ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Selenofriggatriskaidekaphobia (Revisited)

[ Posted Friday, September 13th, 2019 – 17:00 UTC ]

We have to begin today with an apology. Five years ago, without knowing any better, we erroneously reported in this space that there would not be another Friday the 13th which coincided with a full moon until 2049. So it was much to our surprise that we heard that this week we all were going to see another one, only five short years after we feverishly coined the word "selenofriggatriskaidekaphobia" to describe those with the very specific neurotic fear (-phobia) of both full moons (seleno-) and Fridays (-frigga-) the 13th (-triskaideka-).

In short, we were lied to. Back in 2014, we read in HuffPost (full disclosure: this was when we were still blogging for them) that there was going to be a Friday the 13th full moon, which is what inspired us to write that earlier bit with the word coinage. In the article, HuffPost reported that another such confluence of events wouldn't happen "for 35 years." We naïvely believed them.

But then this week, we read in HuffPost about tonight's "micromoon," and the article stated that such an event hadn't happened "since 2000." We've since gotten them to revise their article with more-correct information, but now we wonder about their prediction that it won't happen again until 2049. In fact, if it happened next year, it wouldn't surprise us a bit. Hey, then we'd get to use the word selenofriggatriskaidekaphobia again, right? Heh.

Enough looniness, though, let's get on with the show. For once (maybe it's the full moon or something?), we are inclined to just totally ignore President Trump and the continuing saga of his endless buffoonery. Trump was fairly quiet this week, as Sharpiegate moved on to the multiple-investigations stage.

We're kidding, of course. There were two events which have to at least be mentioned in passing before we get on to discussing the state of the Democratic Party's presidential nominating process. The first came last weekend, when Trump surprised everyone by suddenly announcing that a secret meeting with the Taliban which was scheduled to take place at Camp David had been cancelled, because Trump had just discovered (who knew?) that the Taliban kills people. That was pretty astonishing, seeing as how this week also saw the anniversary of 9/11. Imagine the propaganda value that would have handed to the Taliban on a silver platter! Trump was praised for cancelling the meeting by all his Republican toadies, who universally ignored the fact that the meeting was Trump's idea in the first place. Must be the full moon, or something.

This was quickly followed by Trump firing the guy who apparently had talked him out of holding the meeting. Sane people everywhere breathed a sigh of relief that John Bolton was no longer national security advisor, as he joined a long, long list of cabinet-level departures from Trump's inner circle. Trump's now on his fourth national security advisor in under three years, just to focus on the one job. Luckily for Bolton he won't be leaving the White House and moving into federal prison, the way Trump's first national security advisor had to do.

OK, enough of all that. Let's just move along, because the dominant news of the week (at least for us) was last night's Democratic debate, the third in an ongoing series. As we are sometimes wont to do, we stayed up late last night writing up our own snap reactions to last night's debate, so if you'd like our opinions in rather hasty detail, check it out.

Overall, nobody really had a standout debate that will be talked about for years to come, but there also wasn't anyone who went down in flames to any memorable degree. Andrew Yang and Julián Castro both had their problems, but neither one truly self-destructed. The three frontrunners (Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders) all held their own last night, and nobody else really launched themselves into frontrunner rank.

But even having said that, it was a pretty good debate all around. The pace of the moderators and the responses was noticeably better than the first two debates. This could have been due to only the top 10 being on stage (no truly desperate candidates, in other words), or it could have been due to the moderators not really caring much when people ran over their time segments. For whatever reason, it worked.

While the debate was better than the first two, the choice of debate subjects seems to be a wee bit too limited for our tastes. Certain subjects have been covered in every debate held so far, while other subjects haven't even been mentioned once. Now, understandably, an issue like healthcare reform is going to keep coming up, seeing as how it is one of the highest priorities among the electorate, but do we really need to keep having exactly the same questions over and over again?

