ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points -- Debate Slate Set

[ Posted Friday, June 14th, 2019 – 17:51 UTC ]

We have to begin by first ignoring all the rampant criminality spewing forth from the White House -- just for the moment, mind you -- to concentrate instead on looking forward, not back. Because we're less than two weeks away from the first round of Democratic 2020 presidential primary debates, and the Democratic National Committee just announced the lineup for the two nights.

Yesterday, they cut the field down to 20, which left four candidates out in the cold: Steve Bullock, Mike Gravel, Andrew Messam, and Seth Moulton. Today, they held the draw (our prediction: in future, the draw itself will be televised on C-SPAN...) and announced the lineup for each night. In doing so, the random nature of the draw conspired to almost entirely defeat the D.N.C.'s ultimate goal for holding such a draw in the first place -- not to have a "kiddie table" debate.

Learning from the response to the Republican 2016 debates, where candidates were separated into an "adult-table debate" and a "kiddie-table debate" (or, to be less caustic, an "undercard" debate) by their standing in the polls, the Democrats this time around decided to prevent this from happening by randomizing the process. Everyone who qualified would have a clear shot at both nights. They then refined this concept even further -- in an attempt to make the spread even more even -- by deciding to hold two draws, one among those in the top tier of polling and one among the lower. This way, the top tier would get divided evenly between the two nights, which would (they figured) prevent a single top-loaded debate from happening.

They figured wrong. Because out of the top five candidates in the current polls, four of them will be appearing together on the same night, while the other will be taking on a slate of all the lesser candidates on the other night. The only way they could have avoided this would have been to further refine their criteria so that (for instance) "out of the top four in the polling, two will appear each night," or something similar.

Here are the two nights' lineups. First, the roster for June 26: Cory Booker, Julián Castro, Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, Tim Ryan, and Elizabeth Warren.

On the next night, everyone else who qualified will appear: Michael Bennet, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, Bernie Sanders, Eric Swalwell, Marianne Williamson, and Andrew Yang.

It's pretty clear to see that the first night will be "Elizabeth Warren versus the field," and a pretty weak field at that. There are only three names on the first night's list that regularly poll above a single percentage point: Booker, Klobuchar, and O'Rourke. None of them is in the front rank of candidates, really. They're at the top of the lower tier, in fact. But Warren will face them without having to take on any of the other heavyweights in the race. So it's really an "Elizabeth and all the kids" debate.

The second night will be a sharper contest, with four of the top five having to face off against each other. The biggest matchup in this top group will be Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden trading blows, of course. But Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg will also be in the mix as well.

This was always a possibility, as I pointed out a few weeks ago. Random rules means that randomness rules -- the very matchup you're trying to avoid might just randomly pop up, in other words. It'll be interesting to see if the D.N.C. just sticks to the format it now has or decides to refine it further. If they keep with the system for the second debate, chances are it will be a little more evenly divided. But you never know -- it could be just as lopsided as this one is now going to be.

Of course, we'll be watching both nights, and we could easily turn out to be pleasantly surprised at the level of discourse on both nights. The real divide and the real debate may happen not between candidates either polling well or polling poorly but rather between the ideologies of the candidates. Which candidates will be vying with each other over who is more progressive? Which moderate candidates might take each other on? And will the sparks fly between the moderates and the progressives, allowing for a "breakout moment" for some lesser-known candidate? The whole point of allowing as many candidates in as possible to the first two debates was to present as many different viewpoints as possible, so this might be adequately achieved no matter what the lineup. As we said, we're certainly going to be tuning in for both nights, just to see.

As for the primary race itself, a major shift seems to be underway. It's too early to really tell (a few more polls next week might confirm it), but the race at the very top now seems to have expanded. What was a two-man contest is now shaping up to be a two-man-one-woman contest, as Elizabeth Warren may have caught up to Bernie Sanders. Neither one of them has topped Joe Biden in the polls yet, but Warren seems to have doubled her support in a matter of a week or so -- the most significant movement we've seen yet in the polling. She now leads Bernie in polls in Nevada (by 19 to 13 percent), California (18-17), and at least one nationwide poll (16-12). So second place is now officially up for grabs. Ironically, this will be the one interesting matchup (Warren v. Sanders) that we won't get to see in the first debates.

Speaking of good polling, Trump seems to be getting thrashed no matter which Democrat runs against him. A recent national Quinnipiac poll showed Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg beating Trump by five points (47-42 percent), Warren beating him by seven (49-42), Kamala Harris beating him by eight (49-41), Bernie Sanders topping trump by nine (51-42) and Joe Biden beating Trump by a whopping 13 points (53-40). Obviously, that's a pretty good place for the entire party to be, right about now.

Trump isn't just getting thrashed in public polling, either. His own campaign's internal polls paint an even more dismal picture. This was initially reported by the New York Times, but they didn't provide the actual polling data. Today, ABC got the full scoop, with the numbers. Trump's own polls show him losing to Joe Biden in Pennsylvania by 16 points, losing Wisconsin by 10 points, and losing Florida by seven. Trump is up in one state, but barely -- he only leads Biden by two points in Texas. Trump initially said, of the Times article, that it was nothing more than: "Fake numbers that they made up & don't exist," and that: "We have great internal polling -- we are winning in every state that we polled," but this time around the Trump campaign admitted that ABC's numbers were indeed correct (although, they pointed out, they were old numbers from March).

Trump, meanwhile, announced to the world that he'd certainly welcome foreign governments' attempts to influence the 2020 election, by taking a look at any opposition research they happened to pass along to him. In other (more Trumpian) words: "Yes, collusion!" You just can't make this stuff up, folks. Republicans all visited a pretzel factory in Pennsylvania to practice their defense of the indefensible, once again. How we long for the days when Republicans used to hector liberals for their "moral relativism."

In related news, Kellyanne Conway will be keeping her job even though she breaks federal law on a regular basis. This is all part of Trump's new political strategy, it seems: "How can it be a conspiracy when we do it in plain sight?"

One person not impressed with Trump's interview was Ellen Weintraub, the head of the Federal Elections Commission. She released a statement which didn't mince words at all:

Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Our Founding Fathers sounded the alarm about "foreign interference, Intrigue, and Influence." They knew that when foreign governments seek to influence American politics, it is always to advance their own interests, not America's. Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation. Any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that offer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

She also channeled her inner Joe Bob Briggs (tagline: "I'm surprised I have to explain these things") by tweeting a preface to this statement: "I would not have thought that I needed to say this."

In other "cleanup on aisle Trump" news, the president insisted that the Chinese economy had lost "$15 to $20 trillion in value since the day I was elected." China's economy is only $13 trillion, making this impossible. Also, Trump tweeted (in a lame attempt to excuse away that Stephanopoulos interview damage) that he had recently met with the "Prince of Whales." On the internet, much hilarity ensued. Oh, and the "friendship tree" that the leader of France gave to Trump has died -- the most fitting metaphor yet for Trump's attitude towards foreign policy.

In other "impossible to reconcile reality with Republican nonsense" economic news, a GOP leader in Congress came out and sheepishly admitted that those giant tax cuts are not, in fact, "paying for themselves," because GOP tax cuts never do, of course. Let's just check the actual facts, shall we?

Federal tax payments by big businesses are falling much faster than anticipated in the wake of Republicans' tax cuts, providing ammunition to Democrats who are calling for corporate tax increases.

The U.S. Treasury saw a 31 percent drop in corporate tax revenues last year, almost twice the decline official budget forecasters had predicted. Receipts were projected to rebound sharply this year, but so far they've only continued to fall, down by almost 9 percent or $11 billion.

Though business profits remain healthy and the economy is strong, total corporate taxes are at the lowest levels seen in more than 50 years.

Remember when Republicans used to pretend to care about deficits? It wasn't that long ago, as we recall. The deficit for this year is also way up, and may top $1 trillion before we're done.

It should come as no surprise, really, that Donald Trump is leading the Republicans off a financial cliff, since that's the only thing he's really ever been good at. His own campaign has reportedly stiffed at least 10 local cities for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he's topped the $100 million mark for how much American taxpayers have now had to pony up to foot the bill for his many, many golf outings. Remember when Republicans used to complain about the president golfing too much? Yeah, those were the days....

This spurred Obama's former White House ethics chief to suggest to Democrats in Congress that they introduce a "Golf On Your Own Damn Dime Act." Nice one!

One thing paying for itself (and then some) is marijuana, at least out in Colorado. State tax revenues from weed have now officially topped one billion (that's "billion with a B") dollars. This was far faster than all the projections had anticipated, by the way. A clear message for all the states which have not legalized recreational marijuana -- just look at all the money you're leaving on the table by continuing the failed War On Weed!

And finally, to mark the president's birthday in the best possible way, we encourage everyone to have a #HappyJohnMcCainDay (tweet it out to everyone you know, and help the hashtag's trend!).

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have to at least give Elizabeth Warren an Honorable Mention this week, for her surge in the polls, but we're going to hold off on the main award for her until we see if it is a real trend or just a few outlier polls.

Instead, we're giving the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award to Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, for his impressive legislative speed (and his even more impressive political savvy).

Immediately after Donald Trump's disastrous interview with George Stephanopoulos, Warner sprung into action. He drafted and introduced a bill in the Senate which would make the law crystal clear on the illegality of a political campaign accepting information on their opponents from foreign governments or foreign agents. His bill would have required campaigns to report any such attempts at interference to the F.B.I. Who, after all, could be against such a thing?

Warner moved for unanimous consent in the Senate, which would have allowed the Republicans to avoid having to go on the record in a roll call vote, but all it takes to derail this maneuver is a single objection. Senator Marsha Blackburn stood up and objected. While most of the Republicans in the Senate either condemned Trump's remarks or were silent, Blackburn stood up for Trump's right to get all the help he needs from Vladimir Putin. Remember when Republicans used to have the ability to feel shame? Nah, didn't think so....

This was more than a political stunt by Warner. As a stunt, it worked exactly as designed, that cannot be denied. But it also points to a larger problem -- Mitch McConnell refuses to bring up any electoral reform bills, including ones designed to prevent foreign interference in our elections. This is in keeping with his entire "legislative graveyard" strategy, it should be noted. Democrats really need to make as big a stink about this as possible (as we suggested yesterday, by prominently asking Republicans: "What Would Reagan Do?"). And now Democrats will have Warner's bill to point to, when exposing how cowardly Republicans are now acting.

That, to us, is more than deserving of a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Warner moved quickly and decisively, and by doing so caught the Republicans with their pants down. Well done, Senator!

[Congratulate Senator Mark Warner on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We've got two candidates this week, but since one of them is old news, really, we decided to just give him a (Dis-)Honorable Mention.

Joe Morrissey, a former delegate to the Virginia state legislature, plead guilty to "delinquency of a minor" after it was revealed he had had sex with a 17-year-old secretary. Now he's staging his political comeback.

