    NOW you want to move the goal posts to impeachable offenses...

    Once again proving you are full of shit..

    The FACTS are clear.. You don't have the BALLS to impeach and you can't find any facts to support your bullshit claims..

    And you can't admit you were totally FULL OF SHIT on Russia Collusion..

    So, no matter HOW you slice it... Your a moron and a Party slave..

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure they do, but it's not time yet. Getting there.

    Yea..

    You have been saying "getting there" for over 2 years..

    And yer STILL nowhere close!!!

    BBWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

    Where's my youtube video...

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

    BBWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

    Yer so full of shit yer eyes are brown.. :D

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Congress can investigate ANYTHING and no one can stop it.

    Not factually accurate..

    Congress must have a legitimate reason to investigate and probable cause...

    The courts will side with President Trump and there will be MORE facts and reality that you cannot face...

    YYYAAWWWNNNNNNNNNNN

    Sure, you can slow it down, every President does that, but you can't stop it.

    yea, you keep claiming that.. And yet, DUMBOCRATS are totally stymied

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

    BBWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

    Gods, ya'all lose time and time again and yet you STILL can't face reality...

    So much for reality based, eh? :D

  150. [150] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I never claimed President Trump was innocent of wrong doing..

    Good. You're making good progress today.

    NOW you want to move the goal posts to impeachable offenses.

    No, YOU want to move directly to impeachment. We just want to have hearings. Trump is blocking, which, as you'll see, is temporary.

    You desperately need patience, grasshopper.

  151. [151] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Congress must have a legitimate reason to investigate and probable cause.

    Uh huh. Where is that in the Constitution? Besides, there is more than enough probable cause.

    The courts will side with President Trump

    You wanna bet on that? I'm not even sure Kavanaugh can come up with a reason that wouldn't be laughed out of court.

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, YOU want to move directly to impeachment. We just want to have hearings. Trump is blocking, which, as you'll see, is temporary.

    And you won't get hearings unless you move to impeachment..

    And you won't move to impeachment because you have nothing to impeach for..

    Uh huh. Where is that in the Constitution? Besides, there is more than enough probable cause.

    Yea, you said that about Russia Collusion..

    And you were WRONG, Birther...

    You wanna bet on that?

    Absolutely...

    What stakes do you want??

    No?? You don't wanna bet??

    Baaaawwwwwkkkkkk baaaawwwwkkkkk bbbbaaaawwwwkkkkk

    Yea, that's what I thought...

    You desperately need patience, grasshopper.

    You desperately need FACTS, Birther...

    Too bad you have none...

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what it all boils down to, Birther/Collusioner..

    You were wrong about Russia Collusion and that taints everything you say and do...

    You have ZERO credibility...

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller mystery: Will he ever testify to Congress?
    https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/444354-mueller-mystery-will-he-ever-testify-to-congress

    Mueller won't testify..

    Why???

    Because he has already laid out the facts..

    Morons and Party Slaves simply can't handle the facts....

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, everyone ignores the facts..

    Why should President Trump submit to anything when ya'all have PROVEN ya'all won't accept the facts??

    No answer??

    That's why ya'all LOSE....

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I have decimated and slapped ya'all down enough...

    Don't want to damage yer fragile psyches.. We know how sensitive fragile Left Wing snowflakes can be..

    We'll pick up in the AM when I am SURE there will be more facts and reality I can slap the shit outta ya'all with.. :D

    Rest up, cupcakes.. Yer gonna need it.. :D

  157. [157] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And you won't get hearings unless you move to impeachment..

    wrong.

    And you didn't answer the question: where is the absurd idea that Congress can't investigate what it wants in the Constitution?

    What stakes do you want?

    Anything. I'll leave the board if I'm wrong. The article you've cited says that Mueller will probably eventually testify. If not, there's a subpoena ready for him, too.

    Why should President Trump submit to anything when ya'all have PROVEN ya'all won't accept the facts?

    Because the President has to answer to the people. That's been a part of the law for over 200 years.

    Rest up, cupcakes.. Yer gonna need it..

    Bawk. Study up, snowflake. Maybe tomorrow won't go so badly for you.

  158. [158] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    You, CW, have available the biggest anti-corruption plan since the founding of our country that is based on the founding principle of our country that if the politicians don't do what we want then we don't vote for them any more- One Demand.

    Someone thinks very highly of himself! Do you honestly believe that OneDemand is the “biggest anti-corruption plan since the founding of our country”??? I am not sure if this is more a statement of arrogance than it is ignorance, or vice versa, but it is delusional.

    The maximum that an individual can give to a campaign is $2800. What makes $2800 corruption inducing, but $280 is corruption-proof? How does lowering the maximum donation amount prevent corruption?

    Campaign donations are not the problem, it’s the unlimited money that PAC’s and SuperPAC’s can take in and spend in support of a candidate that is the problem! And One Demand doesn’t do squat about PAC’s.

    And correct me if I am wrong, but don’t we already have the ability to vote out politicians that we no longer support?

    It's time for the rest of country to be informed aboot this option and opportunity so they can have this option available should they choose it.

    People already have the option to vote for only small donation candidates if they so choose. They have the ability to withhold their support/vote without anyone ever mentioning the words “One Demand.”

    You have never been able to explain why candidates would need/want to sign up with you, as they can choose to only accept small donations without your help.

    You have never put your theory into practice in your local communities, but again think that you are ready for the big leagues...if only CW would get off his lazy ass and give you the national spotlight that you deserve! Bless your heart!

  159. [159] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    you're completely off-base discussing don's idea. of course anyone can make a small donation or a large donation, just like anyone can choose between pie and cake. the difference is that pie can be combined with votes to make both citizen empowerment and a tasty treat, while cake is baked-in as a tool of the establishment. many people like yourself criticize pie for what it is not, instead of having an intelligent discussion of what pie is, and what pie can potentially be with the media attention and voter support. on second thought, never mind don, eat some pie!

    JL

  160. [160] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Rest up, cupcakes.. Yer gonna need it..

    cupcakes really are the worst of the worst, it's cake pretending to be pie!

    JL

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua[159]

    Most enlightened comment of the thread if not the entire blog; I, for one, am going to take your advice, many times over ...

  162. [162] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because he has already laid out the facts..

    Well, quite obviously, that wasn't enough. For some souls, I mean.

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Well, quite obviously, that wasn't enough. For some souls, I mean.

    And that's my point. For the Trump/America hater, NOTHING will ever be enough...

    Nothing short of the complete and utter decimation and destruction of President Trump, personally, professionally, famililly and totally..

    It will NEVER be enough if it doesn't erase President Trump from the past, the present and the future..

    Mueller totally and completely exonerated President Trump on the charge of Russia Collusion..

    TOTALLY... COMPLETELY...

    For any NORMAL or SANE or RATIONAL person, THAT would be "enough"...

    Apparently, amongst Weigantians, there is only a single normal, sane or rational person..

    You want to add to that total??? :D

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    you're completely off-base discussing don's idea. of course anyone can make a small donation or a large donation, just like anyone can choose between pie and cake. the difference is that pie can be combined with votes to make both citizen empowerment and a tasty treat, while cake is baked-in as a tool of the establishment. many people like yourself criticize pie for what it is not, instead of having an intelligent discussion of what pie is, and what pie can potentially be with the media attention and voter support. on second thought, never mind don, eat some pie!

    I am kinda a pake man myself.. :D

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anything. I'll leave the board if I'm wrong.

    Tempting.. :D

    But if you leave, that's one less person to prove wrong and gloat over all the time..

    That's not good.. :D

    The article you've cited says that Mueller will probably eventually testify. If not, there's a subpoena ready for him, too.

    Yea, cuz Congressional subpoenas have been SO effective to date.. :D hehehehehehehe

    Yer right that Mueller may testify..

    But I am right in predicting that, if Mueller does testify, ya'all won't find out any new information on Russia Collusion, Mueller will stand by his decision to totally and unequivocally exonerate President Trump and ya'all (sans JL) STILL won't accept that President Trump has been completely and totally exonerated on Russia Collusion..

    If I am accurate in that prediction, we have to agree to SOME kind of fealty and acknowledgement from you... Any suggestions?? :D

    How about this..

    If my prediction is accurate, you take a Sherman on Russia Collusion...

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most enlightened comment of the thread if not the entire blog; I, for one, am going to take your advice, many times over ...

    Heh

    The comment that is non-serious and jestful is the "most enlightened comment of the thread if not the entire blog"...

    You're hard to figure out sometimes.. :D

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, quite obviously, that wasn't enough. For some souls, I mean.

    That indicates to me you're considering jumping the Russia Collusion Delusion ship...

    n'est-ce pas??

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Border Patrol flies hundreds of migrants to California

    SAN DIEGO — The U.S. Border Patrol said Friday that it would fly hundreds of migrant families from south Texas to San Diego for processing and that it was considering flights to Detroit, Miami and Buffalo, New York.