Here's a random thought: You know what we'd like to see in a future debate? We'd like to see Congress being brought into the equation while they bring up the same major subjects once again. And we'd also like to hear each candidate be asked whether they'd support the other side of the ideological divide, if it came down to it. Here's an example question we'd love to hear asked, on the healthcare issue:

"OK, Bernie, so you say you're for Medicare For All and that a public option just isn't good enough and won't cut it with you. But what I'd like to ask is, let's assume you do become president, and let's say the Democrats take the Senate and throw out the legislative filibuster. If Democrats in the House and Senate manage to pass a healthcare reform bill and put it on your desk to sign -- and if that bill only included a public option and not Medicare For All, would you sign that bill? Or would you veto it as being insufficient?"

This would have to work both ways, of course. Here's the flip side of such a question:

"Vice President Biden, let's say you win the presidency and that Democrats take the Senate and jettison the filibuster. What would happen if Senators Sanders and Warren go back to the Senate and manage to get their Medicare For All bill passed through both houses? If such a bill arrived on your desk, would you sign it or would you veto it, and why?"

We'd be willing to bet the answers to those questions (asked of all the progressives and moderates, respectively) would be highly interesting to the viewers. We certainly know we'd be interested in hearing the top candidates answer such questions, on all sorts of issues. It boils down to how pragmatic each candidate would be, in essence, as opposed to how much purity they'd demand from their own party.

Would Biden sign a full-on Green New Deal if it were passed? Would Elizabeth Warren sign some incremental environmental bill that didn't go nearly as far as she would have liked? On all the big issues that keep getting debated over and over again (healthcare, guns, green energy, racial equality, immigration, etc.), the questions are always posed as if each candidate will be able to wave some sort of magic wand once they're in the Oval Office, and create their own legislation perfectly in line with their agenda. But it just doesn't work that way. So why not ask if the candidates would accept a half a loaf if that's all that could make it through Congress? Or, on the other hand, would they accept two loaves if they really only wanted one?

Instead, what we get is the candidates urged over and over again to debate their plans as if the magic legislative wand existed. Exploring their different agendas is important, but does it have to be repeated without any change in the question format in every single debate? What we're much more interested in is hearing how pragmatic each candidate would be when they have to herd the congressional cats. Because we think that's a valid way of measuring all the candidates against each other. And one that highlighted how Democrats are not really all that far apart, no matter how progressive or moderate the details of their individual plans may be.

One final thought before we move on. Julián Castro decided to badger Joe Biden hard about one particular issue, in the midst of the healthcare debate segment. Turns out he was wrong to do so, because Castro misstated Biden's position, which totally upended his whole "You just said so two minutes ago!" theme. But putting all that aside, what we were really astonished at was the reaction from some pundits, led by Rahm Emanuel on the same station the debate was being held. In the very first commentary after the end of the debate, Rahm called Castro's attack "mean and vindictive" and a "disqualifier." Granted, Castro was insinuating that Biden was too old and forgetful to be the Democratic Party's nominee and that may not have been to everyone's taste, but it is insane to require that Democrats be polite and overly cautious in a debate setting. After all, does anyone alive think that Donald Trump is going to play by the same rules? If Biden isn't tough enough to take some rude comments in a primary debate, then he is not the man to nominate for the general election, plain and simple. Mind you, we're not saying that's what happened -- in fact, Biden did stand up strongly for himself and was proven right when everyone had time to check the transcript. It didn't knock Biden off his stride, and he soldiered on for the rest of the debate. But the very notion (and Rahm wasn't the only one saying such things) that Democrats running for president should be coddled or protected by some Marquess of Queensbury rules is just flat-out wrong. Brutal attacks from fellow Democrats are almost downright necessary, in fact, because they will toughen the eventual candidate up and prepare him or her for the onslaught of bullying that they will face in the general election against Trump. So please, spare us the pearl-clutching. If anything, the episode wound up being more to Biden's benefit than Castro's, as most people are beginning to now realize.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We're going to get rather hyperspecific here, and award this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week on a single criterion, rather than trying to play the "Who won the debate?" game. In other words, this one's personal. We say this because just over a week ago, we took one Democrat to task for exhibiting a trait we despise and fear not only in Donald Trump but in any politician on either side of the aisle: the stubborn inability to admit fault.