In mitigation, he did eventually marry the woman and had three kids with her (they all pose in his campaign literature now). Because Morrissey just won the Democratic primary for his state senate district, unseating an incumbent, he is all but assured of winning in November (the Republicans didn't even put up a single candidate in their own primary, so Morrissey will be running unopposed). But again, his disappointments all happened years ago.

This week, however, Joe Biden said something rather stunning for a Democrat to say in 2019. This wasn't some sort of "Biden gaffe," either. While speaking to a group of "lobbyists and donors," Biden expressed his warm feelings for a rather put-upon group: "Wall Street and significant bankers and people, they're all positive, they can be positive influences in the country."

He did follow this up with: "But they didn't build the country. The middle class built the country." But that doesn't really change things much.

Now, Joe Biden hails from a very banking-friendly state. Delaware is a corporate-friendly state in general, and Biden has long been a friend of the big banks. He's personally written bills to help their bottom line, in fact (at the expense of all those middle class folks he identifies with). So it's not all that surprising that he'd say something like this.

What is surprising is that he'd say it at all, after witnessing the Great Recession at Barack Obama's side, though. Wall Street bankers are not exactly the most-beloved group among Democratic voters today, and for good reason.

So far, this seems to have slipped under the radar of the political media, mostly. Also so far, none of his Democratic rivals have picked up on it and used it against Biden. But then again, the debates are less than two weeks away -- so perhaps they're saving it to fling directly in his face or something.

But we noticed it, and we visibly cringed when we heard about it. Loving bankers is not the image the Democratic Party really should want to be presenting these days, and that's going to be a much harder thing to do if Joe Biden becomes the party's nominee for president. Which is why we have to give Biden this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Joe Biden is currently a private citizen, and our longstanding policy is not to link to campaign websites, so you'll have to seek out his contact information on your own if you'd like to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 531 (6/14/19)

Today we're dispensing with our regular format, because there were two important campaign speeches this week worth highlighting. Frontrunner Joe Biden gave a speech in Iowa where he strongly castigated Trump (his prepared speech mentioned Trump a whopping 76 times), and Bernie Sanders gave a speech defining what he means by his brand of socialism (hint: it's F.D.R.'s brand, too). Both have enough excellent talking points within them that we had to defer to the professionals this week.

First, let's take a look at Bernie's speech. [We should mention that these quotes come from three different articles reviewing the speech, so they may in fact be out of sequence from the actual speech itself.]

Today, our Bill of Rights guarantees the American people a number of constitutionally protected political rights. Now we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman and child in our country basic economic rights -- the right to quality health care, the right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society, the right to a decent job, the right to affordable housing, the right to a secure retirement and the right to live in a clean environment. We must recognize that in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights. And that is what I mean by democratic socialism.

. . .

While President Trump and his fellow oligarchs attack us for our support of democratic socialism, they don't really oppose all forms of socialism. They may hate democratic socialism because it benefits working people, but they absolutely love corporate socialism that enriches Trump and other billionaires.

. . .

If you are the Trump family, you got $885 million worth of tax breaks and subsidies for your family's housing empire that is built on racial discrimination. When Trump screams socialism, all of his hypocrisy will not be lost on the American people. Americans will know that he is attacking all that we take for granted from Social Security to Medicare to veterans' health care, to roads and bridges, to public schools, to national parks, to clean water and clean air.

. . .

We rejected the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler. We instead embraced the bold and visionary leadership of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Together with organized labor, leaders in the African-American community, and progressives inside and outside the party, Roosevelt led a transformation of the American government and the American economy.

. . .

It is no exaggeration to state that not only did F.D.R.'s agenda improve the lives of millions of Americans, but the New Deal was enormously popular politically and helped defeat far-right extremism -- for a time. Today America and the world are once again moving toward authoritarianism and the same right-wing forces of oligarchy, corporatism, nationalism, racism and xenophobia are on the march, pushing us to make the apocalyptically wrong choice that Europe made in the last century.

Bernie's best crowd response came when he quoted Roosevelt directly: "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred." After the crowd went wild, Bernie quipped: "I must say, it does sound a little contemporary, doesn't it?"

Biden's Iowa speech, like his entire campaign to date, focused entirely on the differences between him and Donald Trump. Of which there are many. [Once again, these quotes were taken from three different articles, and are thus quite likely out of sequence.]

How many sleepless nights do you think Trump has had over what he is doing to America's farmers? Here's the answer -- as many as he had when he stiffed the construction workers, electricians, and plumbers who built his hotels and casinos -- zero.

. . .

Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid by China. Any beginning econ student at Iowa or Iowa State could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs. The cashiers at Target see what's going on -- they know more about economics than Trump.

. . .

Did he do anything to signal that he's prepared to walk away from the thugs he's embraced on the world stage -- from Putin to Kim Jong Un? No. He did none of that. Instead, he gets up in the middle of the night to attack Bette Midler. He attacks the mayor of London. He attacks the American speaker of the House. It was a stunning display of childishness for the whole world to see.

. . .

Remember when Trump's Justice Department decided to argue that the Affordable Care Act in its entirety is unconstitutional just a few months ago? Now he's got his tail between his legs and barely mentions it -- doesn't even tweet about it -- because he knows the American people will give him a thrashing in 2020 just like they gave the Republicans in 2018 for trying to get rid of it. Well, guess what? If I become the nominee of this party, I'm going to give Trump a thrashing every day on health care.

. . .

How about when he said the way to deal with California's fires was to rake the leaves?

Biden had plenty of snappy one-liners like that last one during his speech. Most notable:

We choose hope over fear. Unity over division. Truth over lies. And science over fiction.

. . .

I believe that the president is literally an existential threat to America.

. . .

Donald -- it's not about you. It's about America.

And finally, Biden's response to Trump's 2016 campaign slogan was pretty priceless as well: "Let's make America America again."

Those are two pretty good speeches from the Democratic frontrunners, we have to admit. While we're still just at the start of the whole campaign, it's refreshing to hear that the Democratic candidates have already hit the ground running in such fine fettle. The pre-eminent question on Democratic voters' minds is going to be who is best positioned to beat Donald Trump. Biden and Sanders both seem fully aware of this dynamic already. Which is good news for Democrats, even if neither of them emerge as the eventual nominee. We've got to take this fight directly to Trump and his Republican minions, because you just know that Trump certainly isn't going to fight by Marquess of Queensbury rules. Or those of the Prince of Whales, for that matter.

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

162 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Debate Slate Set”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Another great profile of Liz Warren: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/06/24/can-elizabeth-warren-win-it-all

    I am disappointed she won't go head to head with Biden/Bernie in first debate but hopefully we'll have fewer contenders all around in #2 and onward.

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    who's for NCAA style "bracketology?"

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Whoops! I erred on which night was which, and originally had the 27th as the first night. The 26th is the first night. It has been corrected in the article.

    Mea culpa.

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I must disagree that Biden's statement qualifies him for MDDOTW.

    It should actually qualify him for MIDOTW for exposing the truth aboot the Democratic Party.

    Perhaps it's all part of a grand Democratic strategy for Biden to be the one that attacks Trump while losing the primary so the winner of the primary will be able to stay above attacking Trump.

    Though it will take more than just one brief moment of truth for the Democratic Party to be able to claim to be telling "truth over lies".

    Biden may believe that Trump is an existential threat to America, but science tells us that the big money interests (Biden's Buddies *trademark :D) are also an existential threat to America and democracy.

    And if he is claiming to promote hope over fear why does he concentrate so much on stoking fear of another four years of Trump?

    So much for the truth over lies part.

    Biden's take on Trump's slogan is cute, but doesn't really mean anything (nothing new for a big money Democrat).

    I've got a better one.

    Let's Make Americans Americans Again.

    They can start acting like Americans again by standing up against the big money interests by participating in One Demand instead of cowering in fear because they are suckered by the scare tactics of the current major parties that it might be difficult, take a little time, a little work and a little backbone.

    After all, the only argument they have is that if you don't keep doing what hasn't worked things might get worse.

    It never ceases to amaze me that people are convinced by that ridiculous argument when it is clear that continuing to do what hasn't worked guarantees things will keep getting worse which is NOT better than things MIGHT get worse if you take a chance on something that could make things better.

    Get real.

  5. [5] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Nypoet22-2

    I'm for bracketology. I'm a bracketologian. Put down the dice and take up the bracket!

  6. [6] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Debates should be one on one. Debate tine gets longer as more individuals are eliminated. Polls are a good way to establish the initial match ups and who wins each head to head match.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I love Wall Street. It is certainly making a very positive impact on my retirement savings.

    But, I can understand why this blog would tend towards socialism.

    Good luck with the election.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [Joe Biden is currently a private citizen, and our longstanding policy is not to link to campaign websites, so you'll have to seek out his contact information on your own if you'd like to let him know what you think of his actions.]

    I might just do that.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I mean, seriously.

    Must Democrats be so politically correct that they must demonize capitalism at every opportunity and, in so doing, miss the real meaning of what is being said?

    Unbelievable.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of good polling, Trump seems to be getting thrashed no matter which Democrat runs against him. A recent national Quinnipiac poll showed Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg beating Trump by five points (47-42 percent), Warren beating him by seven (49-42), Kamala Harris beating him by eight (49-41), Bernie Sanders topping trump by nine (51-42) and Joe Biden beating Trump by a whopping 13 points (53-40). Obviously, that's a pretty good place for the entire party to be, right about now.

    Anyone who takes polling seriously NOW is really REALLY reaching for good news..

    Not feeling good about impeachment?? :D

    Trump, meanwhile, announced to the world that he'd certainly welcome foreign governments' attempts to influence the 2020 election, by taking a look at any opposition research they happened to pass along to him. In other (more Trumpian) words: "Yes, collusion!"

    You mean, like Hillary did in 2016??

    Funny how you don't have a problem with it..

    How come???

    One person not impressed with Trump's interview was Ellen Weintraub, the head of the Federal Elections Commission.

    A partisan Democrat...

    Funny how you don't mention that, eh?? :D

    Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Our Founding Fathers sounded the alarm about "foreign interference, Intrigue, and Influence." They knew that when foreign governments seek to influence American politics, it is always to advance their own interests, not America's. Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation. Any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that offer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    Except, not even MUELLER can establish that oppo research is anything of value as Dumbocrat Weintraub wants to define it...

    So, that kinda kills any claim that her statement has any relevance to the discussion..

    Immediately after Donald Trump's disastrous interview with George Stephanopoulos, Warner sprung into action. He drafted and introduced a bill in the Senate which would make the law crystal clear on the illegality of a political campaign accepting information on their opponents from foreign governments or foreign agents. His bill would have required campaigns to report any such attempts at interference to the F.B.I. Who, after all, could be against such a thing?

    Hillary Clinton, apparently..

    Funny how ya'all IGNORE the fact that Hillary did EXACTLY what ya'all are condemning President Trump for.. TWICE...

    How come ya'all ignore that fact??

    Oh yea.. Hillary has a -D after her name so she gets a pass...

    :eyeroll:

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    I love Wall Street. It is certainly making a very positive impact on my retirement savings.