    The flights are the latest sign of how the Border Patrol is struggling to keep up with large numbers of Central American families that are reaching the U.S. border with Mexico, especially in Texas. Moving migrants to less crowded places is expected to distribute the workload more evenly.

    Flights from Texas’ Rio Grande Valley to San Diego were to begin Friday and continue indefinitely three times a week, with each flight carrying 120 to 135 people, said Douglas Harrison, the Border Patrol’s interim San Diego sector chief.

    “We don’t have an end date,” Harrison told reporters. “This is a contingency operation. We’ve got to give the people in Rio Grande Valley some relief.”

    Plans to fly from Rio Grande Valley to Detroit, Miami and Buffalo were preliminary, Harrison said. Authorities were researching available airports and the ability for nonprofit groups to provide temporary assistance.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/19/border-patrol-flies-migrants-california/

    Drop them off at Nancy Pelosi's doorstep...

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pete Buttigieg Gets Standing Ovation at End of Fox News Town Hall
    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/pete-buttigieg-gets-standing-ovation-at-end-of-fox-news-town-hall-surprising-chris-wallace/

    Oh my gods!!!!

    Buttagig is appearing on Fox News and is actually doing good!!!!

    Buttagig is validating Fox News as a propaganda outlet!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    How is a Dim President supposed to face down Putin or Iran Leadership if they are afraid to face Fox News???

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Alice Johnson, Great-grandmother who had sentence commuted by Trump, 'knew that God was going to get me out'
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/alice-johnson-sentence-commuted-trump-god-release

    But! But!! But!!

    This isn't right!!

    According to ya'all, President Trump hates black people!!

    And here he is commuting the sentence of a black person..

    I guess ya'all must be frak'ed in the head when ya'all claim President Trump hates black people..

    :eyeroll:

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Grandpa Joe’ not the best look for Biden

    Back in the days as a campaign flack, I learned that, while I was laboring over every word in a campaign speech or radio ad, most voters were way too busy raising kids and paying the bills to pay nearly as much attention as I thought they were.

    Instead, a political veteran told me, the voters will reduce your candidate and his entire campaign down to one idea or concept. “You get one sentence, kid. Make it count.”

    And so for Bernie Sanders, that one sentence is, “Socialist guy.” For Beto O’Rourke, it’s, “Kind of like a Kennedy, but weird.” For Pete Buttigieg, it’s the “Really smart, young … wait — he’s gay?” guy.

    Liz Warren? “Fake Indian.”

    On Tuesday I got to see former Vice President Joe Biden at a house party in Nashua, N.H. He gave a speech, he worked the crowd, he engaged in an inordinate amount of consensual hugging. And the one-word takeaway that was left, uncomfortably unspoken, on everyone’s lips was …

    Old.

    Joe Biden is “the old guy.”

    I don’t mean Joe Biden was born Nov. 20, 1942, though he was. I don’t mean Joe Biden won his first U.S. Senate race while Richard Nixon was still president, though he did. I mean that Joe Biden’s age is a thing. It’s a front-and-center fact of his candidacy that is impossible to ignore.

    And, I predict, it will eventually cost him his party’s nomination.
    https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/05/17/grandpa-joe-not-the-best-look-for-biden/

    Don't know if I agree with the author...

    But I can bet that there are millions and millions of Democrats, including most everyone here, who agree with the author...

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    WALSH: The Simple Preschool-Level Question That No Leftist Can Answer

    For the last few weeks I have been trying with increasing desperation to get a leftist — any leftist — to answer one simple question: what is a woman?
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/47257/walsh-simple-matt-walsh

    For delusional Left Wing snowflakes, gender is not biology but a "state of mind"..

    :eyeroll:

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/images/2019/05/15/gary_varvel_gary_varvel_for_may_15_2019_5_.jpg

    A future Alabama voter who will be ALIVE to vote...

    Thanx to the Republican Party...

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/images/2019/05/13/gary_varvel_gary_varvel_for_may_13_2019_5_.jpg

    This is what terrifies Democrats.. :D

    It's going to be glorious... :D

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    PIERS MORGAN: The next book America’s self-appointed ‘superhero’ James Comey writes may be his prison diaries, from a cell shared with his fellow Trump-hating FBI villains
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7028511/The-book-Comey-writes-prison-diaries-fellow-Trump-hating-FBI-villains.html

    It's going to be glorious!! :D

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to kind of pick and choose the news sites I read..

    Too many GoT spoilers out there...

    :D

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    What We Know So Far About The Justice Department’s Spygate Scandal Investigations

    When Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he provided many clues to the wide-ranging scope of malfeasance the Department of Justice is now investigating.

    Conservatives cheered the recent news that Attorney General William Barr had assigned U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the launch of the investigation into the Trump campaign. After his name hit the press, journalists covering the Spygate scandal quickly realized that Durham was the prosecutor investigating former FBI lawyer James Baker for potential illegal leaks.

    During his October 3, 2018, testimony to the House judiciary and oversight committees, Baker testified about his long-time friendship with Mother Jones reporter David Corn. But when Rep. Jim Jordan asked whether he had spoken with Corn about any FBI investigations, and specifically the Steele dossier, Baker’s attorney shut down the questioning. Baker’s lawyer told the committee Baker would not discuss any conversations with reporters because Baker was still the subject of a criminal investigation into illegal leaks. When pushed on who was handling that investigation, Baker’s lawyer said, “John Durham.”

    In addition to Durham’s appointment, we know that former attorney general Jeff Sessions tapped Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber more than a year ago to investigate aspects of the Russia-collusion hoax. The office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz is also conducting an internal review, focusing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act surveillance order.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/17/know-far-justice-departments-spygate-scandal-investigations/

    Democrats are crapping their pants!!! :D

    THREE investigations going on into Democrat corruption, malfeasance and criminal activities..

    And, it's likely it will all come out before the 2020 election..

    Any Dumbocrat candidate won't be worth a plug nickel!! :D

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Death of the Democratic Party

    Identity politics is its real killer.

    Top Stories
    What the Dems Can Learn From Down Under
    by DAVID CATRON
    Three Cheers for Nigel Farage
    by JED BABBIN
    The Calming Feeling as Jew-Hate Now Takes Deeper Root in the Democrat Party
    by DOV FISCHER

    Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates!
    REGISTER
    Hot Off
    The Press
    A FURTHER PERSPECTIVE
    Adversity Scores and the Persistence of Racial Preferences
    by ABRAHAM H. MILLER
    ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE
    The Human Race: A Basket of Deplorables
    by JOHN GLYNN
    In a recent speech in Las Vegas, Pete Buttigieg, the Democratic presidential candidate from South Bend, Indiana, spoke about the dangers posed by “so-called identity politics.” As you are aware, dear reader, identity politics involves people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc. forming exclusive political alliances, which ultimately moves them away from traditional broad-based party politics.

    According to Buttigieg, Americans have been told “to choose between supporting an auto worker and a trans woman of color, without stopping to think about the fact that sometimes the auto worker is a trans woman of color, and she definitely needs all the security she can get.”

    This is the problem: Even when a politician like Buttigieg warns about the dangers posed by identity politics, he still comes across as an apologist. Must everything revolve around the trans community? Seriously? Trans people make up about of 0.6% of the American population, yet they make up almost 100% of the conversation.

    One assumes that a large number of Americans are fed up with constantly being told to “embrace” transgender and gender nonconforming people, to “empathize” with their collective struggle. This does not mean that the exasperated are transphobic. The vast majority wish no harm on people who are uncomfortable with their identities. They just happen to have more personal, more pressing issues that need addressing, like trying to pay their bills, keep their jobs, or send their children to a decent college.
    https://spectator.org/the-death-of-the-democratic-party/

  179. [179] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Context.

    Elizabeth Warren claimed she had the biggest anti-corruption plan since Watergate. I pointed out how her plan could never be put into action until my plan was implemented, thus making it the biggest.

    What makes 2800 dollars corruption inducing?

    Most citizens can't afford to make even one 2800 dollars contribution much less one to a primary and general campaign and to many candidates.

    Most citizens can afford to make a contribution or two less than 200 dollars.

    While those here opposed to One Demand have no problem with 2800 dollar contributions, 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics and that means they most likely think that big money is a corrupting influence or they wouldn't want it out of politics.

    One Demand does what it can aboot the PAC/superPAC problem. Just like the candidates that have committed to not taking any PAC/ superPAC money while still taking big money contributions to their campaign, the One Demand candidates make the same commitment to not take PAC/superPAC money but do it while not taking big money contributions to their campaigns.

    Yes, we do have the ability to vote politicians out of office if we want to.

    One Demand provides a way for citizens to work together and organize a Union for Politics and utilize that ability to achieve the stated goal that citizens have not been utilizing.

    Of course I have explained why the politicians would meet the demand.

    10% of citizens pledging just 100 dollars to small donor candidiates now before the election would total over 1 billion dollars and is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Candidates will make the commitment to get the money and the votes that go with it.