Trump, of course, is the worst of the worst in this regard (see: Sharpiegate). And we have to admit we did engage in a bit of false equivalence in our article, because the Democrat we singled out wasn't nearly as egregious as Trump in denying reality and sticking to his wrongheaded story beyond any reasonable degree. But we consider this to be an absolutely disqualifying character flaw in political figures no matter what the degree, because it means they might not be trusted to face reality in a crisis, should that reality differ from their own worldview or expectations. It's a dangerous trait for a president to have, in other words, which is why we are so stringently against it. But last night, Joe Biden atoned for this sin in two very notable ways. Which is why he is our choice for this week's MIDOTW award.

Joe Biden, when he was a senator, voted for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force which gave President George W. Bush the green light to go to war in Iraq. Bernie Sanders, notably, voted against this resolution. This is a big difference between the two, although it isn't as big a deal as it was in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections (its importance has faded over time, in other words). And Bernie regularly brings it up.

Biden's stock answer has been that (1) Biden believed Bush when he said he wasn't actually going to use the A.U.M.F. to start a war, and (2) Biden then began opposing the Iraq War immediately after it started. He's even used lines like: "I opposed it starting with 'shock and awe,'" the shorthand for the initial bombing campaign which started the war. Last night, Bernie got in a good dig at Biden by turning the first line around and stating plainly that this was a big difference between the two, because Bernie "never believed what Cheney and Bush said about Iraq." But this line was kind of ignored, because Biden had already defused the situation.

Just before Bernie spoke, Biden accepted responsibility in a related answer about whether he and President Barack Obama had pulled the troops out of Iraq too precipitously (which left the power vacuum that the Islamic State stepped into). Now, to the best of my knowledge, Biden has previously expressed regret for his A.U.M.F. vote in the past (the subject has come up previously), but perhaps never in such forceful terms. Biden bluntly stated last night: "I never should have voted for the A.U.M.F.," which simply leaves no wiggle room at all.

That was impressive, even if (as mentioned) the Iraq War vote has faded somewhat over time as a litmus test within the Democratic Party. But what was really impressive is that Biden then went further, in an effort to defend against an attack he knew was likely coming (from one of the moderators or from a fellow candidate onstage). Earlier this week, the Washington Post prominently fact-checked Biden for his claim of opposing the Iraq War from the get-go, and found his previous claims to be, shall we say, less than truthful. In fact, it took over a year after the war started for Biden to start speaking out against it.

But rather than doubling down and just repeating the stock line that he's been using on the campaign, Biden instead got out in front of the issue with a pre-emptive mea culpa. He fully admitted that saying "from that point on" about his opposition to the war from the start was not accurate.

This is precisely what we've been looking for from Biden -- a clear indication that he's not adamant about insisting that his memory is correct when the evidence clearly shows that it is not. This originally arose in reference to the war story Biden's been telling about pinning a medal on a soldier who did not want to receive it because he thought he didn't deserve it (he was being decorated for heroism in trying to save a fellow soldier's life, but as the soldier pointed out, "he died"). It is a moving story, but Biden apparently got all the details wrong (while the core part of the story about the soldier protesting his medal was indeed correct -- the soldier in question backed up Biden's recollection, in fact). When he was called on his errors, Biden got rather indignant about the whole thing, which is what reminded us of Trump and what moved us to write about it in the first place.

But this time, Biden chose a much better route. He was shown to have been in error in a campaign story he's been telling, and he then voluntarily admitted his error in a debate, before anyone could even bring it up. By doing so, he disarmed any attacks against him and showed why it is almost always better for a politician to gracefully admit error than it is to stubbornly dig in their heels.

To most viewers it was a small moment that was barely noticed. We haven't seen any other pundit even mention it today in all the voluminous debate coverage, in fact. But to us, it resonated strongly.

