ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- The Fallout Continues

[ Posted Friday, August 9th, 2019 – 17:27 UTC ]

Will anything actually change this time around? Will these mass shootings finally spur the politicians to act, when all the others didn't? While it's easy to be pessimistic, since it is rare indeed that anything happens after such tragedies, perhaps this time is different. We couldn't say why this time seems to have had more of an impact than the other 250 times it has happened this year, but so far it has. Perhaps it was the fact that there were multiple mass shootings in a single day or perhaps it was the high body count or perhaps it was the El Paso gunman's obvious racist motivation, but for whatever reason this time could be different.

Of course, the big question at the heart of whether the National Rifle Association can be defeated in Congress this time around is whether the Democrats can get Donald Trump on their side or not. As of this writing, that is still an open question.

Trump, true to form, is all over the map on gun safety reforms. One day he expresses his strong support, the next day he doesn't even mention the subject. One day he's pushing for universal background checks, the next day he's saying what a fine chat he had with his buddy Wayne LaPierre. So it's still very much up in the air.

Mitch McConnell, also true to form, is resisting all action. He's said he won't call the Senate back for a special session in August, and he's waffled on what the Senate will do when it does return from its monthlong summer break. Perhaps he'll allow a floor vote on gun safety legislation, and perhaps he won't.

The Democrats have two bills already awaiting Senate action, both of which would get rid of all the loopholes in the current federal background check program. Previously, Trump said he would veto them if they passed the Senate, but that could change if he changes his mind on the subject.

The Republicans seem to have a newfound love for "red flag" laws, which is rather odd because they've always opposed them in the past (as their N.R.A. masters demanded). So perhaps some combination of a red flag law and universal background checks might actually have a chance of passing the Senate?

Well, once again, it's pretty easy to remain pessimistic. The N.R.A. still has a stranglehold on the Republican Party, and they have been opposed to any new legislation, period.

In opposition, however, is the fact that Republicans are already having a tough time in their suburban districts, where many women voters are downright disgusted with their refusal to act on gun safety. Voting against gun safety this time around is going to lose Republicans more of these suburban voters. So it becomes a calculation of two forms of self-interest: votes versus campaign cash. That may sound cynical, but it is indeed what the GOP now faces.

The public outcry over the recent shootings seems different this time as well. It has been more sustained than normal. Usually, mass shootings occupy the national stage for only a few days, and then fade in importance as other things happen. This time, that doesn't seem to be happening at all. The El Paso and Dayton shootings have occupied the front page of the news all week long, and have dominated the political world. Perhaps it is because Congress is on vacation, which is typically when political news sees a lull, or perhaps these shootings really were more shocking than all the others. Either way, the public pressure is a lot higher on the politicians this time around. Will this result in any actual legislation? Well, maybe. But just maybe -- please remember that it usually doesn't.

It will probably all come down to whether Democrats can goad Trump into action, by telling him that he'll be the greatest president ever on gun safety if he does so. That could tease his inflated ego into getting behind such a push. Everything is always about Trump, to Trump, so Democrats should really use this leverage to move him.

Trump has been proving all week long how he sees the issue -- as a reflection of him, of course. In his first tweet, Trump called for "strong background checks" and then personalized the whole thing as a campaign slogan for him: "We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!"

The next day, Trump gave one of his signature "hostage video" performances, where he read a speech others had written for him off a TelePrompTer, in a voice so devoid of emotion it was hard to stay awake listening to it. Trump might as well have prefaced the speech with the admission: "I didn't write this and probably don't agree with it, but my staff is forcing me to read these words to you, so here goes...." In the speech and afterwards, Trump placed the blame on everyone but himself, of course. He didn't mention background checks at all during the speech. But he did manage to confuse Dayton with Toledo.

Trump then visited Dayton and El Paso, and again it was all about him. After visiting a hospital in Ohio, Trump for some unfathomable reason ripped into Senator Sherrod Brown and Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley. Both Brown and Whaley had actually praised Trump's visit afterwards:

"They were hurting. He was comforting. He did the right things. Melania did the right things," Brown said. "And it's his job in part to comfort people. I'm glad he did it in those hospital rooms."

Whaley added: "I think the victims and the first responders were grateful that the President of the United States came to Dayton."

This, however, wasn't enough for Trump social media director Dan Scavino, who tweeted: "Very SAD to see Ohio Senator Brown, & Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley -- LYING & completely mischaracterizing what took place w/ the President's visit to Miami Valley Hospital today. The President was treated like a Rock Star inside the hospital, which was all caught on video. They all loved seeing their great President!"

Because, of course, it's not about the victims, it's about how much of a "Rock Star" Trump was. Trump echoed this later on Twitter: "Then I saw failed Presidential Candidate (0%) Sherrod Brown & Mayor Whaley totally misrepresenting what took place inside of the hospital."

Brown is not actually a presidential candidate -- meaning the one who was lying was, once again, Donald Trump. Need more proof? While Trump barred the media from the hospital visit, immediately afterwards (before he even landed in El Paso), Team Trump put out a slick campaign-style video of the event, set to music. In Texas, Trump summed up what he thought the day was about: "The love, the respect for the office of the presidency, it was -- I wish you could there to see it. We had an amazing day." Even Trump's own staff privately admitted later that the whole day was "something of a debacle, that these were not the headlines they wanted to see."

Later, a bootleg video filmed inside the El Paso hospital Trump visited was released, which showed that Trump was focused like a laser beam... on Trump:

I was here three months ago, we made a speech, we had a -- what was the name of the arena... that place was packed, right?... That was some crowd. And we had twice the number outside. And then you had this crazy Beto -- Beto had like 400 people in a parking lot.

But to get back to the background check issue, Trump continued to flip and flop all week long. When Trump spoke off-the-cuff to the press again, he once again predicted background checks could happen: "There is a great appetite, and I mean a very strong appetite, for background checks. And I think we can bring up background checks like we've never had before. I think both Republican[s] and Democrat[s] are getting close to a bill on, to doing something with background checks."

So, as we said, it's really anyone's guess what the upshot will be in the Senate. Will Trump force Mitch McConnell to act? Maybe, but then again maybe not. Earlier in the week, over 200 Democratic House members signed a letter demanding Mitch call the Senate back to vote on gun safety bills. Later, over 200 mayors from both parties made the same demand in a letter they sent to Congress. But Mitch refused to do so. So it's going to take a lot more pressure on him and on the Republican Party before they act, obviously.

In other Trumpian news, there seems to be a new legal defense for people accused of political violence. You might call it the "Trump made me do it!" defense. There were two instances of this last week: convicted mail bomber Cesar Sayoc, and a guy in Montana who was arrested after slamming a 13-year-old child into the ground and fracturing his skull for not taking his hat off during the national anthem. Sayoc's lawyer argued during a sentencing hearing that Donald Trump's inflammatory rhetoric contributed to the motivation of the mail bomber. From the Montana attacker's lawyer: "[President Trump] is telling people that if they kneel, they should be fired, or if they burn a flag, they should be punished. He certainly didn't understand it was a crime." Nothing like our president being a good role model, eh? Or, at the very least, a flimsy legal excuse.

In some "irony is dead" news, Texas is now poised to loosen its already-lax gun laws, as new laws which were passed and signed earlier are now taking effect. Nothing like opening the barn doors even wider after the horses are gone, we suppose.

Let's see, what else is going on? Let's close on a few good-news stories for Democrats....

Orange County, California -- once a bastion of Republicans, and a base of support for Ronald Reagan -- now has more Democrats registered to vote than Republicans. This is after the 2018 midterms completely wiped out GOP representation in the county -- there is now no part of Orange County that has a Republican House member.

Speaking of Republicans disappearing from the stage, another Texas Republican in the House has announced he won't be running for re-election. An even dozen Republicans will now be retiring "to spend more time with their families," which opens up multiple avenues for Democrats to pick up more House seats in 2020.

More good news, from the Wall Street Journal -- big banks have given up "thousands of pages" of data on Donald Trump, Trump's businesses, Trump's family, and Russians who might be involved with them. This trove of documents has been handed over to both New York state investigators and congressional committees. So we'll see what shakes out after they've had a chance to dig through it all.

And we have to point out two articles that every Democrat who is even the least bit worried about the Democratic presidential campaign should really read. The first is titled "Democrats Should Stop Freaking Out" in the Washington Post, and the second one comes from Bill Curry in Salon. Curry points out in detail how the "Democrats are moving too far left" meme in the media is largely wrong:

Democratic unity reflects another, deeper shift: the party's movement toward what pundits still call the left but what is actually a new American center, already born, that struggles now only to be recognized. The new center embraces social issues: it is pro-choice and anti-gun; pro-marriage equality and anti-discrimination in any form. All these positions enjoy support of 60% or more of the American people, a figure that coincides with Lyndon Johnson's vote share when he set that record.

The consensus extends beyond social issues. Roughly 60% of voters think global warming is real, is man-made and is a genuine crisis. About the same proportion back nearly every tax hike on corporations and the super-rich that has been proposed. A higher percentage, around 70%, would regulate prescription drug prices and enact a health care public option. Eighty percent would end family separations at the border and offer undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.

. . .

These issues that 60% of all voters agree on, 90% of all Democrats agree on. The party has never known such unanimity, nor have its views ever aligned so closely with those of a large majority of unaffiliated voters. And Republicans? On all these issues they swore an oath of fealty to views held by barely a third of the electorate. Democrats have a rare political luxury: they can run hard on issues dear to their base without needing to tack to some other perceived center in the general election.

And finally, we can all rest assured that if Bernie Sanders is elected, he'll let us all know everything the government knows about aliens. Not legal or illegal aliens, but extraterrestrials. Appearing on Joe Rogan's podcast, Bernie swore he'd make everything public:

"Well, I'll tell you, my wife would demand that I let you know," Sanders replied with a laugh, adding that she had pressed him in his role as senator for any information on aliens. (He said he doesn't have access to those records.)

Sanders went on to say that if he did become president and found out anything about aliens, he'd announce it on "The Joe Rogan Experience."

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

While many of the Democratic presidential contenders reacted strongly to both the shootings and Trump's subsequent words and actions, none did so better last week than Joe Biden. Biden took the time to write his own speech as a response, and he certainly didn't pull any punches:

"How far is it from Trump saying this is an invasion, to the shooter in El Paso declaring, quote 'this attack is the response to Hispanic invasion of Texas,'" Biden asked the crowd. "How far apart are those comments? How far is it from white supremacists and Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Trump's very fine people chanting, 'you will replace us,' to the shooter at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh saying, 'we're committing genocide, Jews are committing genocide on his people.'"

"I don't think it's that far at all," Biden said. "It's both clear language and in code. This president has fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation."

He also said that Trump "has more in common with George Wallace than George Washington" -- referring to the segregationist former Alabama governor who unsuccessfully mounted four bids for president as an opponent of the civil rights movement.

. . .

In his remarks outside the eastern Iowa town of Burlington, Biden compared Trump unfavorably to the four presidents who preceded him: George H.W. Bush, who renounced his National Rifle Association membership amid gun violence; Bill Clinton, who rallied the nation after the Oklahoma City bombing; George W. Bush, who visited a mosque shortly after the 9/11 attacks; and Barack Obama, who sang "Amazing Grace" at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, after a mass shooting there in 2015.

Biden referred to those four as "Presidents who led, who opposed, chose to fight for what the best of American character is about."

"Sadly, we don't have that today," he continued. "We have a president who has aligned himself with the darkest forces in this nation. And that makes winning the battle for the soul of this nation that much tougher -- harder."

"Trump offers no moral leadership; he seems to have no interest in unifying the nation, no evidence the presidency has awakened his conscience in the least," Biden said. "Indeed, we have a president with a toxic tongue who has publicly and unapologetically embraced a political strategy of hate, racism, and division."

Biden issued a call to the American public to stand against hate in the absence of Trump's leadership.

"We're living through a rare moment in this nation's history. Where our President isn't up to the moment. Where our President lacks the moral authority to lead. Where our President has more in common with George Wallace than he does with George Washington," said Biden to loud applause from the crowd.

"We are almost 330 million Americans who have to do what our President can't. Stand together. Stand against hate. Stand up for what -- at our best -- our nations' best, when we're the best."