    Of course candidates can make the commitment without One Demand.

    But they don't because they keep taking the big money and people keep voting for them so they have no incentive to make the commitment.

    By withholding the votes and voting against the big money candidates in the primaries and general election (with a write in vote that has a purpose made clear by signing up on the website if there are no small contribution candidates on the ballot) it provides the incentive for candidates to make the commitment- to get the votes.

    Basic democracy.

    I have "never put my plan into action" is not a reason for CW to not inform citizens aboot One Demand.

    In order for the plan to be put into action on any level, citizens must first know the plan exists.

    I set up the website and have proceeded to do what I can to get citizens informed aboot the opportunity.

    As I do not have millions of dollars to advertise, I do what anyone with an idea does and contact politicians, journalists, activists. etc.

    CW is one of those people.

    That is how ideas get put into action. Citizens are informed aboot the ideas by the media- which is their job to provide information that citizens are not getting through other sources.

    People don't join things and then find out it exists after they start supporting it. It just doesn't work that way.

    Saying that it has to be shown to work before it gets into the public discourse is the equivalent of the Alabama abortion law that says a woman can only get an abortion if she doesn't know she is pregnant.

    So I have addressed your points. Again.

    Now will you address the corruption of the big money Democrats or is all you can do is make/repeat ridiculous arguments that are just designed to avoid addressing the reality of the corruption of the big money Democrats?

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    It Was Supposed to Be Australia’s Climate Change Election. What Happened?

    SYDNEY, Australia — The polls said this would be Australia’s climate change election, when voters confronted harsh reality and elected leaders who would tackle the problem.

    And in some districts, it was true: Tony Abbott, the former prime minister who stymied climate policy for years, lost to an independent who campaigned on the issue. A few other new candidates prioritizing climate change also won.

    But over all, Australians shrugged off the warming seas killing the Great Barrier Reef and the extreme drought punishing farmers. On Saturday, in a result that stunned most analysts, they re-elected the conservative coalition that has long resisted plans to sharply cut down on carbon emissions and coal.

    What it could mean is that the world’s climate wars — already raging for years — are likely to intensify. Left-leaning candidates elsewhere, like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, may learn to avoid making climate a campaign issue, while here in Australia, conservatives face more enraged opponents and a more divided public.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/australia/election-climate-change.html

    Once again.. Liberals touted and swore by the polls..

    And then got bitch-slapped by them... :D

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all should really be thankful that I am here..

    On the one hand, you get the comfortable and welcome delusion that everything is awesome for Democrats..

    And, on the other hand, you get the FACTS and reality from me.. :D

    The best of both worlds... :D

  182. [182] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What I meant about the Mueller report not being enough is that it does not find the president completely and totally exonerated with respect to collusion. And, yet, too many people would like us to think that it does.

    Therefore, it is necessary for the special counsel to testify publicly before Congress and the American people in order to explain, in no uncertain terms, that Trump was not totally and completely exonerated of collusion

    Mueller clearly speaks to this in the executive summary to Volume II of his report where he details all of the contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign, contacts that Trump and members of his campaign and administration lied about, endlessly.

    For example, campaign chairman Manafort repeatedly met with someone who had ties to Russian intelligence to share polling data and a strategy to win Democratic votes in mid-western states. This is a definition of "collusion" and an action that probably came closest to being an act of coordination with the Russian government.

    The Mueller report outlines numerous instances of collusion between the Trump campaign and individuals with close ties to the Russian government. Collusion, however, is NOT a crime.

    It is just very bad behavior on the part of a US presidential campaign. And, no amount of your spin, Michale, can change that.

  183. [183] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MIchale,

    I wasn't trying to mislead you above. I meant to write Volume I, not Volume II.

    My apologies and renewed request for a time-sensitive edit function. Ahem.

  184. [184] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One question I'd like to hear the special counsel answer is why his office didn't try to make a case to the Office of Legal Counsel that would seek to revisit its policy of prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president.

    Because, as painstakingly outlined in the second volume of the report dealing with obstruction, there were indictable offences.

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how ya'all teased President Trump when his wife denied him a kiss at some event or another...

    VIDEO: Jill Biden forcibly removes Joe’s hands from her back
    MAY 19, 2019
    BY KYLE OLSON
    Share
    Tweet
    Reddit
    +1
    Share
    Jill Biden is a teacher and she’s going to teach her husband to keep his hands to himself.

    After she introduced him at his official campaign kickoff on Saturday in Philadelphia, Joe ran onto the stage, arms outstretched to embrace his wife with a large hug.

    After a few seconds, she forcibly removed his hands from her person, pulling his hands from her sides.
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-jill-biden-forcibly-removes-joes-hands-from-her-back/

    Surely ya'all will tease Biden for the same thing??

    No, of course ya'all won't.. Because Biden has a -D after his name..

  186. [186] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm pretty sure that Joe asked and received permission from Jill beforehand.

    Nothing to see here. :)

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    What I meant about the Mueller report not being enough is that it does not find the president completely and totally exonerated with respect to collusion. And, yet, too many people would like us to think that it does.

    And yet, it does...

    Completely and unarguably it does exonerate President Trump for Collusion..

    Because, if it didn't, Democrats would be SCREAMING to the high heavens over impeachment and the vast majority of Americans would be joining them..

    Since that is not happening, ergo... Exoneration..

    But if you would like to quote me the part of the report that says President Trump is guilty of collusion, we can put the debate to rest immediately..

    Therefore, it is necessary for the special counsel to testify publicly before Congress and the American people in order to explain, in no uncertain terms, that Trump was not totally and completely exonerated of collusion

    But he was.. This is fact...

    "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election,"

    THAT'S exoneration...

    And, no amount of your spin, Michale, can change that.

    And no amount of YOUR spin can change....

    " “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”"

    That's an EXACT quote from the Mueller report..

    Your turn..

    Quote from the report where it says that President Trump or his campaign colluded with Russians to win the election..

    You can't because the report doesn't say that...

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm pretty sure that Joe asked and received permission from Jill beforehand.

    And yet, she forcibly removed Joe's hands..

    Of course there was nothing to see there..

    Just as there was nothing to see when Trump tried to kiss Melania and was denied..

    But for ya'all, THAT was something and THIS is nothing, even though the actions are the same..

    A presidential spouse not wanting to engage in PDA...

  189. [189] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now I know for sure that you haven't even read the summaries of the report.

    Which means that I am done conversing with you on this subject until you do.

  190. [190] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But if you would like to quote me the part of the report that says President Trump is guilty of collusion, we can put the debate to rest immediately..

    Now I know that you didn't even read my post!

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    One question I'd like to hear the special counsel answer is why his office didn't try to make a case to the Office of Legal Counsel that would seek to revisit its policy of prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president.

    Because it wasn't Mueller's JOB to revise policy just to please the Trump/America haters..

    Mueller's job was to investigate and report.

    THAT was the sole function of Mueller and his team..

    NOT to please Trump/America haters...

    Because, as painstakingly outlined in the second volume of the report dealing with obstruction, there were indictable offences.

    That wasn't Mueller's determination to make..

    INVESTIGATE

    REPORT

    Just because Mueller reported something ya'all didn't like or didn't agree with doesn't change the nature of the facts or the fact of what Mueller's job was..

  192. [192] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, we're done here.

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now I know that you didn't even read my post!

    Of course I read it.. I *ALWAYS* read your posts..

    "What I meant about the Mueller report not being enough is that it does not find the president completely and totally exonerated with respect to collusion. And, yet, too many people would like us to think that it does."
    -Liz

    “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
    -Mueller Report

    The second totally decimates your claim in the first..

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, we're done here.

    Hokay.. :D

    See ya next time.. :D

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy, but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction

    WASHINGTON — The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found no evidence that President Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s key findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr.

    Mr. Mueller, who spent nearly two years investigating Moscow’s determined effort to sabotage the last presidential election, found no conspiracy “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” Mr. Barr wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

    There it is in black and white from the NY GRIME of all places..

    NO EVIDENCE OF A TRUMP-RUSSIA CONSPIRACY

    Ya'all can crow about all the other "whataboutisms" til the cows come home. Have a ball if that's what helps ya'all get thru your day...

    But what ya'all simply CANNOT do is factually claim that President Trump was NOT exonerated on Russia Collusion..

    Because it's CLEAR to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together and without a political agenda that President Trump **IS** totally and completely exonerated on the issue of Russia Collusion..

    To STILL think that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election is absolutely and unequivocally NO DIFFERENT than thinking Odumbo was born in Kenya and thinking that Dubya Bush and the Israeli MOSSAD engineered the 9/11 terror attacks..

    All three are simply a complete and utter denial of the facts and of reality...

  196. [196] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale

    Your corrupted reasoning here tells me that if the Mueller report reached exactly the same conclusions after the same kind of investigation but of a Democratic presidential campaign and administration then you would be using the polar opposite and equally corrupted reasoning to condemn the president.