No politician is perfect, and few have perfect memory. Just about everyone edits and embellishes the personal stories we tell over time, sometimes to make it a better story and sometimes to make ourselves look better in it. It's human nature. But politicians are essentially asking the public to trust them and to believe them, which is why such stories from politicians get so much media scrutiny in the first place.

Everyone (even politicians) can be excused a little such embellishment -- if they admit they're wrong when called on it. And when the subject is a very important one politically (a politician's relative support for a war America fought, for instance), then such errors become larger than just embellishments -- they tip over into self-aggrandizement. Sometimes this is intentional, sometimes it is subconscious. But whatever the motivation, when proven wrong a politician should always be ready to accept the correction and apologize for any misunderstanding.

Last night, Joe Biden admirably did so. Which was precisely what we've been waiting for from him. Because he came through -- voluntarily, no less, even before anyone else brought it up -- we think Biden deserves this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. We know we were impressed, even if everyone else seems to have missed the moment.

[Joe Biden is technically a private citizen, and it is our blanket policy not to link to campaign websites, so you'll have to seek his contact information yourself if you'd like to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

As always, the phrase "most disappointing Democrat" can be read two ways. Either a Democrat did something very disappointing, or a Democrat (through no real fault of their own) wound up disappointing a lot of people. This week, we're choosing the second interpretation, and awarding the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to Dan McCready, failed candidate for a House seat in North Carolina's ninth district.

This was the longest election from the 2018 cycle. Last year, the Republican candidate's campaign engaged in outright election fraud, making the results absolutely meaningless. When the votes were counted, the Republican had won by less than 1,000, but (crucially) all the votes cast were not counted due to all the dirty tricks. So they were forced to hold the election all over again.

The Republican who cheated quite wisely decided not to run again. If he had, perhaps McCready would have had a better shot at the seat. Instead, McCready kept campaigning (his entire campaign ironically wound up being longer than a full House term) in the hopes that he could pull off an upset given the chance of a fair election. This Tuesday, he fell short, losing the special election by two percentage points to the Republican.

Even though they won, though, this election caused a lot of fear among other Republicans, and for good reason. The district hasn't elected a Democrat in the past half-century, and was specifically gerrymandered to be a safe GOP seat. Despite all that, and despite voting for Donald Trump by a whopping 12 points, McCready almost won -- twice. That's pretty impressive, even if he did wind up disappointing a lot of Democrats nationwide by not flipping the seat this Tuesday. It means that since 2016, the district has moved 10 whole points towards the Democrats. This is due to suburban voters and women (and both) moving sharply away from Donald Trump's Republican Party. And if Democrats can move this district 10 points, then they have a reasonable chance of moving a whole lot of very similar districts their way in 2020. Which is why Republicans are so worried, even after squeaking out a win in North Carolina.

Even so, it would have been a lot more exciting if McCready had won, obviously. Which is why -- through no real fault of his own -- we feel we have to give the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to McCready, for disappointing so many Democrats all across the country. In other words, we give this award more in sorrow than in anger, this week.

[Dan McCready is also a private citizen, and it is our standing policy not to provide contact information for such persons.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 542 (9/13/19)

In the days after a Democratic presidential debate, all Democrats should be focused on one overarching messaging goal, and that is to point out the vast number of issues where there is broad-based unity within the party. This unity stands in stark contrast to the Republican Party, and to Donald Trump in particular.

Don't let the lazy mainstream media get away with equating a healthy debate among Democratic presidential candidates with some sort of huge divide within the party, because such a divide does not currently exist. Democrats are more united now than they have been in decades, and this needs to be pointed out to any pundits who are tempted to write yet another "Democrats In Disarray!" article. Democrats may differ on the details, but they are united on their overall agenda.