    But, I can understand why this blog would tend towards socialism.

    Good luck with the election.

    "There is mimicry and there is mockery and THAT was definitely mockery.."
    -Dr Leonard McCoy

    :D

    I mean, seriously.

    Must Democrats be so politically correct that they must demonize capitalism at every opportunity and, in so doing, miss the real meaning of what is being said?

    Unbelievable.

    It's OK, Liz..

    They were for Wall Street before they were against Wall Street...

    That makes it OK...

    No one ever said "BOO" with Odumbo's and Hillary's connections to Wall Street..

    It's all in the name of Party obedience and expedience...

    Welcome to today's Democrat Party... No longer viable as an AMERICAN Party..

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    who's for NCAA style "bracketology?"

    Can't be any worse than the current system Democrats are enamored with...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iranians fired missile at US drone prior to tanker attack, US official says
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/politics/us-drone-tracked-iranian-boats/index.html

    Again, given the FACTS of the incident, I am hard pressed to understand why anyone has a problem with President Trump's reaction to Iran??

    Oh, yea.. That's right.. Because of the hysterical and irrational Trump/America hate...

    That explains it all.. :eyeroll:

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We are able to have differing opinions on how we best solve problems without having to resort to name calling and insults."
    -ListenWhatYouHear

    We'll see how much mileage I can get from that quote after the debates.. :D

    On another note, I do believe someone predicted that Biden's poll numbers would decline in the run up to the debate, thereby indicating that Electability is taking a back seat to Party Purity... :D

    Let the Dumbocrat Circular Firing Squad commence!!! :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump’s plan to repaint Air Force One has some Democrats fuming
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-plan-to-repaint-air-force-one-has-some-democrats-fuming

    Democrats whining again.. :eyeroll:

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Gun free zone' law disarmed Virginia Beach shooting victim, attorney says

    The night before Kate Nixon and 11 others were murdered by a disgruntled co-worker, the decade-long Virginia Beach city employee talked with her husband about bringing a gun to work for self-defense -- a decision that was taken out of her hands by the city's ban on employees carrying firearms at work, a Nixon family lawyer said.

    Now, Nixon's family is calling for an independent investigation into events leading up to the May 31 shooting and what could have been done differently before and during it, particularly given the explicit concerns about shooter DeWayne Craddock.

    “Kate expressed to her husband concerns about this individual in particular, as well as one other person,” Nixon family attorney Kevin Martingayle told WHRV's "HearSay with Cathy Lewis" radio show Monday. “In fact, they had a discussion the night before about whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag -- and decided not to, ultimately, because there's a policy apparently against having any kind of weapons that are concealed in the building."
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/gun-free-zone-law-disarmed-virginia-beach-shooting-victim-attorney-says

    Dumbocrats and their hysterical Anti-Gun laws claim 12
    victims..

    :eyeroll:

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny (in a sad and pathetic sort of way) how the MSM has totally ignored the VB shooting, beyond the initial reports..

    If one were cynical one would wonder if the fact that the shooter was black has anything to do with the lack of Leftist MSM reporting...

    Things that make ya go Hmmmmm.....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bill Maher scolds 'social justice warriors' over Oberlin lawsuit: 'There's a price to pay'

    "Real Time" host Bill Maher on Friday's show slammed the "social justice warriors" at Ohio's Oberlin College, a school recently ordered to pay $44 million to resolve a libel dispute stemming from a shoplifting incident at a nearby bakery.

    "Social justice warriors ... are finally finding that maybe there's a price to pay [for political correctness]," Maher said during the show's panel segment. The liberal comedian has long argued that political correctness does more harm than good to the cause of liberalism.
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/bill-maher-scolds-social-justice-warriors-over-oberlin-lawsuit-theres-a-price-to-pay

    The Democrat Party will never represent Americans until they throw off the yoke of political correctness...

    It's really that simple...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aren't delirious Democrats now accusing Team Obama of treason?

    If you read the newspapers, tuned into the cable TV pundits or received an email from one of the Democrats running for president, you’d swear Donald Trump was back to his treasonous ways.

    All that was missing was an annoying OMG text exclamation punctuating the unfounded claims that Trump might violate the law in 2020 by accepting intelligence on a political rival from a foreign country. The inference, of course, is that it would come from a hostile power such as Russia or North Korea or Iran.

    Actually, what Trump told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos was that he’d consider taking intelligence dirt about a rival from a friendly ally. (Norway was the actual example he used.)

    Sound familiar? That is EXACTLY what the Obama administration did in 2016. It’s something no one in the media or the political space grasped during the tsunami of breathless reaction that followed the interview.

    In July 2016, the Obama administration accepted unsolicited information from Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat who just happened to have helped arrange a $25 million government donation to the Clinton Foundation years before. Downer said that he had witnessed a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, bragging about some dirt that the Russians supposedly had on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

    Though Downer’s claim was reported two-plus months after the alleged event, and was only hearsay gathered at a London tavern, the Obama administration gave it to the FBI which, in turn, thought it was weighty enough to justify opening a counterintelligence case against the lawfully elected Republican nominee for president.

    In other words, the Democratic administration accepted dirt from a foreign friendly and used it to justify investigating its GOP rival.

    And then, OMG, they did it again just a few weeks later.

    In October 2016, less than three weeks from Election Day, the Obama Justice Department approved a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to spy on the Trump campaign through its former adviser, Carter Page. The primary evidence supporting the warrant? A dossier written by a foreign friendly named Christopher Steele, a retired MI6 intelligence agent from Great Britain. Of course, the Justice Department and the FBI forgot to tell the courts that Steele actually was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign, but that’s a small detail for the purpose of this column.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/448589-arent-delirious-democrats-now-accusing-team-obama-of-treason

    So... Odumbo can use opposition research from a foreign entity against an enemy candidate not once .. but TWICE....

    And THAT is perfectly acceptable to ya'all...

    Once again...

    Proof positive that it's all about the -D or -R after a person's name..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    But we noticed it, and we visibly cringed when we heard about it. Loving bankers is not the image the Democratic Party really should want to be presenting these days, and that's going to be a much harder thing to do if Joe Biden becomes the party's nominee for president. Which is why we have to give Biden this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

    Simply one more indication that, in the frantic and hysterical push to the Left, the Democrat Party has passed Joe Biden by....

    Biden would have a better chance of being POTUS if he switched Partys and ran as a Republican..

    Or run as an Independent...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

    Looks like President Trump's approval numbers are back on the upswing.. :D

    Yunno... For someone who ya'all claim is the worst of the worst, President Trump's approval numbers are very Obama-like..

    :D That's just GOTTA hurt.. :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another great profile of Liz Warren:
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/06/24/can-elizabeth-warren-win-it-all

    Lie-awatha??

    Not a snow-balls chance in hell...

    You always cap on President Trump about his lies..

    Faux-cohantas is synonymous with lying...

    I dunno who the Dim nominee is going to be..

    But I can guarantee you it's NOT going to be the 1/1024th part Native American..

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    This was more than a political stunt by Warner. As a stunt, it worked exactly as designed, that cannot be denied. But it also points to a larger problem -- Mitch McConnell refuses to bring up any electoral reform bills, including ones designed to prevent foreign interference in our elections. This is in keeping with his entire "legislative graveyard" strategy, it should be noted. Democrats really need to make as big a stink about this as possible (as we suggested yesterday, by prominently asking Republicans: "What Would Reagan Do?"). And now Democrats will have Warner's bill to point to, when exposing how cowardly Republicans are now acting.

    Just like Republicans have the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT voted for Occasional Cortex's New Green Deal when it came up for a vote.

    I believe that you labeled that nothing but a political stunt...

    Warner's stoopidity is simply more of the same..

    But, of course, ya'all think it's MIDTW worthy.. SOLELY because it came from a Dumbocrat.. :eyeroll:

    Once again... It's *ALL* about the '-D' and '-R' after a person's name...

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Just a reminder.

    In November of 2020 we will not only be voting for president.

    There are aboot 470 other congressional offices on the ballot.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just think..

    If Warner's bill was law during the Odumbo years, Odumbo would have had to report that he asked for Putin's help in winning the 2012 election and, in return for such help, Odumbo promised Putin he would be... er.. "flexible"..

    So, aren't ya'all glad Warner's BS stunt wasn't law during Odumbo's reign???

    The FACTS always do ya'all in, eh? :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Florida's DeSantis signs controversial sanctuary cities ban into law
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-de-santis-signs-controversial-sanctuary-cities

    Making it so Florida doesn't turn into California...

    Way ta go, Governor!!!

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:
  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:
  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Trooper William Moden
    Colorado State Patrol, Colorado
    End of Watch: Saturday, June 15, 2019

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

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    @JM

    SORRY, but it's NOT ONLY MONEY. Thing of value can be information or an object.

    That is not factually accurate..

    From the article that CW linked above...

    Weintraub’s statement, however, did not clear up the question of whether information is a thing of value, an issue Mueller wrote was difficult to resolve.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fec-chairwoman-warns-candidates-not-to-accept-help-from-foreign-governments/2019/06/13/fb8a7bfc-8e32-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html?utm_term=.85d70c45055a

    So, until such time as "items of value" is defined, it DOESN'T include information or oppo research...

    These are the FACTS... Deal with it..

    Why else do you think the president has to REPORT that he's given an expensive gift such as a watch by a foreign government???

    Because a watch is an object or item..

    Information is neither of those things..

    Once again.. THESE are the FACTS....

    Deal with it..

  31. [31] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    until such time as "items of value" is defined, it DOESN'T include information or oppo research..

    Still on this? Let me help. Everyone, including Weintraub, excluding Trump deadheads, thinks that oppo research is a thing of value. End of story.

    Even Trump, caught with his mouth open, has been walking back his comments from the other day. Didn't you get that memo?

    I admit that it's hard to keep up with someone who lies so easily. Sorta like making up a story based solely on random clips..

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Still on this? Let me help. Everyone, including Weintraub, excluding Trump deadheads, thinks that oppo research is a thing of value. End of story.

    It doesn't matter what anyone THINKS...

    It matters what the LAW says..

    And the LAW says that information is not a "thing of value" as it is defined for the purposes of the reg that Weintraub states...

    You can THINK all you want.. It's not your strong suit, but hay.. Have a ball..

    But the LAW is clear.. For the purposes of election law, information is NOT a "thing of value"...

    I admit that it's hard to keep up with someone who lies so easily.

    You mean, like you are right now???

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I admit that it's hard to keep up with someone who lies so easily.

    You mean, like you are right now???

    I mean, by YOUR definition of "lying" that is EXACTLY what you are doing right now..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have finally discerned the pattern here..

    I put out facts...

    One of ya'all attempt a fanciful rebuttal...

    I decimate and totally destroy the rebuttal with MORE facts...

    And then there is silence....

    Rinse and repeat..

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You put out the equivalent of anti-facts on quite a regular basis and you simply ignore facts put out by others.

    You're not proving anything except … well, you know. you know very well.

