ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Mueller Speaks, But Not Quite Clearly Enough

[ Posted Friday, May 31st, 2019 – 18:03 UTC ]

Robert Mueller broke his two-year silence this week, as he strode boldly to the podium and loudly announced: "ITMFA!" and then withdrew. 'This caused the term to spike in Google searches to a level never seen before on any subject, ever.

Well, no. That's not what happened. Many now think that's what should have happened, but unfortunately it did not.

Instead, Mueller all but begged Congress not to force him to testify, and warned that if he had to testify, he would strive to merely read excerpts from his written report and not answer any tangential questions at all (heavily implying that this would be a waste of time, and therefore why bother?). He reiterated in the strongest possible terms that Justice Department guidelines prevented him not only from indicting a sitting president, but also from accusing a sitting president of any crime in any way whatsoever (even indirectly) -- which includes making any sort of recommendation to Congress on the question of whether Donald Trump should be impeached. Doing so would be a de facto accusation of a crime, which the guidelines say Mueller should not do (under Mueller's interpretations of them).

This annoyed Trump no end, since Mueller also explicitly pointed out once again that if he had found no evidence of any crimes Trump committed, then his report would have clearly stated this in order to exonerate Trump -- but that he could not reach this conclusion at all. Trump even backed off from his "no collusion, no obstruction" claims as a result, and the best tweet he could come up with responding to Mueller was: "Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you." In other words, you couldn't prove it, so therefore it must not have happened. That's a significant change from the language Trump was using before Mueller spoke, to put it mildly.

What probably annoyed Trump more than anything, though, was the fact that Mueller absolutely owned the entire day's news cycle. To counter this, the very next day Trump pulled a brand new tariff out of his hindquarters, just to get his name back in the news. More on this in a moment.

Mueller's statement did have one pronounced effect: unifying the Democratic candidates on what to do next. Plenty of them reacted strongly, but our favorite came in the form of a tweet from Senator Elizabeth Warren:

Mueller leaves no doubt:
1) He didn't exonerate the president because there is evidence he committed crimes.
2) Justice Department policy prevented him from charging the president with any crimes.
3) The Constitution leaves it up to Congress to act--and that's impeachment.

She's not alone. Most of the presidential candidates are also now on board the impeachment train, and the Washington Post is keeping a handy reference list of all the House Democrats who are now calling for impeachment as well.

The most amusing reaction came from Newt Gingrich, who tweeted:

Muller tried today to have iut [sic] boith [sic] ways. If he thought President Trumpo [sic?] was guilty of something he should have said he was guilty of something.

The rest of the internet pronounced Newt guilty of not being able to spell. Those that weren't having lots of fun with the clown-like moniker "President Trumpo," that is.

But back to those hastily-announced tariffs. Again, the obvious interpretation here is that the following sequence of events happened:

(1) Trump watched Mueller on television.

(2) Since Trump has never read the Mueller Report himself, lots of what Mueller said was news to him.

(3) Trump became enraged that Mueller dominated that day's news cycle.

(4) Trump flailed around and then decided to do something dramatic on impulse, no matter how bad an idea his advisors think it is.

(5) Trump announced new tariffs on everything we import from Mexico (which will start at five percent and rise each month until they hit 25 percent) unless they "do something" about illegal immigrants entering our country.

(6) Voila! Trump owns the next day's news cycle.

You just know, in your heart of hearts, that this is how this new policy came into being. Trump even touted it hours ahead of time to tease the media -- something he usually doesn't even feel the need to do -- saying it would be a "big league" announcement.

You can tell it was a completely spontaneous decision because like most of Trump's "shoot from the hip" ideas, it directly undermines something else he's attempting to achieve. This week he had been pushing Congress hard to pass his "NAFTA version 1.1" trade deal with Mexico and Canada, which he desperately wants to succeed so he'll have something to run on next year other than that stinkeroo of a tax cut.

But opening a brand-new trade war with Mexico is going to put this trade deal in jeopardy, both in our own Congress and in the Mexican government's.

Now, the entire thing may be just a flat-out fake, it bears mentioning. Why do we say this? Because there are no details about what it would take for Trump to declare victory and end this tariff. He says he wants to force Mexico to not let in so many migrants, but there are no metrics attached to that vague and rather shifty goal. Every year, migration is cyclical, meaning in the winter the numbers always go down. If they do begin to fall after the summer's over, then Trump may just claim that it is all due to his hardline with Mexico and that he can now end the tariffs completely. In other words, maybe he's trying to be crazy like a fox.

If so, several Republican senators didn't get the memo. Already Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst have denounced Trump's new tariff, and plenty of other Republicans may follow in their footsteps. Or maybe not -- the Republican Party has sold its soul to Donald Trump to such an extent that it's hard to say how much abuse they'll take before finally speaking out, these days.

In other news, documents were uncovered which pretty plainly show why Republicans have been pushing to add a citizenship question to the U.S. Census. The New York Times initially reported that Republican operative Thomas Hofeller -- the guy who "spent nearly two decades as the Republican National Committee's redistricting chairman" -- was one of the originators of the scheme. He died last year, and his heirs turned over some hard drives with some interesting documents on them:

Hofeller analyzed Texas state legislative maps and determined that maps based only on the number of U.S. citizens "would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats" and "would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites," according to court filings.

Hofeller wrote that implementing these maps without adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census would be "functionally unworkable."

In other words, it wasn't just a nakedly partisan scheme, it was also simultaneously a racist scheme. No wonder Trump and his minions embraced the idea so quickly.

Speaking of Trump minions, it seems someone at the White House wanted to protect the tender sensibilities of President Man-Baby this week, as they ordered the military to cover up the name of a ship -- just in case Trump threw a hissy fit when he saw it on his trip to Japan. The Pentagon complied, and the ship's name was covered up with a large tarp. As if that weren't enough, sailors from the U.S.S. John McCain (originally named for Senator McCain's father and grandfather, respected Navy admirals who share his name) were disinvited from the president's visit to another Navy ship. This was all done "to keep Trump from being upset during the visit."

From the original scoop in the Wall Street Journal comes the basic story:

Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan was aware of the concern about the presence of the U.S.S. John McCain in Japan and approved measures to ensure it didn't interfere with the president's visit, a U.S. official said.... Sailors were directed to remove any coverings from the ship that bore its name. After the tarp was taken down, a barge was moved closer to the ship, obscuring its name. Navy officials acknowledge the barge was moved but said it was not moved to obscure the name of the ship. Sailors on the ship, who typically wear caps bearing its name, were given the day off during Mr. Trump's visit, people familiar with the matter said.

The New York Times had some more details:

A Navy service member based on Yokosuka said that all of the American warships in the harbor were invited to send 60 to 70 sailors to hear Mr. Trump's address, with the exception of the McCain. When several sailors from the McCain showed up anyway, wearing their uniforms with the ship's insignia, they were turned away, the service member said.

This all took place over Memorial Day weekend. Just imagine -- for one nanosecond -- what Republicans would be screaming if a Democrat had done anything remotely as disrespectful as this.

Speaking of the Pentagon and disrespect, today marks the one-year anniversary of the last time a Pentagon briefing happened on camera. In the intervening year (you just can't make this stuff up), celebrities have appeared at the Pentagon briefing room podium, including Gene Simmons of the rock band Kiss.

And we have to end today on some prime idiocy. Talk about "you can't make this stuff up," folks! The Energy Department announced the approval of a liquefied natural gas project in Texas, saying it would allow "molecules of U.S. freedom to be exported to the world." No, really! Here's the full story:

The department said the permit for the expansion of the Freeport, Texas facility "is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world." It wasn't the first time the Trump administration and others have linked U.S. exports of natural gas to political freedom in other parts of the world, especially places like Lithuania and Poland, which both rely on natural gas purchased from Russia. At the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2018, Energy Secretary Rick Perry used the phrase, "exporting freedom," to describe growing gas exports.

Yet another example of life imitating Orwellian satire. Or, to put it another way, just another day in the Trump White House.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Before we get to the main award, we have a few Honorable Mention awards to hand out. The first goes to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for snarking it up at Trump's expense.

We may be biased on this one, we admit, because we've long suggested that Democrats use exactly the same talking point to powerfully point out one particular instance of Donald Trump's hypocrisy. Because his own family has already benefited from a practice he wants to do away with -- for everybody else, that is. Donald Trump's third wife was not an American by birth. She immigrated to this country. After she married Trump, she then sponsored her own parents to immigrate to America as well. Nowadays, Trump is for reforming the whole immigration system to make it "merit-based," because he doesn't like brown families from doing the same thing his own family did. Which is why we've been urging Democrats to point it out.

This week, Pelosi did so in her usual snarky fashion. When speaking in California this week, Pelosi commented on Trump: "I don't know if merit counted for when his wife's family came into the country. I don't know. Maybe it did. God bless them if it did. But he calls that 'chain migration,' which he wants to get rid of." Well done, Madam Speaker!

In a much more serious vein, we'd like to award a collective Honorable Mention to all the Democrats in the New Hampshire statehouse who successfully ended the death penalty in the Granite State. The Republican governor vetoed the bill, but the veto was then overturned (by the thinnest of margins) by the legislature, meaning New Hampshire will not sentence anyone to death from this point forward. So the Democrats who managed such an upset deserve (at the very least) our recognition with a group Honorable Mention.

But this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week goes to former Attorney General Eric Holder, for continuing the fight for voting rights and against gerrymandering. After he and his boss Barack Obama left office, they both announced they'd be championing this effort (through the National Democratic Redistricting Committee), but we have to say that Holder seems to be the one doing all the heavy lifting, from what we can tell.

This week, Holder was in the news for being the driving force behind a lawsuit in Mississippi challenging a law originally passed at the beginnings of the post-Reconstruction Jim Crow era. The law was passed for racist reasons, and remains on the books today.

Unlike almost every other state in the country, Mississippi has some unusual rules for how their governors get elected. A candidate doesn't win just by getting the most votes of any candidate. He or she doesn't win by even getting a simple majority of all the votes (50 percent plus one vote). To be elected governor, a candidate must not only gain a majority of all the votes cast, the candidate must also win a majority of all the state's 122 house districts. Only 42 of these districts contain a majority of African-American voters. Which was how it was initially designed -- to ensure that no black man would ever become governor [Historical note: "man" because this law was passed in 1890, which was 30 years before women even got the right to vote].

Holder pointed out that the law has worked exactly as designed: "This is not a theoretical thing. We have seen no statewide African-American elected to office since this was enacted, in spite of the fact that Mississippi has the highest percentage of African-Americans of any state in the country." The lawsuit itself is even more blunt:

This racist electoral scheme achieved -- and continues to achieve -- the framers' goals by tying the statewide election process to the power structure of the House. So long as white Mississippians controlled the House, they would also control the elections of statewide officials.

A whole lot of racist laws were enacted during this dark period in American history. Most of them -- thankfully -- have either been declared unconstitutional or have been wiped off the books by subsequent legislation in the past century. But not all of them. For singling this particular one out, and for attacking it with a lawsuit, Eric Holder is once again our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. We have no idea what the chances of success will be in the Mississippi legal system, but we certainly do salute Holder for making the effort no matter what the eventual outcome.