So paint Democrats as being behind the same worthy goals, even if there are slight disagreements on how to get there. The party is now standing up for big change in all sorts of areas, which is a marked improvement from the milquetoast things Democrats used to only be able to agree upon. This is a sea-change which has happened in a very short period of time (thanks to Bernie Sanders, in large part), and what it means is that the differences between the parties is getting starker and starker by the day. Here's a bonus talking point, as an example (one we really expected to hear from someone last night):

"You know what Democrats all agree upon? Democrats agree that the Taliban should never be invited to Camp David, period. We can talk peace with them, and we may end up cutting some kind of deal with them, but this deal should be signed on neutral territory. Unlike Donald Trump who wants to ban every Muslim except the Taliban from coming to America, Democrats believe that inviting them to Camp David would be a travesty."

All of our talking points this week are designed to point out such vast differences -- between what Democrats want to achieve, what Democrats are striving to fix, and how Republicans have no answers other than to make everything worse for the maximum number of people possible. Luckily, this is a fairly easy picture to paint, on all sorts of issues.

 

1
   A Right, Not A Privilege

This is one where Bernie Sanders really deserves the lion's share of the credit.

"You know what? Sure, every Democrat has different ideas on how to improve healthcare for the maximum number of people in this country, but we all agree on the basic goal. Democrats want more people to have health insurance. Democrats want to make medical bankruptcies a thing of the past. Democrats want healthcare to be a right, not a privilege. Contrast that goal -- which is broadly shared by each and every one of us -- with what the Republicans believe. They want to take health insurance away from the maximum amount of people. They've been working hard to do so ever since Obamacare was passed. They want us to go back to the bad old days when insurance companies could refuse to sell you a policy if you had a pre-existing condition. They're suing in federal court on this issue even as I speak. Republicans want healthcare to be a privilege only available to those with enough money to afford it. Democrats strongly disagree, and when I say that I mean all Democrats. After all, we're can split the hairs of all our plans, but when have any Republicans proposed any single idea that would improve healthcare rather than make the system worse?"

 

2
   Raise everyone's pay

This issue just never seems to come up in the debates, for some inexplicable reason.

"In the third Democratic debate, many of the candidates supported raising teachers' pay to $60,000 a year or more. That's a concept all Democrats can get behind, no matter what the target number turns out to be. In fact, Democrats want everyone to get paid better, and we are in complete agreement about the best way to begin this process -- by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. If the lowest-paid employees get a raise, then their supervisors will have to get a raise, and their managers will also see a boost in pay. Call it 'trickle-up theory,' or use a phrase from John F. Kennedy instead: 'A rising tide will lift all boats.' This is what Democrats stand for, while Republicans keep proposing the opposite over and over and over again -- giving the fatcats and the corporate owners a big boost in pay in the futile hopes that some of it will eventually trickle down. How many times has this lie been sold to the American public, with nothing to show for it at all in average workers' paychecks? So sure, we're all for boosting teacher pay, but we're also in complete lockstep on the pressing need to raise the minimum wage to reward the hardest workers in this country, rather than showering another huge tax cut onto Wall Street."

 

3
   A worldwide approach

This one is also pretty easy.

"Every single Democrat I know of has realized that climate change exists, that it is a danger to us all, and that we must all act as soon as we can to halt and reverse the process. Meanwhile, the Republicans still have their collective heads stuck in the sand, denying what scientist after scientist has concluded. What is called for is worldwide action, and America used to pride itself on leading such worldwide efforts. Any Democrat elected president would immediately rejoin the Paris accords that Donald Trump rejected. Any Democrat would work hard with every country on Earth to improve the situation and reduce the use of fossil fuels, because we want to fight for the future of our planet together. Republicans have been denying reality for too long, and Democrats are united in demanding that this inaction must end."

 

4
   Standing with us

On a similar note....

"Democrats agree that China needs to change the way it conducts trade, but we also agree that the way Donald Trump is going about it is not going to work. We stand the strongest when we stand with our allies, which is why the Western World needs to stand together as we all face up to China together. If we presented a unified front to China rather than trying to go it alone, we would be in a much better bargaining position. Instead, the Republicans have turned their backs on our allies and cheer on President Trump waging a trade war not only with China but also simultaneously with Europe and Canada and all our other former allies. As you can see, this hasn't worked. Let's instead go back to the days when America took the lead on such issues, and stood shoulder to shoulder with our traditional allies to demand China change its ways."