    I have found another blog where there is a consistently interesting and thought-provoking debate and discussion, kind of like all of Chris's columns here.

    The saddest thing about it is that Chris deserves so much better, especially from you!

  36. [36] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I have just learned that trump is British slang for fart - used as a noun or verb. Easily confirmed on the Web. Why has the US press not gotten wind of this? As The Major of Fawlty Towers would say upon first hearing the results of the 2016 Election " Oh dear!"

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, that comment certainly lives up to the standard set by the columns that headline these, ah, comments sections.

    Congrats.

  38. [38] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale seems to have it backwards. He posts a bunch of bullshit, and every once in a while someone jumps in to correct him. Then he posts a bunch more.

    There isn't a court in the land that won't call oppo research 'valuable'. None.

    Now, back to the same old bullshit.

  39. [39] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Two nations separated by a common language. That's all. I suspect this slang defintion subtly reinforces negative impressions many British have of DT. I would be surprised if British comedians did't riff on it early and often.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think we should just read the columns and keep any reactions we may have to ourselves.

  41. [41] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @ts,

    i'm totally on-board with single elimination rounds, and fan voting on each round like american idol. can you imagine the drama when an underdog twelve seed (inslee) takes out a five (harris), or when the eleven (gillibrand) comes in full of confidence only to get owned by the six (beto)? it's win or go home!

    JL

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    refreshments provided by the american pie council.

    click my name for more info. working links are a great thing.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    You put out the equivalent of anti-facts on quite a regular basis and you simply ignore facts put out by others.

    Surely you can provide an example.. :D

    You're not proving anything except … well, you know. you know very well.

    That is not factually accurate.. But I understand why you would think that..

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale seems to have it backwards. He posts a bunch of bullshit, and every once in a while someone jumps in to correct him. Then he posts a bunch more.

    I'll ask you the same thing I asked Liz..

    Can you post an example???

    This is the part where you disappear..

    There isn't a court in the land that won't call oppo research 'valuable'. None.

    Then you can surely, in the context of election or campaign finance law, can find some court precedence...

    Right???

    You were saying something before posting a bunch of bullshit???

    You claim it's a fact that, in the context of election law or campaign finance law, opposition research is considered something of value to be received..

    PROVE IT...

    Once again, this is the part where you disappear...

    Mueller's report itself states it's not a cut and dried as you would like it to be...

    Now, back to the same old bullshit.

    Yep.

    I bring the FACTS that oppo research is not considered something of value in the context of election or campaign finance law...

    You try a weak lame totally fact-less rebuttal...

    I totally demolish and decimate your weak, lame and totally fact-less rebuttal...

    You disappear....

    Just another day in Weigantia... :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    I suspect this slang defintion subtly reinforces negative impressions many British have of DT. I would be surprised if British comedians did't riff on it early and often.

    Of course you "suspect" that.. You wouldn't be the Party slave Trump/America hater we all know and love if you DIDN'T "suspect" that...

    I would like to tell you that your suffering of HHPTDS will end in Jan of 2025.... But it's likely you will have bouts with HHPTDS long after President Trump leaves office...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think we should just read the columns and keep any reactions we may have to ourselves.

    Apparently, a lot of commenters have taken your advice..

    Before Mueller totally and utterly decimated the moral of the Trump/America haters, there were a LOT more people commenting here....

    I guess the delusion that they had fostered for over two years... The shattering and decimation of that delusion as just another Party slave wishful fantasy was too much to handle..

    It's my fervent hope that, psychologically speaking, they all are OK...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'm totally on-board with single elimination rounds, and fan voting on each round like american idol. can you imagine the drama when an underdog twelve seed (inslee) takes out a five (harris), or when the eleven (gillibrand) comes in full of confidence only to get owned by the six (beto)? it's win or go home!

    The problem with ya'all's plan is it puts the PEOPLE in control of the primary...

    And the DNC and other Dumbocrat Party elitists simply cannot have that!

    You must know that the Democrat Party demands total allegiance and subservience..

    The PEOPLE actually pick the nominee???

    "Maybe we should give the dogs a vote as well"
    -Westeros Council Of Lords

    Shirley, you jest... :D

    I mean, in the 2016 GOP Primary, it WAS the people who picked the nomination.

    And you know how badly (for the Democrat Party) THAT turned out, eh?? :D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay, Balthy..

    "I'll be yer huckleberry"
    -Doc Holliday, TOMBSTONE

    Let's postulate, for the sake of the discussion, that oppo research IS a thing of value in the context of campaign finance/election law...

    Let's further postulate, again, for the sake of the discussion that Liz is wrong.. That obtaining oppo research from a foreign entity IS illegal..

    Given these two stipulations...

    How do you reconcile those stipulations with the FACT that Hillary not only ONCE... but TWICE benefited from oppo research from a foreign entity??

    Once with oppo research obtained from the Ukrainian government.. And a second time from oppo research from Russian intelligence by way Brit spy Christopher Steele..

    Both of these factual incidents are well documented so you can't deny they happened...

    So, how do you justify Hillary's actions???

    Once again, this is the point where you disappear... :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Immigrants’ sponsors to be on hook for ‘every dollar’ if new arrivals end up on dole, new Trump appointee warns

    Sponsors of legal immigrants to the United States received word Friday that they’ll be on the hook “for every dollar” if those immigrants end up receiving welfare funds or other public support instead of earning a living and paying taxes.

    The message came Ken Cuccinelli, a former Virginia state attorney general who last week became acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) following his appointment by President Trump.

    “If the sponsored immigrant receives any federal means-tested public benefits, the sponsor will be expected to reimburse the benefits-granting agency for every dollar of benefits received by the immigrant,” Cuccinelli wrote in a USCIS memo.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/immigrants-sponsors-to-be-on-hook-for-every-dollar-if-they-end-up-on-dole-new-trump-appointee-warns

    Nice.... VERY nice....

    President Trump...

    Making America GREAT Again...

    :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Luis Elizondo: Why is the government finally admitting UFOs are real, and why should we pay attention?

    Those of us who grew up in the 1980s may remember the movie "Final Countdown," a fanciful "what if" scenario in which the mighty USS Nimitz aircraft carrier is mysteriously transported back in time to World War II.

    In the movie, Japanese Zeros encounter state-of-the-art, supersonic F-14 Tomcats, and as one might imagine, the lopsided matchup makes for an amusing movie and some very frightened Japanese fighter pilots.

    But what if the reverse were the case? What would the movie feel like if the USS Nimitz suddenly disappeared into the future instead of the past? What if the pilots flying the Tomcats were suddenly engaging hyper-futuristic craft that toyed with them in the way that a cat plays with a mouse?

    The paradox

    In December 2017, much of the world was stunned to learn that pilots from the USS Nimitz encountered something eerily similar to the above scenario back in 2004, while conducting an exercise off of the sunny, southern coast of California. Just like a script from a science fiction movie, Top Gun-trained fighter pilots from the Nimitz were unfairly engaged with and attempting to intercept something that could only be described as extraordinary.

    What the pilots encountered that day was able to perform in ways that defied all logic and our current understanding of aerodynamics. Furthermore, beyond what the pilots saw with their own trained eye, the technological feat they encountered was further verified by the impressive Aegis SPY-1 radar, America’s premiere radar system at the time, and even gun camera footage and sonar systems from submarines accompanying the carrier.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/luis-elizondo-admitting-ufos-real

    A precursor to First Contact???

    That's the only thing left on my Bucket List...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Foreign Election Meddling Is Wrong, Mr. President
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/foreign-election-meddling-wrong-mr-180036033.html

    And yet, Bloomberg didn't say "DICK" when Odumbo and his minions meddled in the Israeli election..

    I wonder why??

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is EXACTLY why it's simply impossible to care about all ya'all's hysterical rants..

    Ya'all get so high and mighty and scream from yer ivory towers how utterly wrong and contemptible and illegal and horrible and heinous for President Trump to say he would accept oppo research from foreign entities..

    But then ya'all IGNORE it when DEMOCRATS do that exact same thing...

    So what ya'all are REALLY saying is that it's utterly wrong and contemptible and illegal and horrible and heinous when President Trump does it..

    But it's NOT utterly wrong and contemptible and illegal and horrible and heinous when a person with a -D after their name does it..

    Thereby proving it's nothing but partisan Party bigotry and hypocrisy at work..

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the PLUS side it's going to be easy (for Democrats) to determine whether or not Russians meddle in the 2020 Election..

    For Dumbocrats, if the Dem candidate wins, then the Russians didn't meddle...

    If President Trump wins, then the Russians DID meddle in the election.

    This, according to delusional Dumbocrats..

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (50)-
    Would it be okay to get dirt on your opponent from visitors from another planet as there are no laws against getting dirt on your opponent from visitors from another planet? :D

    As for the quantity of commenters here, perhaps some have returned to their planet of origin.

    After all, the question "What planet are you from?" often comes to mind while reading the comments. :D

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for the quantity of commenters here, perhaps some have returned to their planet of origin.

    After all, the question "What planet are you from?" often comes to mind while reading the comments. :D

    Hehe Ain't that the truth...

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (40)-
    Keep comments like that to yourself.

  57. [57] 
    TheStig wrote:

    NYpoet22-41

    I'm glad you mentioned Reality TV Shows....which are really Fantasy Shows where Unknowns get public exposure and become Well Knowns, or at maybe Better Knowns....at least for a while. Political debates are intended to do roughly the same thing - going all the way back to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

    The American Idol format could serve this function of controlled exposure beautifully. The judges could be a mix of Party Operatives and Retired Politicians. The candidates give a short speech and the judges give critiques - "I liked your delivery, but your voice was a bit bitchy." Or maybe "exporters don't pay tariffs - importers do and pass them on to consumers" Viewers vote... and on to the next round.

    The Survivor, Big Brother and even MILF Island :) are all templates for competitions that could work better in the Electronic Age than the so called "debates."

    I am completely serious about this.* It's all about public exposure and the public's tastes in what they like to be exposed to. Learn from the media professionals.

    Gen. Murray: I can't make out whether you're bloody bad-mannered or just half-witted.
    T.E. Lawrence: I have the same problem, sir. -

    David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, 1962

    It's sometimes hard to sound serious when you are dealing with an absurdity such as war or politics.

  58. [58] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And to give Liz an opportunity to say "Right back at Ya.":

    I was thinking that Biden's Buddies works for many of the Democratic big money candidates.

    We could have a whole line of tee shirts, dolls and buttons similar to the banker from Monopoly that say Biden's Buddies, Bernie's Buddies, Beto's Buddies, Booker's Buddies, Beth's Buddies and we'll come up with something for the other candidates.

    It would not be wise, however to use Buttigieg's Buddies because if you accidentally put in an extra Butt in the wrong place you could be accused of gay bashing.