[Congratulate former Attorney General Eric Holder via Twitter, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Oh, heck, we know we already covered this in advance last week... but what the hey, let's just give the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award once again to Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards, for being the only Democratic governor to join in the parade of Republicans signing the most stringent anti-abortion laws since Roe v. Wade.

Disappointing doesn't even begin to cover it, but we already said all of that last week. Thanks for nothing, Governor, and here's another MDDOTW award to go with last week's.

[Contact Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards on his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 529 (5/31/19)

We have to begin here with a forward to our first talking point this week, to provide the proper credit where it is due. We first wrote about this subject way back in 2011, when it was more of a theoretical thing -- the Republican Party had included the strongest possible anti-abortion language in their party's platform, but they hadn't actually legislated it into existence at that point. Herman Cain was talking about it on the presidential campaign trail, which is why it was in the news, but again it was still merely theoretical.

Now that it is becoming reality in state after state, Democrats need to push back as strongly as possible against the shift in Republicans' position from "abortion should only be legal in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother," to "abortion should never be legal." But this idea wasn't ours to begin with, we got it from an excellent book on political messaging from Drew Westen titled The Political Brain: The Role Of Emotion In Deciding The Fate Of The Nation (a book, by the way, to which we give our highest and strongest recommendation). So before we get to our updated version, here is Westen's original suggestion for how to phrase this in a political ad: "My opponent puts the rights of rapists above the rights of their victims, guaranteeing every rapist the right to choose the mother of his child. What he's proposing is a rapists' bill of rights."

We've only ever seen one Democratic politician attempt anything close to such an ad, when John Walsh was running for the Senate seat vacated by Max Baucus. Unfortunately, Walsh had to later drop out of the race after plagiarism charges surfaced, so it is impossible to measure the impact of such an ad in any meaningful way. In any case, we wanted to provide a full citation of where our first talking point came from, in advance.

 

1
   Rapists' bill of rights

Democrats need to make the case as starkly as possible why the Republican Party has been taken over by extremists.

"Republicans are pushing abortion laws in state after state which can only be called Draconian. Locking up doctors for 99 years for providing what is a woman's legal and constitutional right. Denying abortion access to those women who have been raped or molested by their own family members. Make no mistake about it -- such laws are nothing short of a rapists' bill of rights, because it will allow a rapist to essentially choose the mother of any children produced by their heinous crime. If the woman is forbidden from aborting such a child, then she'll be forced to give birth to her rapists' baby. For the rest of her life, she'll look into her child's eyes and see the DNA of her rapist looking back at her. The Republican Party has gotten so extreme that it is now standing up for rapists' fatherhood rights. That is abhorrent to me, and it should be equally as repugnant to everyone else. Rapists should have no fatherhood rights, period."

 

2
   Hit them in the pocketbook

This has worked before, and it can work again.

"When North Carolina passed an extreme anti-LGBTQ law, both the corporate world and the sports world responded by pulling the plug on all spending within the state. This economic blow was so severe that the North Carolina lawmakers hastily had to backpedal. Now that Georgia has passed a Draconian abortion law, Hollywood is threatening to end all production there. The state passed favorable tax laws which have lured Hollywood to film plenty of movies and television shows there in the past few years, so this is more economic pressure than you might first think. There's a growing list of companies publicly stating that they'll be ending all their business in the state, and I applaud them all for doing so. If states want to pass laws to take us all back a half-century, then there's no reason Hollywood or corporate America should boost their economies in any way. Hit them where it hurts -- in jobs lost and their own pocketbooks."

 

3
   Hypocrisy, thy name is McTurtle

A true Kinsley gaffe if ever there was one.

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who so sanctimoniously lectured us all on how it would be some sort of affront to the Constitution to confirm a Supreme Court justice in the final year of a president's term -- which is just flat-out false, by the way -- this week confirmed what everyone already knew all along, that he was nothing short of a flaming partisan hypocrite. He laughingly said that of course he'd confirm a justice if given the chance to do so in 2020. Such partisan hackery was denounced by all those not in thrall to the Republican Party. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded with a terse: 'Senator McConnell is a hypocrite.' But Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe summed it up the best, tweeting: 'Hypocrisy is McTurtle's middle name. And his first and last name too. What a flagrant dickhead!' I find that I cannot improve upon his erudite phrasing."

 

4
   Aiding and abetting Russia

Call it what it really is, in no uncertain terms.

"Maybe calling McConnell a turtle needs updating, because on the subject of Russian interference in America's elections, he's acting more and more like an ostrich with its head firmly planted in the sand. Bob Mueller warned us all once again that Russia launched a massive and coordinated attack on the integrity of our electoral process, and yet Mitch still refuses to admit this basic fact. Last month, the F.B.I. director said, and I quote, 'the threat just keeps escalating and we're going to have to up our game to stay ahead of it.' He also warned: 'We are very much viewing 2018 as just kind of a dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020.' Even Trump toady Lindsey Graham moved two election-protection bills through his committee -- both of which are bipartisan, and both of which passed out of committee unanimously. But McConnell has refused to put either bill on the floor for a vote. At this point, the only conclusion possible is that Mitch McConnell is actually aiding and abetting Russian attacks on America's elections. Why else would he stop bills with such wide bipartisan support from moving forward?"

 

5
   Speaking of disgusting obstructionism....

There's a very short window for this talking point to work, so it really should be deployed this Sunday morning on all the political chatfest shows.

"Three House Republicans have now -- on three separate occasions -- denied aid to Americans hardest hit by natural disasters. The Senate passed a compromise disaster aid bill last week, and the House could have put it on the president's desk by now, freeing up the flow of aid to those who desperately need it -- including in some very red states. When Congress returns next week, this bill is going to pass -- it has so much bipartisan support that the outcome is simply not in question. But disaster victims are being forced to wait an extra two weeks solely so some freshman Republican congressmen can see their names in the national news. This is disgusting and shameful behavior. I call on all Republicans who support this bill -- a bill that passed the Senate with eighty-five votes -- to denounce the actions of these three Republicans. Disaster victims deserve better than this."

 

6
   Trump goes too far for even Republicans

The bromance continues, apparently.

"Donald Trump's love affair with the murderous thug who rules North Korea with an iron fist continues, no matter how provocative Kim Jong Un gets. After launching some missiles to rattle the world, President Trump declared that they had not done so, contradicting his own top military and intelligence advisors. Kim also called Joe Biden a low-IQ fool, and Trump agreed wholeheartedly, over the Memorial Day weekend. This was a step too far for even some of Trump's supporters. Republican House member Adam Kinzinger tweeted: 'It's Memorial Day weekend and you're taking a shot at Biden while praising a dictator. This is just plain wrong.' Marc Thiessen, who can best be described as being 'to the right of Attila the Hun,' also reacted negatively, on Fox News: 'You don't attack political opponents from foreign soil... And two, you don't cite the murderous dictator of North Korea as evidence of why Biden is a bad candidate.' Trump tried to spin the whole thing as somehow being respectful to Biden -- which nobody bought, by the way, because it was so laughable -- and in his tweet he actually used the term 'low-IQ' in the same sentence where he misspelled Biden's last name. Sadly, you just can't make this stuff up, folks."

 

7
   One Trump bromance is dead, however

Maybe if Kim Jong Un had lost an election, Trump would have changed his mind.

"One Trump bromance is officially dead, though. Failed Senate candidate and accused child molester Roy Moore apparently is no longer a favorite of the Trumps anymore. Because if there's one thing Trump can't stand, it's a loser. Moore was reported to be considering another Senate run, and Trump scathingly warned him not to even try, tweeting:

Republicans cannot allow themselves to again lose the Senate seat in the Great State of Alabama. This time it will be for Six Years, not just Two. I have NOTHING against Roy Moore, and unlike many other Republican leaders, wanted him to win. But he didn't, and probably won't.... Roy Moore cannot win.

A day earlier, Donald Trump Junior had tweeted even harsher words at Moore:

You mean like last time? You're literally the only candidate who could lose a GOP seat in pro-Trump, pro-USA ALABAMA. Running for office should never become a business model. If you actually care about #MAGA more than your own ego, it's time to ride off into the sunset, Judge.

So sorry, Roy. It seems like they're just not that into you any more."

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

176 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Mueller Speaks, But Not Quite Clearly Enough”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm trying to understand why Mueller left most of us wanting more.

    He went so far as to clearly not leave any Americans off the hook.

    I think his mission was to encourage voters to read the report. I'm reading it in small bits but I'm always left looking forward to the next bit.

    Mueller has done his job, in spades. His report is absolutely remarkable. He doesn't need to do anything more. It's now in the court of the people and their representatives.

    Next up? Barr speaks ...

  2. [2] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    TP 4

    " . . Russia launched a massive and coordinated attack on the integrity of our electoral process . . ", specifically by revealing by means of hacked Dem emails, that Hillary had stacked the Dem primaries against Sanders, thereby revealing that Democratics don't restrict their cheating to Republicans, they're absolutely "bi-partisan" about it.

    Unfortunately, we Americans ae not the right people to get all indignant over that "attack on the integrity of our election process", seeing as how we are the absolute WORLD LEADERS IN INTERFERING WITH OTHER COUNTRIES' ELECTION PROCESSES!

    Is this best described as 'faux indignation', or as flagrant hypocrisy?

    How about both?

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You sound just like Trump, CRS.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Is this best described as 'faux indignation', or as flagrant hypocrisy?

    We invade other countries, so Central Americans should be allowed to invade ours, otherwise it would be "best described as 'faux indignation', or as flagrant hypocrisy?"

    ... or both?

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    I see the NRA has killed another 12 Americans. When will they stop?

  6. [6] 
    Paula wrote:

    Really agree with Most and Least Impressives! (Jon Bel Edwards: grrrrrrrrr.)

    Was bumming over the latest shooting - worked on something a few hours, came back and saw this on twitter which cheered me up a bit:

    https://twitter.com/KimDietzTweets/status/1134650783092203520

    "An incredible number of people are out to see Elizabeth Warren in Oakland tonight! It took 7 minutes to walk the length of he line when I got here, many were already inside, and more people are still arriving. So cool to see this level of support."

    Another guy tweeted:"I'm here at the Warren rally in Oakland. It's PACKED."

    Yay Liz Warren!

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Yet another hard hitting FTP.

    Two things I would have phrased differently:

    Thiessen is to the far right of Attila the Hun.

    Moore is less.

  8. [8] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I understand that Trump has flouted yet another long-standing rule by getting directly involved in British politics, specifically by endorsing the candidate known as Boris Johnson. Possibly because his first name is Boris. And also Nigel Farage, because, well..

    This could work against Johnson. The British tend to take their prime minister very seriously, and Trump..not. Ironically, if Johnson doesn't win, the entire viability of the "liberal" conservative party is also in question. So there's that.

  9. [9] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    "I see the NRA has killed another 12 Americans. When will they stop?"

    He also sees where the automakers kill 30 - 40k annually, but he never wonders when they will stop.

  10. [10] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [4]

    Conflating "attacking the integrity of an election system" with invading another country hardly represents a legitimate equivalence.