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well.....

    THAT was impressive...

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your corrupted reasoning

    How exactly is my reasoning "corrupted"..

    I am quoting from the report...

    here tells me that if the Mueller report reached exactly the same conclusions after the same kind of investigation but of a Democratic presidential campaign and administration then you would be using the polar opposite and equally corrupted reasoning to condemn the president.

    Not at all.. I wouldn't deny the FACTS as the report states..

    Take the Benghazi investigation..

    Hillary was completely exonerated of responsibility for the brutal murder of 4 Americans..

    I didn't like that... I didn't agree with it..

    But I did NOT deny that it existed.. I didn't go around saying, "Oh no!! She was NOT exonerated.. She was found totally and completely guilty!!!"

    That's where we're different..

    Ya'all are denying the FACT of President Trump's exoneration....

    You don't agree, so you simply deny the fact...

  199. [199] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Apples and Oranges, friend.

    There were 15 hearings and 11+ hours of testimony by Hillary Clinton on Benghazi.

    Maybe the similarity is the complete astonishment by the observers on the other side at the outcome.

    And maybe we'll relent after WE get all that testimony. Who knows?

    But it's a long way, from here to there.

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    There were 15 hearings and 11+ hours of testimony by Hillary Clinton on Benghazi.

    And there was almost TWO YEARS and 35 million dollars spent on Mueller's probe.

    What you state is a distinction, not a different..

    And maybe we'll relent after WE get all that testimony. Who knows?

    Yea?? That's what ya'all said before.. "We'll relent when we get the report.."

    But ya didn't..

    And ya won't relent if Mueller testifies and states what his report states..

    “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    Do you HONESTLY expect Mueller to say ANYTHING different than what his report states??

    Ya'all won't relent because ya'all don't WANT to hear that Trump did not collude with the Russians..

    I didn't like nor agree with the Benghazi outcome.. But I accepted it..

    Ya'all can't make the same claim re: the Mueller outcome..

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn't like nor agree with the Benghazi outcome.. But I accepted it..

    Ya'all can't make the same claim re: the Mueller outcome..

    And THAT is why you are a Birther-esque Collusioner...

    Because you can't accept the facts and you can't accept reality...

  202. [202] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Y'know, I know that you like the fight.

    But I don't understand Trump.

    If he'd have ignored the Mueller Report, not sent Barr out to spin it, admitted some obstruction ("I was frustrated"), and let it play out, it would have been over by the end of the summer.

    Instead, he threw some blocks, and turned it into a train wreck.

    Say what you want. To Democrats, he's the gift that keeps on giving!

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Police Officer William Buechner
    Auburn Police Department, Alabama
    End of Watch: Sunday, May 19, 2019

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

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    If he'd have ignored the Mueller Report, not sent Barr out to spin it, admitted some obstruction ("I was frustrated"), and let it play out, it would have been over by the end of the summer.

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    It's so cute that you think that..

    You KNOW you Trump/America haters would be hysterical about the Mueller report no matter WHAT President Trump did about it..

    Don't bother to deny it because we BOTH know it's factually accurate..

    Say what you want. To Democrats, he's the gift that keeps on giving!

    And he is going to keep giving that gift all the way thru to his landslide re-election.. :D

  205. [205] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You KNOW you Trump/America haters would be hysterical about the Mueller report no matter WHAT President Trump did about it..

    Of course they would've. So would Republicants, if the shoe were on the other foot.

    But impeachment was dead, as an idea, until Trump decided not to play ball. Can't do that. Can't give Congress the finger, and expect them to say, "okay".

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course they would've. So would Republicants, if the shoe were on the other foot.

    OK so you are saying ya'all are no different than "Republicants"..

    OK, that's a concession.. Progress...

    But impeachment was dead, as an idea, until Trump decided not to play ball. Can't do that. Can't give Congress the finger, and expect them to say, "okay".

    Then impeach..

    But you CAN'T because you KNOW you ain't got shit to impeach over..

    And you KNOW that the American people would rally behind President Trump..

    *THAT* is why ya'all won't impeach... :D

  207. [207] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Then impeach..

    That's the legacy you want? Impeachment? Right out of the box? You guys are nuts.

    But then again, it is a way to shore up a deeply unpopular President.

    Well then, don't complain, don't bitch, don't call foul, because you asked for it!

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's the legacy you want? Impeachment? Right out of the box? You guys are nuts.

    It's what YOU claim you want..

    But you and I both know that A) you don't have anything TO impeach and 2) it will go bad for Dumbocrats if they try it.. :D

    Well then, don't complain, don't bitch, don't call foul, because you asked for it!

    Then quit talking about it and DO IT...

    All talk...

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trey Gowdy: Secret FBI transcripts from Russia probe could be 'game-changer'
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trey-gowdy-fbi-transcripts-russia

    Democrats pooping in their pants!! :D

  210. [210] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    More "selective leaks"? Doesn't Gowdy ever tire of that same tactic?

  211. [211] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    exonerated is the wrong word, that means completely cleared of suspicion. mueller found that suspicion was warranted, but there was no evidence to corroborate. that's grounds for dismissal or acquittal on any criminal charges, but it's not exoneration.

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    More "selective leaks"? Doesn't Gowdy ever tire of that same tactic?

    You mean, like the whiney biatch, Nadler and Shit-Fer-Brains??

    Funny how you don't care about it when THEY do it..

    It's all about the -D/-R after their names..

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    exonerated is the wrong word, that means completely cleared of suspicion.

    No, exoneration means completely cleared of criminal wrong doing..


    ex·on·er·ate
    /i??zän??r?t/
    verb
    past tense: exonerated; past participle: exonerated
    1.
    (especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.

    Doesn't say ANYTHING about "suspicion"...

    mueller found that suspicion was warranted,

    It wasn't Mueller's job to find "suspicion".. It was his job to find FACTS to support the "suspicion"..

    He found none...

    but there was no evidence to corroborate. that's grounds for dismissal or acquittal on any criminal charges, but it's not exoneration.

    And yet, according to the definition of exonerate, 'dismissal' and 'acquittal' *IS* 'exonerate'...

    NO FACTS/EVIDENCE to corroborate = exoneration..

    But, hay... I'm easy...

    Will Balthy, Russ et al concede that there was NO EVIDENCE to support collusion??

    No, they won't..

    The FACTS don't matter. Only their Trump/America hate..

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    mueller found that suspicion was warranted,

    It wasn't Mueller's job to find "suspicion".. It was his job to find FACTS to support the "suspicion"..

    "suspicion" was already established..

    THAT was why Mueller was hired..

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    Byron York: Mueller changed everything

    From now on, the Trump-Russia affair, the investigation that dominated the first years of Donald Trump's presidency, will be divided into two parts: before and after the release of the Mueller report. Before the special counsel's findings were made public last month, the president's adversaries were on the offensive. Now, they are playing defense.

    The change is due to one simple fact: Mueller could not establish that there was a conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign to fix the 2016 election. The special counsel's office interviewed 500 witnesses, issued 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants, and obtained nearly 300 records of electronic communications, and still could not establish the one thing that mattered most in the investigation.

    Without a judgment that a conspiracy — or collusion, in the popular phrase — took place, everything else in the Trump-Russia affair began to shrink in significance.

    In particular, allegations that the president obstructed justice to cover up a conspiracy were transformed into allegations that he obstructed an investigation into a crime that prosecutors could not say actually occurred. Although it is legally possible to pursue an obstruction case without an underlying crime, a critical element of obstruction — knowledge of guilt — disappeared the moment Mueller's report was released.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-mueller-changed-everything

    Without being able to prove an actual crime took place, the "whataboutisms" of obstruction to the investigation of said NON-crime is laughable...

    But hell.. I'll be happy to debate ya'all on yer silly and laughable 'whataboutisms'..

    But it does no good to debate with people who can't accept the basic and obvious facts...

    If ya'all can't accept reality, then debating with ya'all is like talking to a brick wall..

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    If ya'all can't accept reality, then debating with ya'all is like talking to a brick wall..

    And yet, here I am.. Day in and day out..

    Well, one has ta have a hobby... :D

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the meantime, House Democrats have been reduced to stunts to try to grab the public's attention. At the Capitol recently, they enlisted Hollywood star John Cusack to take part in a public reading of the entire Mueller report — it took 12 hours — as C-Span cameras rolled. The event did not exactly captivate the nation.

    Now, Republicans have turned the tables on Democrats by pumping new energy into their long-held desire to "investigate the investigation." Barr, who set off enormous controversy with his statement that "spying did occur" against the Trump campaign, has taken up the cause, assigning U.S. attorney John Durham to look into the origins of the probe.