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's why Trump has no business being the President of the United States, assuming the majority of the people stull wish to known as decent people trying to do the right thing:

    A baby boy, four months old, was separated from his mother and father at the border. Four months old. Five months later, thanks only to the efforts of a New York Times reporter, the baby boy was tracked down. He is two years old now and can't walk very well yet or talk very well. Probably impacted for the rest of his natural life. To say nothing of what the horrified parents have gone through. All because they loved the idea of America.

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    A baby boy, four months old, was separated from his mother and father at the border. Four months old. Five months later, thanks only to the efforts of a New York Times reporter, the baby boy was tracked down. He is two years old now and can't walk very well yet or talk very well. Probably impacted for the rest of his natural life. To say nothing of what the horrified parents have gone through. All because they loved the idea of America.

    Similar things happened during the Obama Administration.. Young children less than one year old, were separated from their parents.. It's a common story along the southern border..

    But I have to ask??

    Who is the bad guy here???

    The government, for enforcing their own laws??

    Or the parents who dragged that 4 month old in a dangerous trek across the country???

    Personally, ANY parent who does that to their children should have the kids taken away.. For their own safety...

    I know that sounds harsh, but if you want to play the WELFARE OF THE CHILDREN card, logic and objective thought must FIRST look at the parents...

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who is the bad guy here???

    The answer, I would argue, is the president and his administration who, collectively, demonstrated the kind of abject incompetence that may prevent some families from every being reunited.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    All because they loved the idea of America.

    Yea, the "idea" that America is a free ride and that they are taken care of and given free everything, courtesy of the Democrat Party.

    Tell ya what.. All those Democrats who want these criminals here, let them go down to the border and SPONSOR illegal immigrants.. Let Democrats house them and feed them and clothe them and be responsible for their crimes..

    You see, Democrats LOVE to give away free things.. As long as THEY don't have to foot the bill.. Let Democrats foot the bill personally..

    THEN lets see how welcoming Democrats are... :eyeroll:

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    The answer, I would argue, is the president and his administration who, collectively, demonstrated the kind of abject incompetence that may prevent some families from every being reunited.

    Yes, of course you would say that..

    But that is a problem caused by the system in place, NOT any one specific administration..

    Obama had the exact same issues... But he had a supplicant press and public who didn't call him on it..

    This is evidenced by the FACT that not a single person here brought up Obama's very similar southern border issues...

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, TRUMP is the bad guy and Obama is NOT the bad guy..

    Even though the EXACT same issues happened on BOTH their watches, it's TRUMP who is the bad guy and Obama gets a pass....

    The logic of that escapes me..

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Obama administration did not lose track of the separated children and it didn't make the separation of children from their families a zero tolerance policy.

    Why? Because the Obama administration wasn't heartless or incompetent.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wall Street Donors Are Swooning for Mayor Pete. (They Like Biden and Harris, Too.)
    https://www.enmnews.com/2019/06/16/wall-street-donors-are-swooning-for-mayor-pete-they-like-biden-and-harris-too/

    Typical Dumbocrats.. Going for the money, no matter what...

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Obama administration did not lose track of the separated children and it didn't make the separation of children from their families a zero tolerance policy.

    Yes it did.. The "zero tolerance" policy actually BEGAN with the Obama Administration..

    I could prove it to you if I thought you would change your mind...

    But we have been down this road before..

    Suffice it to say that there is very VERY little difference between what has occurred at the Southern Border with the Trump Administration than occurred during the Obama Administration..

    The only real difference is that the Trump Admin is dealing with a lot higher numbers than Obama dealt with with.. Given this fact, President Trump's actions are very impressive...

    I'll never see things your way and you will never accept the facts...

    So... We'll just have to agree to disagree..

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That's because there was one significant difference between the Obama and the Trump approach.

    During the Obama years, asylum seekers were processed, given a Court date, and then released into the general population. They aren't criminals, and weren't treated as such.

    Trump, however, considers them ALL criminal, and has some of them in cages in 100 degree temperatures.

    Add the drought in Guatemala/Honduras, and we've got a tragedy. And it gets worse with every passing day.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    During the Obama years, asylum seekers were processed, given a Court date, and then released into the general population. They aren't criminals, and weren't treated as such.

    And yet, they ARE criminals...

    Trump, however, considers them ALL criminal, and has some of them in cages in 100 degree temperatures.

    Facts to support your temp claim??

    Odumbo also put kids in cages..

    Add the drought in Guatemala/Honduras, and we've got a tragedy. And it gets worse with every passing day.

    Then why don't you go to the border, collect up a bunch of illegal immigrant criminals and take them home with you and provide for them..

    No, of course not.. You claim to feel sorry for them but you want OTHERS to foot the bill..

    Hypocrite...

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, Democrats in Congress do nothing about it because, why? … they don't care about children dying in US custody?

    Maybe what we need here is another trip to Congress for Jon Stewart.

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [71] in response to [69]

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, Democrats in Congress do nothing about it because, why? … they don't care about children dying in US custody?

    What, exactly CAN they do???

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Work to give much needed resources - immediately to the agencies responsible for the welfare of children so that no more of them die.

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It seems to me that this isn't that hard to accomplish for the United States of America.

  76. [76] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Bloomberg didn't say "DICK" when Odumbo and his minions meddled in the Israeli election..

    You seem to be missing a big part of this, M.

    Democratic operatives were INVITED to participate in Israeli elections, which they did according to the country's rules. Steele was HIRED to listen to dirt in 2016.

    The Russians, on the other hand, weren't invited, nor hired (no one would hire them due to their tendency to lie). Then they HACKED the DNC, and offered that to Trump, who managed to stay just far enough away from it to avoid jail time.

    Mark Warner sponsored a short bill in the Senate the other day, that said simply "if a foreign country offers you stolen material, call the FBI"
    - and it was killed minutes later by the Senator from Tennessee.

    THAT'S how serious the Republicans are about this.

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here is an idea for one of Chris's columns:

    Why should Trump be removed from office, other than anything to do with the Mueller report.

    Actually, it could be a series of columns.

    It could start with why America's allies - allies - are currently working together in an effort to undermine American power.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    'America First and Alone' points to another reason.

  79. [79] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And yet, they ARE criminals.

    There is the nub of our disagreement. It is NOT illegal for anyone to ask for US asylum. Nor is it illegal to approach the border, and only a misdemeanor to cross it.

    But Trump can't get a law passed that criminalizes those things, so resorts to cruelty to 'discourage' immigration.

    It's despicable.

  80. [80] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I'm with Liz..

    It'd probably be interesting to see, enumerated, all of the obstructive acts by the Trump administration just since the Mueller Report became public.

  81. [81] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And didya catch Putin the other day? It seems that Trump can't deliver on the one thing that he wants - sanctions relief. Just a bridge too far for the GOP.

    So it seems that we're not only out in the world alone, but with no allies.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Work to give much needed resources - immediately to the agencies responsible for the welfare of children so that no more of them die.

    On whose dime???

    I know.. We'll take all the tens of millions being donated to Democrat Party candidates and give that to border operations...

    Since it's DEMOCRATS who want them they, THEY can pay for it..

    Howz that???

    It seems to me that this isn't that hard to accomplish for the United States of America.

    And Obama had the Presidency for 8 years..

    Doesn't he deserve the lion's share of the blame??

    Of course not.. HE is a Democrat.. :^/

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is the nub of our disagreement. It is NOT illegal for anyone to ask for US asylum. Nor is it illegal to approach the border, and only a misdemeanor to cross it.

    And if you CROSS the border without authorization, you are committing a CRIME... Which makes you a CRIMINAL...

    It doesn't matter if you are crossing the border to ask for asylum or not.. You cross the border illegally, that is a crime..

    Which makes you a criminal..

    You may DISAGREE with that assessment, but as you yourself point it.. It's still factual..

    But Trump can't get a law passed that criminalizes those things, so resorts to cruelty to 'discourage' immigration.

    It's despicable.

    And it was perfectly acceptable when Odumbo did it..

    Hence, your opinion is SOLELY based on Party slavery and bigotry..

    Which means it's worth NOTHING...

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    It could start with why America's allies - allies - are currently working together in an effort to undermine American power.

    Facts to support??

    No???

    Of course not...

    Even if it were true, you simply prove that our "allies" ain't worth shit and Trump SHOULD stomp them..

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    And didya catch Putin the other day? It seems that Trump can't deliver on the one thing that he wants - sanctions relief.

    More accurately, President Trump WON'T deliver sanction relief...

    Which puts you and Putin on the same side...

    It's well documented that President Trump has been harder on Putin than Odumbo EVER was..

    Odumbo let Putin meddle with our elections and didn't do CRAP to stop it..

    I guess that's what Odumbo meant when Odumbo said he would be "flexible" for Putin...

    And, of course, ya'all give Odumbo a pass...

    :eyeroll:

  86. [86] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It doesn't matter if you are crossing the border to ask for asylum or not.. You cross the border illegally, that is a crime..

    But most of these people DON'T cross the border illegally. That's my point. They're still treated as criminals.

    Since it's DEMOCRATS who want them, THEY can pay for it..

    You know that it doesn't work like that. It's actually about who WE are as a country. Trump only wants refugees with good jobs.

    you simply prove that our "allies" ain't worth shit and Trump SHOULD stomp them..

    You really don't understand how alliances work, do you? Pro-russian thugs like Victor Orban isn't an 'ally', he's a self-dealer. The same is true of the other thugs that Trump has feted lately at the White House.

    But then, decent allies, like England, Germany and France object when you start wars and impose tariffs. Tough decision.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    But most of these people DON'T cross the border illegally. That's my point. They're still treated as criminals.

    If they don't pass thru a legally designated Border station, they are crossing illegally..

    You know that it doesn't work like that.

    And THAT'S why it doesn't work. Because Dumbocrats always want OTHERS to foot the bill..

    It's actually about who WE are as a country.

    As you have said numerous times, we are a country of laws..

    But you only say that when it suits your agenda...

    Trump only wants refugees with good jobs.

    Refugees that can pull their own and not be a burden on society..

    What's wrong with that???

    If YOU want the lowlifes and deadbeats, YOU pay for them..

    Don't expect patriotic Americans to foot the bill for YOUR stoopidity...

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump only wants refugees with good jobs.

    Refugees that can pull their own and not be a burden on society..

    What's wrong with that???

    Take a look at some of the requirements to move to New Zealand or Australia...

    Why do you want America to be the shithole dumping spot for diseased and incompetent and lowlifes??

    Oh.. I see.. To make it more like the Democrat Party...

  89. [89] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Odumbo let Putin meddle with our elections and didn't do CRAP to stop it..

    Proof?

    It's well documented that President Trump has been harder on Putin than Odumbo EVER was..

    hahahahahahahahaha

    President Trump WON'T deliver sanction relief.

    Trump Administration to Lift Sanctions on Russian Oligarch

    Despite everyone telling him not to.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Support for beginning impeachment hearings grows among Democrats in new NBC News/WSJ poll
    Americans overall remain divided over beginning impeachment hearings but Democratic support has surged since last month.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/support-impeachment-grows-among-democrats-new-nbc-news-wsj-poll-n1017751

    Can Dumbocrats REALLY be that stoopid!???