  11. [11] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [10]

    And refugees are not soldiers. So my argument has even more validity.

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    He also sees where the automakers kill 30 - 40k annually, but he never wonders when they will stop.

    Yes, but we make drivers take tests to increase safety on the roads, insist that drivers are insured so victims can be compensated, make cars pass crash test, etc.

    I'd happily make gun manufacturers have to pass the same requirements as car manufacturers. And have gun owners tested and their guns insured for third party damage, and prohibit usage without proper insurance.

    In fact, I've long advocated insurance requirements for gun ownership - the insurance companies can charge premiums based on the likelihood they will have to pay out damages.

    In fact, you can read about gun control based on automobiles from a Republican (GOPLifer):

    https://goplifer.com/2015/08/27/gun-control-is-easy/

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    i'm shocked and dismayed that you yet again fail to recognize the brilliance of voting based on pie. also, i'm surprised you didn't include donald's rare instance of accidentally telling of the truth:

    “I had nothing to do with Russia helping get me elected”
    -president donald j. trump

  14. [14] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    neilm [12]: Yep. That'd do the trick.

  15. [15] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CRS [2]: Surely you're not saying that we should just leave it this way. I mean, you're right. We should fix it right now.

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @neil/balthasar,

    good point. in a capitalist society, maybe the insurance industry really is the institution best-equipped to rein in carelessness in the use of firearms.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I understand that Trump has flouted yet another long-standing rule by getting directly involved in British politics, specifically by endorsing the candidate known as Boris Johnson. Possibly because his first name is Boris. And also Nigel Farage, because, well..

    You mean, like Odumbo got directly involved in Israeli politics??

    Funny.. You didn't seem to mind it back then...

    How come??

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see the NRA has killed another 12 Americans. When will they stop?

    I see that Neil still believes that forks make people fat..

    When will he stop blaming the tool for the actions of the person?? :eyeroll:

    But yea.. Let's politicize the tragedy and push the hysterical Dumbocrat anti-gun agenda.. :eyeroll:

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Want to kill your baby???

    Gov. Newsom Welcomes Women Seeking An Abortion To Come To California
    https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/05/31/gov-newsom-welcomes-women-california-abortion/

    "California's the place ya oughta be...
    -Beverly Hillbillies

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Robert Mueller broke his two-year silence this week, as he strode boldly to the podium and loudly announced: "ITMFA!" and then withdrew. 'This caused the term to spike in Google searches to a level never seen before on any subject, ever.

    And Trump/America haters complain that TRUMP is crude and crass and boorish?? :eyeroll:

    Once again, Democrats acting exactly like they accuse President Trump of acting..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    es, but we make drivers take tests to increase safety on the roads, insist that drivers are insured so victims can be compensated, make cars pass crash test, etc.

    I'd happily make gun manufacturers have to pass the same requirements as car manufacturers. And have gun owners tested and their guns insured for third party damage, and prohibit usage without proper insurance.

    In fact, I've long advocated insurance requirements for gun ownership - the insurance companies can charge premiums based on the likelihood they will have to pay out damages.

    Fine...

    Then we impose insurance and registration for OTHER constitutional rights as well..

    Want to exercise your free speech???? Must register and have a background check...

    Want to vote?? You must buy liability insurance to compensate victims of the wars started by the candidate you voted for??

    You see how ridiculous and untenable your position is??

    Owning a gun is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.. I realize that doesn't mean much to hysterical Anti-Gun nuts, but there it is...

    Further, it's been PROVEN beyond any doubt that strict gun laws don't reduce violence & death.. Even ignoring the obvious examples of New York City and Chicago and DC.....

    In Australia, in the 20 years prior to the gun ban 74 people were killed in crowd based killings..

    In the 20 years AFTER Australia's gun ban, 79 people were killed in crowd based killings...

    You want to limit death by gun violence?? You actually want to have an impact on crowd based mass shootings??

    Address the PERSON and not the tool they use...

    Increase mental health checks. Open up mental health medical records to LEOs... Increase penalties for gun crimes..

    But NOOOOOOOO... You won't support that because of privacy and social stigma concerns... You support harsher penalties for gun criminals because of the bleeding heart support for criminals..

    Until you support real and definitive action that ACTUALLY addresses gun violence....

    You have no moral foundation to COMPLAIN about gun violence..

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    But NOOOOOOOO... You won't support that because of privacy and social stigma concerns... You support harsher penalties for gun criminals because of the bleeding heart support for criminals..

    Should read:

    But NOOOOOOOO... You won't support that because of privacy and social stigma concerns... You WON'T support harsher penalties for gun criminals because of the bleeding heart support for criminals..

    As an aside, log me in another request for DISQUS platform.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Note on the mass shooting..

    The subject was armed with a handgun...

    You going to ban handguns???

    Just get rid of the 2nd Amendment and you can..

    Good luck..

  24. [24] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    It is becoming obvious that the Democratics are in the process of crafting a "Russian interferance in our election meme" to serve their political purposes into perpetuity.

    Henceforth, any Democratics' election loss will be rationalized/explained/justified by screaming "RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE", while any wins will be explained by "We managed to block Russian interference"!

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is becoming obvious that the Democratics are in the process of crafting a "Russian interferance in our election meme" to serve their political purposes into perpetuity.

    Henceforth, any Democratics' election loss will be rationalized/explained/justified by screaming "RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE", while any wins will be explained by "We managed to block Russian interference"!

    Yup...

    It's a self-fulfilling delusion..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Turns out the scumbag who shot up Virginia Beach was a Democrat...

    This continues a trend where crowd based mass shooters are Democrats or Left Wing or Liberal/Progressive..

    So, obviously, we need to get rid of the Democrat Party..

    Or, at the very least, ban Democrats from buying guns...

  27. [27] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Address the PERSON and not the tool they use...

    Increase mental health checks. Open up mental health medical records to LEOs... Increase penalties for gun crimes..

    I am fine with this as long as there is also a federal gun registry, because what point would it serve if not to disarm those with mental problems before a mass shooting can occur?

    I also think that the states should start requiring gun owners to join state militias. These militias can be run like each state’s National Guard, it will require gun owners to participate in gun training, and the gun owners can be used to provide security at large events as part of their service.

    Also, the Dickey Act must be repealed! It is time to treat gun violence like the healthcare epidemic that it is.

  28. [28] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    ”I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected.”

    —- Donald Trump

    The first step is admitting it happened.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am fine with this as long as there is also a federal gun registry, because what point would it serve if not to disarm those with mental problems before a mass shooting can occur?

    There already is a federal gun registry..

    ATF Form 4473...

    But explain to me how a gun registry will PREVENT gun violence??

    I also think that the states should start requiring gun owners to join state militias. These militias can be run like each state’s National Guard, it will require gun owners to participate in gun training, and the gun owners can be used to provide security at large events as part of their service.

    I don't see why, but OK..

    As long as you agree those who want to vote will be required to serve at ballot stations.. Those who want to exercise their right to free speech and assembly must participate in training and seminars...

    You ok with such requirements??

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    ”I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected.”

    President Trump is simply parroting and mocking the hysterical Trump/America haters...

    And, of course, said haters fall for it, hook line and sinker..

  31. [31] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    During the CBS interview, Barr was pressed on whether he is concerned about the toll his second stint as attorney general is taking on his reputation. Democrats have accused him of acting more like President Trump’s personal lawyer than an independent attorney general following the completion of the special counsel’s report on Russian election interference.

    “I am at the end of my career,” Barr said. “Everyone dies, and I am not, you know, I don’t believe in the Homeric idea that you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries.”

    Yeah, everyone dies....but not everyone goes straight to Hell!

    Barr doesn’t have to worry about odes being sung in his honor... that will never happen! But his name will be remembered and used to mock future AG’s when they appear to put the president before the constitution.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, everyone dies....but not everyone goes straight to Hell!

    Barr doesn’t have to worry about odes being sung in his honor... that will never happen! But his name will be remembered and used to mock future AG’s when they appear to put the president before the constitution.

    I am sure you honestly believe that..

    Just as sure as I know it's based solely on Party bigotry...

    :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    But his name will be remembered and used to mock future AG’s when they appear to put the president before the constitution.

    You mean, like Odumbo's wingman, Eric Holder, did??

    You see the point?? :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't mind an AG that acts as the President's lawyer at the expense of the country.

    As long as they are Democrats...

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As long as you agree those who want to vote will be required to serve at ballot stations.. Those who want to exercise their right to free speech and assembly must participate in training and seminars...

    You ok with such requirements??

    We already require people to take Civics classes in high school, so that takes care of that requirement. Citizenship classes also cover the same material, so that pretty much covers everyone who votes.

    How would a gun registry prevent gun violence? It would allow law enforcement to be aware if they are responding to a location where guns are found. If they are there to “invol” someone for a psychiatric evaluation, they can remove the gun from the property until it is determined that the owner no longer poses a threat. Same goes for DV calls. It would also assist families concerned with the mental health of a loved one remove guns from their possession until they can be cleared by mental health professionals.

    You want to give police access to mental health records, but unless they can actually do something with that information, it is worthless!

  36. [36] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Prove that I said I supported Holder being Obama’s wingman!

    Prove that I knew about that comment when it was made!

    You cannot!

    Oh but wait....I keep forgetting that you aren’t here to actually discuss politics! You are just a troll!

    But, as usual, my comments are NOT a judgment on the actions of Odumbo OR President Trump..

    My comments are on the fact that ya'all's condemnations are totally and completely one sided...

    Your hatred of anyone not sucking from Trump’s teat might make you want to reconsider supporting police getting access to your mental health records.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    We already require people to take Civics classes in high school, so that takes care of that requirement.

    OK, then make ROTC with gun training mandatory in high school and that will take care of your idea..

    You want to give police access to mental health records, but unless they can actually do something with that information, it is worthless!

    They can do a LOT with the information.. But, of course all YOU are interested in is confiscating guns from law abiding citizens..

    Prove that I said I supported Holder being Obama’s wingman!

    Prove that I knew about that comment when it was made!

    Even after it was made, I informed you about it and you tried some lame spin that it was about college and didn't condemn it in the least....

    Face the facts, Russ. Yer a Party slave.. If it's a Democrat, ANYTHING they do is fine with you...

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Interesting concept in TP1.

    Let's see how it works on other issues.

    Journalists need to make the case as starkly as possible that both the Republican and Democratic Party have been taken over by extremists.

    Candidates from both parties are financing their campaigns with big money donors which can only be called selling out to the big money interests.

    Democracy is our child and these candidates are raping our child.

    Journalists that ignore this rape and/or participate in the deception are the equivalent of the parent that looks the other way while their child is being abused by the other parent.

    Every news source that reports aboot these rapists while they campaign or occupy an elected office forces citizens to look into the eyes of our child and see the DNA of the rapists.

    That is abhorrent to me and should be equally repugnant to everyone else.

    So let's follow TP2 and hit them "in the pocketbook".

    If a candidate takes big money they don't get our votes.

    The big money is a tool they use to obtain our votes.

    The votes are the spending by citizens in an election- the economic pressure as the votes are the important commodity to the candidates.

    Our votes are also the tool we can use to make the candidates stop raping our child by taking big money.