 

5
   It's the whole damn river

This is a repeat in some ways from a previous column, but the point bears repeating.

"In a country so incredibly divided that it's tough to find any issue which completely unites the public, there is ninety percent or better support for instituting truly universal background checks. Let me say that again: ninety percent or better. That's not just 'mainstream' -- that's the whole damn river! Over nine in ten people agree background checks should happen for all gun purchases or transfers. The loopholes must be slammed shut. Not only are Democrats completely united on this subject, it also is supported by a majority of Republicans and a majority of gun owners. The only thing stopping this law from being enacted is the stranglehold the N.R.A. has on Republican politicians. You want to see universal background checks become reality? There's an easy way to do so -- vote Democratic."

 

6
   A country of immigrants

Again, a fairly easy picture to paint.

"While much has been made over the slight differences in Democrats' policy ideas, when you get right down to it, Democrats believe we are a country of immigrants, while Republicans increasingly don't. They used to hide behind the dodge that they were 'for legal immigration,' but Donald Trump has proven that what they're really in favor of is no immigration, except maybe from Norway. You know what Democrats believe? That children shouldn't be locked up in cages like an animal. That babies shouldn't be ripped from their mothers' arms. That families should not be separated at the border. And furthermore, Democrats believe that white supremacism is a real threat to our national security and it needs to be treated as such instead of continuing the policy of allowing the federal government to turn a blind eye to it or worse."

 

7
   Legalize it

OK, we just threw this one in here to stave off any possible rampant selenofriggatriskaidekaphobia, we fully admit. Heh.

"Democrats believe that marijuana should be made legal at the federal level, which would mean not only finally ending the destructive and counterproductive War On Weed, but would also mean that marijuana should be treated like alcohol across the entire country. States, counties, and towns and cities would be free to regulate the sale of marijuana to their heart's content -- they can continue banning all sales in those places where the citizens really want that. But nobody could ever again be arrested and locked in prison merely for possessing marijuana, period. Just as today I can legally drive through a dry county with a six-pack of beer in my car, everyone should be able to do the same thing with marijuana all over this country. The War On Weed is finally about to come to an end, and you can thank Democrats for leading the way out of this quagmire."

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

247 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Selenofriggatriskaidekaphobia (Revisited)”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    This installment of FTP is pitch perfect to my ear.

  2. [2] 
    dsws wrote:

    Politico has an article consisting of snippets from various pundits responding to the debate. One said that Andrew Yang proposing public funding of election campaigns made Yang"the big loser" of the whole debate. I don't get it. Why? What's so awful about funding campaigns with taxes instead of special-interest money, that it's getting singled out as the thing that makes him the grand loser?

  3. [3] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    What we're much more interested in is hearing how pragmatic each candidate would be when they have to herd the congressional cats.

    I'm afraid that the Progressive exuberance of some of my Fellow Traveler far-Lefties may be such that even the mere discussion of such a best case realpolitik compromise may fail some "purity" test.

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ...and I'd hate to see this in any way dampen Democratic turnout come election day. I'm sure some Bernie Bros back in 2016 sat it out or voted for Jill in protest of how the DNC shoved Hillary down our collective throats.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    As for your “partial list” of things made from petroleum — why did you feel the need to repeat products previously listed?

    Because Liz had said there is no future in fossil fuels..

    I merely pointed out the FACT that if the USA bans fossil fuels, as the Dem candidates want to do, there would cease to BE a USA..

    Now I do not believe that you actually took the time to make this list yourself (unless you got your hands on some really strong weed), but to whoever did create it: your attempt to make the list longer had the opposite effect from what you were hoping it would — it’s not impressive; it just comes off as desperation.

    So, a few redundant items is cause for you to dispute the entire list??