    Anticipation is also building for the release of Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz's report on the department's handling of the case. It is probably not a coincidence that some Obama-era intelligence figures are now pointing fingers at each other over their reliance on the so-called Steele dossier, a collection of unsubstantiated allegations against the president compiled by a former British spy on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    None of this would have happened without the Mueller report's conclusion that the evidence did not establish conspiracy or coordination. If Democrats could still claim that Trump and Russia conspired in 2016, they would still have the upper hand. But after Mueller, that claim is no longer possible, and Democratic hopes are dwindling.

    And their desperate and pathetic attempts to remain relevant makes for laughable political theater.. :D

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House tells McGahn to defy House subpoena, as DOJ asserts 'immunity'

    President Trump has directed former White House Counsel Don McGahn to skip a House Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, citing a Justice Department opinion that he cannot be compelled to testify about his official duties.

    In a statement released Monday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders blasted Democrats for continuing to pursue Trump investigations, saying they want a "wasteful and unnecessary do-over" in the wake of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe -- and describing the subpoena for McGahn as part of that.

    "The House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena to try and force Mr. McGahn to testify again. The Department of Justice has provided a legal opinion stating that, based on long-standing, bipartisan, and Constitutional precedent, the former Counsel to the President cannot be forced to give such testimony, and Mr. McGahn has been directed to act accordingly," Sanders said. "This action has been taken in order to ensure that future Presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the Office of the Presidency."

    The related DOJ memo said McGahn, like other senior advisers to a president, has "immunity" from being compelled to testify about his official duties.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-mcgahn-house-hearing

    Executive Privilege, snowflakes.. :D

    Ya'all LOVED it when Odumbo exercised it...

    So, you won't have ANY problem with President Trump invoking it.. :D

    I got my socks dryin in the microwave
    Hair on my back I don't plan to shave
    I got the house to myself while the wife's away
    I'll be rockin all night
    Yeah I think I'll drink me an ice cold brew
    Lounge in my boxers like I used to do
    There'll be no Ally McBeal on the tube
    No...I'll be watchin the fight

    Well it's a great day to be a guy
    Playin cards my buddies until sunrise
    You know I never thought that my neighbor would
    Be sunbathing topless Lord she sure looks good

    -Cletus

    :D

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the SHOCK of the century!!!

    Judge upholds Dem subpoena for Trump financial records
    The judge, Amit Mehta, ruled that Congress can investigate the president without beginning formal impeachment proceedings.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/judge-upholds-dem-subpoena-for-trump-financial-records-1335370

    An Odumbo Judge sided with Dumbocrats...

    HOLY HELL THAT'S SHOCKING!!!!!

  220. [220] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    Context.

    I did not see that you were responding to Warren’s comment. That said, One Demand is still a delusional dream.

    Most citizens can't afford to make even one 2800 dollars contribution much less one to a primary and general campaign and to many candidates.

    Most cannot, but for others $2800 is not a problem. When people say they want Big Money out of our elections/politics, what exactly are they saying? What amount do most citizens consider to be “too much”? I am fairly sure that most citizens do not realize that $2800 is the cap on individual donations.

    In fact, this motivated me to take a micro-poll of my neighbors at our yearly street Yard Sale this morning. I live outside of Seattle, so it should not surprise you that most people tend to hold more liberal views.

    Of the 15 registered voters I asked “Do you believe we need to get Big Money out of elections/politics?”, all 15 said “Yes!”

    I asked them how much do they consider to be a problem? Two felt we should have elections that are completely funded by the government. The other 13 gave answers that ranged between $100,000 to unlimited amounts. Most said it was corporations, not individual donors, that they were concerned with (just a side note, not a question that I asked).

    When I asked the 13 if the current $2800 donation limit was what they considered to be the cause of the corruption, all 13 said “No”. All 13 said that they believed $2800 was not enough to “buy” even a local politician, much less one on the national level!

    Granted, this was just one neighborhood poll that was quickly thrown together, but it was clear that most believed that the campaign donations were NOT where people believe the problem is.

    Most citizens can afford to make a contribution or two less than 200 dollars.

    What are you basing this on? What data?

    Strange, when I pointed out how the non-profit I ran had donors that ranged from $10 to those that gave up to $1000, and that we treated those giving more different than those giving the least, you scoffed that I would try to compare my little organization (that is located in thousands of cities across all 50 states and 13 foreign countries) and how it treated donors differently, to your non-existent dream and how politicians treat their donors.

    Of course I have explained why the politicians would meet the demand.

    10% of citizens pledging just 100 dollars to small donor candidiates now before the election would total over 1 billion dollars and is just the tip of the iceberg.

    You have explained this before, and it is still just as delusional as it was the first time you stated it! “10% of citizens pledging just 100 dollars”...

    10% of citizens?

    Is that 10% of all citizens, 10% of voting aged citizens, 10% of registered voters, or 10% of people who give to political campaigns?
    I am pretty sure it is 10% of the entire population — which means that $1 billion dream has to be split up over however many individual campaigns there are in this country during any given election.

    PACs and SuperPAC’s are the real problem. Even if a candidate claims not to have any ties to a PAC, that doesn’t stop the PAC from supporting their campaign with ads and flyers. This is where all the “dark money” is funneled...not the candidates campaigns! One Demand offers citizens what defense against the influence of SuperPACs? None!

    CW is one of those people.

    Do you harass others as much as you do CW? Do you find new targets to pitch One Demand to, or do you keep going back to the ones that have already refused to promote an organization that exists only in your hopes and dreams?

    Continued...

  221. [221] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, there were four main findings from the Mueller report:

    Part 1
    1. Trump and his entourage did not conspire to break election laws with the Russians

    2.a Trump and his entourage coordinated the release of stolen emails via Wikileaks, including meetings with officers from Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks.

    2.b Trump and many of his entourage (e.g. Flynn) lied about their meetings with Russians, and their involvement with Russians, including Trump Moscow, the Trump Tower meeting (orphans my ass), and many, many more instances.

    3. Trump and Flynn tried to enlist hackers to find Hillary's imaginary 30,000 emails, but they failed due to incompetence and the fact the emails didn't even exist.

    Part 2
    4. Trump tried repeatedly to obstruct the investigation, and in many cases he was saved from the more illegal attempts by his staff refusing to break the law on his behalf.

    Net net - he is a liar (no news there); incompetent (we knew that in the 1980s); venal (also well known); and guilty of obstruction of justice, but the Attorney General refuses to indict him because of partisan politics.

    Of course the party before country crowd (you know who you are) won't accept the documented evidence, but in 20 years time they will all be denying they voted for him. In fact, in 20 years time the results from the 2016 election, in the minds of the remaining voters, will likely be 90% Hillary, 10% other.

  222. [222] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh, and Barr lied to congress, lied and misrepresented Mueller's findings, and will be lucky, like the rest of the mob, to find any real job in any respectable position again. There are only so many paid talking heads jobs on Fox News, and the competition is going to be fierce!

  223. [223] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris

    That is how ideas get put into action. Citizens are informed aboot the ideas by the media- which is their job to provide information that citizens are not getting through other sources.

    People don't join things and then find out it exists after they start supporting it. It just doesn't work that way.

    What movement has ever started with just one person’s concept getting national attention and then it magically formed into an actual organization?

    Saying that it has to be shown to work before it gets into the public discourse is the equivalent of the Alabama abortion law that says a woman can only get an abortion if she doesn't know she is pregnant.

    So you are saying that everyone’s idea deserves being covered by the media? No? Then why should your idea deserve air time and not everyone else’s? How many great organizations do you think are out there struggling to raise the support they need to exist deserve to wait for their moment in the spotlight so your untried, unsupported, and unrealistic idea can be made into a reality instantly by being promoted nationally?

    As for your Alabama abortion comparison (which I still do not fully understand what point you think you are making) does that mean just knowing about abortion will allow a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Should we be telling women they can also terminate unwanted pregnancies with untested, theoretical solutions???

    Maybe those theories will work, maybe not, but we won’t know until we try, right?!?

    Now will you address the corruption of the big money Democrats or is all you can do is make/repeat ridiculous arguments that are just designed to avoid addressing the reality of the corruption of the big money Democrats?

    As soon as you present evidence of actual corruption having been committed, we can address it! Just accepting the legally allowed contributions does not fit the legal definition for “corruption”.

  224. [224] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sam Harris has a good podcast on the Mueller findings for those that want reality instead of spin:

    https://samharris.org/podcasts/157-mueller-report-really-say/

  225. [225] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    An Odumbo Judge sided with Dumbocrats...

    HOLY HELL THAT'S SHOCKING!!!!!

    Michale claims a judge’s ruling was made strictly for partisan reasons instead of being based on case law, precedent, and a common sense reading of the Constitution...

    HOLY HELL THAT’S the typical crap that gets spewed on here by him every single day!

  226. [226] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    neilm,

    Of course the party before country crowd (you know who you are) won't accept the documented evidence, but in 20 years time they will all be denying they voted for him.