    So let's start growing a list of citizens that will no longer do business with the big money candidates at http://www.onedemand.org .

    Many parts of it have been tried and worked and putting these parts together can also work.

    It is after all basic democracy in action and if that can't work then democracy can't work.

    Why do you applaud the companies while not even addressing One Demand?

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is only *ONE* reason to want any more gun registration than we already have..

    Make confiscation easier...

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    There is only *ONE* reason to want any more gun registration than we already have.

    Yes, to help stop innocent people being killed. It is that simple.

    There is no constitutional right to anonymous gun ownership.

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    There is only *ONE* reason to want any more gun registration than we already have.

    In fact, the 2nd amendment explicitly states "well regulated" - the 2nd amendment basically requires a gun registry.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A light bulb went off as to why Americans do nothing in the face of a problem unique to America.

    These mass shootings bring people together and make them stronger.

    That is why nothing will be done!

    I finally get it.

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    There is only *ONE* reason to want any more gun registration than we already have.

    Why do you want to make it easier for criminals?

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    EM [42] - I hope you are being sarcastic.

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You can't tell by now?

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What was really funny, though, was when the police chief was asked if there were any metal detectors in the building...

    He paused and said that it is permissible to enter that building carrying a gun.

    Quick to be added to that was the fact that the building was an open and free one.

    And, they still can talk about what needs to be done.

    It's ALMOST as if people are willing to suffer these events, so long as communities are made stronger for it and become more united because of it.

    That's what any normal person has to conclude by what has been said about this event by community leaders.

    I want to shake their collective head.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    can should be can't, quite obviously

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Events like this should make community leaders feel weaker, not stronger.

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And by the way, Biden was Obama's wingman. Let's be perfectly clear about that.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    In fact, the 2nd amendment explicitly states "well regulated" - the 2nd amendment basically requires a gun registry.

    ANd the SCOTUS has already ruled that the "well regulated militia" part of the second is not CONTINGENT to the main part.. The "well regulated militia" simply lists an example of WHY the right to bear arms shall not be infringed..

    Why do you want to make it easier for criminals?

    Why do you hate law-abiding Americans and want to deprive them of their constitutional rights??

    Face reality, Neil.. I know, I know..it's hard for you to do..

    But you won't be able to ban guns or impose onerous registration or insurance requirements..

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How to Reduce Shootings ... by Nicholas Kristof
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    This 2017 piece attempts to lay it all out and cover all the bases about what needs to be done to reduce these events.

    Kristof talks about how automobiles provide a model for gun ownership.

    He argues that the liberal approach to this problem is ineffective and that a pubic health approach is needed.

    He also points out that mass shooting deaths account for only 1.2% off gun deaths in America.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    What was really funny, though, was when the police chief was asked if there were any metal detectors in the building...

    Because Democrats think that would be a Police State type accouterment and they don't like it..

    Americans have a constitutional right to own guns..

    And, if they pass stringent registration and training requirements, they have a right to CARRY those guns..

    You can't change that reality and it's only going to cause ya'all grief if ya'all continue to harp on it..

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    This 2017 piece attempts to lay it all out and cover all the bases about what needs to be done to reduce these events.

    Kristof talks about how automobiles provide a model for gun ownership.

    And guns are already regulated as much as they can under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment...

    Anything else that is proposed are nothing but WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws that don't do a thing to address the problem... Which, in THIS case, is crowd based mass shootings..

    And, as you point out, CBMSs are a very VERY small part of gun violence..

    If you want to impose more regulation on gun ownership, then apply your idea to free speech or voting.. Then you'll get the idea on how impossible it is..

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    As always..

    Give me a law that is allowable under the 2nd Amendment **AND** will actually have an impact on stopping Crowd Based Mass Shootings..

    Nothing proposed to date meets those 2 criteria..

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What do you propose, Michale,

    Was there anything in that piece that made sense to you as something that could be done?

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Forget about CBMSs for a minute.

    What might work to reduce the other nearly 40,000 gun deaths in your country in 2016.

    Maybe you think nothing can or should be done and 40,000 gun death a year, give or take, is just something Americans must live with as a consequence of enjoying their constitutional rights.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    What do you propose, Michale,

    I am not proposing anything..

    It's unfortunate that these things happen..

    It would be even MORE unfortunate to start throwing our constitutional rights out the window in a vain attempt to stop these tragedies from happening..

    Forget about CBMSs for a minute.

    Can't do that.. Because it's the CBMSs that prompt all the hysteria and soul searching..

    So, I can be forgiven for assuming that it's CBMSs that are the problem..

    What might work to reduce the other nearly 40,000 gun deaths in your country in 2016.

    More aggressive mental health laws..

    Forget privacy and forget social stigma.. Forget coddling criminals who use a gun in the commission of their crimes.

    Anyone who uses a gun, throw the book at them.. ***EVEN IF THE CRIMINALS ARE BLACK***

    And there is where Democrats falter..

    "OHH NO!!! WE CAN'T PROSECUTE BLACK CRIMINALS!!!!"

    You wanted a way to curb gun violence... There it is..

    50 years in prison for anyone who shoots someone..

    REGARDLESS of race...

    You on board??

  58. [58] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Two thirds of those 60k "gun deaths" were people for whom life was no longer tolerable. Why do Democratics think they have the right to deny such people the simplest and quickest way out??

    Also, another large proportion of them were drug dealers battling each other over turf wars, etc. Aren't we better off without them?

    Don't bother with the "heartless bastard" stuff Liz, makes you sound like the 'other' Donald (Duck).

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, because I think most of what you just wrote I disagree with.

    For instance, and I am forgetting about the CBMSs, I don't think you have to throw away any constitutional rights to reduce gun deaths. And I think most Americans would agree with me on that.

    I think you should be open to proposing something that is common sense and may make people safer, from themselves and others. I think we could actually agree on some of those things or at least one of them, I would hope.

    I think we could agree on more aggressive mental health laws, especially if LEOs and judges could invade a little privacy if that authority could be regulated to avoid abuse.

    I could even talk about throwing the book at criminals who use a gun, regardless of who they are.

    Does race have to be brought into the discussion. I think so but, not to inhibit progress on reducing gun deaths.

    It may be time to have an enlightened discussion about this in your country where people and their views are respected and challenged in a dignified manner.

    Would you be on board with that?

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think we could agree on more aggressive mental health laws, especially if LEOs and judges could invade a little privacy if that authority could be regulated to avoid abuse.

    I am on board with that..

    I could even talk about throwing the book at criminals who use a gun, regardless of who they are.

    AND I am on board with that as well...

    But seeing how the Left drags race into the drug laws, I am betting this is a non-starter...

    Does race have to be brought into the discussion. I think so but, not to inhibit progress on reducing gun deaths.

    See above... The Left will scream how throwing the book at gun criminals will disproportionately affect black people..

    It may be time to have an enlightened discussion about this in your country where people and their views are respected and challenged in a dignified manner.

    Would you be on board with that?

    Abso-frakin'-loutly..

    As long as one ALL IMPORTANT factual aspect is clear..

    Owning a gun is as much of a constitutional right as free speech, free assembly and the right to vote..

    They MUST be equal as far as onerous restrictions are concerned...

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why do Democratics think they have the right to deny such people the simplest and quickest way out?

    CRS, you seriously do not understand suicide. Below is a recent article about your neck of the woods - it is people like you who are most at risk from gun suicide, with the juvenile "cowboy code" and easy access to firearms.

    And if you don't read the article, here is a little clip for you:

    “A third of the firearm suicides in Utah happened during an argument,” says Bryan. “Two people were having at it. Not necessarily physically violent, but they were yelling. And someone in the moment, almost always a man, basically just says, ‘I’m done,’ grabs a gun, shoots himself, and he’s dead.”

    Many of the suicides are men who have no access to mental health care, or have convinced them that it is "weak" to get help. Another large group are veterans suffering from the after effects of combat.

    We should be helping these people, not telling them that we are going to make it easier to kill themselves, as though they have no meaning or value.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/suicide-rate-america-white-men-841576/

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    So Michale, your latest argument is that we can't have gun safety laws because you would be upset listening to people complain that the laws are racist.

    OK, a novel argument, and by novel I mean you are really getting desperate.

    Gun ownership is a responsibility as well as a right. Gun safety laws should be welcomed by responsible gun owners, and in fact most are.

    The NRA amp up the tiny crazy minority who think any restrictions to their ability to build a massive arsenal means the government is going to lock them up. The NRA know this is nonsense, but they also know that it get's sensible gun owners leaning against effective gun safety laws that might impact their total available market (TAM).

  63. [63] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is not an abstract problem for you CRS. You are in the middle of an epidemic of suicide:

    "Men in the United States average 22 suicides per 100,000 people, with those ages 45 to 64 representing the fastest-growing group, up from 20.8 per 100,000 in 1999 to 30.1 in 2017. The states with the highest rates are Montana, with 28.9 per 100,000 people; Alaska, at 27 per 100,000; and Wyoming, at 26.9 per 100,000 — all roughly double the national rate. New Mexico, Idaho and Utah round out the top six states."

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    So Michale, your latest argument is that we can't have gun safety laws because you would be upset listening to people complain that the laws are racist.

    No, you can't have gun safety laws because the laws YOU want violate the US Constitution..

    Something you CLAIM to care about when it suits your agenda..

    Gun ownership is a responsibility as well as a right. Gun safety laws should be welcomed by responsible gun owners, and in fact most are.

    Exactly.. Most are welcome..

    But when you go off in Left Field and demand that people buy insurance to exercise a constitutional right, then yer just a nut..

    You want more gun safety laws??

    How about MANDATORY gun safety classes in high school..

    No?? Of course not.. YOu just want to push an anti gun BAN GUNS agenda..

  65. [65] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Wow, am I ever "in the middle of it", and not just geographically! I'm 84 yrs old, all the fun in my life is in my rearview mirror, and I'm currently experiencing some pretty bad digestive tract problems, with a family history of stomach cancer.

    I'm loathe to deny people the right to suicide by handgun if that's what they want, rational or not, but I would never consider it for myself, out of consideration for the surviving family (awful damn messy way to go).

    Sensible people at my stage of life have the option of the "final exit" program (inhalation of inert gas, helium, nitrogen , nitrous oxide and the like), makes way more sense to me.

    But hey, if it's good enough for my former fellow Idahoan Ernest Hemingway, who am I to say nobody can do it?

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how women have the right to choose to murder their babies..

    But suicides don't have the right to choose to end their lives...

    One big hypocrisy after another...

    The big conundrum for Democrats..

    What if a woman chooses an abortion via a handgun???

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, that was horrible.

    Do anti-abortion people agree with providing the soon to be mom with all the healthcare she needs for herself and her baby as well as all the other necessities of a young child's life?

    Do they think the rapist father has parental rights?

    Do they involve themselves in the life of these babies and growing children and moms with all that they need to survive and thrive?

    I'll bet not. But, their arguments would have more weight if they did.

  68. [68] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [66]: Of course the answer to that one is in the text of Roe v. Wade: viability.

    The original decision made the cut at the third trimester for a reason - because before that time, the child couldn't be viable outside the womb.