    Oh please.. Please.. PLEASE Dumbocrats..

    PLEASE be that stoopid!!!! :D

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Odumbo let Putin meddle with our elections and didn't do CRAP to stop it..

    Proof?

    Why bother??

    You won't accept it anyways..

    Odumbo hisself stated he didn't want to do much about the Russian meddling because he thought Hillary was going to win..

    Trump Administration to Lift Sanctions on Russian Oligarch

    Despite everyone telling him not to.

    NY GRIME!!!???

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    No wonder you didn't want to post the link.. You felt foolish..

    President Trump is tougher on Russia in 18 months than Obama in eight years
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/397212-president-trump-is-tougher-on-russia-in-18-months-than-obama-in-eight

    More facts that you will ALSO ignore..

    So why bother bringing facts?? You never accept them or acknowledge them if they don't fit your Party Slavery...

  92. [92] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why do you want America to be the shithole dumping spot for diseased and incompetent and lowlifes?

    You've just described MOST refugees, formerly decent people driven to desperation. You wanna slam the door on them? Fuck you. You're talking about folks who could've been YOUR ancestors.

    Unless you're native American, all of our ancestors were 'huddled masses' just like those. To slam the door behind them isn't just wrong, it's immoral.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    You've just described MOST refugees, formerly decent people driven to desperation. You wanna slam the door on them? Fuck you. You're talking about folks who could've been YOUR ancestors.

    Even if that were true, what bearing does it have???

    People from Ebola countries are being dumped on America's streets..

    They are a threat to my family. And so are you if you want them here.. So Fuck You...

    Unless you're native American, all of our ancestors were 'huddled masses' just like those. To slam the door behind them isn't just wrong, it's immoral.

    Once again, you try to change the subject because your argument is totally and unequivocally decimated..

    All of our ancestors were ****LEGAL**** immigrants..

    We're not talking about LEGAL immigrants..

    We're talking about ***ILLEGAL*** immigrants.. Murderers.. Rapists.. Drug Dealers.. Ebola carriers..

    You invite them into YOUR home... Don't force others to pay (with their lives) for YOUR Party bigoted agenda..

  94. [94] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    More facts that you will ALSO ignore..

    I give you facts and you provide back conservative punditry. This is why we can't have a conversation.

    Odumbo hisself stated he didn't want to do much about the Russian meddling because he thought Hillary was going to win..

    Right. Everyone expected Hillary to win. And, according to you, there were further actions taken by Trump.

    So where is the federal response to the Russians in terms of making our Election systems more secure?

  95. [95] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    All of our ancestors were ****LEGAL**** immigrants..

    Really? There were paper-checkers at plymouth rock?

    We're talking about ***ILLEGAL*** immigrants.. Murderers.. Rapists.. Drug Dealers.. Ebola carriers..

    Blah, blah. Same thing said about the Irish two centuries ago. Face it, you have an economic bias.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    I give you facts a

    YOu gave me cherry picked "fact" from a dubious source that is simply one instance.. Whereas I gave you tons of examples of President Trump being harder on Putin than Odumbo ever was..

    You also ignore the FACT that it was ODUMBO (not President Trump) who promised Putin that he (Odumbo) would be "flexible"...

    Right. Everyone expected Hillary to win.

    Exactly.. So, rather than do the RIGHT thing and stand up to Russia, Odumbo din't want to risk Hillary's "win".. So Odumbo played Party politics with the election..

    I am glad we can agree on the FACTS...

    So where is the federal response to the Russians in terms of making our Election systems more secure?

    You DO realize that elections are a STATE matter, right??

    What have Dumbocrats done besides trying to nullify a FREE, FAIR and LEGAL election???

  97. [97] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    People from Ebola countries are being dumped on America's streets..

    That's just untrue.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blah, blah. Same thing said about the Irish two centuries ago. Face it, you have an economic bias.

    Maybe I do...

    But at least I am not a Party slave, wanting to see Americans raped and murdered just to further an Anti-America agenda..

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    People from Ebola countries are being dumped on America's streets..

    That's just untrue.

    Actually it is factually accurate..

    But I know you don't care about Americans who might get sick and die because of your Open Border policies and beliefs..

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    550 African migrants were just caught in Texas. DHS head says they aren’t being screened for Ebola
    https://tinyurl.com/y35vovrg

  101. [101] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You DO realize that elections are a STATE matter, right?

    Then there's no need for an FEC?

    There are LOTS of federal election entities, as a matter of fact. They could, with enough money from the Congress, do lots. There are bills in the Senate that McConnell won't let come to a vote that start the process.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    AOC warns of 'very real risk' of Trump win in 2020, says frustration with Pelosi is 'quite real'
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-warns-of-very-real-risk-of-trump-win-in-2020-says-frustration-with-pelosi-is-very-real

    Even Occasional Cortex knows that Dumbocrats are going to lose.. :D

  103. [103] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [100]: What's that, some creepy heresay?

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are LOTS of federal election entities, as a matter of fact. They could, with enough money from the Congress, do lots.

    Dumbocrats have the house..

    What have they done??

    ZIP..

    There are bills in the Senate that McConnell won't let come to a vote that start the process.

    For example...????

    These are like yer useless WOULDN'T IT BE NICE anti-gun laws, right???

  105. [105] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [102] Thank you. I'd forgotten to stalk her today.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lemme ask you something Balthy..

    What would you say to a mother or a father or a wife or a husband who have had their loved ones brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant??

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    [100]: What's that, some creepy heresay?

    FACTS.. I know you have a blind spot for them when they don't support your Party slavery agenda..

    But there they are...

    [102] Thank you. I'd forgotten to stalk her today.

    Yer an Occasional Cortex stalker??

    So... You DO have a redeeming quality!!!!

    "Mr Spock, you DO have one redeeming quality!! You're ill-mannered.. Bravo!!"
    -Squire Trelane

    :D

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I think that we have a very real risk of losing the presidency to Donald Trump if we do not have a presidential candidate that is fighting for true transformational change in the lives of working people in the United States."
    -Occasional Cortex, The Acknowledged "Future" Of The Democrat Party

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that Dumbocrats would want Party Purity over electability!!!???

    Oh... Wait... :D

  109. [109] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yer an Occasional Cortex stalker?

    No, I'm not. It's creepy, and pointless (unless she's your Rep).

    What would you say to a mother or a father or a wife or a husband who have had their loved ones brutally murdered

    The same thing. This was pointless. The question is: what can you DO about it? Hard to do anything much when you're up to your neck in foster kids.

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Closing time... One more call for alcohol just finish your whiskey or beer... Closing time.... You don't have to go home but you can't stay here...

    Ni people.. See ya in the morning...

    I am on my lovely wife's time now... :D

  111. [111] 
    neilm wrote:

    What would you say to a mother or a father or a wife or a husband who have had their loved ones brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant??

    What do you say every day to all the people needlessly killed by dangerous gun laws Michale?

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    what would either of you say to one of the parents or siblings who lost one of the forty thousand annual automobile deaths, while our country continues to allow deadly cars into the country?

  113. [113] 
    neilm wrote:

    what would either of you say to one of the parents or siblings who lost one of the forty thousand annual automobile deaths, while our country continues to allow deadly cars into the country?

    I'd say I was sorry for their loss, but look at the progress we've made making transportation far safer than it was in the past with laws and technology designed to deliver a safer driving experience.

    I'd then tell you that you're missing the point and that this type of equivalency is helping kill more people by hindering our chances of improved gun safety.

  114. [114] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @neil,

    the comparison was absurd to begin with. if you're going to go that direction, might as well go all the way. human beings need to be treated as such. guns, cars, or any other hunk of metal, is a different issue.

    JL

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It appears that red is the new orange.

    Sorry, but I couldn't resist. I'm not that strong.

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It takes a rare journalist/political analyst to interview Trump.

    George Stephanopoulos isn't one of them.

    I'd like to see William Bradley or Chris Weigant do the interviewing. We'd all learn something.

  117. [117] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i've heard there are some native american dialects that treat red and orange as different shades of the same color, so there's already a pretty tenuous distinction...

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    What would you say to a mother or a father or a wife or a husband who have had their loved ones brutally murdered

    The same thing. This was pointless. The question is: what can you DO about it? Hard to do anything much when you're up to your neck in foster kids.

    What can you do about it!??

    How about demand our government enforce our laws??? Do you know how many Americans have been killed by illegal immigrants who have ALREADY been deported!!??

    Do you even CARE about those Americans??

    Why are a non-American CRIMINALS rights more important to you than the LIVES of your fellow Americans??

    I'de seriously like an answer to that question, but I know I'll never get one.. :eyeroll:

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    What do you say every day to all the people needlessly killed by dangerous gun laws Michale?

    Oh pppuuuuuuulllllleeeeeeesssssseeeeee Neil..

    Are you SERIOUSLY comparing a criminal act by a NON-American to a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!???

    Gods, how desperate you must be...

    But hay... OK.. I'll play yer absurd game and answer your question with a question..

    What do you say to the widows and sons and daughters of police officers killed by Black Lives Matter terrorists??

    I'd then tell you that you're missing the point and that this type of equivalency is helping kill more people by hindering our chances of improved gun safety.

    You CAN'T have any more "gun safety", which is nothing but a euphemism for hysterical anti-gun laws..

    Every restriction allowable under the 2nd Amendment has already been done... You CAN'T have any more anti-gun laws under the 2nd... You might as well deal with that fact...

    As to the equivalency, it's dead on ballz accurate. You can't see it because you hate guns and love your car..

    But I don't have to even go to the perfectly accurate car death equivalency to prove how wrong you are..

    All I have to say is that gun ownership is equivalent to Free Speech and the Right To Vote.. ALL are equally guaranteed by the US Constitution...

    That's all I have to say and ANY argument you can make in rebuttal will be useless and wrong..

    You want to further restrict or outright ban guns???

    Get rid of the 2nd Amendment...

    "It's THAT simple... Are we clear!?"
    -Colonel Nathan R Jessup
    COMMANDER GROUND FORCES
    Guantanamo Bay Cuba

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    It appears that red is the new orange.

    I thought orange was the new black..

    I'd like to see William Bradley or Chris Weigant do the interviewing. We'd all learn something.

    We'de all learn to feel sorry for those who suffer from HHPTDS... :D

    I mean, imagine Rush Limbaugh or Ted Nugent interviewing Obama...

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do ya'all realize??

    That the goal of Thanos and the goal of the Democrat Party are identical??

    Food for thought..

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    FOXNEWS POLL SHOCK:
    BERNIE LEADS TRUMP BY 9!
    CBS: BIDEN DOMINATES BATTLEGROUNDS

    http://www.drudgereport.com

    My gods!! The Democrats are SOOOOOO desperate for ANY news that can be spin'ed as good news!!

    They are looking at polls (which is stoopid to begin with) that are more than a year out and portraying them as gospel!!

    You would think that Dumbocrats would have learned their lesson regarding crowing about polls...