Biden even went toe-to-toe with Trump, directly taking on Trump's own caricature of Biden. In his speech, Biden scoffed at Trump's "hostage video" performance after the shooting: "His low-energy, vacant-eyed mouthing of the words written for him condemning white supremacists this week I don't believe fooled anyone at home or abroad." Biden later reacted when informed that Trump had tweeted "Sooo Boring!" about his speech: "He should get a life."

Biden has always tried to make his campaign all about defeating Trump, and this week was the perfect opportunity for him to show how he'd do so. The other Democrats had to make do with television interviews or soundbites, but Biden took the time to write and deliver a speech right afterwards that really set the standard for the other Democrats for the entire week.

For doing so, Joe Biden is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week (even if he did drop a few gaffes later in the week on unrelated subjects).

[Joe Biden is technically a private citizen right now, and our blanket policy is not to provide contact information for such people or links to a campaign website, so you'll have to search his contact information out for yourself if you'd like to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Joaquin Castro, twin brother and campaign manager to Julián, tried a political tactic this week that backfired. Joaquin decided to publicly shame those in San Antonio (which he represents in Congress) who had maxed out their donations to Trump. He tweeted a graphic labelled "Who's funding Trump?" with the names and occupations of 44 local people. Castro tweeted with the image: "Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump. Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.'"

Now, Joaquin didn't break any laws by doing so -- as both he and his brother pointed out, this information is already accessible to the public and no phone numbers or addresses were included. Even so, it was a remarkably boneheaded stunt, given the circumstances. Trying to shame individuals for their political donation history is bad optics in the best of times, but in a week devoted to the aftermath of a mass shooting, it is downright insensitive.

Julián should have realized this and, at the very least, distanced himself from his brother's misstep. However, he later defended Joaquin's action, which made the whole thing worse: "That kind of information is put out all the time, and for anybody to pretend or suggest that it's not, that's just untrue."

Republicans, predictably, were pretty scathing in their denunciations. Steve Scalise, who was shot on a baseball field for his political beliefs, put it best: "People should not be personally targeted for their political views. Period. This isn't a game. It's dangerous, and lives are at stake. I know this firsthand."

He's right. The intent may not have been to "target" anyone, but at this point splitting hairs like this is a losing battle. The optics were terrible, and Castro should have realized this and reined in his brother. Instead, they both keep insisting that there's nothing wrong with what they did.

Any other week, this argument might have been more valid. But not this particular week. For attempting to publicly shame Republican donors right after a mass shooting in his state, Joaquin Castro is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Representative Joaquin Castro on his House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 537 (8/9/19)

This week we've got a few lengthy excerpts rather than smaller talking points, but we thought it was important to sample some reactions to both the shootings and white supremacy from across the political spectrum this week. It's rather astonishing that so many conservatives and Republicans have finally had enough in the wake of the El Paso shooting and Trump's reaction to it. So we thought we'd feature a few of these in and amongst the Democratic reactions this week.

 

1
   The real numbers on white supremacist violence

This was a stunning scoop from Yahoo.

"Congress has demanded statistics from the F.B.I. on white supremacist violence, but so far the agency has refused to provide any. But as Yahoo News just uncovered, these stats are available, and were sent to the state of New Jersey. The picture they paint is stark. Even though the category of white supremacist incidents was watered down by the F.B.I., to a generic one of 'racially-motivated violent extremism,' it turns out they needn't have bothered. Because every single one of the racially-motivated violent events was perpetrated by a white supremacist. Over half of all domestic terrorism cases of any kind last year came from white supremacists. And every single one of the race-based domestic terrorism incidents came from white supremacists. I have no idea why the F.B.I. is withholding this information from Congress, because it paints a very obvious picture indeed."

 

2
   Declaration of war from the right

This one's a bit long, but it definitely needs saying. It comes from an extraordinary editorial in the National Review from staunch conservative David French.

It's time to face some dreadful, terrible facts. The United States is now facing a deadly challenge from a connected, radical, online-organizing community of vicious white-nationalist terrorists. They are every bit as evil as jihadists, and they radicalize in much the same way. And just like the ISIS terrorists our nation and our allies have confronted in the great cities of the West, they use the most modern of tools to advance the oldest of hatreds.

French then runs down a partial list of recent white supremacist attacks: Charlottesville, New Zealand, a California synagogue, and El Paso.

And if you think that's the sum total of white-supremacist violence, you're sadly mistaken. Most Americans remember the Tree of Life synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh. Do you remember the white supremacist who killed a black man in New York with a sword? Do you remember the attempted church massacre in Kentucky, where a white supremacist who couldn't gain access to the church gunned down two black victims at a Kroger grocery story instead? Do you remember that a member of an "alt-Reich" Facebook group stabbed a black Maryland college student to death without provocation, or that a white man in Kansas shouted ethnic slurs before shooting two Indian engineers in a bar, killing one?

Substitute "jihadist" for "white supremacist" or "white nationalist" and then imagine how we'd act. Imagine how we've acted.

It's time to declare war on white-nationalist terrorism. It's time to be as wide awake about the dangers of online racist radicalization as we are about online jihadist inspiration. And it's time to reject the public language and rhetoric that excites and inspires racist radicals. Just as we demanded from our Muslim allies a legal and cultural response to the hate in their midst, we should demand a legal and cultural response to the terrorists from our own land.

He clarifies exactly what this means at the very end:

Law enforcement should pursue terrorists relentlessly. Policymakers should think creatively. And our nation's leaders need to focus on reconciliation and unity, and if they are not up to that most basic and fundamental aspect of their job, then they must be replaced.

 

3
   Act like Lincoln

The following was a blistering series of tweets from Nebraska state senator John McCollister, who is a Republican. After he tweeted these, the state Republican Party asked McCollister to leave their party.

The Republican Party is enabling white supremacy in our country. As a lifelong Republican, it pains me to say this, but it's the truth.

I of course am not suggesting that all Republicans are white supremacists nor am I saying that the average Republican is even racist.

What I am saying though is that the Republican Party is COMPLICIT to obvious racist and immoral activity inside our party.

We have a Republican president who continually stokes racist fears in his base. He calls certain countries "sh*tholes," tells women of color to "go back" to where they came from and lies more than he tells the truth.

We have Republican senators and representatives who look the other way and say nothing for fear that it will negatively affect their elections.

No more.

When the history books are written, I refuse to be someone who said nothing.

The time is now for us Republicans to be honest with what is happening inside our party. We are better than this and I implore my Republican colleagues to stand up and do the right thing.

We all like to cite Abraham Lincoln's Republican lineage when it is politically expedient but NOW is the time to ACT like Lincoln and take a stand.

 

4
   F.B.I. agents make a suggestion

In all the discussion about gun safety laws, there's another tool law enforcement could use that isn't getting as much attention.

"The F.B.I. Agents Association demanded this week that Congress pass a law making domestic terrorism a federal crime -- which it currently is not. They warned that domestic terrorism poses 'a threat to the American people and our democracy.' The president of the organization stated that: 'Acts of violence intended to intimidate civilian populations or to influence or affect government policy should be prosecuted as domestic terrorism regardless of the ideology behind them.' This is an organization of over 14,000 current and former F.B.I. agents urging Congress to make domestic terrorism a federal crime. There is no reason why a domestic terrorist should receive any different treatment in the courts than an international terrorist. The F.B.I. agents are right -- Congress needs to act to make all acts of terrorism a federal crime, no matter what the twisted justification for such acts may be."

 

5
   We are not helpless here

Below is the full statement the Obamas put out after the shooting. We thought the whole thing was worth reading.

Michelle and I grieve with all the families in El Paso and Dayton who endured these latest mass shootings. Even if details are still emerging, there are a few things we already know to be true.

First, no other nation on Earth comes close to experiencing the frequency of mass shootings that we see in the United States. No other developed nation tolerates the levels of gun violence that we do. Every time this happens, we're told that tougher gun laws won't stop all murders; that they won't stop every deranged individual from getting a weapon and shooting innocent people in public places. But the evidence shows that they can stop some killings. They can save some families from heartbreak. We are not helpless here. And until all of us stand up and insist on holding public officials accountable for changing our gun laws, these tragedies will keep happening.

Second, while the motivations behind these shootings may not yet be fully known, there are indications that the El Paso shooting follows a dangerous trend: troubled individuals who embrace racist ideologies and see themselves obligated to act violently to preserve white supremacy. Like the followers of ISIS and other foreign terrorist organizations, these individuals may act alone, but they've been radicalized by white nationalist websites that proliferate on the internet. That means that both law enforcement agencies and internet platforms need to come up with better strategies to reduce the influence of these hate groups.

But just as important, all of us have to send a clarion call and behave with the values of tolerance and diversity that should be the hallmark of our democracy. We should soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred or normalizes racist sentiments; leaders who demonize those who don't look like us, or suggest that other people, including immigrants, threaten our way of life, or refer to other people as sub-human, or imply that America belongs to just one certain type of people. Such language isn't new -- it's been at the root of most human tragedy throughout history, here in America and around the world. It is at the root of slavery and Jim Crow, the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. It has no place in our politics and our public life. And it's time for the overwhelming majority of Americans of goodwill, of every race and faith and political party, to say as much -- clearly and unequivocally.

 

6
   Do something, Mitch!

Tim Ryan had the best talking point of the week, in reaction to Mitch McConnell's refusal to act. Interviewed on CNN, Ryan became quite heated:

Come on, Mitch McConnell, where are your guts? You're from Kentucky -- everybody I know from Kentucky's got guts.... Do something, because the American people are fed up with you. We're fed up with you stonewalling everything. People are dying on the streets just a few hours from your house, and you're sitting there doing nothing.... Get off your ass [and call the Senate back into session]!

 

7
   Mitch obviously doesn't get it

This was jaw-droppingly unbelievable. So point it out, as many times as you can.

"Mitch McConnell -- hours after the El Paso shooting -- tweeted a photo he found amusing, of a display of gravestones, one of which had the name of his political opponent on it. This was his response to a mass shooting -- to find it funny that someone put Amy McGrath's name on a tombstone due to her political beliefs. This is absolutely despicable, and it is definitely not funny. I call on Mitch McConnell to apologize for promoting an image of a gravestone of his opponent mere hours after one of the worst mass shootings in recent American history. This is absolutely unacceptable behavior from any elected official, period. Mitch McConnell should know better, but apparently he needs the rest of us to remind him of what is and what is plainly not acceptable in political discourse."

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

140 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- The Fallout Continues”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Dream on people. If Sandy Hook didn't do it, what could possibly EVER do it?

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    I don't think Repubs are avoiding dealing with guns soley due to the NRA - indeed, the NRA has been struggling in the last several months.

    I think they refuse to restrict guns because they are afraid of being targeted by the fucking morons they have armed.

    I disagree with the Most Disappointing - it's codswallop. Castro did a good thing and there should be more of it. SHAME EVERY ONE OF THEM. And the fact that it happened after a mass shooting? There's always another one. It's never the right time to "politicize" them though coz that would inevitably paint the RIGHT as the either active-thugs or thug-supporters they are through every dime they give; every lie they either spew or refuse to denounce; every minute they remain silent as their leader gins up violence against his target groups; every excuse, every rationalization, every attempt to redirect discussion away from their culpability.

    Republicans have loosed killers on us all and now are worried some of them might be put at risk while not giving a damn about everyone else. They created this mess; they made it worse when they voted in a criminal conman and they deserve absolutely no special treatment relative to the danger they put everyone else in.

    I saw a piece today somewhere that made the point that "back to school" for kids now means "back to being in danger of being killed by a mass shooter".

    Every woman who has alleged DJT raped her has been targeted for real. Every minority in this country is being targeted right now. RIGHT NOW. Every LBGTQ person is being targeted RIGHT NOW.

    As you (CW) noted in Talking Point 1: Because every single one of the racially-motivated violent events was perpetrated by a white supremacist."

    That's all on the GOP. Spare me your or their tears or fears about being targeted for donating big dollars to the most disgraceful despicable scumbag ever to debase the presidency.

  3. [3] 
    Patrick wrote:

    1 - CRS

    Population of affected areas? More people to protest and get angry?
    El Paso and Dayton metropolitan area population is 1,644,050. Newtown, including Danbury metro population is 27,560. Those closest to the epicenter tend to get more involved.
    Just my idea right off the top.