    Until that point the fetus is NOT viable, and the decision is up to the mother.

    Anti-abortion advocates have hemmed and hawed about 'fetal hearbeats' and the rest of it, but have never gotten past that viability wall.

    Indeed, the very prospect that an adult woman could have this conversation in private with her doctor drives them bonkers. What do they know?

    As the abortion debate heats up, it is wise to consider that it is all in the heads of the anti-abortionists. The rest of us like the law just the way it is, thank you.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do anti-abortion people agree with providing the soon to be mom with all the healthcare she needs for herself and her baby as well as all the other necessities of a young child's life?

    Why should THEY have to take responsibility for the mother who CHOOSE to participate in activities that she KNEW could result in pregnancy??

    She made her choice... Isn't this all about the right to CHOOSE???

    Do they think the rapist father has parental rights?

    Now, I agree that in the case of rape, it's a bit more murky.. But why should a child have to pay for the crime of the rapist father??

    Wouldn't it be better to put the child up for adoption instead of murdering him or her??

    Do they involve themselves in the life of these babies and growing children and moms with all that they need to survive and thrive?

    Again, it comes down to CHOICE.. If the mother chooses to keep the baby, then the choice to take on all that responsibility is also hers..

    If the mother doesn't want all that responsibility, then she can give the baby up for adoption and make a barren couple VERY happy..

    Everyone wins.. ESPECIALLY the child who is actually allowed to live and grow up...

    I'll bet not. But, their arguments would have more weight if they did.

    It all comes down to CHOICE..

    But choosing to kill the baby???

    How is that a viable choice???

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar...

    The original decision made the cut at the third trimester for a reason - because before that time, the child couldn't be viable outside the womb.

    That's a good argument.. I myself have used that same argument..

    But viability outside the womb is not a valid consideration..

    Consider a person on a ventilator or other life-saving devices..... Are those people "viable outside the womb"???

    SHould the be summarily executed because they can't survive on their own???

    I see your argument but it's a flawed argument..

    Anti-abortion advocates have hemmed and hawed about 'fetal hearbeats' and the rest of it, but have never gotten past that viability wall.

    The viability wall is easy to breach.. As I have just done..

    It's easy because you simply have to ignore a political agenda and look at the FACTS and reality...

    Indeed, the very prospect that an adult woman could have this conversation in private with her doctor drives them bonkers.

    Yea?? Let's see.. A conversation in private between a woman and her doctor to decide if a baby who had just been born should be allowed to live or put to death...

    Yea... I can see how that might upset people.. And you could too, if you dropped the Party slavery and looked at it as a rational objective person..

    The rest of us like the law just the way it is, thank you.

    Of course you like the law.. It allows Democrats to kill babies...

    Don't expect others to like that..

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz, Balthy, anyone...????

    So you think the father should have responsibility for the child after it's born??

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's rather ironic..

    I was very heartened by the Leftist MSM's actions when they emphasized the victims of the VB shooting and not the scumbag shooter..

    Then I learned that the shooter was black and realized it's simply another case of the racist Leftist Main Stream Media... :eyeroll:

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Wouldn't it be better to put the child up for adoption instead of murdering him or her??

    I think adoption is a good choice and the anti-abortion people should think about helping in this regard, too, I mean, if they care so much about life.

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Again, it comes down to CHOICE.. If the mother chooses to keep the baby, then the choice to take on all that responsibility is also hers..

    So, you are pro-choice, then?

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you are pro-choice, then?

    Abso-frakin'-loutly....

    Right up to the point where the CHOICE is to kill a baby...

    THEN I am not pro-choice...

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    How is that a viable choice???

    That is a good question that I believe should be up to the women and her caregivers to answer.

    I also think that the other choices should be easier for a woman, especially a woman with little or no means.

    When I woman makes the difficult choice to abort her baby, then who are we - who know nothing of her circumstances - to make the decision for her?

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I should be changed to a

    I've never had an abortion. I would not have an abortion. But, I am sure shootin' not going to make that choice or force that choice on any other woman.

    I don't believe you have the right to do so, either.

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sensible people at my stage of life have the option of the "final exit" program

    This is a different issue, and one that I agree with you on. A rational person with a rational reason to want to end their life with dignity should have the choice of a painless, respectful end (with obvious checks such as the approval of two doctors, or some other way to ensue that this is the legitimate and reasonable desire of a rational person).

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    Here is a simple solution. If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy under rules that are currently legal, but the law is changed so she can't, then she has basically been raped by the father, who should then be put in jail for at least 10 years.

    That should solve the problem. Men will be very careful not to get a woman pregnant because if she states in advance that she doesn't want to have a baby, then the responsible party is the man, and he will pay the financial costs and spend 10 years in prison.

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You can't be serious, Neil.

  81. [81] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Consider a person on a ventilator or other life-saving devices..... Are those people "viable outside the womb"?

    Of course they are. What they aren't is liddle semi-possible lives. They have had long lives and are entitled to the best care possible.

    And as Neil notes, there is the possibility of a euthanasia law, which properly written, would give each of them an out.

    'Course the problem seems to be that as soon as a human is born, Republicans don't care about them any more. Sucks, huh?

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    not serious? think of all those billions of innocent sperm being senselessly murdered.

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not serious?

    Whenever have I been not serious when I've advocated for a mindlessly draconian law (unless I'm attempting to use it to make some other mindlessly draconian law seem ridiculous?)

  84. [84] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    regarding mueller testifying, i would think his testimony would be most useful not in expanding the report, but completing it. he could fill in the blanks in closed sessions of relevant committees, so the relevant redaction can be clarified for congress without jeopardizing national security or ongoing investigations.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is a good question that I believe should be up to the women and her caregivers to answer.

    Who speaks for the child??

    I also think that the other choices should be easier for a woman, especially a woman with little or no means.

    Killing the baby should NEVER be an option..

    If it must be then it should NEVER be easier...

    When I woman makes the difficult choice to abort her baby, then who are we - who know nothing of her circumstances - to make the decision for her?

    Again, who speaks for the child??

    In your opinion, when does the fetus become a person that needs an advocate??

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you in favor of abortion right up to the point of birth??

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course they are. What they aren't is liddle semi-possible lives. They have had long lives and are entitled to the best care possible.

    But they can't survive on their own. Which is your criteria for a baby...

    If the criteria for "life" is not being able to survive independently, then there are millions of people who are not "life" as you define it..

    I'll ask the same question I asked Liz..

    Are you in favor of abortion right up to the point of birth??

    'Course the problem seems to be that as soon as a human is born, Republicans don't care about them any more. Sucks, huh?

    And Democrats don't care about them right up to the point of birth.

    So how is that any different than Republicans??

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let me ask another question that bugs me.

    If the father is required to have responsibility for the child AFTER they are born..

    Why don't they have a say in the care of the child BEFORE they are born??

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've never had an abortion. I would not have an abortion. But, I am sure shootin' not going to make that choice or force that choice on any other woman.

    I don't believe you have the right to do so, either.

    And I don't believe that women should have the right to kill their children...

    I don't believe in abortion as a form of birth control..

    The choice DOES belong to the woman. And she made her choice when she chose to engage in activities that could result in pregnancy...

    Once she became pregnant, there is another life that ALSO should have a choice..

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, the entire thing may be just a flat-out fake, it bears mentioning. Why do we say this?

    Because ya'all suffer from Hyper Hysterical President Trump Derangement Syndrome... :D

    Mexican president hints at migration concessions to avoid Trump tariffs
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/01/mexican-president-hints-at-migration-concessions-to-defuse-trade-spat.html

    So much for this being a "fake out", eh?? :D

    Once again, President Trump was wrong..

    I am NOT tired of winning.. :D

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Penny Nance: World's tiniest surviving preemie shows abortion isn’t in line with science or common sense

    This week the nation’s imagination was captivated by a beautiful newborn baby girl called Saybie, who left the hospital weighing 5 pounds, 6 ounces. Doctors said she was born in December only 23 weeks into her mother’s pregnancy and was just about the size of an apple, weighing less than 9 ounces.

    Her parents were told that Saybie – a name used by her care team – couldn’t survive. But Saybie’s parents didn’t give up hope. Modern medical science saved this tiny baby’s precious life and she is now thriving.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/penny-nance-worlds-tiniest-surviving-preemie-shows-abortion-isnt-in-line-with-science-or-common-sense

    Democrats would say that Saybie wasn't really a person and that her mother could have aborted her if the mother chose to do so..

    That's not a choice that a woman should be given..

    If the woman doesn't want a child, then adoption is the better solution than murder..

    Ya'all are defending Casey Anthony laws... :^/

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    But we have kinda gotten away from the gun control discussion..

    I'll ask again, since people obviously missed it.

    Give me a law that will actually address gun violence in general and crowd based mass shootings specifically and will pass Constitutional muster..

    How to determine Constitutional muster??

    That's easy.. Simply apply your desired law comparably to free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion or the right to vote...

    If your law doesn't work when applied to THOSE Constitutional rights, then it does not pass Constitutional muster...

    Easy peezy lemon squeezy...

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Lieutenant Joseph Johnson
    Seminole Police Department, Tribal Police
    End of Watch: Thursday, May 30, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1c1f544ea7b54a58eeb922b13ed887fee999c194c40e07aed62a98eda2ef6593.jpg

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Lieutenant Steven Whitstine
    East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office, Louisiana
    End of Watch: Thursday, May 30, 2019

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

  95. [95] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That's easy.. Simply apply your desired law comparably to free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion or the right to vote...

    Okay, free speech: everyone gets free speech, but not a megaphone or microphone, and beginning a speech at the wrong time or place will get you arrested. So would threatening speech aimed at strangers. Videotaping or recording without permission can get you into trouble in most places. Same is true of taking pictures. Obscene and even crude speech will still get you thrown out of many places.

    Should I compare that to guns now?

  96. [96] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion or the right to vote...

    Y'know what NONE of them do? Kill people.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion or the right to vote...

    Y'know what NONE of them do? Kill people.

    Really??

    Let's take them one by one..

    Has Free Speech every killed people??

    Yes, protests that turned into riots have killed a LOT of people..

    Has Freedom Of Assembly ever killed people.. Let's ask black Americans who suffered when the KKK assembled..

    Has freedom of religion ever killed people??

    Too easy.. Ever hear of Islamic Terrorists??

    Has voting ever killed people..

    Well, the people who voted for George Bush caused a lot of people to die in Iraq..

    So, the answer to your question is obvious..

    But, if your ONLY criteria is that people are killed, then you must support the banning of cars..

    Because cars kill more people than guns..

    You see how illogical and hysterically emotional your argument is??

    You don't like guns?? Fine.. Don't own them..

    But you will no more take away my constitutional right to own a gun than you could take away my constitutional right to free speech or to vote..

    So, give it up..

    It simply WILL NOT happen..

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, if your ONLY criteria is that people are killed, then you must support the banning of cars..

    Because cars kill more people than guns..

    And there isn't even a constitutional right to own a car..

    So, banning cars should be easy if your ONLY criteria is that people are killed...

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Should I compare that to guns now?

    Sure..