    But, I guess they are SOOOO desperate for good news, they will latch onto ANYTHING.. No matter HOW absurd..

    No matter WHAT the poll says, the advantage is to President Trump...

    Simply by virtue of Dumbocrats actually believing in the poll... :D

    It's REALLY hilarious...

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iran hints US could be behind 'suspicious' tanker attacks

    Iran's parliament speaker hinted Sunday that Washington could be behind the "suspicious" tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman to pile pressure on Tehran, official news agency IRNA reported.

    "The suspicious actions against the tankers... seem to complement the economic sanctions against Iran considering that (the US) has not achieved any results from them," Ali Larijani told MPs.
    https://www.france24.com/en/20190616-iran-hints-us-could-be-behind-suspicious-tanker-attacks

    Hysterical Trump/America haters here must be swooning....

    :eyeroll:

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Record number of African migrants coming to Mexican border

    PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Undaunted by a dangerous journey over thousands of miles, people fleeing economic hardship and human rights abuses in African countries are coming to the U.S.-Mexico border in unprecedented numbers, surprising Border Patrol agents more accustomed to Spanish-speaking migrants.

    Officials in Texas and even Maine are scrambling to absorb the sharp increase in African migrants. They are coming to America after flying across the Atlantic Ocean to South America and then embarking on an often harrowing overland journey.

    In one recent week, agents in the Border Patrol’s Del Rio sector stopped more than 500 African migrants found walking in separate groups along the arid land after splashing across the Rio Grande, children in tow.
    https://apnews.com/429f04067c38428ba0d06749b53e6df0

    Tell me again how it's "untrue" that we're having illegal immigrants from Ebola areas in our cities??

    Because the FACTS say otherwise...

    Yunno.. FACTS... Those things you don't like and ignore when they don't support yer Party agenda??

    :eyeroll:

  125. [125] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'm afraid you may have missed the central point of a few good men.

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi flexes muscle over party in impeachment debate, but ‘dam’ could collapse

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has wielded her power to quash a faction of Democrats rallying for President Trump’s impeachment, but frustrated members within the party say the president is one misstep away from “that dam collapsing,” according to a Sunday report.

    Since reassuming leadership over the house, Pelosi has thwarted her party’s liberal wing from going forward with impeachment proceedings, encouraging them to instead focus on other issues like health care.

    “I don’t think there’s anything more divisive we can do than to impeach a president of the United States, and so you have to handle it with great care,” Pelosi told CNN on Sunday. “It has to be about the truth and the facts to take you to whatever decision has to be there.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nancy-pelosis-power-over-democrats-quells-demands-for-impeachmentfor-now

    Even PELOSI concedes that the "truth" and the FACTS don't support impeachment...

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'm afraid you may have missed the central point of a few good men.

    I am just using apropos quotes to illustrate my point..

    I make no assessment as to any comparisons to the movie as a whole...

    But, if you would like to have that discussion...

    What do you believe the central point of A FEW GOOD MEN is??

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, buy the bi..

    Good Morning.. :D

    It's rare that I have company so early.. :D

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    ICE arrests illegal immigrant who was freed on bail after crash killed 3: reports

    An illegal immigrant DUI suspect who was set free after allegedly plowing into a California home, killing three family members while they slept, was taken into custody by federal immigration officials Tuesday, easing the nerves of neighbors who feared the suspect had skipped town.

    Prior to the arrest, neighbors were furious that Ismael Huazo-Jardinez, 33, had been released on bail.

    Huazo-Jardinez was first arrested Saturday night in the rural community of Knights Landing near Sacramento. The California Highway Patrol said Huazo-Jardinez was intoxicated and speeding when the truck he was driving missed a sharp curve and slammed into a family's live-in trailer.
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-dui-suspect-killing-three-arrested-immigration-officials-bail-neighbors

    Sanctuary policies are KILLING Americans...

    People who support those policies have blood on their hands...

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another hypocrite Democrat..

    Tiffany Haddish cancels comedy show in Atlanta over Georgia heartbeat abortion law
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/tiffany-haddish-atlanta-georgia-heartbeat-abortion-bill

    Yet, this moron has NO PROBLEM when her movies are marketed in China...

    :eyeroll:

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am actually surprised that no one here has mentioned Sarah Huckabee Sanders is leaving her position as Press Secretary...

    Have ya'all actually learned some humility and compassion and objectivity???

    Am I rubbing off on ya'all!!??? Well, except for the humility part.. Ya'all COULDN'T have learned that from me.. :D

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    The winners — and losers — of the Democratic debate draw

    Despite the Democratic Party's efforts to avoid a 'kiddie table,' the first night lineup comes close.

    By splitting the Democratic presidential field’s top-tier candidates into two groups and dividing them evenly across two stages for the year’s first primary debates, the Democratic National Committee had hoped to avoid a repeat of the Republican Party’s “kiddie table” spectacle of 2016.

    It got a stacked deck, anyway.

    The two front-runners, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, will both appear on the same night, based on the DNC’s random drawing Friday. They’ll be joined by two other major candidates, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg.

    Only one contender from the Morning Consult poll’s latest top five, Elizabeth Warren, will appear on the other stage.

    Here’s who won and who lost in the first debate draw of the Democratic primary:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/14/2020-democratic-debate-winners-losers-1365629

    Ya gotta wonder if it was TRULY a random draw...

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Getting back to Democrat oppo research hypocrisy..

    So what did George ask this time? He wanted to know whether, with the lessons of 2016 in mind, the president thought it would be appropriate to let a foreign government “interfere” in our elections by taking from that government information damaging to the opposing candidate.

    Naturally, Stephanopoulos did not preface his query with, “You know, the way that Ukrainian parliamentarian who was a source for Hillary’s campaign leaked that oppo about the secret payments to Manafort.” And the president was not swift enough to ask Stephanopoulos for clarification: “You mean, like, an amateur-hour arrangement where I, or my son, take the information directly from Russia? Does it count if I’m smart enough to have my cut-out law firm hire the cut-out grifters from Fusion GPS, and then they do the dirty work of hiring the foreign spy to tap the Russian sources — in their spare time from helping Putin’s cronies beat back the Justice Department?”

    In his staccato style, Trump appeared to respond that it would be all right to accept the information (because mere information is “not an interference” in an election); but he left ambiguous whether he’d notify the FBI of the foreign contact: “They have information — I think I’d take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI — if I thought it was something wrong.”
    https://tinyurl.com/y5dj3h88

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, I don't know about ya'all....

    Hypocrites get last kicks at Sarah Sanders, slobbering over her White House exit

    Sarah Sanders had it coming. If she wanted the respect of the Washington press corps and a fat corporate job after leaving the White House, she should have worked for a Democrat.

    But she chose to be the press secretary for the Worst Human Being Ever, so she deserves the mud bath she’s getting on her way out the door.

    Go back to Arkansas, you hick, you lying Republican rube. Besides, as a woman and mother, how could you work for him?

    That pretty much sums up the tone of the coverage that greeted Sanders’ announcement that she is leaving after two years on the firing line. There was neither fondness nor civility and none of the usual willingness to let bygones be bygones when the day is done.

    This was personal and it was cruel.

    Moments like this reveal how nasty and partisan the left-wing media has become. Their hatred of Trump knows no bounds, and many are using the departure of Sanders to engage in what the late Charles Krauthammer called “moral preening.”
    https://nypost.com/2019/06/15/hypocrites-get-last-kicks-at-sarah-sanders-slobbering-over-her-white-house-exit/

    But crap like that would make me feel embarrassed to be a Democrats..

    If I were a Democrat, I mean...

  135. [135] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Good morning mikey!
    The central theme as i see it is that the same facts can be seen in opposite but equally valid ways, and we discard either at our peril. It's crucial that in the film dawson grows up and figures this out. In the initial script Weinberg had to explain it.
    JL

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how ya'all tried to spin a NY Grime story and pretend that President Trump's victory on his Mexico Tariff gambit wasn't really a victory???

    Trump’s Mexican-tariff move was a true victory

    President Trump’s detractors are trying to play down the significance of the US-Mexico immigration deal, saying it is largely comprised of actions that Mexico had already agreed to many months ago.

    Nice try. If Mexico had truly agreed to implement many of these measures in December, then why had they not been implemented six months later? As even Mexican officials acknowledge, it was Trump’s threat of tariffs that forced Mexico’s hand. In announcing the deal, a relieved Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said the “most important thing is that they didn’t apply tariffs and we didn’t experience an economic slowdown.”

    The fact is, Trump bucked Republicans on Capitol Hill and even many of his own advisers, and used the threat of tariffs to get Mexico to act — and it worked.

    The measures Mexico has promised include the deployment of 6,000 national guard forces at Mexico’s largely unguarded border with Guatemala, which — according to Mexican negotiating documents — will be “the first time in recent history that Mexico has decided to take operational control of its southern border as a priority.”
    https://nypost.com/2019/06/14/trumps-mexican-tariff-move-was-a-true-victory/

    Another perfect example of how ya'all tried a lame, fact-less rebuttal, I slammed ya'all down with the FACTS and then ya'all disappeared on the issue..

    It happens a lot here... :D

    The process really stands out now that many commenters have bailed because they couldn't handle the Great Mueller Delusion Decimation Of 2019.....

    I really admire those who stick it out and take their medicine like adults... :D

    I really do...

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    The central theme as i see it is that the same facts can be seen in opposite but equally valid ways, and we discard either at our peril. It's crucial that in the film dawson grows up and figures this out. In the initial script Weinberg had to explain it.

    Deep... Very deep..

    I didn't see it that way at all.. I was much more superficial

    I saw it as a struggle between good and evil where evil debased and dishonored itself in pursuit of it's nominally good agenda... Lt Kiddrick was a prime example..

    And Dawson's journey to realization that honor does not come from without, it's not awarded with a patch on his shoulder, but rather from within...

    As I said.. Very superficial... :D

  138. [138] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Downey: what did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong!
    Dawson: yes we did.

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    But back to President Trump's huge Mexico Tariff victory..

    One point that President Trump wanted but Mexico balked on was Mexico's designation as a "Safe Third Country" (look it up if you don't know what it is)

    Mexico is PETRIFIED of this and made the mistake of exposing that fear to President Trump...

    Mexico will bend over backwards for President Trump in his anti-illegal-immigration crusade to avoid the STC designation..

    As I said.. The Mexico Tariff gambit was a resounding and undeniable victory for President Trump..

    Those here who can actually think logically and rationally should acknowledge this..

    The ONLY question that remains is this:

    Which scares Mexico more??

    Safe Third Country designation??

    Or Tariffs....

    Things that make ya go 'hhhmmmmmmmmmmm'...

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Downey: what did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong!
    Dawson: yes we did.

    "Harold? You don't have to have a patch on your shoulder to have honor."

    :D

    But I do see your point..

    It's difficult when you have facts that are competing facts yet equally valid facts..

    It's a mistake to discard the facts you don't like in pursuit of an agenda that may or may not be valid..