    Please, in 20 years time they will mostly have been dead for over 10 years. If not from old age and bitterness, then from suicide. They could barely survive having a BLACK president, but a woman in the White House, or GOD FORBID a gay... they’ll exercise their 2nd Amendment right to destroy the resale value of their property in mass numbers!

  227. [227] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [221] Neilm,

    Good breakdown! Sorta reminds me of Republican Justin Amash's over the weekend.

    And in post [222] you could add all of the present obstruction still being carried on.

    Today, Gorsuch sided with liberals on an issue of native rights. Roberts has been showing his independence lately too. I'm not sure that SCOTUS would fall in Trump's direction if any of this gets to them.

  228. [228] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    eilm [224]

    I brought up your Sam Harris podcast, and made it to about the 20 min point, where my eyelids were getting awful heavy, and I gave up.

    It's illustrative that Harris refers to the guest's presentation of his take on the Mueller report with the terms "post-mortem", and "autopsy", clearly implying that he considers the report a "dead" issue.

    However, while nobody in the land of Weigantia is EVER about to agree with Michale that it boils down to pretty much of an exhoneration of Trump, it's pretty hard not to conclude that it at least (Harris probably thinks regretfully) certainly amounts to absolving him of criminal activity.

    That being said, is it unrealistic to even hope that the Kicks of the land of Weigantia, couldn't some day, if not let it die, at least MOVE ON, for gawdsake?

  229. [229] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    is it unrealistic to even hope that the. . .of the land of Weigantia, couldn't some day, if not let it die, at least MOVE ON

    Move on to what? It seems that Trump doesn't want anybody looking into anything.

    There are several investigations ongoing. There's the emoluments question, the taxes, the Trump Tower Moscow, and others that weren't even looked at by Mueller. Surely Congress has a stake in those.

    Look, CRS, if Trump hadn't blocked access to the Mueller report, my guess is that it WOULD all have been over by now, and Congress would have moved on.

    Trump is his own enemy.

  230. [230] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    You admit that most citizens can't afford a 2800 dollar contribution and then wonder what most citizens might consider too much?

    A fair guess would be an amount that most citizens can't afford would be too much.

    I seems from the results of your poll that you did not come across anyone that could not afford more than one or two hundred dollars in contributions.

    As for your organization, I believe you said you did NOT give different treatment to donors giving different amounts. I said one of the differences between donors to your organization and donors to politicians is that your organization does not pass legislation.

    What am I basing that most citizens can make a 100 or 200 dollar contribution on?

    A person making 20,000 a year can probably afford a 100 dollar contribution.

    Unless the majority of citizens are making less than 20,000 dollars a year they can afford a 100 dollar contribution.

    Okay this time I said 10% of citizens instead of 10% of presidential election voters (6% of eligible voters).

    For a presidential campaign just 5% of P.E voters contributing 100 dollars would total over 500,000 million dollars.

    10% contributing 100 dollars to a congressional candidate (includes the Senate) for 2020 would total over 1 billion.

    With aboot 470 seats up for election in 2020 that would be over 2 million per congressional race if there were a small contribution candidate in each race and the billion dollars were divided equally, which is unlikely.

    More likely is that 50-100 small contribution candidates may be getting most of the billion with some getting 5 million give or take a bit and some getting 10 million or more.

    Some of these candidates will come close but lose, but some will win.

    Then in 2022 more than 10% will participate because they saw the success in 2020.

    I provide my opinion on what CW writes. If your opinion is that it is harassment, that is only your opinion.

    It is doubtful that any big money PACs will be doing anything but attack a small donor candidate or that they will be able to influence their supporters.

    And besides that, One Demand does exactly the same as any candidate that does not take PAC money.

    So what is your logic when One Demand does more and not less than anything else being offered?

    Every organization started with one person's idea which got national attention and then formed into an organization without any magic.

    It's obvious you don't get the Alabama reference because you just made the same stupid argument again.

    You are arguing that the idea has to be tried and supported before it can be discussed when it can't be tried or supported if people don't know aboot it.

    Why should the idea be discussed?

    Because I was right aboot taking on the establishment candidates in the primaries long before there was a Tea Party and right aboot the feasibility of small contributions long before Bernie's 2016 campaign when those were thought to be "unrealistic ideas".

    So parts of One Demand have been tried and proven successful.

    That is why the rest of the idea deserves to be entered into the public discourse.

    I only have to provide evidence of actual corruption to you or others that are defending big money.

    80% of citizens want the big money out of politics so they already are convinced that the corruption exists or they wouldn't want the big money out.

    But I do thank you for asking what most citizens would consider too much for a donor to make to candidate.

    You and Kick and your neighbors think 2800 dollars is okay.

    I think anything over 200 dollars is too much because I believe it should be an amount that most citizens can afford which you admitted 2800 dollars is not.

    That question is exacctly the question I have been trying to get CW to enter into the public discourse, because that question is the root of determining what defines a small donor candidate.

    CW?

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    So, there were four main findings from the Mueller report:

    But only ONE part is relevant to the question at hand. The question that was the ENTIRE reason for the Mueller investigation to begin with..

    Part 1
    1. Trump and his entourage did not conspire to break election laws with the Russians

    And THAT's the one..

    So, are you conceding that President Trump is completely exonerated from Russia Collusion???

    Of course the party before country crowd (you know who you are) won't accept the documented evidence,

    Exactly... Could not have said it better myself.

    The PARTY before COUNTRY crowd won't accept the DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE that there was NO RUSSIA COLLUSION on the part of **ANY** American..

    You ARE taking a Sherman!!! :D

    Oh, and Barr lied to congress, lied and misrepresented Mueller's findings,

    Not factually accurate...

    And you were doing SOO well... :(

    . There are only so many paid talking heads jobs on Fox News, and the competition is going to be fierce!

    Kinda ironic when you consider that all the scumbags in Odumbo's administration who orchestrated this witch hunt are talking heads for the various media outlets.

    But THAT'S ok, because they have -Ds after their names..

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale claims a judge’s ruling was made strictly for partisan reasons instead of being based on case law, precedent, and a common sense reading of the Constitution...

    Thank you for agreeing with me..

    Let's see what the SCOTUS says about it, shall we??? :D

    "Yer gonna lose"
    -Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOYSCOUT

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm not sure that SCOTUS would fall in Trump's direction if any of this gets to them.

    Of course yer not..

    But that assessment is only based on your Party slavery and not on facts or reality. Something you have PROVEN you can completely ignore when yer Party slavery demands it..

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look, CRS, if Trump hadn't blocked access to the Mueller report, my guess is that it WOULD all have been over by now, and Congress would have moved on.

    Trump didn't block anything..

    It was AG Barr who was forced to redact 2% of the report and he only did that to obey the law..

    A LAW, I remind you, that was created and enacted by DEMOCRATS to protect DEMOCRATS...

  235. [235] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    120

    Very well said, EM. :)

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look, CRS, if Trump hadn't blocked access to the Mueller report, my guess is that it WOULD all have been over by now, and Congress would have moved on.

    I am also constrained to point out that Congress (and ya'all, incidentally) have PROVEN beyond ANY doubt that ya'all are INCAPABLE of moving on when it comes to the shiny Trump-bashing bludgeons..

    Trump... oh.. sorry.. The entire Mueller report, including the 2% that's redacted, could have been released and PRESIDENT Trump could have said or done NOTHING about it and ya'all would STILL be exactly where ya'all are now...

    So, please... Spew that fairy tale that ya'all and/or Congress would have "moved on" except for blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaaa...

  237. [237] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    159

    you're completely off-base discussing don's idea.

    Don? I know nothing of this "Don," but I like the pie idea.

    many people like yourself criticize pie for what it is not...

    I have been known to criticize pie when it is not chocolate. :)

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    Loretta Lynch accuses Comey of misrepresenting key Clinton probe conversation, was 'quite surprised' by his testimony
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/loretta-lynch-james-comey-contradition-clinton-probe-matter-investigation

    Once again, Democrats turn on Democrats as the heat is rising.. :D

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Dems are united"
    -Balthasar

    Comment #238 puts that claim to lie.. :D

  240. [240] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    211

    exonerated is the wrong word, that means completely cleared of suspicion. mueller found that suspicion was warranted, but there was no evidence to corroborate. that's grounds for dismissal or acquittal on any criminal charges, but it's not exoneration.

    Yes, sir. Absolutely 100% correct.

    We've actually discussed all this ad nauseam when Michale incorrectly stated that Manafort was "completely exonerated" on all the charges he wasn't found guilty of in his jury trial. Not being found guilty by a jury isn't the same as "complete exoneration." Same principle here.

    Also, Mueller was never going to indict Trump for any charges, and therefore Mueller could never exonerate a person he was never going to indict based on the longstanding rule written by Nixon's collaborators in the DOJ.

    Hillary wasn't completely exonerated of anything either. The DOJ simply declined to prosecute her.