    So, you are saying that there are reasonable restrictions on Free Speech.. Yer right.. One of the most basic is not having the freedom to yell FIRE in a crowded theater if there is no fire..

    So, reasonable restrictions....

    Just as there are reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.. Have to be an adult.. Can't have certain crimes on your record.. Background check when you purchase a gun...

    Reasonable restrictions....

    But the hysterical anti-gun nuts want a GUN BAN.. Or, at the very least, make gun ownership so onerous that no one wants to go thru the hassle..

    You complain that GETTING AN I.D. is too onerous to vote, fer christ's sake!! But YOU want training and classes and insurance to own a gun!!??

    Ridiculous....

    So, you apply all the restrictions you want to guns.. AND to free speech.. AND to voting...

    Because they are ALL basic rights, equal under the US Constitution...

    You don't like it??? The border's that way.. See yourself out..

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tens of thousands of traffic deaths is the price that must be paid in order to have the modern convenience of owning a car..

    Gun violence is the price that must be paid when you have a constitutional right of gun ownership...

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:
  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Doesn't change the FACT, Neil..

    Owning a gun is a constitutional right..

    Again.. Your agenda loses..

    Get over it..

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anti-gun nuts lies debunked..

    Gun Owners of Vermont: Armed with the TRUTH.
    Debunking the Anti-Gun LIES!!

    http://www.gunownersofvermont.org/research-analysis/Statistics/Anti_Gun_Facts_Debunked.htm

    See!? I can do it to!!

    :eyeroll:

    But I am not the moron that thinks this actually has any bearing..

    It's agenda driven propaganda...

    Just like your bullshit..

    The actual facts are somewhere in the middle..

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    My link has 58 lies told by hysterical anti-gun nuts..

    Your link only has 10 so-called "lies"...

    HA! :D

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    NRA lies debunked:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/10/06/ten-lies-distort-the-gun-control-debate

    OH MY GODS!!!!

    A political organization that lies to further it's agenda!!!

    Sounds like The Democrat Party..... :eyeroll:

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh look..

    ANOTHER link that debunks hysterical anti-gun liars...

    Debunking Mother Jones’ ’10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down’
    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/foghorn/debunking-mother-jones-10-pro-gun-myths-shot/

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    So the Navy is now rejecting orders from the White House, and we have proof.

    The WSJ article had a lot of hearsay, but no direct proof that the White House had tried to dishonor the Navy by asking that the USS John McCain (named after two Admirals and a POW/Navy Flyer/Senator - i.e. three generations of American heroes).

    The Navy re-activated the long-dormant Navy Chief of Information Twitter account to post the actual orders from the White House (see link below).

    Like the Evangelicals who overlook Trump's venality, lack of any Christian lifestyle, three wives with a lot of overlap, etc., not the Trump supporting military and ex-military members are proving they put party before country and our armed services.

    https://twitter.com/amanda_m_macias/status/1133939845968080897/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1133939845968080897%7Ctwgr%5E393039363b636f6e74726f6c&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaskandpurpose.com%2Fres%2Fcommunity%2Ftwitter_embed%2F%3Fiframe_id%3Dtwitter-embed-1133939845968080897%26created_ts%3D1559187301.0%26screen_name%3Damanda_m_macias%26text%3DTwo%2Bsources%2Bconfirm%2Bto%2B%2540CNBC%2Bthat%2Bthis%2Bis%2Bthe%2Bemail%2Bshowing%2Bcoordinated%2Befforts%2Bto%2Bput%2Bthe%2BUSS%2BJohn%2BMcCain%2B%25E2%2580%259Cout%2Bof%25E2%2580%25A6%2Bhttps%253A%252F%252Ft.co%252FcEI3hwoPe2%26id%3D1133939845968080897%26name%3DAmanda%2BMacias

  108. [108] 
    neilm wrote:

    Seems some facts about the reality of gun laws has Michale's knickers in a twist.

    Must hurt when your gun nut fantasies are destroyed by a dose of reality.

    In fact we know it hurts, we can see it in your desperation to convince yourself your fantasies are safe. They're not.

    While your policies are killing our American kids, expect no respite from the truth.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seems some facts about the reality of gun laws has Michale's knickers in a twist.

    As I have PROVEN, you don't have any facts..

    All you have is bullshit that has already been debunked..

    As far as your John McCain bullshit??

    Funny how you Left Wingers demonized McCain left and right while he was alive..

    Right up to the point that you could USE him as a new shiny bludgeon..

    Sick puppies...

  110. [110] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Funny how you Left Wingers demonized McCain left and right while he was alive..Right up to the point that you could USE him as a new shiny bludgeon..

    John McCain did that, not the left. We had 'em written off, then he did his famous 'thumbs down' on Obamacare repeal, and we were all BFF's again!

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    John McCain did that, not the left. We had 'em written off, then he did his famous 'thumbs down' on Obamacare repeal, and we were all BFF's again!

    Exactly my point..

    Ya'all demonized McCain until he did what you liked..

    Then he was your BFF...

    Pure blatant hypocrisy..

    But hay.. At least you admit it..

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    SCUMBAG SHOOTER was violent with co-workers before Virginia Beach shooting: report

    The gunman who shot dead 12 people at a Virginia Beach municipal building had been facing disciplinary action for a violent fight at work, according to a report.

    SCUMBAG SHOOTER, 40, was still employed as an engineer with the Department of Public Utilities when he went on his shooting rampage Friday, killing 12 and injuring several others, including a cop.

    But he recently started showing serious behavioral problems and got into physical “scuffles” with other city workers, a source told The New York Times.
    https://nypost.com/2019/06/02/dewayne-craddock-had-been-getting-violent-with-co-workers-before-virginia-beach-shooting-report/

    Bleeding hearts protected the scumbag shooter because he was black.

    You see, Dumbocrats..

    THIS is what identity politics wrought...

  113. [113] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [107]

    U.S. Navy's Chief of Information (CHINFO) - Rear Adm. Charlie Brown. U.S. Navy public affairs officer

    Just sayin' - that's not me!!!

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just sayin' - that's not me!!!

    Oh, that's a given.. :D

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    William Barr determined to unravel truth behind Russia lie

    Looking for some great weekend reading? Look no further than the transcript of the CBS News interview with Attorney General William Barr.

    Calling it a bombshell doesn’t do it justice. The interview is chock-full of one explosive comment after another about special counsel Robert Mueller, the media and Barr’s own investigation of the investigators.

    Here are some nuclear-grade examples of what the AG has to say:
    https://nypost.com/2019/06/01/william-barr-determined-to-unravel-truth-behind-russia-lie/

    Dumbocrats are running scared!!! :D

    It's gonna be glorious to see Dumbocrats frog-marched from their offices in handcuffs!!!

    I will laugh my ass off!!! :D

  116. [116] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    More propaganda from the NY Post? You must be bored to foist this dribble on us.

    Right wing media has been trying to make us shake in our boots about this ever since it was first mentioned, but so far, it's been long on opinion, and oddly bereft of detail.

    If the opinions of the Right were any concern to us, we'd be shaking, but we're not.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    More propaganda from the NY Post? You must be bored to foist this dribble on us.

    Facts to support??

    No?? Of course not.. You never have any facts..

    Right wing media has been trying to make us shake in our boots about this ever since it was first mentioned, but so far, it's been long on opinion, and oddly bereft of detail.

    yea and yet ya'all's Russia Collusion was nothing but bullshit.. :D

  118. [118] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    nypost does tend to be a bit extreme in its wingnut bias. i'd say a decent measure of bias in a news source is whether the editorials and the news pages tend to show appreciably different bias levels. reputable outlets such as the new york times and the wall street journal generally keep their news and their opinions in different sections. the new york post, not so much.

  119. [119] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    kind-of a shame what's happened to CNN since trump has been president. in past decades they've called things right down the middle, but when he started attacking them, i seem to remember reading that they got significantly better ratings, and their chairman basically ordered the organization to become the anti-trump network as a business strategy.

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    nypost does tend to be a bit extreme in its wingnut bias. i'd say a decent measure of bias in a news source is whether the editorials and the news pages tend to show appreciably different bias levels. reputable outlets such as the new york times and the wall street journal generally keep their news and their opinions in different sections. the new york post, not so much.

    Same can be said with CNN and WaPoop..

    Yet, they are quoted here regularly..

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    kind-of a shame what's happened to CNN since trump has been president.

    Yes, it is...

    But I am glad to see you note that it HAS gone the way of the NY POST, just in the opposite ideological direction..

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Must hurt when your gun nut fantasies are destroyed by a dose of reality.

    You want reality??

    Here's the reality sunshine...

    You will not get your gun ban... You won't get your ridiculous WOULDN'T IT BE NICE LAWS like registration and insurance or any other bullshit anti-gun law...

    And when your sitting in your local McDonalds with your family and some scumbag comes in and starts shooting up the place and is put down by an average joe who is carrying???

    You are going to be damn glad your ridiculous anti-American cowardly bullshit ideas never amounted to anything..

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Byron York: Law enforcement, media changed standards for Trump

    One of the more unfortunate effects of the Trump-Russia investigation — and there have been many — is the weakening of traditional standards of argument and proof in the public debate over allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 election. (Just for the record: It didn't.)

    In particular, angry disputes about the president have done terrible harm to the principle that an investigator, be it a journalist or a prosecutor, should meet at least some standard of proof before leveling an accusation.

    Two examples. First is the so-called Steele dossier, the collection of wild allegations against Trump compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-law-enforcement-media-changed-standards-for-trump

    A perfect example of Hyper Hysterical President Trump Derangement Syndrome...

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Attorney General Barr’s Remarkable CBS News Interview
    It would be impossible to improve on the excellence of his remarks.

    In his muddled, obfuscatory farewell remarks, Special Counsel Robert Mueller strongly suggested that, although he and his cohort of Hillary Clinton acolytes had reached no conclusion as to whether President Trump had obstructed justice, Congress should address that question by means of the impeachment “process.” Why? Because Team Mueller had not been able to “exonerate” the President. But exoneration is a non-legal standard which completely inverts and perverts our system of justice which places the burden on the prosecution to prove its case.

    In every criminal trial across America, the judge instructs the jury that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and never, ever shifts to the defendant. The jury is told in no uncertain terms that the defendant has no burden of proof and no obligation to prove his or her innocence. It is up to the prosecution to prove each and every element of its case, and, if the prosecution fails to do so, then the jury’s verdict must be “not guilty.”

    These legal principles are not arcane, little-known concepts. Nevertheless, they seem to have eluded former FBI Director Mueller and his band of angry law school graduates who seem to think that they are in the exoneration business instead of determining whether the evidence meets the burden of proof as to each and every element of the crime of obstruction of justice.
    https://spectator.org/attorney-general-barrs-remarkable-cbs-news-interview/

    Exhibit B of Hyper Hysterical President Trump Derangement Syndrome..

    With VERY few exceptions, everyone here demands that President Trump prove his innocence..

    Ignoring the FACT that our entire system of jurisprudence is just the opposite.. An accuser must PROVE the guilt...

    President Trump is completely innocent of Russia Collusion AND Obstruction, simply by the failure of Trump/America haters to prove guilt...

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

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    I read the Mueller report...