  4. [4] 
    Paula wrote:

    "El Paso shooting suspect confesses, tells police he was targeting "Mexicans"

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1159998302848503809

    There is a direct line from donors > Blotus > white supremacist terrorists > dead people.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have never understood the argument that if Biden can't do well in the Democratic debates, then how on earth could he handle Trump!?

    Well, I hope that argument has been put to rest, finally.

    I mean, let's face it, if Democrats wish to win the WH in 2020, then they will nominate the one Democrat who can do that.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Will anything actually change this time around? Will these mass shootings finally spur the politicians to act, when all the others didn't? While it's easy to be pessimistic, since it is rare indeed that anything happens after such tragedies, perhaps this time is different. We couldn't say why this time seems to have had more of an impact than the other 250 times it has happened this year, but so far it has. Perhaps it was the fact that there were multiple mass shootings in a single day or perhaps it was the high body count or perhaps it was the El Paso gunman's obvious racist motivation, but for whatever reason this time could be different.

    You mean, El Paso Scumbag's obvious eco-terrorism motivation, right??

    But in answer to your question, no.. Nothing will change..

    Until the hysterical anti-gun nutz can get rid of the 2nd Amendment, nothing CAN change..

    It's like saying, after a 20 car pile-up that kills 50 people, "Will anything change??"

    Nope.. It's the price of freedom..

    If the Sandy Hook shooting didn't result in anything of relevance happening.. If Las Vegas didn't result in anything of relevance happening..

    The Eco-terrorist and the Antifa Warren supporter terrorist won't prompt anything new...

    he Democrats have two bills already awaiting Senate action, both of which would get rid of all the loopholes in the current federal background check program.

    Which won't change anything.. There has NEVER been an issue where a mass shooting due to a background check "loophole"...

    There really isn't any background check "loophole" to begin with..

    99% of all firearms sold are subject to a background check.. And that 1% that aren't has never resulted in a mass shooting..

    Well, once again, it's pretty easy to remain pessimistic. The N.R.A. still has a stranglehold on the Republican Party, and they have been opposed to any new legislation, period.

    And yet, it was DEMOCRATS that killed legislation in the aftermath of Sandy Hook..

    A little fact you always fail to mention..

    In some "irony is dead" news, Texas is now poised to loosen its already-lax gun laws, as new laws which were passed and signed earlier are now taking effect. Nothing like opening the barn doors even wider after the horses are gone, we suppose.

    If you have to quote HuffPoop to make yer case.. You have already lost..

    I'm just sayin...

    And finally, we can all rest assured that if Bernie Sanders is elected, he'll let us all know everything the government knows about aliens. Not legal or illegal aliens, but extraterrestrials. Appearing on Joe Rogan's podcast, Bernie swore he'd make everything public:

    That's actually a very good reason to hope Bernie wins..

    But that's just one plus in a sea of negatives..

    I don't think it would be worth turning the US into Venezuela to learn the facts about aliens..

    Joaquin Castro, twin brother and campaign manager to Julián, tried a political tactic this week that backfired. Joaquin decided to publicly shame those in San Antonio (which he represents in Congress) who had maxed out their donations to Trump. He tweeted a graphic labelled "Who's funding Trump?" with the names and occupations of 44 local people. Castro tweeted with the image: "Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump. Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.'"

    Now, Joaquin didn't break any laws by doing so -- as both he and his brother pointed out, this information is already accessible to the public and no phone numbers or addresses were included. Even so, it was a remarkably boneheaded stunt, given the circumstances. Trying to shame individuals for their political donation history is bad optics in the best of times, but in a week devoted to the aftermath of a mass shooting, it is downright insensitive.

    Well said..

    Unfortunately that's the way of the Democrat Party these days.. :^/

    Republicans, predictably, were pretty scathing in their denunciations. Steve Scalise, who was shot on a baseball field for his political beliefs, put it best: "People should not be personally targeted for their political views. Period. This isn't a game. It's dangerous, and lives are at stake. I know this firsthand."

    And it's funny... With the exception of CW and a couple others, no one here condemned the scumbag Bernie supporter who shot up the baseball practice...

    Any other week, this argument might have been more valid. But not this particular week. For attempting to publicly shame Republican donors right after a mass shooting in his state, Joaquin Castro is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

    It also should be noted that many on Castro's Target List were ALSO Castro donors as well..

    So Castro really stepped on his wee-wee with this stunt...

    Good pick, CW... :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Patrick,

    Population of affected areas? More people to protest and get angry?
    El Paso and Dayton metropolitan area population is 1,644,050. Newtown, including Danbury metro population is 27,560. Those closest to the epicenter tend to get more involved.
    Just my idea right off the top.

    And, per usual, it's incredibly ignorant..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that population density will trump the optics of the majority of victims being children???

    Population density of the shooting area doesn't mean a damn thing with a mass shooting. That's because, with the media hysteria, these shootings are all nation-wide...

    I wish I could say I am surprised at such blatant ignorance..

    But I'm not.. I'm really not surprised at all.

    With hysterical anti-gun fanatics, ignorance is constant...

    :eyeroll:

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    @CRS

    Dream on people. If Sandy Hook didn't do it, what could possibly EVER do it?

    Dood!!!! GMTA!!!! :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Paula,

    "El Paso shooting suspect confesses, tells police he was targeting "Mexicans"

    And????

    El Paso scumbag ALSO "confessed" that it was Democrat rhetoric that pushed him to target mexicans.

    What's yer point??

    There is a direct line from donors > Blotus > white supremacist terrorists > dead people.

    Of course, the ONLY fact you have to support that is the fact of your hate and intolerance and bigotry...

    :eyeroll:

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Liz

    I have never understood the argument that if Biden can't do well in the Democratic debates, then how on earth could he handle Trump!?

    Well, I hope that argument has been put to rest, finally.

    I mean, let's face it, if Democrats wish to win the WH in 2020, then they will nominate the one Democrat who can do that.

    Yea.. Cuz Democrats ALWAYS do what's in their best interests.. :D heh

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Speaking of Biden's latest 'gaffe' about poor kids and white kids ….

    It reminds of a classic Law and Order episode (circa Chris Noth):

    The cops were talking to a Hispanic guy I think and the conversation lead one of the cops to say to the man that "there are poor white people too, you know!" ... to which the minority guy said, "Show me one, I'd like to meet him".

    You get the point.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    The cops were talking to a Hispanic guy I think and the conversation lead one of the cops to say to the man that "there are poor white people too, you know!" ... to which the minority guy said, "Show me one, I'd like to meet him".

    You get the point.

    Uh... How does that compare to Biden comparing economics and race???

    Biden flubbed it.. Trying to spin it (IE cover it up) does more harm than just admitting, "Yea.. I misspoke. Sue me!"

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    But getting back to gun laws..

    Lemme ask ya'all a question..

    Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that Congress passes extended background checks and Red Flag laws...

    Will this satisfy Democrats??

    Or, more likely, when the NEXT Crowd Based Mass Shooting happens (and ya'all KNOW it will) will Democrats push for MORE gun laws??

    How about this...

    President Trump agrees to sign extended background checks and red flag legislation into law..

    BUT... The law contains a rider that puts a moratorium on ANY new gun laws for 10 years..

    Ya'all agree to that??

    Of course you won't..

    Because the goal is a GUN BAN... Neil's laws make that perfectly clear..

    And you will not get your gun ban.. Not as long as the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land..

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, here is a serious question..

    Dunno why I bother.. All the serious questions and facts are ignored in favor of flame wars.. :^/

    But hay.. I am the eternal optimist..

    So, here it is.. Another serious fact-based question for everyone to ignore..

    In some "irony is dead" news, Texas is now poised to loosen its already-lax gun laws, as new laws which were passed and signed earlier are now taking effect. Nothing like opening the barn doors even wider after the horses are gone, we suppose.

    OK, if I understand the Democrat position, ya'all are in favor of deeper background checks.. Ya'all also favor training for gun owners..

    When a person applies for a CCW, an EXTENSIVE background checking, taking about 60-90 days is done.. And a person must go thru 8 hours of classroom training and 8 hours of range training..

    In short, the requirements to carry is EVERYTHING Democrats are demanding for gun ownership...

    Given this, why does anyone have a problem with what Texas is doing??

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Will anything actually change this time around?"

    Maybe if a group of personally affected students was formed that would keep it from fading this time.

    It's hard to imagine politicians taking advantage of such a group and then forgetting aboot them.

  16. [16] 
    Paula wrote:

    Jeffrey Epstein dead of apparent suicide.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jeffrey Epstein dead of apparent suicide.

    Yea... On Suicide watch..

    He committed "suicide".. :^/

    If anyone honestly believes that, there is no hope for ya'all..

    I predicted at the beginning that Epstein would be suicided...

    He had too much dirt on too many VERY big people in the Democrat Party to be allowed to live..

  18. [18] 
    Paula wrote:

    His death means his trial stops and the associated discovery stops. Powerful men were being exposed.

  19. [19] 
    Paula wrote:

    Under Bill Barr we can't trust ANYTHING that comes out of DOJ right now. That is what DJT has accomplished - loosing murderers on us all and destroying the credibility of the DOJ.

  20. [20] 
    Paula wrote:

    Soon some schmuck will be named by the criminal administration as being the scapegoat who went to the bathroom or something while Epstein hung himself.

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    It's of no use...it's schmucks all the way down.

  22. [22] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The judges will also accept shmeckle.

  23. [23] 
    Paula wrote:

    [21] TS: No, it's schmucks all the way UP.

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Can"t disagree with your wording....follows logically. Useful frame of reference shift.

  25. [25] 
    Paula wrote:

    AP says Epstein was taken off suicide watch. They don't say by whom. The whole thing stinks.

  26. [26] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Epstein is one of the greatest con artist stories ever told. I think he died happy knowing that.

  27. [27] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula-25

    Does it really matter? Can't wash of the stank from cuddling the monkey.

  28. [28] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Or using the monkey's jet.

  29. [29] 
    Paula wrote:

    [27] TS: Just noting that AP reported he was taken off suicide watch but didn't report who gave that order. Coz that's the story - and I expect the REAL story is being covered up right now and cover stories are being concocted.

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Too many important people involved to allow a procurer to live.

    He's dead. Time to move on..

  31. [31] 
    Paula wrote:

    [30] Balthasar: time to move on? Oh, you mean let's just cover up for all the powerful people who were going to be exposed? And let's be sure that none of the raped/trafficked women receive justice?

    No.

  32. [32] 
    Paula wrote:

    Couple of Dem Congressppl calling for a congressional investigation of Epstein's death. We need one. DOJ is too compromised.

    We'll see.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Too many important people involved to allow a procurer to live.

    He's dead. Time to move on..

    Yea.. You would like that.. Bubba Clinton's reputation won't be tarnished any further..

    THAT is paramount. :eyeroll:

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    [30] Balthasar: time to move on? Oh, you mean let's just cover up for all the powerful people who were going to be exposed? And let's be sure that none of the raped/trafficked women receive justice?

    No.

    Wow..

    Paula and I are in complete agreement...

    That's crazy....

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    did you read my wager with michale? i really thought he was bluffing and would back out, but it seems we're really on.

    JL

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula and I are in complete agreement...

    Right. That's my point. Because there's so much interest from both left and right, the Courts will shut it down tight. I could be wrong, but I assume that the huge Estate of Jeffrey Epstein can now claim that it needs 'time' to sort through his belongings. The Justice Dept. also has to get started, staffed, and then start sorting. It could be well into 2021 before we actually see more about this, a few weeks of sensational newspaper reporting notwithstanding.

  37. [37] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    . Given this, why does anyone have a problem with what Texas is doing??

    Under the new legislation, Texas will have fewer gun-free zones. This means that both concealed weapons and OPEN CARRY of firearms is allowed — hint: it isn’t the people with CCW permits that are the biggest concerns!

    Landlords will have no power to prevent tenants or their guests from carrying a firearm. Churches, synagogues and other places of religious worship will be removed from the list of prohibited locations for carrying a firearm. Churches will now have to post that they are gun-free zones if that is their preference. The cap on the number of armed marshals allowed at each public school campus will be removed.