    So to recap: Manafort was found guilty on multiple charges and not found guilty on multiple others; however, not being found guilty isn't the equivalent of being "completely exonerated." Indeed, he plead guilty on every single one of the other charges and now sits in prison.

    Hillary was not completely exonerated of anything because she was indeed never charged with anything.

    Mueller made the decision that Donald Trump was never going to be charged with anything because he is the sitting president of the United States. Mueller also made clear in his report that he was preserving the record and that Trump could be charged with multiple counts after he is no longer president.

    Interestingly, Mueller also made the following observation regarding Trump:

    The evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns...

    Indeed, Appendix D contains quite an impressive list of cases that were spun off the Mueller investigation due to its limited scope. I would wager that one of those redacted cases is called "United States v. Wikileaks" -- or something similar to that effect -- and that an investigation into the Trump campaign's conspiracy with a the cutout of the "Russian government" is "continuing robustly."

    If sufficient evidence of such a conspiracy with WikiLeaks exists, under DOJ current guidelines, the sitting POTUS still would not be charged with said conspiracy until he no longer held the office; however, all the other actors in such a conspiracy could be charged immediately. Indeed, they've already indicted Roger Stone with related issues. :)

  241. [241] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    225

    Michale claims a judge’s ruling was made strictly for partisan reasons instead of being based on case law, precedent, and a common sense reading of the Constitution...

    The Constitution is clear on this issue too; it's not even a close call. Trump's lawyers know this; their primary aim is to stall for time.

    HOLY HELL THAT’S the typical crap that gets spewed on here by him every single day!

    Yes, sir, and no matter how many times he spews that utter nonsensical bullshit, it's still just his totally uninformed opinion and nothing more... and so shall remain ever thus. :)

  242. [242] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    226

    Please, in 20 years time they will mostly have been dead for over 10 years. If not from old age and bitterness, then from suicide.

    Factually accurate that a disproportionate number of voters for Trump are now "pushing up daisies and/or daffodils."

    They could barely survive having a BLACK president, but a woman in the White House, or GOD FORBID a gay... they’ll exercise their 2nd Amendment right to destroy the resale value of their property in mass numbers!

    Close your eyes and imagine this: How ape shit crazy they became when a woman of color was simply living in the White House. Now imagine a woman of color being elected either President or Vice President of the United States. Their heads would definitely explode. :)

  243. [243] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    228

    That being said, is it unrealistic to even hope that the Kicks of the land of Weigantia, couldn't some day, if not let it die, at least MOVE ON, for gawdsake?

    I see you're still missing the big picture, Stucki. :)

  244. [244] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    230

    You and Kick and your neighbors think 2800 dollars is okay.

    Okay!? Wrong. It's simply the federally defined limit on individual contributions that rises with inflation... it's neither correct or incorrect. Some can afford it and some can't... so what? What it is, is an amount that might get you a lunch at a political function and maybe a t-shirt or politically branded item and nothing more. What it isn't is an amount sufficient to buy a politician. Some can afford the maximum contribution and some can't. I give maximum contributions to multiple candidates. Sometimes I even get a bumper sticker for it. I have quite a collection of political bumper stickers, and I inherited my father's collection too.

    Still, I've never bought a single favor from any politician for a maximum individual contribution. Best thing I ever did get from a politician was a hug from the Governor of Texas who shook the hands of all my colleagues and then promptly kissed me on the cheek and hugged me. Well, she was my babysitter and a close friend to my family, which I hadn't revealed to any of them beforehand. It was awesome to see their jaws drop when they got handshakes while I got hugs and kisses. Want to know how many political favors I got from the Governor of Texas whom I knew intimately since I was a toddler? Zero. Not a single one.

    I think anything over 200 dollars is too much because I believe it should be an amount that most citizens can afford which you admitted 2800 dollars is not.

    You seem to want to turn democracy into an exercise in socialism where everyone contributes some kind of "lowest common denominator." Life doesn't work that way, Don. What makes eligible voters in the United States equal is that their vote generally counts as much as everyone else's. In fact, withholding your vote or voting in a manner where your vote won't be counted at all is giving up the one thing you have that actually does level the playing field... your vote, which is generally free.

    As far as choosing to give money to political candidates and political ventures, the vast majority of people are already giving less than $200 to a myriad of good causes when they make their contributions in the amount of $0 dollars and zero cents. I like to think that the larger contributors are simply pulling up the slack for those apathetic individuals who couldn't care less to contribute and for those who genuinely care but can't afford to contribute, and if the self-described uneducated and "average citizen" named Don Harris doesn't like it or can't understand it, I seriously couldn't care less. :)

  245. [245] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    What I'm actually missing is motivation/satisfactio/stimulation to participate here.

  246. [246] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    245

    What I'm actually missing is motivation/satisfactio/stimulation to participate here.

    So you're a bored troll? :)

  247. [247] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    So you have never received a political favor for your big money contributions.

    So what?

    Assuming you would never rob my house doesn't mean that no one else will.

    For this reason, even 7-11 has a lock on their door despite being open 24/7/365.

    If there are no big money contributors then there is no question aboot the motivations of the big money contributors because there are no big money contributors.

    You do provide a perfect example of how those that can afford big money contributions fail to see the perspective of those that can't.

    If all a citizen can afford is 100 or 200 dollars in contributions it seems insignificant and pointless when compared to a 2800 dollar contribution.

    If this were not true and a concern for many citizens then the candidates that are pretending to be small donor candidates would not be touting their small contributions and trying to pass off small contribution campaigns as small donor campaigns.

    Socialism? Really?

    Life doesn't work that way?

    Socialism-bad. It has been labeled as socialism so it doesn't have to be thought aboot because socialism is bad.

    This is how things are so just accept them is not an acceptable argument.

    You are right that everyone's vote is equal.

    But voting against the big money candidates by using a write in vote is not giving up anything.

    It is using our votes the way they were intended to be used.

    If citizens don't want candidates to take big money but keep voting for them when they take big money the candidates have no incentive to not take big money.

    The vote may not be officially counted in every state, but it will counted in the places where write in votes are counted. It can start there and expand in future elections to other places.

    Or should every state be lowered to the lowest common denominator of not counting or allowing write in votes?

    Even in some states where write in votes are not counted in the total to elect a candidate to office or disallowed when cast the numbers of these votes can still be obtained.

    As the purpose of this vote is to register a vote against the big money candidates and to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates in future elections these are still counted for the desired purpose.

    This is another example of you only seeing through your short term perspective that all that matters is who wins the current election and refusing to accept that other people may prefer taking a long term approach to work to solve a long term problem and think and vote beyond just the current election.

    As for your most people are giving 0 dollars, that's explained above in your failure to see the perspective of those that can only afford to give 100 or 200 dollars.

    I have no degrees. But that does not mean I am not educated. School/college is not the only place to gain knowledge.

    You may like to think that big money contributors are picking up the slack and you may well have that as your intention.

    But you are going aboot it the wrong way.

    You are perpetuating the problem, providing cover for big money contributors that do not have honorable intentions and discouraging those that might contribute if they didn't feel their contributions would be insignificant compared to yours.

    To not perpetuate the problem, provide cover for dishonorable big money contributors and discourage those that might contribute if they felt their contributions were equal, a person that wants to help those that can only afford small contributions or none at all could make small contributions to many small donor candidates so they would only be helping those that can only afford small contributions or none.

    I understand how things work just fine.

    I couldn't care less if your need to rationalize makes you choose to ignore reality.

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I'm actually missing is motivation/satisfactio/stimulation to participate here.

    Oh come on!!!!

    Seeing these impotent whiners hysterically flail and flop around trying to mainstream their lunacy and delusions and FAILING at every juncture??

    That's it's own reward.. :D

    Or it could be that I am just easily amused... :D

    "Yer easily amused. Base clear!!"

    :D

  249. [249] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    As I recall, my [2] and maybe one from neilm were the ONLYGAWDAM posts out of 247 that had anything to do with Chris's "Friday Talking Points"!

    That should make him elligible to be another "bored troll"!

  250. [250] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    247

    Assuming you would never rob my house doesn't mean that no one else will.

    So you're somehow equating the robbing of your house with political candidates giving favors to donors who contribute a paltry $2,800 to their campaign. I see your problem, Don.

    For this reason, even 7-11 has a lock on their door despite being open 24/7/365.

    Do you live at 7-11 or something? What does 7-11 have to do with anybody robbing your "house"? What do locks on doors have to do with political contributions? Do you think a person who would give a larger donation than you is somehow indicative of someone who would rob somebody? I see your problem, Don.

    If there are no big money contributors then there is no question aboot the motivations of the big money contributors because there are no big money contributors.

    If your plan is to rid the world of "big money contributors," then you're quite obviously missing the huge forest for the tiny little trees. I do see your problem, Don.

    You do provide a perfect example of how those that can afford big money contributions fail to see the perspective of those that can't.