    Anyone have the courage here to read the AG Barr interview??

    https://spectator.org/attorney-general-barrs-remarkable-cbs-news-interview/

    I doubt it..

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Media blockade on progressives is helping rig the Democratic primaries again

    If there are 200 on-air news personalities on cable news, it would be surprising if more than two voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2016. There is almost universal disdain for Sanders on television and in print. Anyone who denies that and says that Sanders gets us much positive coverage as everyone else is living in an alternate reality. Does anyone in their right mind really think that Sanders is treated the same as the other candidates? Of course not.

    Just in the last two weeks, there have been two hatchet jobs on him in The New York Times and Politico. But that’s par for the course and happens pretty much every week. If there’s ever a positive article about Sanders, it’s passed around like wildfire online because it’s so shocking that you have to share it with your friends like other online curiosities that are hard to believe.

    If you can’t see the disparity between the coverage of South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D), which is nearly universally fawning and obsequious, and the coverage of Sanders, which is universally contemptuous and disdainful, you’re so biased you can’t even see your own bias.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/446452-media-blockade-on-progressives-is-helping-rig-the-democratic-primaries-again

    Same old Democrat Party divisions at work in 2020..

    Party Unity My Ass!! :D

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller must testify publicly to answer three critical questions
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/446457-mueller-must-testify-publicly-to-answer-three-critical-questions

    Now we know why Mueller won't testify..

    Because it's clear from the facts that Mueller's hysterical Trump/America hating team was in control of the probe..

    And Mueller doesn't want to concede he was an impotent fool...

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Liberals Were Held To Their Own Standards

    Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) loves to moralize about President Trump, particularly about his finances. There’s nothing he would like more than to gain access to Trump’s tax returns, which, if he got them, would undoubtedly have select portions mysteriously find their way to the press.

    Cummings is a proponent of the idea that Donald Trump is either compromised by his past business dealings, or could be bought by foreign governments booking rooms at his hotels.

    The absurdity of a billionaire being “bought off” by a few thousand dollars spent in a hotel is only a smokescreen to stir up the Democratic base. What isn’t absurd is a Congressman with a history of financial problems suddenly becoming flush thanks to his wife’s business coming into millions from companies his committee oversees.

    Cummings had a history of financial problems – missed mortgage payments and tax debt – stemming, in part, from child support payments he owed to his ex-wife and two other women who were not his wife. Curiously, his new wife brought financial security.

    CARTOONS |
    VIEW CARTOON
    Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, Elijah’s second wife, is the Chair of the Maryland Democratic Party. She also has a couple of side organizations that are doing extremely well thanks to businesses with business before Cummings’ committee. She’s taken in millions, in fact. Good work, if you can get it.

    What’s even more weird, one of those organizations – the “non-profit” – has a legal obligation to provide financial records to anyone who requests them. These records would show how much money came in and, more interestingly, how much went out and to whom. But the groups, called the Center for Global Policy Solutions, is refusing to turn over those records.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2019/06/02/if-liberals-were-held-to-their-own-standards-n2547248

    If Democrats didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all... :eyeroll:

    Everyone (and I do mean *EVERYONE*) asking for President Trump's tax returns??

    Release your own tax returns to PROVE you have the moral, ethical and legal foundation to ask for President Trump's..

    There..

    Problem solved...

    See how easy it is?? :D

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria_c16578020190530120100.jpg

    heh

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

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:
  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:
  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those who claim Odumbo's Administration was "scandal free"???

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz052919dAPR20190529074515.jpg

    Are either SERIOUSLY ignorant or a Party/Ideological slave....

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/afb052919dAPR20190529054514.jpg

    No 'do-over's, Dumbocrats..

    You had your chance and you blew it... Deal with it..

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are right about one thing..

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz052819dAPR20190524114627.jpg

    The issue IS about choice..

    And Democrats are choosing to murder babies...

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Wile E. Coyote vs. the Roadrunner

    The Trump-Democrat Roadrunner vs. Wile E. Coyote dance continues. The poor Democrats are Wile E. Coyote. They never win. The Roadrunner is always right within their grasp … and then he gets away again and their hopes are dashed.

    Don’t look now, but Trump the Roadrunner just got away. Again.

    I’m talking about Robert Mueller’s preposterous retirement statement. For all intents and purposes, Mueller announced President Donald Trump may be guilty, even though he had no way to prove it. He dared Democrats to ignore the lack of evidence and impeach Trump.

    You know what that makes Trump? Innocent. Because in this country, if you can’t be proven guilty in a court of law, you’re innocent.

    Don’t take my word for it. Ask Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School professor emeritus and perhaps the most brilliant lawyer and legal scholar ever. He’s also a lifelong liberal Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton — and said so on my national radio and TV shows during multiple appearances.

    Dershowitz called Mueller’s statement more irresponsible than fired FBI Director James Comey’s exoneration of Hillary.

    Dershowitz continued, “Until today, I have defended Mueller … I have now changed my mind … By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He has also distorted the role of a prosecutor in our justice system.”
    https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/wayne-allyn-root/wayne-allyn-root-wile-e-coyote-vs-the-roadrunner-1677431/

    Trump/America haters are exactly like Charlie Sheen.. They lose, and lose and lose and proclaim "WINNING!!"

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is about politics. Democrat professor and election modeler Alan Lichtman of American University reported days ago that Trump cannot be beaten in 2020 based on his 13-part election model. So, he said, Democrats have only one option if they are to stop Trump: impeach him.

    Finally, I believe Mueller‘s final statement simply provided Democrats with “talking points” for the 2020 election. Democrats can’t run on policy. Most of their radical agenda is hated and mocked by a majority of American-born voters. Pick your poison: Abortion after birth, open borders, sanctuary cities, higher taxes to save us from “climate change,” hate speech toward Jews and Israel, allowing transgender women to play sports with girls. They can’t run on any of that.

    Democrats desperately need to keep ranting about impeachment, to keep MSNBC’s and CNN’s ratings from collapsing and to fire up their base of radical lunatics with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Mueller’s statement gave them something to talk about for the next 18 months.

    Rep. Brad Sherman made me look smart on Thursday. He admitted in an MSNBC interview, “Impeachment is the only thing I can get on TV to talk about.” Indeed.

    We all know the Clinton Foundation is a pay-for-play piggy bank for the Democratic Party. Pelosi and Schumer should ask the corrupt foundation to place $20 million in a Cayman bank account for Mueller. He’s certainly earned it.

    Hope you guys are prepared for a 2020 Trump landslide re-election and 4 more years of me gloating like never before!! :D

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like it or not, broken windows works
    https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-like-it-or-not-broken-windows-works-20190602-jmit2osnyvbyhhzllcvxqc4z2q-story.html

    Interesting article from a TRUE LEO professional..

    Too bad Dumbocrats are too much a slave to their Party agenda to acknowledge the facts...

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, people... We're halfway thru... :D

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Sanders-AOC Protection for Loan Sharks Act
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/02/the_sanders-aoc_protection_for_loan_sharks_act_140472.html

    The proposals of Bernie Sanders and Occasional Cortex gives Loan Sharks a boost up... :^/

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regretful Trump voters hard to come by in Michigan

    NEW BALTIMORE, Mich. — Robert Rasch had never voted for president before 2016. Then Donald Trump came along, and finally there was a candidate he could get excited about.

    Rasch admired Trump’s business background and political courage. “For somebody to stand up and run for president that has no political background, that’s a set of brass,” he said.

    Rasch is one of millions of so-called lost voters whom Trump coaxed back to the voting booth in 2016. Rasch has already decided he’ll be voting for Trump again in 2020, based largely on the president’s stewardship of the economy.

    “When you drive down 8 Mile [Road], 9 Mile, 10 Mile, a lot of those small industrial shops were closed a few years ago,” he said of the manufacturing-heavy southern part of Macomb County. “But now you see them being reconstructed to get new tenants in there.” Rasch and his wife Laurie’s small business, LR Embroidered Creations, paid less in taxes in 2018 thanks to tax reform. “We’ve felt the difference,” Rasch said.

    “On a scale from 1 to 10, I think he’s doing an 8,” Rasch said of Trump’s overall performance. “He’s making a change for the good for everybody. I think he’s growing on people here.”

    Rasch sees that growing support at the Anchor Bay Pit Stop Diner, where he and his friends talk politics on weekends. And he sees it among his store’s customers.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/regretful-trump-voters-hard-to-come-by-in-michigan

    Michigan is MAGA country!! :D

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Robert Mueller broke his two-year silence this week, as he strode boldly to the podium and loudly announced: "ITMFA!" and then withdrew. '

    You got the acronym wrong..

    It's ETMFA.... :D

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I was a life long Democrat until this last election,” wrote Don Soulliere in an email to me. “And to be honest everyone I know feels that way too! Every person I have talked to said the same thing the Democrats have gone off the rails they have lost a lot of their base.”

    I asked Soulliere whether any of the former Clinton voters he knows plan to vote for Trump in 2020.

    “Everyone I know!” he responded.

    Once again...

    If Democrats had more than 2 brain cells to rub together, they would simply cede 2020 and put all their efforts into 2024 where they WON'T face President Trump...

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    But getting back to the "choice" debate..

    If it's the woman's choice and her choice alone to have a baby or not..

    Does that mean ya'all Democrats and Lefties feel we can do away with father's child support payments??

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another Dim Presidential Candidate "validates" Fox News..

    Don't it just drive ya'all crazy!!! :D

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Google Should Be Afraid. Very Afraid.

    (Bloomberg Opinion) -- This is the moment the U.S. technology superpowers surely knew was coming: The U.S. government is preparing to crawl all over Google to figure out whether it is an abusive monopolist. Google parent company Alphabet Inc. and the other tech giants should be quaking in their fleece vests.

    Bloomberg News and other news organizations reported late Friday that the U.S. Department of Justice is preparing to open an investigation into Google’s compliance with antitrust laws. If it goes forward, an investigation will no doubt be broad, lengthy, messy, and impossible for Google and its investors to predict.

    That should terrify Google and every other big technology company — because there’s no guarantee that the antitrust Klieg light will turn on one company alone.

    This isn’t Google’s first antitrust rodeo. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2013 closed without further action its own antitrust investigation into whether Google wielded its dominant web search engine like a cudgel to disadvantage rivals, drive up prices for advertisers and ultimately harm consumers. (Google did agree to some voluntary changes.)

    And in recent years, the European Union antitrust watchdog imposed billions of dollars in fines after finding antitrust violations, including over how Google conducted business with its Android smartphone software and its internet shopping service. In the U.S. and elsewhere, politicians from all party stripes have sought to attack Google or other tech giants for various perceived sins, including being too big for the good of industry and consumers. Being Google has meant dealing with perennial regulatory and political nightmares.

    This latest chapter of “As Google Turns” may have started in January on Capitol Hill. “I don’t think big is necessarily bad, but I think a lot of people wonder how such huge behemoths that now exist in Silicon Valley have taken shape under the nose of the antitrust enforcers,” Bill Barr, now the U.S. attorney general, said to U.S. senators during a confirmation hearing. The DOJ’s chief antitrust enforcer, who represented Google during a merger more than a decade ago, has expressed similar views.
    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-afraid-very-afraid-121312132.html

    All the bastions of Democrat debauchery and malfeasance and support are going to come tumbling down..