    And while background checks for CCW permits are thorough, they only look at past offenses. You could have a Facebook page filled with posts describing the most horrificly graphic violent scenarios that you dream of committing one day soon and it would not prevent you from receiving your permit!

  38. [38] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Whoops...italicization overkill there....my bad!

  39. [39] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    OK, here is a serious question..

    Dunno why I bother.. All the serious questions and facts are ignored in favor of flame wars.. :^/

    Wow! Talk about irony! I jumped through the hoops you required for you to respond to a single post of mine and you chose not to keep your word! Cowardliness? Probably. Dishonesty? Definitely.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow! Talk about irony! I jumped through the hoops you required for you to respond to a single post of mine and you chose not to keep your word!

    No, you didn't jump thru any hoops.. You responded to a single comment I made.. You were asked to respond to 10..

    Don't blame me because you can't follow instructions..

    Under the new legislation, Texas will have fewer gun-free zones.

    GOOD... Practically every mass-shooting that has ever occurred, occurred in so-called "gun free zones" AKA Psycho Shooting Galleries.. Fewer shooting galleries = less chance of a mass shooting..

    This means that both concealed weapons and OPEN CARRY of firearms is allowed — hint: it isn’t the people with CCW permits that are the biggest concerns!

    Facts to support??? No?? Figgers..

    Landlords will have no power to prevent tenants or their guests from carrying a firearm. Churches, synagogues and other places of religious worship will be removed from the list of prohibited locations for carrying a firearm. Churches will now have to post that they are gun-free zones if that is their preference. The cap on the number of armed marshals allowed at each public school campus will be removed.

    All VERY good things.. This legislation is looking better and better...

    And while background checks for CCW permits are thorough, they only look at past offenses.

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You want them to look for FUTURE offenses???

    You could have a Facebook page filled with posts describing the most horrificly graphic violent scenarios that you dream of committing one day soon and it would not prevent you from receiving your permit!

    So, Stephen King would not be allowed a CCW, eh??

    But hay.. OK.. Let's apply this totally bullshit action of yours to Free Speech..

    If you have any facebook posts that glorify violent protests, you should not be allowed any Free Speech..

    If you really feel that way, CH.. Why don't you move to Iran or China??? :eyeroll: moron..

    Cowardliness? Probably.

    Says the moron who made threats of real life violence then backed off when I took you up on the offer...

    :eyeroll: moron..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Right. That's my point. Because there's so much interest from both left and right, the Courts will shut it down tight.

    Non-sequitur.. If there is bi-partisan support, the pressure will be enormous to dig into it and learn the FACTS...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    did you read my wager with michale? i really thought he was bluffing and would back out, but it seems we're really on.

    "Vulcans never bluff."
    -Spock, STAR TREK, The Doomsday Machine

    :D

    Why would I back out?? Not only will I not have to worry about voting for Biden, I just got an extra President Trump vote..

    WIN-WIN :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Remember a while ago, we have a discussion on TRUTH vs FACTS..

    I have always maintained that, in the world of politics, Truth and Fact are very different..

    You said that truth = fact and fact = truth..

    While I understand your reasoning....

    "We choose unity over division. We choose science over fiction. We choose truth over facts."

    Apparently, Joe Biden agrees with me.. :D

    In a perfect world, truth would equal fact.. But we don't live in a perfect world. And, in politics, it's even LESS perfect...

    "Their truth is not YOUR truth!!"
    -Oracle Of Yonada

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    You could have a Facebook page filled with posts describing the most horrificly graphic violent scenarios that you dream of committing one day soon and it would not prevent you from receiving your permit!

    So, yer talking about Thought Crime..

    Yea, it's not surprising that Democrats want to go there.. :eyeroll:

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for Joe Biden...

    Biden says he was VP at time of Parkland shooting in latest campaign gaffe

    Joe Biden slipped up once again on the campaign trail Saturday, saying he was vice president at the time of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., adding to the number of mishaps that have drawn mockery from his opponents.

    The 76-year-old Biden, who left the vice presidency in 2017, was talking about gun violence with reporters in Iowa when he said that “those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president" after the shooting that left 14 students and three educators dead.

    A campaign official told Bloomberg that Biden was thinking of the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. that left 20 young children and six staff members dead.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-vp-parkland-florida-shooting-campaign-gaffe

    The hits just keep on coming..

    "I refused to leave Gamma Hydra Two!!!!"
    -Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    OK.. Let's try a little experiment..

    I'll make a comment and I'll ask you to address it..

    Once we hash that out to BOTH of our satisfaction, then you make a comment and ask me to address that..

    And we'll trade off, one for one..

    Bonus points if we can rise above physical threats, name-calling and personal attacks and keep it, if not friendly, at least not a flame war..

    I'll start..

    It's undisputed that every Democrat Party candidate has stated for the record that they want decriminalizaiton at the border, which is de facto Open Borders or has stated for the record that they would support full and complete free health care for illegal immigrant criminals or has stated that they support reparations for slavery.

    How can that appeal to Independents, NPAs and Trump voters??

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    State Dept. updates ‘anti-Semitism’ definition following Omar’s anti-Israel resolution

    The U.S. State Department recently revised its definition of anti-Semitism, in an apparent response to recent comments and actions by U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.

    The previous definition of anti-Semitism, issued in May, listed 10 examples. The revised definition now lists 11 examples, adding that anti-Semitism now includes “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-dept-updates-definition-of-anti-semitism-following-omars-anti-israel-resolution

    Pretty embarrassing for Omar and Democrats..

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    If there ever was any doubt about the NY Grimes being nothing but a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party??

    The New York Times modifies its motto to fit leftist agenda

    “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” was how the first edition described the president’s consoling speech in the aftermath of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. He had denounced hatred, bigotry and white supremacy and vowed to pursue measures that would keep dangerous people from getting guns.

    The speech hit all the right notes on a day of national fear and mourning. But it infuriated a small army of Times readers. The facts be damned, they demanded their daily fix of Trump hate — and the paper quickly complied.

    Editors rewrote the headline to “Assailing Hate but not Guns,” but it was too late. Lefty journalists called for readers to cancel their subscriptions and many people did, enough for a spokesman to acknowledge a “higher volume of cancellations” than normal.

    The incident could not have happened in the era when the Times adhered to rigorous standards of news gathering and the separation of news and opinion. Both the sense of entitlement among readers and the editors’ craven response shows that the rot has reached critical levels.

    In effect, the Times has become a victim of the monster it created. Instead of informing readers and challenging them to question their own views, an approach the paper was proud of under legendary editor Abe Rosenthal, it now provides comfort food for the committed.
    https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/the-new-york-times-modifies-its-motto-to-fit-leftist-agenda/

    There isn't any more...

    :eyeroll:

  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    anti-Semitism now includes “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

    i agree, naming the policy of a traditionally oppressed class by comparing them to their worst oppressors is incredibly offensive. similarly, the definition of racism should include the comparison of african-american leaders to the klan, the characterization of women's rights leaders as abusers, and other such extreme and unnecessary appeals to hypocrisy.

    JL

    p.s. it's still not too late for you to back out, michale. biden winning the dem nomination is about fifty-fifty, while donald winning new york... well, if probabilities could be negative, they would.

  50. [50] 
    lharvey16 wrote:

    [39] ListenWhenYouHear

    This still works.

    http://www.neilmcgovern.com/cw/neilonly.php

    But only for the most recent day's posting.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahh the little 16yr old speaks..

    Obviously, I still have free rent in your head.. :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    i agree, naming the policy of a traditionally oppressed class by comparing them to their worst oppressors is incredibly offensive.

    When it comes down to it, we agree a lot more than we disagree..

    I would even wager that, on the things we APPEAR to disagree, if we could rationally discuss things without all the noise, we would find agreement on those points too.. :D

    similarly, the definition of racism should include the comparison of african-american leaders to the klan, the characterization of women's rights leaders as abusers, and other such extreme and unnecessary appeals to hypocrisy.

    I think I know what you are trying to say, but could you give me an example..

    p.s. it's still not too late for you to back out, michale. biden winning the dem nomination is about fifty-fifty,

    Why should I back out?? I know Biden won't be the nominee... I know it as sure as if I travel'ed to the future and witnessed it..

    while donald winning new york... well, if probabilities could be negative, they would.

    I realize your one vote won't push President Trump over the top to carry New York..

    But it's symbolic.. :D

    It shows everyone how honor can override ideology... :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.
    -Elizabeth Warren

    And out and out blatant lie..

    Funny how all the ones who whine and cry about President Trump's alleged lies don't call her out on her lie..

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Every police officer in America should be offended by Sen. Warren’s ill-informed, inflammatory tweet today. Holding a would-be cop killer out as some sort of victim or worse yet, a hero, does no justice to the truth or to reconciliation. Her careless words disqualify her from fitness to serve impartially as commander-in-chief.”
    -Jeff Roorda, St. Louis Police Officers Association

    I would add that ANYONE who *claims* to be pro-Law Enforcement, whether they be Democrat or Republican should be offended by Warren's blatant lie..

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    I realize your one vote won't push President Trump over the top to carry New York..

    But it's symbolic.. :D

    It shows everyone how honor can override ideology... :D

    And it will take the vote away from a person who is demonstrably BAD for this country..

    It's a WIN WIN.. :D

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a world free of Democrat hate and bigotry....

    Anti-sex trafficking leader praises ICE, Trump: 'No question' he's done more than previous presidents

    Director and activist Jaco Booyens touted President Trump's historic work in fighting sex trafficking and defended Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as "incredible people" who helped keep children safe.

    Fox News host Mark Levin asked Booyens whether Trump did more to address the issue than other presidents, including former President Barack Obama. "No question," Booyens responded on "Life, Liberty, and Levin," airing Sunday.

    Booyens said that despite all the criticism surrounding ICE, the agency has become a vital partner in combatting sex trafficking.

    "These are incredible men and women that help us ... incredible people who actually go and keep America's children safe. This president has empowered them to do so," he told Levin.
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/anti-trafficking-leader-praises-ice-trump

    President Trump would get some kudos for this...

  57. [57] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "Jeffrey Epstein is dead in an apparent suicide, but the women who say he sexually abused them plan to seek justice by suing his estate and helping any prosecutions of his enablers, according to lawyers and one of the women." - Bloomberg

    Finding where Epstein has hidden his money may challenge, but half a billion is probably worth the effort.

    Link to the Bloomberg article-

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-10/epstein-s-victims-will-continue-to-pursue-justice-lawyer-says

    Paula-29

    There are a lot of potential theories that can explain the death of Epstein, by conspiracy or otherwise. If I had to wager on the most probable theory, it would simply be staff shortages at the lockup. Suicide watch is labor intensive,expensive and not much fun for those who have to do it.

    Federal prisons have a reputation for being notoriously lax about suicide prevention.

    I'm at the citation limit for this entry, so doubters can Google it at their leisure.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Federal prisons have a reputation for being notoriously lax about suicide prevention.

    I'm at the citation limit for this entry, so doubters can Google it at their leisure.

    Translation: I have absolutely NO FACTS to support that agenda driven bullshit...

    Suicide watch is labor intensive,expensive and not much fun for those who have to do it.

    That's why it's called a JOB and not a HOBBY...

    :eyeroll:

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Speaking of Republicans disappearing from the stage, another Texas Republican in the House has announced he won't be running for re-election. An even dozen Republicans will now be retiring "to spend more time with their families," which opens up multiple avenues for Democrats to pick up more House seats in 2020.

    Texans account for almost half of the House Republican "retirements" because that's:

    * 9 Republicans retiring altogether from public office
    * 2 Republicans seeking election to higher office
    * 1 Republican who passed away

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    An even dozen Republicans will now be retiring "to spend more time with their families," which opens up multiple avenues for Democrats to pick up more House seats in 2020.

    Considering that Democrats stand for Infantacide, Open Borders, Free & Full Healthcare for Crimmigrants, Throwing all Americans off their health insurance and ignoring the 2nd Amendment...

    ALL GOP could retire and Democrats would STILL lose the House in 2020...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Michael Brown/Ferguson case, based on the Obama Justice Dept. report, is more an example of irresponsible rhetoric and unchallenged media narratives that ruined the life of a policeman who-- according to the Obama Justice Dept.-- was attacked and did nothing wrong.
    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1160319401813512192.html

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:
  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It's undisputed that every Democrat Party candidate has stated for the record that they want decriminalizaiton at the border, which is de facto Open Borders or has stated for the record that they would support full and complete free health care for illegal immigrant criminals or has stated that they support reparations for slavery.