    :D

  141. [141] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I sorta see jo as the conservative idealist and weinberg as the liberal idealist, with kaffee as the pragmatist who has to navigate between them.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    I sorta see jo as the conservative idealist and weinberg as the liberal idealist,

    Hehe... This must be some Rorschach for our interactions here..

    I see Jo as the liberal, trying to get Dawson & Downey off of a murder charge due to the circumstances...

    "I was thinking that it sounds like a Code Red.."

    Sam is the conservative who wants to nail the murdering bastards to the wall..

    "They beat up on a weakling. The rest of this is just smoke-filled-coffeehouse crap. They tortured and tormented a weaker kid! They didn't like him. So? They killed him. And why? Because he couldn't run very fast!"

    It's funny how we can see the exact same movie, come up with diametrically opposite assessments AND have the facts to back it up.. :D

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Back to Democrat Hypocrisy..

    Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.: "The fact that this president has so little moral compass or understanding of the need to protect our nation that he says he would still welcome information from russia, china, or any other potential adversary if it helps his political campaign is outrageous. “

    Yet Senator Warner took money, something that IS of value, from lobbyists on orders from China...

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “Yesterday, the president gave us, once again, evidence that he doesn’t know right from wrong. It’s a very sad thing, very sad thing that he does not know right from wrong. I believe that he’s involved in a criminal cover-up.”

    Yet, Nancy Pelosi took money, something that IS of value, from lobbyists at the behest of shady Ukrainian companies..

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.: “To say that it’s okay for foreign countries to interfere in our elections with motives that are not what’s interest of the American people? Disgraceful, shocking.”

    And who did Schumer accept help, real tangible valuable help, from??? Saudi Arabia and Mexico..

    So, apparently, President Trump is VERY guilty... Guilty of being a Republican POTUS...

    :eyeroll:

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Leadership Is Looking Flakey

    Democrats were quick to condemn Trump after comments welcoming foreign "dirt," but their refusal to do more mirrors a recently retired senator.

    House Democrats—and just about everyone else—were rightfully disturbed by President Donald Trump’s admission earlier this week that he would once again accept “foreign dirt” in the 2020 contest. Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters that “Everybody in the country should be totally appalled by what the president said last night…. He has a habit of making appalling statements. This one borders on so totally unethical but he doesn’t even realize it.” Representative Hakeem Jeffries, recognized by many as Pelosi’s heir apparent, went even further. He told MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle that “accepting assistance from a hostile foreign power like Russia is treasonous behavior.”

    Appalling, unethical, treasonous. These are serious charges. But Pelosi and Jeffries have developed a kind of bait-and-switch. They make a bombastic claim, and then back away from it. Immediately after calling the president “appalling” and “unethical,” Pelosi continued, “However, what we want to do is have a methodical approach to the path we’re on and this will be included in that. But not any one issue is going to trigger, oh now we’re going to go do this.” Jeffries, meanwhile, told Ruhle that the House was doing everything it could to hold the president accountable. “I think we have to move forward and stay the course in terms of following the facts, applying the law, and being guided by the United States Constitution,” he said, touting recent, incremental court victories.

    The dynamic at play is fairly clear. Pelosi and House leadership are trying to throw a bone to the rising number of pro-impeachment Democrats in the caucus by escalating their anti-Trump rhetoric. But their strategy remains the same as it was when they retook power in January: Turn up the heat slowly and don’t do anything likely to risk a 2020 presidential victory. But as their rhetoric escalates, Pelosi and Jeffries sound increasingly feeble and insincere, less like the leaders of a party with a clear majority and growing momentum, and more like Jeff Flake.
    https://newrepublic.com/article/154217/house-leadership-looking-flakey

    House Leadership Is Looking Flakey

    Hay! That's not ME saying that..

    That's some Left Wing rag that ya'all would normally swear by...

    :D

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump supporters line up 40 hours before Orlando rally
    Trump to announce re-election bid at Amway Center

    https://www.clickorlando.com/news/politics/president-trump-supporters-line-up-37-hours-before-orlando-rally

    You see, this is what you people don't get about Trump support amongst the Right..

    President Trump has approval number comparable to St Ronald Reagan amongst the Right..

    And, if Democrats continue to push impeachment, President Trump's approval amongst the Independents will also shoot up...

    Ya'all like to act like EVERYONE hates President Trump, but the FACTS... The reality is that it's only a very vocal small (and getting smaller) segment of the American people..

    But I understand why ya'all have to keep fooling yerselves..

    The reality is just too much to bear...

  146. [146] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    You might be right about him having approval numbers close to Reagan's, altho I kinda doubt it.

    But I see a possible problem for you in 2020. I'm guessing that there are a considerable number of folks on the right, who would have welcomed anybody the Reps ran who wasn't Hillary. But I fear that after his first term, when people who only knew him from reality TV recognize what he actually is, not just as a president, but as a leader and as an actual human being, they may not hate him but they also will not respect him.

    I count myself as one of those. Actually, I DID have a pretty good idea about what he was (without ever watching a single episode of his reality TV), and so I voted for Anderson.

    If too many people arrive at the conclusions I had already arrived at, he may just not have the degree of support you're hoping for.

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    You might be right about him having approval numbers close to Reagan's, altho I kinda doubt it.

    Of course, you have to look at "POLLS" and we all know how reliable they are..

    But the majority of polls have President Trump approval topping 90% and more among the Right...

    That's definitely Reagan territory...

    But I see a possible problem for you in 2020. I'm guessing that there are a considerable number of folks on the right, who would have welcomed anybody the Reps ran who wasn't Hillary. But I fear that after his first term, when people who only knew him from reality TV recognize what he actually is, not just as a president, but as a leader and as an actual human being, they may not hate him but they also will not respect him.

    They don't hate him and they don't respect him.. But they DO respect what he has accomplished..

    And, if you look at 2016, Hillary was hated.. Establishment but hated..

    In 2020, who are Dems gonna run?? Chances are it's going to be someone Left of Bill Ayers....

    Do you think the Right's going to be any more open to someone like THAT, compared to Hillary???

    If too many people arrive at the conclusions I had already arrived at, he may just not have the degree of support you're hoping for.

    The right will stick with him.. Obama voters turned Trump supporters will stick with him..

    And if the Dims do impeachment?? The Independents will stick with him..

    Result: Landslide for President Trump..

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is how the 2020 election is shaping up...

    If the Democrats DON'T impeach President Trump, their base is royally pissed and they stay home..

    Advantage Trump...

    If the Democrats DO impeach President Trump there will be a MASSIVE turnout of the right and the Independents...

    Advantage Trump...

    Democrats simply CAN'T win..

  149. [149] 
    TheStig wrote:

    NYpoet22-117

    Cultures don't seem to distinguish colors until they discover pigments to create them. RadioLab did a segment on this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um6j_WRDggs

  150. [150] 
    Kick wrote:

    Somebody should have notified Mikey Cohen, Individual-1, and their "friend" Pecker that information isn't a "thing of value." *laughs*

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS

    Democrats simply CAN'T win..

    Which is not to say that the election is a pre-ordained conclusion..

    One must allow for the transmographic upheaval..

    But, bar'ing any EARTH shattering happenstance (which CAN go either way) Democrats are going to lose the 2020 election..

    And lose big...

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    In 2020, who are Dems gonna run?? Chances are it's going to be someone Left of Bill Ayers....

    Do you think the Right's going to be any more open to someone like THAT, compared to Hillary???

    Think about it..

    Who can the Dems run that would be appealing to Obama voters turned Trump voters??

    Biden is the ONLY possibility...

    And, with all deference to Liz, you know my feelings about the chances that Biden can be the Dem nominee..

    Anyone the Dems nominate is going to be anathema to ANY voter who voted AGAINST Hillary in 2016...

    Once again.. Advantage Trump...

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those who want to impose their lifestyle on others whose religious beliefs are different..

    Supreme Court tosses ruling against bakers who refused cake for gay couple
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-tosses-ruling-against-bakers-who-refused-cake-for-gay-couple

    Seems like the SCOTUS is firmly on the side of the religious beliefs..

    Sorry, Lefties..

    NOT going to be able to impose acceptance...

    Just NOT gonna happen..

  154. [154] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I prefer:
    Supreme Court Lets Virginia Use Election Map Redrawn To Fix Racial Gerrymandering
    The court ruled that Republicans in the Virginia House of Delegates did not have standing to appeal a lower court ruling that struck down the old map.
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/virginia-gerrymandering-election-map_n_5d07a388e4b01c6757e779a9

    Whatever you guys have done to the map, it's over.

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK..

    So, you don't care about gay people as long as you can Gerrymander in YOUR favor..

    OK.. I can understand that...

    You have to have your priorities and all. And winning the election, by hook or by crook, is your priority..

    Gotcha.. {wink wink}

  156. [156] 
    Kick wrote:

    Separate sovereigns doctrine upheld by the SCOTUS in Gamble v. United States.

    Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented in the 7-2 decision where SCOTUS reaffirms the precedent that allows both state and federal authorities to prosecute a person for the same offense.

    Poor Donald's dangling of pardons just got kneecapped. :)

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Police Officer Steven Brown
    Port St. Lucie Police Department, Florida
    End of Watch: Wednesday, June 12, 2019

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

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tyranny of the 70-Somethings

    The Democratic Party’s gerontocracy is holding back the political causes it claims to want to advance.

    Why have national Democrats and not national Republicans fallen under the tyranny of the 70-somethings? It seems so contrary to common expectation. Democrats are, as they often remind us, the party of progress and the future. The question seems to rival those enduring, unanswerable mysteries such as “What happens when you die?” and “Why did Mick Taylor quit the Rolling Stones?”
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/there-should-be-age-limit-presidents/591724/

  159. [159] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Remembering, of course, that Trump is, right now, the oldest person to ever hold the office of President.

    So that kinda doesn't matter. Does to the ambitious next lot though. They'll get their turn.

    My favorite line of the piece:

    "After the indignities that Boomers inflicted on Generation X, from disco to postmodern literary theory, this scarcely seems fair."

    No, it probably doesn't dear, at least if you didn't have Lawrence Welk and atomic theory nipping at your psyche. Or THEIR parents concern about whether or not they'd survive the fascists.

    Whether moving the needle on this issue is as simple as complaining about the problems of today is a premise yet to be tested. And I'm not saying that Biden or Bernie will be our party's nominee. What I'm saying is that age should not be the issue. period.

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remembering, of course, that Trump is, right now, the oldest person to ever hold the office of President.

    What I'm saying is that age should not be the issue. period.

    heh :D

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Heh.... :D

    How a Wyoming rancher summarizes the Mueller report..

    “We know that old boy (President Trump) didn’t actually steal any horses, but he’s obviously guilty of trying to avoid being hanged for it.”

    Sums it up perfectly...

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    161

    Sums it up perfectly...

    No, it doesn't. Nothing is done without the "old boy" knowing about it, and the "old boy" knows exactly what was done. So there's that.

Comments for this article are closed.