    It's about time!!!

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    I especially like this story from the past..

    Zuckerberg reprimands Facebook staff defacing 'Black Lives Matter'
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/25/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-black-lives-matter-diversity/80933694/

    Apparently, to "Zuk", ONLY black lives matter.. ALL lives don't matter a single wit to him..

    This epitomizes the problem with the Democrat Party and leftists in general..

    They are so moronic in the pursuit of their leftist agenda, they simply can't see past their own delusional fantasy world they created..

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Steve Hilton: Mueller revealed his true self - a partisan establishment swamp lawyer

    Populism is about fighting a corrupt establishment. And boy did we see them in action last week. This was the week that Robert Mueller put himself in the arena

    With his bizarre new doctrine of "not not guilty," he overturned the presumption of innocence. Then, with his unsubtly coded call for the impeachment of President Trump, he revealed his real aim: Overturning the 2016 election.

    Mueller was hired to be a neutral arbiter, to bring a clear conclusion that the country could unite behind. But on Wednesday, he ripped off the mask of neutrality and showed himself for what he is: A partisan in the fight between the populists and the establishment.

    We shouldn't be surprised -- Mueller is the establishment. He's a swamp lawyer, as we told you months ago in our "Swamp Watch" episiode on the special counsel and his best buddy, James Comey last August.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/steve-hilton-time-to-take-the-fight-to-the-ridiculous-never-trumpers

    I have said from day one that Mueller was an incompetent boob.. A tool for the establishment.

    His major frack-up over the Anthrax case proved that beyond any doubt...

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:
  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:
  150. [150] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz-80 RE 79

    "You can't be serious, Neil."

    Neil is making a "Modest Proposal". In the sense of Swift. (Johnathon, not Tom).

  151. [151] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Guess what I was attempting in [42], TS, which apparently failed, hence the hopeful [44] ...

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    So...

    What ya'all think about the US Government going after Amazon for Anti-Trust issues???

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment dam breaking as Pelosi deputies tip hand: ‘We’ve already begun’

    While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is urging caution and patience in response to those in her party clamoring for impeachment proceedings against President Trump, her top deputies are signaling it’s only a matter of time before they begin.

    South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-highest-ranking Democrat in the House, said in an interview Sunday that he believes impeachment proceedings ultimately will be launched against Trump at some point in the future. He suggested Democrats are already laying the groundwork in Congress.

    “I think we’ve already begun,” Clyburn said on CNN's "State of the Union." “We’ve got all of these committees doing their work, we’re having hearings.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-dam-breaking-as-pelosi-deputies-tip-hand-weve-already-begun

    Looks like Dumbocrats have already begun impeachment.. :D

    Yep.. Apparently, Dumbocrats are THAT stoopid..

    And I am betting now everyone here who just last week said that impeachment is a BAD idea...

    NOW they will claim "Oh!!! Definitely!! We need to definitely impeach President Trump!!"

    Apparently, I know my Party slaves VERY well.. :D

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Queen Elizabeth has right royal welcome for President Trump, Melania
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/queen-elizabeth-has-right-royal-welcome-for-president-trump-melania

    OOooooo!!! That's just GOTTA hurt!!! :D

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's so (sadly) hilarious about all this..

    What with the legal standards ya'all have against Trump, if we applied those same standards to all the Hillary crimes..

    She would have been locked up for a thousand years..

    Like I said.. If it weren't for double standards ya'all would have no standards at all.. :^/

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Unmasked' co-author Brent Bozell says ‘radicalized’ media wanted to destroy Trump, but it backfired

    A new book, “Unmasked -- Big Media's War Against Trump,” examines how the media tried to destroy President Trump but destroyed themselves instead, co-author L. Brent Bozell III told Fox News.

    “Never in the history of the republic have we seen such an assault on free speech,” Bozell said. “How left wing are the media? How radicalized have they become in the last two years? What is their goal?”

    “Unmasked,” by Bozell and Tim Graham of the Media Research Center, hits stores on June 4. The conservative duo pored over “tens of thousands” of hours of news coverage from the Trump era and noticed a widespread problem rampant in the journalism industry. They put their findings in an easily digestible book for conservatives and journalism purists alike – and Bozell says readers will be shocked by the detailed account of the “utterly radicalized” liberal media.

    “Their goals were two-fold. One was to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president and then to remove him,” Bozell said. “It’s not just an utter betrayal of their profession, but it’s also bringing into question a real challenge to democracy, where they don’t accept the will of the people and, through a campaign that includes absolute dishonesty, they are trying to create an atmosphere where the public will throw a duly elected president out of office. It’s dangerous stuff.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/unmasked-bozell-trump-cnn-msnbc

    Funny how the Leftist media went about trying to destroy President Trump and ended up destroying ANY shred of decency and credibility they ever had....

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Science and FACT versus...

    The party of science deniers

    Mr. Gore proceeded to warn both students and faculty at Wednesday’s annual Class Day convocation, stressing that “reason” and “rational debate” were under threat from what he called “ideology of authoritarianism” by those who disagree with him and his political agenda.

    Science “is now being slandered as a conspiracy based on a hoax,” Mr. Gore said. “The subordination of the best scientific evidence is yet another strategy for controlling policy by distorting and suppressing the best available information.”

    This is the man who told us in 2006 that we had “ten years to save the planet” and that the Arctic would be ice-free by summer of 2014. In case you haven’t checked lately, that has not happened, nor are we even close.

    This is the man who, at the same time, said the gulf stream would slow down and cause untold climate devastation as the result. News flash: Current scientific data actually shows the gulf stream has had zero decrease and may actually be speeding up.

    00:30 / 00:30
    TOP ARTICLES
    3/5
    READ MORE
    Matt Gaetz 'milkshaked' at Florida event;
    former Democratic rival charged

    This is the man who warned polar bears would become extinct in just a handful of years because of their loss of habitat. Update: The facts show polar bear numbers are now at an all-time high.

    This is the same man who told all of us “sea levels could rise by as much as 20 feet in the near future” when, in fact, current data shows that for decades the pace has been about 3mm per year and has not changed. That’s about the height of two dimes.

    This is the same guy who prophesied the rise of CO2 levels would devastate the planet and cause untold human suffering, when in reality, the modest rise in CO2 we actually have experienced has resulted in a global greening that has relieved human poverty around the world.

    This is a man who predicted the devastation of low-lying Pacific Island nations such as Tuvalu because of rising sea-levels when in fact Tuvalu and some other island nations have actually grown in landmass since Mr. Gore’s doom and gloom pronouncements.

    Al Gore is the man who has not only ignored the scientific facts of all the above, but who also is aligned with the party that now has the temerity to deny the biological fact of a female, and thereby pretend that any male can become a female just because he “feels” like it.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/2/why-objectivity-and-honesty-not-politics-must-driv/

    .... The Dumbocrat Party... :^/

  158. [158] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    OOooooo!!! That's just GOTTA hurt!!! :D

    Actually, it's rather nice to see the president trying so hard to act presidential. :)

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, it's rather nice to see the president trying so hard to act presidential. :)

    Yea, but it's a slap in the face (not to mention the credibility) to those who claims he can't and never does.. :D

    With all that President Trump has accomplished.... Imagine all that we could have done if the Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters didn't actively work to nullify a free, fair and legal election..

    Mind-boggling... :D

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Michale, Trump is his own worst enemy.

    If he loses in 2020, he can look in the mirror to understand why.

    But, he won't. He'll blame everything and everyone else.

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Michale … is there a site that lists Trump's accomplishments like there was for Obama?

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most violent weekend in Chicago this year: At least 52 shot, 10 fatally
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-50-shot-10-fatally-weekend-gun-violence-20190603-story.html

    Yea... Restrictive Gun Laws work... :^/

    NOT......

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:
  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Michale, Trump is his own worst enemy.

    He can be, tis true..

    But he has a LOT of help from the Trump/America haters...

    If he loses in 2020, he can look in the mirror to understand why.

    But, he won't.

    He won't lose... That's a given..

    He'll blame everything and everyone else.

    You mean, like Hillary did when SHE lost???

  165. [165] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I gave me a list of sites.

    Which one should I click on?

  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You gave me a list of sites.

    Which one is your favourite?

    I'm done.

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have no favorite...

    Like with a list of Obama achievements, all of it is taken with a huge grain of salt..

    For me, personally.. My life is DEFINITELY better under President Trump than it was under Odumbo and the Dumbocrats.

    By a factor of 1000

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Melania's homage to Diana: Elegant Mrs Trump takes inspiration from the princess's crisp navy and white ensembles for lunch at Buckingham Palace

    First Lady Melania Trump, 49, has arrived in the UK with President Trump for the three-day State Visit

    She donned a Dolce & Gabbana dress and matching Hervé Pierre hat as she arrived at Buckingham Palace

    The ensemble was in crisp white with contrasting navy detailing - a favourite combination of Princess Diana

    Earlier Mrs Trump wore a skirt suit and £650 ($820) Burberry blouse as she arrived at Stansted Airport

    Ivanka Trump wore a three-piece ensemble from royal-approved label Alessandra Rich for the day's outings

    Melania Trump appeared to be paying tribute to Princess Diana's timeless style as she joined the President at Buckingham Palace this afternoon.

    The First Lady, 49, chose an ensemble in one of the late royal's favourite colour combinations - white and navy - for the engagement at Buckingham Palace.

    The custom white Dolce & Gabbana dress featured a contrasting blue collar and flattering waist belt while her white Hervé Pierre hat was complete with a thick navy band around the brim. She finished the look with a pair of matching heels by Manolo Blahnik.

    The crisp, tailored ensemble is reminiscent of several looks worn by Diana, including two white and navy skirt suits worn to public engagements throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7098355/Melania-Trump-pays-tribute-D-Day-veterans-military-themed-650-Burberry-blouse.html

    Awww... Isn't that nice.. Very respectful..

    Those Trumps... Such wonderful people.. :D

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Judge tosses House Dems' lawsuit over Trump's use of emergency military funds for border wall
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-house-dems-lawsuit-trump-emergency-military-funds-border-wall

    Democrats lose.... AGAIN!!!! :D

  170. [170] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [128]

    The absurdity of a billionaire being “bought off” by a few thousand dollars spent in a hotel is only a smokescreen to stir up the Democratic base.

    The ABSURDITY is that someone actually called Trump a “billionaire”! So much for your credibility!

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ABSURDITY is that someone actually called Trump a “billionaire”! So much for your credibility!

    Any FACTS to support the claim he is not??

    Nope... Of course not..

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just like you had no facts to support your claim that President Trump is racist...

  173. [173] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Was Trump's take on the birther conspiracy a racist stance, Michale?

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Was Trump's take on the birther conspiracy a racist stance, Michale?

    How could it be??

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Didn't Trump question Cruz's born in another country???

    Cruz is a white as they come....

    So how is simply questioning someone's birth status racist??

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's so ridiculous about the birther nonsense is Obama didn't need to even lie about it..

    Even if he had been born in Kenya, he was still a birth-right American...

Comments for this article are closed.