    How can that appeal to Independents, NPAs and Trump voters??

    Decriminalization isn’t the same as Open Borders as people would still be stopped at the border and checked for contraband and asked for passport and ID. It wouldn’t mean that we’d allow everyone to enter the country unchecked. Decriminalization would only effect those found in the country without documentation. So, no, it is NOT “de facto” Open Borders!

    As for healthcare for ALL including undocumented citizens... if it didn’t include them then it wouldn’t really be healthcare for ALL, now would it? I love that you are against it and focus only on the 1% that you think shouldn’t benefit from it while ignoring the benefit to the other 99% of us — including yourself!

    As for attracting Trump voters, Democrats should not want to attract white supremacy nuts away from Trump. Don’t need them or want their support!

    As for everyone else, why would anyone who wants what is best for this country oppose Healthcare for All?

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Decriminalization isn’t the same as Open Borders as people would still be stopped at the border and checked for contraband and asked for passport and ID.

    Which has nothing to do with decriminalizing Border crossings..

    It wouldn’t mean that we’d allow everyone to enter the country unchecked. Decriminalization would only effect those found in the country without documentation. So, no, it is NOT “de facto” Open Borders!

    It is.. Just as decriminalizing marijuana made marijuana de facto legal... Decriminalizing border crimes will be, de facto, open borders..

    As for healthcare for ALL including undocumented citizens..

    If we can't agree on terminology, this will go nowhere..

    ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS..

    Your way, it's like they're US Citizens, simply undocumented..

    They are illegal immigrants.. Criminals..

    As for attracting Trump voters, Democrats should not want to attract white supremacy nuts away from Trump. Don’t need them or want their support!

    You will need Trump voters, if you want the Democrat candidate to win..

    This is fact..

    As for everyone else, why would anyone who wants what is best for this country oppose Healthcare for All?

    Who is going to pay for it???

    OK, I am out for the night.. Look forward to your responses in the morning..

    Thanx for keeping it civil, Russ..

  65. [65] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    lharvey16 [50]

    Appreciate it, but I enjoy seeing Michale’s crap posts on here. It’s a great way of measuring how badly Trump is doing by the sheer volume of posts he plasters us with.

    It’s also fun to see how many times Michale will attack us after we comment... the more posts directed at you, the more he allowed you to get to him! I respond to a message from him and then get on with my day and don’t think about him at all. Next time I log in, I check out the time stamps in posts where Michale attacks me and figure out just how many hours or days I was the focus of his hatred. Michale likes to claim that he owns all of us with his comments, but fails to realize that his numerous comments are the proof that it is actually him that is being owned!

  66. [66] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    LWYH

    As an abstract concept, I'm betting EVERYBODY favors "healthcare for all". In that same vein, also 'Food for all', 'housing for all', 'clothing for all', a 'cellphone for all', a car for all', etc.

    I've always said, as long as you're wishing/dreaming, etc., wish BIG!! Doesn't cost any more to wish big!

    And BTW, shouldn't "all" include every person on earth? Why would you restrict your wishing on the basis of geographic and/or political boundaries? Wish REAL BIG while you're at it!

  67. [67] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If we can't agree on terminology, this will go nowhere..

    ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS..

    OK...then we will call them “Border Jaywalkers” — as that is the equivalent to the type crime they are accused of. Funny, if we refer to anyone in Trump’s circle as being “criminals”, you are usually quick to point out that unless they’ve had their day in court, they aren’t technically “criminals” — “innocent until proven guilty” and all! And are you really going to be the one to call anyone else a criminal with your background?

    Plus, we grant access to healthcare to criminals in our prison system; so based on your logic, what would be the difference?

    Your way, it's like they're US Citizens, simply undocumented..

    That’s because they ARE undocumented citizens living in the US!!. They are human beings —and no matter how hard you want to deny it to yourself, the fact remains that they ARE human beings!

  68. [68] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.

    -Elizabeth Warren

    While I agree with Warren that we must confront systemic racism and police violence head on, that is the only part of what she said that I support! Michael Brown had just committed strong-armed robbery minutes before he was approached by a local police officer. Brown physically attacked and attempted to disarm the officer before the officer could even exit his vehicle.

    The courts have long recognized that attempting to disarm an officer is considered an “use of deadly force” against the officer. That is because 96% of officers who are disarmed in a struggle are shot with their own gun, 93% of those are killed by their own gun. Calling Brown “unarmed” ignores the fact that it was NOT for a lack of trying on his part!

    The evidence clearly showed that the officer was legally justified in shooting his attacker. Statistics make it clear that had Brown been successful, he would most likely be in prison for shooting and/or killing the officer. His death was a result of HIS poor decisions! He is not someone who should be martyred!

  69. [69] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michael [40]

    No, you didn't jump thru any hoops.. You responded to a single comment I made.. You were asked to respond to 10..

    As I said at the time, I simplified your request. Each of those questions were echoed in the subject matter of other of your posts that day. I chose to answer the ten questions all combined in one post to make it easier for both of us. I jumped through the hoop you requested and you proved you are not a man of your word!

    Seriously, that you believe someone should respond to ten of your random posts (half of which you don’t bother to read, yourself, prior to posting it) before you will respond to one of their’s is either the biggest sign of your delusional ego being out of control or your chickenshit way to avoid having to answer tough questions...or both.

    And while background checks for CCW permits are thorough, they only look at past offenses.

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You want them to look for FUTURE offenses???

    The whole point of “Red Flagging” is to catch those people that despite not having past incidents officially on their record, have a history of lesser events that one can reasonably assume that they pose a threat to themselves/others and prevent them from accessing guns until they can be cleared by mental health professionals.

    You could have a Facebook page filled with posts describing the most horrificly graphic violent scenarios that you dream of committing one day soon and it would not prevent you from receiving your permit!

    So, Stephen King would not be allowed a CCW, eh??

    If you want to play dumb with responses like this just know that the only thing it really does is provide further proof that you were never in law enforcement!

    But hay.. OK.. Let's apply this totally bullshit action of yours to Free Speech..

    If you have any facebook posts that glorify violent protests, you should not be allowed any Free Speech..

    It is sad that you fail to see that Free Speech has nothing to do with this. Nothing I have mentioned would impose on anyone’s right to free speech! Nothing! It should be noted that posting on Facebook, a privately owned service, is not protected speech. Facebook can pick and choose what it will allow on its site as they see fit. Furthermore, free speech doesn’t mean that certain words do not have consequences when they are uttered.

    If you speak of desiring to shoot up innocent people in a blaze of gunfire, why shouldn’t we take you at your word? Why are you saying that they deserve a firearm knowing this about them?

  70. [70] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS

    As an abstract concept, I'm betting EVERYBODY favors "healthcare for all". In that same vein, also 'Food for all', 'housing for all', 'clothing for all', a 'cellphone for all', a car for all', etc.

    Wonderful...except that when we are discussing “healthcare for all”, we are not discussing an abstract concept — we are talking about a specific system of healthcare for everyone in this country to be able to use.

  71. [71] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    LWYH

    Until your propose a specific system (with a plan for implementation) it is indeed an "abstract concept". And if you only include "this country", then you're incentivising the whole world to come to "this country", right?

    That's a major part of the current problem.

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    53

    I saw this post today because Russ quoted it, and I'm making a serious effort to try (operative word in bold) to be fair to your point of view. Don't knock the effort... or do... whatever. I'm also not going to hold back on being fair to others' point of view either.

    And out and out blatant lie..

    Funny how all the ones who whine and cry about President Trump's alleged lies don't call her out on her lie..

    I'm not sure why any poster would expect to find anything like that on a blog that's written by an admitted leftie who describes himself as sometimes "to the left of Bernie Sanders"? Doesn't Chris describe this as a "blog," and doesn't Chris -- in no uncertain terms -- describe himself as a leftie?

    Chris Weigant is a political commentator, author, and blogger.

    He has been a regular contributor to Arianna Huffington's The Huffington Post since June of 2006.

    As "Tom Paine" Chris wrote the book How Democrats Can Take Back Congress in 2006, which (while obviously dated, now) still has a lot of good advice for Democratic candidates today. To find out more about this book, please visit Pamphleteering Press.

    Nowadays, Chris provides advice to Democratic officeholders on a weekly basis, with his renowned "Friday Talking Points" advice column on how Democrats really should frame things positively; as well as his monthly wrapups of President Barack Obama's job approval poll ratings over at "ObamaPollWatch.com".

    continued...

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    … continued

    Chris grew up in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, and has always been interested in politics. His own politics are a mix, and probably could be described as "left libertarian." On some issues, Chris agrees with the mainstream, and on some he's to the left of Bernie Sanders. It all depends on the issue, and on the arguments raised by all sides.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/about-chris/

    I've also never seen you call out Donald Trump for a single one of his multitudes of obvious near daily lies and fabrications; however, it's common knowledge that many of us here sometimes make the choice to not read and/or respond to your posts and sometimes make the choice to do so. So I obviously and easily could have missed your condemnations of Trump's near daily lies. I'm sure somebody will let me know if I missed a whole bunch of your Trump condemnations for lying: Hint.

    Which leads me to a serious question: While you're visiting the multitudes of right-wing websites during your routine episodes of cutting and pasting of pro right-wing material and propaganda to an obviously pro leftie forum, do you regularly troll those right-wing commenters in an attempt to control the tenor of their comments and/or routinely explain to them that the way to make you stop trolling them is to post to suit you and/or make routine posts excoriating them for not condemning Donald Trump's myriad of outright lies and fabrications? Seriously.

    The majority of the posts of yours that I've actually read on this forum include:

    * One personal insult after another hurled toward a myriad of commenters expressing their left and left-leaning opinions on an obvious and admitted leftie website

    * You whining incessantly about left and left-leaners' opinions about your Second Amendment rights and all manner of other things while you insist that you'll troll the comments section until posters exercise their First Amendment rights in a manner that suits you personally

    Do you see the irony? <--- rhetorical question

    continued...

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    … continued

    5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on. - Elizabeth Warren

    Okay now, to address your comment:

    * 5 years ago - August 9, 2014... True/Fact
    * Michael Brown was murdered - I agree with Russ here. Killed? True/Fact. "Murdered"? Not going to get into legal analysis, but: False
    * by a white police officer... True/Fact
    * in Ferguson, Missouri... True/Fact
    * Michael was unarmed... True/Fact
    * yet he was shot 6 times 12 total shots, 6-8 hits according to DOJ report... True/Fact

    https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

    The remainder is Warren's political opinion, but I don't see anything before her opinion that would rise to the level of "blatant lie." Both reports state repeatedly that there is conflicting evidence from multiple eyewitnesses. However, it does appear that you have chosen to believe the conclusions of local law enforcement's investigation into themselves and the conclusions by the FBI/DOJ that you routinely ridicule when their conclusions fail to match your right-wing rhetoric/beliefs. Positively shocking! *shakes head*

    While it would actually be appropriate to characterize Warren's tweet by saying it doesn't rise to the level of "whole truth" or that "she murdered the English language with her legal mischaracterization," it also does not meet the definition of "blatant lie" because the police officer admits to killing Brown.

    If you're actually serious about "blatant lies":
    Now do Trump. :)

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    63

    Great post.

    As for everyone else, why would anyone who wants what is best for this country oppose Healthcare for All?

    Also, why can't we at least stipulate to the fact that Ronald Reagan effectively created a de facto national health care policy for all uninsured persons with his signature enacting the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985 (42 U.S.C. Section 1395dd) containing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), Saint Ronnie's federal law that requires anyone coming to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay?

    Long question, I realize. :)

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    It’s also fun to see how many times Michale will attack us after we comment... the more posts directed at you, the more he allowed you to get to him! I respond to a message from him and then get on with my day and don’t think about him at all. Next time I log in, I check out the time stamps in posts where Michale attacks me and figure out just how many hours or days I was the focus of his hatred. Michale likes to claim that he owns all of us with his comments, but fails to realize that his numerous comments are the proof that it is actually him that is being owned!