    If you're saying that those who can afford to contribute more are incapable of understanding those who can't, then you're even more ignorant than you describe yourself, which I did not think was possible since you describe yourself in such lowly terms.

    If all a citizen can afford is 100 or 200 dollars in contributions it seems insignificant and pointless when compared to a 2800 dollar contribution.

    I disagree. It's never insignificant when a citizen who gives $100 who might be giving 10% of his weekly income... which is far more than I'm giving.

    If this were not true and a concern for many citizens then the candidates that are pretending to be small donor candidates would not be touting their small contributions and trying to pass off small contribution campaigns as small donor campaigns.

    As I have said many times, the vast majority of citizens are already small donor candidates who give $0 dollars. This is a fact that undoubtedly will remain ever thus.

    Socialism? Really?

    Yes. Trying to put people in boxes that make them monetarily equal is what socialism does. Our government has already taken care of that exercise in socialism by setting the maximum contribution figure at $2,800. Your problem is that you think that amount is too large and keeps people from contributing. I disagree that not being able to contribute the maximum is why people don't contribute. Why don't you endeavor to get Congress to change the maximum contribution laws? TYA.

    Life doesn't work that way?

    No, it damn sure does not.

    Socialism-bad. It has been labeled as socialism so it doesn't have to be thought aboot because socialism is bad.

    I didn't say any of that, Don, you effing moron. I said the government has already taken care of the aspect that makes us equal, and that is by granting us all a vote that generally counts in the same amount. Surely you realize that this equality happened over time and didn't exist in the beginning of the Republic. There was a time when only rich white landowners of a certain means were allowed to cast a vote. Fast forward to today where every citizen has a vote that generally makes them equal in "theory"... but in "practice" we still have voter suppression, etc.

    This is how things are so just accept them is not an acceptable argument.

    I didn't say that either.

    You are right that everyone's vote is equal.

    It's the ultimate exercise in levelling the playing field. There are also indeed limits on individual contributions which also level the playing field to a degree; you just disagree on the amount.

    But voting against the big money candidates by using a write in vote is not giving up anything.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. In the vast majority of states with only a few exceptions, state statutes do not allow for write-in candidates at all or unless they are pre-approved official write-in candidates. I do encourage all the activists to "burn" their vote so that the centrist voters who have no intention of forfeiting their right to elect their representatives are the ones doing all the choosing... since I'm a centrist.

    It is using our votes the way they were intended to be used.

    Tell that to the vast majority of states that prove otherwise.

    If citizens don't want candidates to take big money but keep voting for them when they take big money the candidates have no incentive to not take big money.

    The government already limits individual donors from giving big money. Already been covered ad nauseam. If you don't like the amount they set, why don't you work toward getting Congress or Courts to change the laws regarding political contributions?

    The vote may not be officially counted in every state, but it will counted in the places where write in votes are counted. It can start there and expand in future elections to other places.

    No it can't unless you change the laws in 40 states. Write-in votes are only accepted in 10 states and DC where they are counted. Eight states allow no write-in votes at all... already covered ad nauseam.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write-in-votes/

    Or should every state be lowered to the lowest common denominator of not counting or allowing write in votes?

    It's not my call, Don. I don't concern myself with trying to force my personal views about voting on every other person or state; that's your thing.

    Even in some states where write in votes are not counted in the total to elect a candidate to office or disallowed when cast the numbers of these votes can still be obtained.

    How would you differentiate those actually voting for an official write-in versus the idiots taking your ignorant advice and "burning" their vote. You can't and never could.

    This is another example of you only seeing through your short term perspective that all that matters is who wins the current election and refusing to accept that other people may prefer taking a long term approach to work to solve a long term problem and think and vote beyond just the current election.

    No, moron, it isn't. This is another example of you telling me what I think. Anyone telling me they know what I'm thinking is not just a fool but a damn fool.

    As for your most people are giving 0 dollars, that's explained above in your failure to see the perspective of those that can only afford to give 100 or 200 dollars.

    So you're a damn fool that believes he knows what I'm thinking. Nothing new around here. Take a number and get in line. This board has several trolls that play that ridiculous nonsensical game that only proves you they have no argument and suck at debate.

    I have no degrees. But that does not mean I am not educated. School/college is not the only place to gain knowledge.

    Your comments and your belief that you know what others are thinking betray the ridiculous notion that you are educated. If you wish to appear "knowledgeable," you should divest yourself of the ridiculous notion that you know what anyone else is thinking. It's lousy debate form and utter cluelessness all rolled into one.

    You may like to think that big money contributors are picking up the slack and you may well have that as your intention.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't think that $2,800 is a "big money" contribution. Your problem is that you keep applying your own ridiculous definitions to everyone else and judging them based on your beliefs. If I don't think $2,800 is big money, then I obviously don't think I'm a "big money contributor." Your lack of knowledge is demonstrable and oozes from your every comment box.

    But you are going aboot it the wrong way.

    If choosing a candidate on my ballot is the "wrong way," then I am gloriously wrong every time there is an election in which I am allowed to exercise my right to vote for my representatives.

    You are perpetuating the problem, providing cover for big money contributors that do not have honorable intentions and discouraging those that might contribute if they didn't feel their contributions would be insignificant compared to yours.

    You are full of shit all the way up to your tiny little uneducated brain. :)

    To not perpetuate the problem, provide cover for dishonorable big money contributors and discourage those that might contribute if they felt their contributions were equal, a person that wants to help those that can only afford small contributions or none at all could make small contributions to many small donor candidates so they would only be helping those that can only afford small contributions or none.

    This is America, Don. The federal government already places me in a little box and limits my contributions. Why on Earth would I voluntarily allow myself to be limited by your ridiculously smaller little sand box?

    I have no intention whatsoever of joining you and your ilk in your tiny self-imposed sand box, and I can assure you that I will be happily voting and choosing my representatives while y'all are sitting on your asses and your principles in your little boxes and happily pounding sand. :)

  251. [251] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    Thanks for tagging in and taking over this conversation with Don Harris in my absence — mini fire that had to be put out kept me from responding to his reply.

    That DH thinks people are going to respond positively to OneDemand if they just hear about it is delusional. Proof: No one who has heard about it to date has jumped on board. No word of mouth campaign has surfaced.

    DH gets frustrated that I keep asking the same questions about OneDemand, but he does not seem to realize that these questions aren’t being re-asked because I forgot his answers — it’s because his answers do not actually answer the questions.

    How will anyone know which write in voters are doing so as a form of protest and which ones are actually voting for Homer Simpson?

    How does accepting only small donations stop corruption in politics if we have already established that $2800 might get you a t-shirt, but it won’t buy you a Senator? Microsoft, Boeing, and Amazon are all major donors to my Senators. They are also the employers of a good portion of the voters in this area. So are my Senators corrupt because they back legislation that these corporations want, or are they doing their jobs by voting for what their constituents want? You can’t make a call either way based on generalizations, you have to look at the specifics, case by case to have any hope of making that determination.

    This is why overly simple solutions rarely ever solve complex problems!

    And holy hell why would anyone think that grassroots movements — like BLM, for example — got national attention prior to them holding rallies and organizing protests? No news media wrote an article about BLM’s founders having an idea that they believe will be effective and then they got organized and took action!

    Just wanted to say thanks and that you gave great responses (as always!).

  252. [252] 
    Michale wrote:

    And holy hell why would anyone think that grassroots movements — like BLM, for example — got national attention prior to them holding rallies and organizing protests?

    BLM got National attention when they started destroying people's lives and businesses and killing cops.....

    I dunno WHY you would think that THAT is a worthy process to emulate.. :eyeroll:

  253. [253] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    BLM got National attention when they started destroying people's lives and businesses and killing cops.....

    I dunno WHY you would think that THAT is a worthy process to emulate.. :eyeroll:

    I dunno WHY you would think that I think THAT is worthy process to emulate...

    I simply was pointing out that results garner attention; good intentions not so much.

  254. [254] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[213],

    i accept the definition of the term you provided, but not the "completely and utterly exonerated" claim. i would say that since there's been no trial, no dismissal, no acquittal, no impeachment, no charges filed, the exoneration is partial. as i mentioned earlier, the lack of evidence to confirm that a crime is committed is not the same as the presence of evidence that a crime was not committed. at least in theory, new evidence could someday be uncovered that would justify filing charges of conspiracy. i happen not to believe that it ever will, but it's still technically possible. therefore the exoneration is partial.

    JL

  255. [255] 
    Michale wrote:

    I dunno WHY you would think that I think THAT is worthy process to emulate...

    Because you brought it up..

    I simply was pointing out that results garner attention; good intentions not so much.

    So, do you think that DH should use BLM tactics to further his cause???

  256. [256] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pennsylvania Republican Fred Keller projected to win special House election
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-republican-fred-keller-projected-to-win-special-house-election

    I said it in 2016 and was proven right... :D

    I'll say it again...

    Pennsylvania is a MAGA State.. :D

Comments for this article are closed.