    So much for keeping it civil. :(

    It was a nice try, I guess...

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    The remainder is Warren's political opinion, but I don't see anything before her opinion that would rise to the level of "blatant lie."

    The "blatant lie" was she said that Michael Brown was murdered..

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    also does not meet the definition of "blatant lie" because the police officer admits to killing Brown.

    Killing =! murder

    Killing is an adverb..

    Murder is a legal definition..

    Saying Brown was murdered is a mis-characterization..

    Saying Brown was murdered by police is a blatant lie..

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you speak of desiring to shoot up innocent people in a blaze of gunfire, why shouldn’t we take you at your word?

    And, if you speak of committing violence on another person here in this forum, why shouldn't we take you at your word??

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    @CW

    Chris, your email box is full....

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    That’s because they ARE undocumented citizens living in the US!!. They are human beings —and no matter how hard you want to deny it to yourself, the fact remains that they ARE human beings!

    Yes, they are human beings..

    Charles Manson was a human being.. Ted Bundy was a human being.. The scumbag who shot up a peaceful Dayton street was a human being..

    What's your point?

    But they are not citizens..

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    @CRS

    Until your propose a specific system (with a plan for implementation) it is indeed an "abstract concept". And if you only include "this country", then you're incentivising the whole world to come to "this country", right?

    That's a major part of the current problem.

    Exactly... While the number is unknown, it's quite logical to assume that the threat of jail and family separation DOES keep illegal immigrant criminals away from violating out laws..

    And yet, even with those thousands and thousands of people who DO stay away, we have a huge over-crowding problem..

    If we decriminalize the border, there will be nothing to stop those people..

    I find it hilarious that the Democrat Party's "solution" to excessive over-crowding at the southern border is to add tens of thousands MORE illegal immigrant criminals..

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Also, why can't we at least stipulate to the fact that Ronald Reagan effectively created a de facto national health care policy for all uninsured persons with his signature enacting the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985 (42 U.S.C. Section 1395dd) containing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), Saint Ronnie's federal law that requires anyone coming to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay?

    OK.. So, we DO have "healthcare" for all..

    So what's the problem?? :D

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you're actually serious about "blatant lies":
    Now do Trump. :)

    Hokay..

    Give me one "blatant lie" of President Trump's..

    I'll explain it..

    Then I'll give you a blatant lie of Obama.

    You explain it and give me the comment you made condemning it at the time..

    All kept nice and civil...

    Deal??

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you want to play dumb with responses like this just know that the only thing it really does is provide further proof that you were never in law enforcement!

    What part of NO NAME-CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS did you not understand??

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    While I agree with Warren that we must confront systemic racism and police violence head on,

    Do you believe racism and un-necessary violence is systemic in the country's police force as a whole?

    If so, please provide facts to support this belief..

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Credit where credit is due..

    The courts have long recognized that attempting to disarm an officer is considered an “use of deadly force” against the officer. That is because 96% of officers who are disarmed in a struggle are shot with their own gun, 93% of those are killed by their own gun. Calling Brown “unarmed” ignores the fact that it was NOT for a lack of trying on his part!

    The evidence clearly showed that the officer was legally justified in shooting his attacker. Statistics make it clear that had Brown been successful, he would most likely be in prison for shooting and/or killing the officer. His death was a result of HIS poor decisions! He is not someone who should be martyred!

    Well said...

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you speak of desiring to shoot up innocent people in a blaze of gunfire, why shouldn’t we take you at your word? Why are you saying that they deserve a firearm knowing this about them?

    Aww right.. Aww right..

    So, if you have passage written in facebook about a teenager, who fantasized about getting into their car and stomping on the gas, targeting kids and killing almost 40 of them...

    Should that person have a car and a license to drive??

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Epstein Suicide Conspiracies Show How Our Information System Is Poisoned

    With each news cycle, the false-information system grows more efficient.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/11/opinion/jeffrey-epstein-suicide-conspiracies.html

    Interesting apolitical commentary...

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jeffrey Epstein wasn't checked on for hours before apparent suicide: report

    Additionally, Epstein was supposed to have a cellmate. But the person who was assigned to share a cell with Epstein was transferred on Friday before the 66-year-old's death, according to the Post. It was not immediately clear why the cellmate was transferred or why no one else was assigned to room with Epstein.
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/jeffrey-epstein-checked-for-hours-apparent-suicide

    Anyone who believes that Epstein killed himself.. I have some swampland in FL for sale.. :D

  91. [91] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    My rating of Warren's statement is mostly false.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    My rating of Warren's statement is mostly false.

    Thank you...

  93. [93] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    78

    Killing =! murder

    No, it doesn't. I already quoted that part of the tweet and stated I agreed with Russ:

    * Michael Brown was murdered - I agree with Russ here. Killed? True/Fact. "Murdered"? Not going to get into legal analysis, but: False. ~ Me

    Killing is an adverb..

    No, it isn't... ever. "Killingly" would be an adverb, but who says that? (rhetorical question)

    "Killing" is generally a noun or an adjective. Adverbs generally describe how, what, when, where, or why and frequently end in "ly" (although obviously not always, of course). Examples: slowly, quickly, here, there, everywhere, well, incorrectly.

    Murder is a legal definition..

    Says who? "Negligent homicide" is a legal definition and it can vary from one jurisdiction to another.

    Saying Brown was murdered is a mis-characterization..

    I already said that:

    While it would actually be appropriate to characterize Warren's tweet by saying it doesn't rise to the level of "whole truth" or that "she murdered the English language with her legal mischaracterization," it also does not meet the definition of "blatant lie" because the police officer admits to killing Brown. ~ Me

    Saying Brown was murdered by police is a blatant lie..

    Not even a good try since Warren's tweet states "a white police officer," and the "police officer" to which Warren is referring has admitted to firing his weapon multiple times into Brown with the intent to kill him. Whether or not Brown was "murdered" by the "police officer" who fired his weapon with the intent to kill Brown was a question for the local authorities and the FBI, but whether or not you agree with the conclusions of the investigating entities is strictly up to you. Russ does, and I do.

    Allow me to reiterate that you're being very agreeable with the same entity that you're generally busy denigrating, and unless you're prepared to agree that a motherlode of your own comments are "blatant lies," then perhaps you could see your way fit to steer clear of expecting commenters on the leftie blog to agree with your opinions of the conclusions of the "eff-be-I" when they meet with your approval -- rarely -- and your disparagement of their conclusions when they don't -- frequently.

    Rarely and frequently are adverbs. Class dismissed. :)

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Allow me to reiterate that you're being very agreeable with the same entity that you're generally busy denigrating,

    As are you.. :D

  95. [95] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Warren's statement is her opinion.

    Pretty much like saying you think OJ was guilty even though he was not proven criminally guilty in a court of law.

    The evidence in the Michael Brown case does not show that he committed strong armed robbery and attempted to attack and disarm the officer.

    There is no evidence to support those claims- only testimony. And there is conflicting testimony.

    There is evidence/testimony the officer was NOT aware of the alleged robbery and that it was not a robbery.

    There is evidence the officer had more of a questionable past than Michael Brown.

    Having been personally involved in several cases where witnesses/police have lied to try to cover up their mistakes and where police and courts have only looked for evidence/testimony that would support their beliefs while ignoring evidence that contradicts their beliefs, I have no problem with Warren calling it murder.

  96. [96] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    81

    Yes, they are human beings..

    Agreement!

    Charles Manson was a human being.. Ted Bundy was a human being.. The scumbag who shot up a peaceful Dayton street was a human being..

    Referring to those guys as members of Homo Sapiens species I would agree with, but "human beings" for your examples above I would say is a debatable issue in every instance.

    But they are not citizens..

    Do you mean your examples are "not citizens" because they were citizens and are now corpses? You know everyone living is generally a "citizen." Fact: A "citizen" by definition is a person that is an inhabitant of a particular city or town. Russ is technically correct, and you're not... again. :)

    No need to clarify, I knew what you meant. You're still incorrect unless you claim they aren't legally citizens of the United States. You want to get nitpicky with us, we can reciprocate... for we are citizens of Weigantia. :p *smile*

  97. [97] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    83

    OK.. So, we DO have "healthcare" for all..

    In effect -- de facto -- yes.

    So what's the problem?? :D

    A lot of human beings who become patients don't exactly remunerate the hospital/emergency room for the services rendered unto them as required by mandate of Saint Ronald of Reagan's law, and other human beings who make laws in the present day believe there are more efficient ways in which to provide medical care which is already mandated by Saint Reagan. There are numerous plans that have been proposed over multiple decades so it's not exactly like the "abstract concept" that CRS claims it is being that this mandate is de facto already in existence and has been so for many decades now. :)

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Warren's statement is her opinion.

    Partially her opinion..

    But when she claimed that Brown was murdered by a police officer, she is claiming a fact..

    And that is not only NOT a fact, it's a blatant lie..

    Pretty much like saying you think OJ was guilty even though he was not proven criminally guilty in a court of law.

    Actually, if (granted, a BIG 'if') the prosecution's timeline was accurate, there is no way OJ could have committed the murders..

    The evidence in the Michael Brown case does not show that he committed strong armed robbery and attempted to attack and disarm the officer.

    Actually, it DOES show exactly that.. Conclusively..

    There is no evidence to support those claims- only testimony.

    Not factually accurate.. Wilson had a bruised jaw and scratches on his neck.. Brown's DNA was recovered from the trauma areas and around Wilson's collar of his uniform..

    There is evidence the officer had more of a questionable past than Michael Brown.

    For example...???

    I have no problem with Warren calling it murder.

    That's your opinion and I respect that. But it's an opinion based on unfavorable interactions with LEO in the past and, therefore, is a biased opinion..

    The FACTS are clear...

    Brown was justifiably killed...

    As Russ points out, the law states unequivocally that a person attempting to take an officer's weapon by force constitutes deadly force upon said officer and the officer is justified in using deadly force in response, to stop the attempt and eliminate the threat..

    Brown was a good shoot...

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK.. So, we DO have "healthcare" for all..

    In effect -- de facto -- yes.

    Thank you.. :D

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    No need to clarify, I knew what you meant

    Then we're good.. :D

    Illegal immigrant criminals are not citizens of this country.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Illegal immigrant criminals are not citizens of this country.

    And, as such, they are not entitled to free full healthcare, beyond what is allowed to ANYONE under Saint Ronald Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985.

    The Democrat candidates all raised their hands to indicate that they WOULD allow illegal immigrant criminals free and full healthcare beyond the EMTLA...

    My question to Russ was how does he believe that Independents, NPAs and Trump voters would accept that.

    So far, he hasn't responded beyond his belief that the Dem candidate doesn't need Trump voters..

  102. [102] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The bruised neck, scratches and DNA prove an altercation took place.

    They do not prove whether the officer grabbed Brown and were caused by Brown resisting or whether Brown was going for the officer's gun- unless the officer kept his gun on a string around his neck.

    From what I have seen Brown was shot after he left the car area and after the officer got out of the car.

    I don't see that as the officer trying to defend himself against someone trying to take his weapon at that point.

    See the officer's record at previous disbanded police department in regard to his questionable past.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't see that as the officer trying to defend himself against someone trying to take his weapon at that point.

    Officer Wilson had fought off Brown the first time.. Wilson used justifiable deadly force to prevent a second attempt..

    I don't see that as the officer trying to defend himself against someone trying to take his weapon at that point.

    I understand why you would think so..

    But, as an LEO with over 2 decades experience, I can assure you that the initial attempt by Brown set the stage for the results of the altercation..

    A subject cannot attempt deadly force against an officer and simply assume that will be the end of it.. There are no facts to support that Brown was attempting to surrender.

    The long and short of it is that Brown was not murdered.. He was killed. Justifiably so..

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay JL...

    VIDEO: Biden grabs girl by arm after she asks about genders — ‘Don’t play games with me, kid!’
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-biden-grabs-girl-by-arm-after-she-asks-about-genders-dont-play-games-with-me-kid/

    Looks like for Biden, the hits just keep on coming..

  105. [105] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The "initial attempt" by Brown is not established as fact.

    What you are saying is the same as me saying that the officer grabbing Brown first and that Brown was resisting and not attacking is established as fact, which I am not.

    There is testimony of both.

    If someone breaks into your house you can use force to repel them but you cannot chase them down the street and shoot them after the initial danger is over.

    A police officer should be held to AT LEAST the same standard.

    There is testimony of the officer grabbing Brown first, attempted surrender and attempted first and second attack.

    I don't believe deadly force is justified if a second attack or perceived attack does occur on the unarmed allegedly attacking person, regardless of what the law is. If an officer is not capable of firing a disabling shot in a situation such as this they are not qualified to be a police officer and if the law says they don't have to the law is wrong and should be changed.

  106. [106] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [75]

    Thanks, and great post as well! We have been giving free healthcare to prisoners in our jails for years as well. This is why I cannot understand how Republicans could think that their fear of / opposition to “Healthcare for All” makes any sense.

    Bottom line: it’s just the GOP continuation of their strategy to oppose anything that Democrats support! They cannot provide an alternative healthcare plan that anyone would want, and they don’t even seem to be working towards coming up with anything to replace the ACA anytime soon.

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    The "initial attempt" by Brown is not established as fact.

    It really is...

    What you are saying is the same as me saying that the officer grabbing Brown first and that Brown was resisting and not attacking is established as fact, which I am not.

    There are no facts to support that.. Even if true, that doesn't negate that it was still a good shoot..

    If someone breaks into your house you can use force to repel them but you cannot chase them down the street and shoot them after the initial danger is over.

    You can if you are an LEO.. Which is what we are talking about..

    A police officer should be held to AT LEAST the same standard.

    A police officer is held to a HIGHER standard..

    As a homeowner civilian, you cannot chase a subject down..

    As a police officer, it is your DUTY to chase the subject down..

    If an officer is not capable of firing a disabling shot

    Yer kidding, right???

    Maybe Wilson should have shot Brown's big toe to foil the attack, eh??

    and if the law says they don't have to the law is wrong and should be changed.

    By all means.. Change the law..

    Until that time, LEOs will answer deadly force with deadly force..

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bottom line: it’s just the GOP continuation of their strategy to oppose anything that Democrats support!

    Which is no different than Democrats strategy to oppose anything President Trump supports..

    What is your point??

  109. [109] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michael

    So, if you have passage written in facebook about a teenager, who fantasized about getting into their car and stomping on the gas, targeting kids and killing almost 40 of them...

    Should that person have a car and a license to drive??

    No, they should have their license pulled until they can get a psych evaluation to clear them. In most states you can do this already... it called having someone involuntarily committed.. It isn’t surprising that there are far more people who despite posing a threat to themselves and others, they have never been involved in an incident than those that have been in an incident that resulted in injuries to others.

    There are plenty of mentally unstable people who are able to live independent lives on their own without ever harming anyone. Why would you think it is OK to arm someone like this?

  110. [110] 
    Paula wrote:
  111. [111] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    If an officer is not capable of firing a disabling shot in a situation such as this they are not qualified to be a police officer and if the law says they don't have to the law is wrong and should be changed.

    Shooting to disable is a Hollywood myth...it looks good on film, but in reality it just doesn’t work! First, a police officer can only use deadly force if they reasonably believe that their life or someone else’s life is in danger because of the actions of another. Anytime you fire a gun at someone, it is an “use of deadly force”. If an officer fired his gun at someone, there had better been someone whose life was endangered when the officer pulled the trigger! You don’t shoot someone charging at you with an axe in an attempt to knock the axe from their hands. In stressful situations, it’s hard enough to hit the torso (largest part of body) of a running person, having police trying to aim for legs or arms would be crazy. Either the axe murdered reaches their target, or your bullet misses their arms/legs and goes on to kill an innocent bystander.

    Someone on PCP, you can hit them in the chest and they still might keep coming...so wounding them would do little good.

    And do you think people are going to be real happy when an officer tries to wound and disable a suspect and that suspect is still able to kill 5 people before he is finally “disabled”?

    Guns are designed to kill.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, they should have their license pulled until they can get a psych evaluation to clear them.

    "“One day, as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street. They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles. ... This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams. As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two. I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head.”

    So, you are saying someone like that needs a psych eval before they get a car???

  113. [113] 
    Paula wrote:

    Mr. Epstein, 66, died Saturday in the Manhattan detention facility. He had been put in the suicide-watch unit July 23 after he was found in his cell unconscious and with marks on his neck. But he was taken off suicide watch late last month at the request of his attorneys, people familiar with the matter said.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/there-were-serious-irregularities-at-federal-jail-where-jeffrey-epstein-died-barr-says-11565622895

    Well, well. Taken of suicide watch at the request of his attorneys? How does that make sense? What gives them the ability to assess his mental state in that way? Or the authority to be "listened to"?

  114. [114] 
    Paula wrote:

    Taken OFF

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, well. Taken of suicide watch at the request of his attorneys? How does that make sense? What gives them the ability to assess his mental state in that way? Or the authority to be "listened to"?

    Find out who was paying the attorneys... :D

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's obvious that Epstein was silenced..

    The only question is who silenced him..

    There is likely HUNDREDS of people who would have motive..

    Far FAR less would have the capability to reach into a Federal SuperMax lock-up...

    Trump's an obvious suspect... However he has proven he doesn't care what's exposed about him...

    Clinton's the more obvious suspect... Clinton has plenty to lose...

  117. [117] 
    Paula wrote:

    [57] TS: yeah, there are lots of possibilities that don't include someone arranging for Epstein's death. They just aren't as likely given the series of circumstances that appear to be involved.

    Judges have gone to jail for, as is eventually discovered, selling prisoners in various ways to for-profit prisons. That's the kind of thing that initially always seems like paranoia etc. until the truth is uncovered.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/state-department-worker-had-secret-other-life-white-nationalist-right-n1040101

    The news about Matthew Q. Gebert, 38, came a day after researchers from the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch program revealed he allegedly used the pseudonym “Coach Finstock” on white nationalist forums and hosted parties at his Virginia home for like-minded individuals.

    Sounds like conspiracy-theorizing but it's not. White nationalists have infiltrated lots of places. People take bribes. Hits get arranged. It happens.

    So I'm going to need an independent investigation removed from traitor-Barr to deliver answers on this one.

  118. [118] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So now the officer was pursuing the subject?

    If so- NOT IN DANGER or UNDER ATTACK.

    How is there are no facts (perhaps you mean evidence) to support the officer grabbing Brown first (which again I am NOT claiming is a fact, I am claiming there is only conflicting testimony which is a fact) an answer to you claiming it as a fact that Brown attacked the officer and went for his gun when there is no evidence to support that testimony?

    And how if true does it let the officer off the hook?

    If the officer grabbed Brown first then the justification of the officer under attack is not true.

    Let's just let police attack citizens and claim self defense. What could go wrong with that?

    It's not like someone might get killed or murdered.

    The officer had no valid reason to think he was answering deadly force with deadly force because Brown was unarmed. Otherwise Brown would have just shot the officer in the car with his own weapon so there would be no reason for Brown to go for the officer's gun if that's is what happened. So the officer clearly believed that Brown was not armed if he was telling the truth about Brown going for the gun.

    Again, if the officer is not capable of trying to merely stop the alleged attacker when they are not under threat of deadly force and cannot stop firing when the alleged attacker is stopped, they are not qualified to be a police officer.

    The only time you are allowed to keep firing, cut off the head, set on fire, etc. an attacker that is down is when you are in a Hollywood horror film battling supernatural forces.

    Your excuse that the officer was under attack and answering deadly force with deadly force is based on the assumption of fact and inconsistent with the evidence available.

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    So now the officer was pursuing the subject?

    You said that not, I.. I simply responded to your comment that a homeowner cannot pursue a subject so a LEO shouldn't..

    The difference is an LEO has a DUTY to pursue subjects..

    How is there are no facts (perhaps you mean evidence) to support the officer grabbing Brown first (which again I am NOT claiming is a fact, I am claiming there is only conflicting testimony which is a fact) an answer to you claiming it as a fact that Brown attacked the officer and went for his gun when there is no evidence to support that testimony?

    There is the officer's testimony and the physical and forensic evidence..

    If the officer grabbed Brown first then the justification of the officer under attack is not true.

    If Wilson grabbed Brown first (which is no where near confirmed, it was likely to place him under arrest.. Under the law, Brown cannot claim self-defense, even if the arrest was not justified..

    The officer had no valid reason to think he was answering deadly force with deadly force because Brown was unarmed.

    Except that Brown had tried to get Wilson's gun..

    So the officer clearly believed that Brown was not armed if he was telling the truth about Brown going for the gun.

    The fact that Brown was unarmed is not relevant to the use of deadly force.. The fact that Brown attempted to take Wilson's weapon is sufficient for Wilson to resort to deadly force..

    Your excuse that the officer was under attack and answering deadly force with deadly force is based on the assumption of fact and inconsistent with the evidence available.

    That's your opinion.. The officer's testimony corroborated by the forensic evidence is sufficient to say that this was a good shoot..

  120. [120] 
    Paula wrote:

    [118] Don: !!!!!!AGREEE!!!!!!

  121. [121] 
    Paula wrote:

    Oops, hit enter too soon.

    Was gonna say it's a rare day when Don & I are on the same page.

    Again, if the officer is not capable of trying to merely stop the alleged attacker when they are not under threat of deadly force and cannot stop firing when the alleged attacker is stopped, they are not qualified to be a police officer.

    Yep.

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don & Paula,

    Lemme ask ya..

    Again, if the officer is not capable of trying to merely stop the alleged attacker when they are not under threat of deadly force and cannot stop firing when the alleged attacker is stopped, they are not qualified to be a police officer.

    And it's your VAST experience as LEOs that leads you to believe this???

  123. [123] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    White nationalists have not "infiltrated." They were in power fifty years ago and never left. except for a few loudmouths, the adherents to the lost cause simply hung back and waited their turn.

    JL

  124. [124] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    (For the most part, the more corrupt white nationalists remained Democrats, while the true believers became Republicans)

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    They were in power fifty years ago and never left.

    AKA Democrats.. :D

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    82

    Exactly... While the number is unknown, it's quite logical to assume that the threat of jail and family separation DOES keep illegal immigrant criminals away from violating out laws..

    "Logical to assume"? I know a guy named "you" that would disagree with me if I used the exact same phrase regarding lots of other issues. Does data show a decrease? Not really, but it's debatable "why not" and indisputable there's an increase... unless you're prepared to refer to own rhetoric as a "blatant lie."

    If we decriminalize the border, there will be nothing to stop those people..

    Wrong... because we currently have two systems -- government efficiency -- /sarcasm.

    * The United States already primarily handles violations of immigration law under civil law rather than criminal law. A quick reading of the Constitution will remind anyone that persons in this country have rights... cut to the chase: due process. Thus, more often than not due to efficiency, when the government accuses someone of illegally immigrating, living in the United States without legal authorization, etc., that person is not being charged criminally but in the civil enforcement system where they are held in civil detention centers pending quick (supposed to be) deportation.

    On the other hand, it is a federal crime to cross the border without going through a point of inspection. First offense is classified a misdemeanor for "illegal entry" and punishable by prison sentence not to exceed 6 months, while repeat offenders sentences are punishable up to 2 years if your crime is limited to "border crossing," but for those with serious criminal offenses it's obviously punishable by decades like any other criminal.

    Those candidates (and it's not all of them) who want to decriminalize unauthorized border crossings are simply saying to process those whose only crime is illegal border crossing under the civil system. It is more cost efficient and generally quicker, less drain on taxpayers, etc. Obviously, if other crimes are involved beyond illegally crossing the border, off to the criminal system they go.

    Fact: There is de facto amnesty for employers like Donald Trump who knowingly hire multiple illegal immigrants and have been doing so for decades because the government turns a blind eye to their exploitation of illegal persons. You seriously want to deter illegal border crossings? People won't cross the border for jobs that don't exist. End de facto amnesty for employers who knowingly violate our federal laws.

    I find it hilarious that the Democrat Party's "solution" to excessive over-crowding at the southern border is to add tens of thousands MORE illegal immigrant criminals..

    I find your incessant whining about criminals hilarious. I also find it hilarious that there are an excessive number of right-wing parrots that continue to refer to the Democratic Party using the incorrect name while at the same time whining about stupid people, and I find it infinitely hilarious that there are an inordinate number of "stupid people" who are willing to spew back right-wing propaganda like trained birds confined to their tiny little cages.

    Lastly, I find it hilarious that the President of the United States is doubling down on the stoking of racial resentment as a political strategy, but Poor Donald cannot help himself but to lie and cry. It's pathological.

    Obviously, the Democratic Party hasn't yet endorsed any of the many Democrats and/or Independent candidates' views regarding immigration, and anyone claiming otherwise is lying to you or parroting a lie.

  127. [127] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris

    Again, if the officer is not capable of trying to merely stop the alleged attacker when they are not under threat of deadly force and cannot stop firing when the alleged attacker is stopped, they are not qualified to be a police officer.

    It sounds like you are assuming that the encounter starts off at a lower level of aggression and then overtime escalates to a “deadly force” encounter. That was not the case with Brown. As the officer attempted to exit his vehicle, Brown attacked the officer, knocking him back into his vehicle, and tried to disarm him.

    I know that some have argued that the officer was actually grabbing Brown and trying to pull him into the vehicle through the driver side window, but that is the most idiotic thing in the world if you think about it. Why would an officer sitting in his vehicle attempt to pull a 300+ guy into his vehicle on top of himself? Physically it would be impossible, as the seated officer’s arms were not long enough to reach up and grab Brown by the neck and pull him into the window.

    We also know that Brown went for the officer’s gun by the bullet trajectory and blood splatter found in the officer’s vehicle. Brown was shot near his thumb with the bullet traveling up his arm and out his shoulder/back. Where the bullet entered Brown was consistent with the officer’s claim that Brown grabbed his gun and attempted to take it when the officer fired his first shot.

    One thing that I found fascinating was how differently a person’s perspective effected what they believed they were witnessing. How could some people think Brown was attacking the officer and others think he was putting his arms up and trying to surrender if they were watching the same event as it unfolded??? The two versions of what witnesses said they saw sound like they are two extremely different events. If you look at the physical movements described for both versions of what witnesses claimed they saw, the physical actions are identical...it was just the person’s perspective as to what they believed was happening that differed — his arms raising looked like Brown was attacking the officer to one group and like he was trying to surrender to the other group.

    All of the witnesses that became aware of the encounter prior to the first shots being fired testified that Brown continued attacking the officer even after being shot. Witnesses who only became aware of the incident after they heard the first shots fired testified that they believed Brown was trying to get away from and surrender to the officer. At what point during the incident that the witness first became aware of it made all the difference in how they interpreted what they were seeing!

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    84

    Hokay..

    Okay, then... TYA!

    Give me one "blatant lie" of President Trump's..

    I'll explain it..

    *laughs* No one needs to explain a "blatant lie"; the explanation is in the description. Blatant lies are obvious lies and done without trying to hide them.

    Blatant Lies of Donald Trump

    * "I will never lie to you."
    * "I never said Russia did not meddle in the election..."
    * "This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story."

    Plenty more that require no explanation whatsoever.

    Then I'll give you a blatant lie of Obama.

    I already did Elizabeth Warren. She is current news with a current tweet. Prattling on and on about Obama when we could be discussing current affairs is distracting/deflecting and a waste of time in my opinion.

    You explain it and give me the comment you made condemning it at the time..

    Blatant lies need no explanation, and your neediness to make every issue into a personal discussion of a particular poster versus a discussion of the issue is again duly noted. Russ is absolutely correct about this; you're grabbing at that crutch where you're just here to troll posters.

    Deal??

    Russ is also absolutely correct that your "deals" suck. Besides, I'm "all in" to discuss issues but not interested in a pissing match where the object of the exercise is to prove something about myself. I'm not stupid enough to believe I qualify as a political issue, and believe it or not, people on the "leftie blog" comments section aren't necessarily and likely not here to post to suit Obama/America haters... yeah, just kidding, but see what I did there? :)

  129. [129] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [126 & 128]

    Both posts stated points that I have tried to make in the past, but I never said them as eloquently as you just did...I tip my cap to you!

    As much as I would love it if Michael stuck to focusing on discussing topics instead of attacking those posting here as he has done today, I don’t know who long this will last. I was actually surprised when I got him to admit his intentions for posting most days:

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

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

    Or to read between the lines, “I am here to troll!”

    I understand why he does it: Trump’s actions are impossible to defend logically, so deflection and distraction become the only defense options that don’t include admitting the truth.

  130. [130] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    “As much as I would love it if Michael stuck to focusing on discussing topics instead of just attacking those posting here, I don’t know who long this will last.”

    This sounds better.

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    98

    Warren's statement is her opinion.

    Most political statements are the candidate's opinion. That's why they don't qualify as blatant lies. Glad we agree on this.

    Partially her opinion..

    Well, I would wager she agrees with all of it.

    But when she claimed that Brown was murdered by a police officer, she is claiming a fact..

    Awkward wording on your part that appears to disagree with your prior statement wherein you claim it is a "blatant lie."

    And that is not only NOT a fact, it's a blatant lie..

    "She is claiming a fact" that is "NOT a fact." You should read these things... pick a lane.

    Pretty much like saying you think OJ was guilty even though he was not proven criminally guilty in a court of law.

    Well, juries sometimes make lousy decisions, and people are entitled to their various assorted opinions about ex-football players and ex-police officers and all manner of people because this is America. No one is required to tweet to suit your opinion. Why you would expect a leftie to tweet to your liking is ridiculous. You spend an inordinate amount of time whining about those who don't speak to suit you. Let it roll off your back like water off a duck. I disagree with her word choice too; however, it does not rise to the level of "blatant lie."

    How can I put this into perspective for you? *thinking*

    *still thinking*

    Okay! I think I've got it. Here goes: In the same manner that the local authorities and FBI concluded that they couldn't prove in a court of law that the police officer who shot Brown with the intent to kill him committed "murder" as it is legally defined, you would have a shitty case in a court of law if you were attempting to prove Elizabeth Warren's tweet rose to the level of a "blatant lie" also known legally as "perjury."

    We're basically quibbling over the definition of "blatant lie." The entire incident was being investigated due to the fact that there was a question regarding the events that took place. Reasonable people can disagree with the conclusions of the investigation. Case closed... literally. :)

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    94

    Allow me to reiterate that you're being very agreeable with the same entity that you're generally busy denigrating. ~ Me

    As are you.. :D

    False! I can assure you that I'm not a denigrator of the "eff-be-I." An agent or two for doing boneheaded things? Naturally. But denigrating the institution? Not a chance. :)

  133. [133] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michael,

    And it's your VAST experience as LEOs that leads you to believe this???

    These are the type responses that just scream, “I cannot logically defend my position so let me try to discredit you for offering yours instead!”

    Seriously, no one here meets your criteria to have an opinion. I have zero firsthand experience as a LEO, but my years working as a 911 call receiver plus my being married to a police officer for the last ten years does give me some insight into this topic. If a person can reasonably defend their opinion, that’s all that is needed to validate it.

    Not meant as a personal attack, just pointing out that this is a place where everyone’s opinion should be measured on its own merits, not on the resume of the person offering the opinion!

  134. [134] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    101

    Illegal immigrant criminals are not citizens of this country.

    And, as such, they are not entitled to free full healthcare, beyond what is allowed to ANYONE under Saint Ronald Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985.

    Well, you're wrong again because "states."

    The Democrat candidates all raised their hands to indicate that they WOULD allow illegal immigrant criminals free and full healthcare beyond the EMTLA...

    People who whine about others mischaracterizing things and then turn around and mischaracterize things are a PITA, and that makes you one of "them." :)

    My question to Russ was how does he believe that Independents, NPAs and Trump voters would accept that.
    So far, he hasn't responded beyond his belief that the Dem candidate doesn't need Trump voters..

    Russ has proven to be one of those human beings with a life... very much like myself. :)

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    106

    Thanks, and great post as well! We have been giving free healthcare to prisoners in our jails for years as well.

    Exactly! With incarceration of people comes great responsibility. Handling offenders in the civil system who have no other criminal violations with the exception of illegal border crossing cuts out the expense of having to provide them with free lots of stuff, including health care.

    And this brings up the issue of our for-profit prison system. I'm not wading into it now, but I'm sure you know where that river flows.

    Bottom line: it’s just the GOP continuation of their strategy to oppose anything that Democrats support! They cannot provide an alternative healthcare plan that anyone would want, and they don’t even seem to be working towards coming up with anything to replace the ACA anytime soon.

    It's the gift that keeps on giving in the midterms and all election cycle through. ;)

  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    108

    Russ: Bottom line: it’s just the GOP continuation of their strategy to oppose anything that Democrats support!

    Which is no different than Democrats strategy to oppose anything President Trump supports..

    Wrong again, Mike, particularly when President Trump has stated repeatedly that Republicans have a plan that is going to cover all Americans because it is the right thing to do to cover everyone. While that "plan" never existed and has yet to materialize, as Russ correctly states, it is Trump that opposes the ACA and has promised to replace it with... they've really got nothing to replace it... still! See the difference?

    What is your point??

    This is your "tell," Mike. :)

  137. [137] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    116

    Trump's an obvious suspect... However he has proven he doesn't care what's exposed about him...

    How you figure that? There are multiple lawsuits where Trump is suing to stop discovery of his tax returns as well as his bank accounts. He has refused to allow anyone to testify before Congress because he is claiming a blanket "executive privilege" that isn't applicable in multiple circumstances. There are 10+ instances of obstruction of justice documented to preserve the record and multiple years of undisclosed tax returns as icing on the evidence cake that say otherwise.

    However, that doesn't mean I believe Trump had anything to do with Epstein's death... just that Trump hasn't in any way, shape, or fashion "proven he doesn't care what's exposed about him." Quite the opposite, in point of fact.

    If "facts" really matter to somebody, then ignoring them isn't the way to go about proving it.

    Clinton's the more obvious suspect... Clinton has plenty to lose...

    So how do you figure Clinton is the more obvious suspect? Based on what? Clinton being the guy running the DOJ running the BOP that allowed the suicide of one of the most high-profile prisoners in the joint? Do you think the presidency of the United States is less to lose?

    You sound like a guy who has drank the Kool-Aid, pitcher and all.

  138. [138] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    129

    Both posts stated points that I have tried to make in the past, but I never said them as eloquently as you just did...I tip my cap to you!

    I *blush* :)

    As much as I would love it if Michael stuck to focusing on discussing topics instead of attacking those posting here as he has done today, I don’t know who long this will last. I was actually surprised when I got him to admit his intentions for posting most days:

    It was one of the all-time great admissions; one that can forever never be unsaid. All the gaslighting, lies, and manipulation trolling confirmed by Mike.

    You *blush* :)

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Not meant as a personal attack, just pointing out that this is a place where everyone’s opinion should be measured on its own merits, not on the resume of the person offering the opinion!

    Do you comprehend the irony of that comment?? :D

    Every comment I make regarding what's happening in the world of politics is judged, not on the merit of the content, but on me personally..

    How many times have comments I have made been responded to with, "Michale, you post so much!!!" instead of simply addressing the content of the comment..

    I had hoped that, by making a sincere point to address facts and reality, we could break the cycle and actually address points, rather than just make it about me personally...

    Reading over the comments, it was obviously a futile gesture...

    Oh well, no one can say I didn't try..

  140. [140] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    139

    Every comment I make regarding what's happening in the world of politics is judged, not on the merit of the content, but on me personally..

    Wrong again, Mike. How can you seriously make the ridiculous claim that "every comment" you make is judged when the majority of your comments are copied from right-wingnut websites and posted in trolling fashion and therefore ignored using Neil's scrolling method or other devices.

    How many times have comments I have made been responded to with, "Michale, you post so much!!!" instead of simply addressing the content of the comment..

    OMG! You mean other commenters will call you a troll when you troll? Say it isn't so! *laughs*

    I had hoped that, by making a sincere point to address facts and reality, we could break the cycle and actually address points, rather than just make it about me personally...

    Bullshit. Right-wingnut propaganda isn't reality, Mike.

    Full disclosure: We here in Weigantia are not stupid.

    Oh well, no one can say I didn't try..

    You tried to start a pissing contest of your same old repetitive circular bullshit that's been covered ad nauseam, but no one was interested. Nothing new. :)

Comments for this article are closed.