    Sound "logic" there, Russ. :eyeroll:

    As usual, you nitpick because you can't acknowledge the FACT that the Dim candidates pledge to ban fossil fuels makes them completely and utterly un-electable..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Enough looniness, though, let's get on with the show. For once (maybe it's the full moon or something?), we are inclined to just totally ignore President Trump and the continuing saga of his endless buffoonery. Trump was fairly quiet this week, as Sharpiegate moved on to the multiple-investigations stage.

    Sharpiegate is over. Once again, it was proven that ya'all's hysteria was bogus and that President Trump was dead on ballz factually accurate...

    Chalk it up to another President Trump win.. :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ,

    That’s great to hear, especially since Warren isn’t proposing those things!

    On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere.
    -Elizabeth Warren

    Fauxchohantos' first step in eliminating fossil fuels..

    When asked if all the candidates would commit to free and full health care for crimmigrants, Lie-awatha raised her hand in the affirmative..

    Elizabeth Warren wants open borders..

    Elizabeth Warren's new plan aims to decriminalize border crossings, expand immigrants' rights
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/elizabeth-warrens-plan-aims-decriminalize-border-crossings-expand/story?id=64267292

    Decriminalized illegal border crossings is defacto open borders.

    So, yea.. Warren is DOCUMENTED ON THE RECORD as wanting all the things I said...

    Once again, you have yer hysterical bullshit..

    And I have the FACTS

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    Politico has an article consisting of snippets from various pundits responding to the debate. One said that Andrew Yang proposing public funding of election campaigns made Yang"the big loser" of the whole debate. I don't get it. Why? What's so awful about funding campaigns with taxes instead of special-interest money, that it's getting singled out as the thing that makes him the grand loser?

    That's easy.. Because Democrats LOVE their rich donors and the millions and millions they get from them..

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know what Democrats believe? That children shouldn't be locked up in cages like an animal.

    Really??

    The Democrat Messiah, Obama, obviously didn't believe that.. :^/

    Democrats believe that white supremacism is a real threat to our national security

    Of course they do. It's called FEAR MONGERING...

    Just like Democrats believe that Miami is going to cease to exist in a few years and the world will end in less than 11 years..

    Nothing but hysterical and bullshit fear mongering..

    It's a Democrat Party trait..

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only thing stopping this law from being enacted

    No.. The only thing stopping this law from being enacted is that it will serve no useful purpose...

    You want your 100% (up from 99%) background checks??

    Fine..

    Agree to Nationwide CCW Reciprocity...

    See, hysterical gun haters don't WANT compromise..

    They just want their hysterical anti-gun agenda..

  11. [11] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, a few redundant items is cause for you to dispute the entire list??

    Sound "logic" there, Russ. :eyeroll:

    Where, again, did I dispute the entire list? I simply pointed out that you repeat items like ice trays and glasses quite a bit in your list. Oh wait, this is you making shat up again, falsely claiming that someone here has said something that you wish we had said so that your arguments do look as stupid as they really do....but we didn’t say it, so you lose by default!

    Also, “fossil fuels” refers to petroleum that has been refined to be used as fuel to cause engines to run. It belongs on that list of “petroleum products”, you can put it on there multiple times by naming the different fuel grades separately, if you like. However, that list isn’t of items created by fossil fuels, it is a list of items made from petroleum. You don’t take the refined “fossil fuel” and some how turn it back into unrefined petroleum so that you can then use it in all of those products you listed and repeated. You know this, right?

    “On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere.”

    And if she does this, you think that fossil fuel will eliminated in this country? Stopping drilling on PUBLIC lands would not stop it from occurring on private lands, would it? Makes ya wonder why oil companies don’t just purchase the land they drill on... oh wait, because they do not want to be held liable for any damages that occur from what happens on that property! Wonder why they would be worried about that?

    Do you believe that attempting to cut carbon dioxide emissions by getting nations to faze out combustion engines in vehicles will “eliminate” plastics?

    Once again, you are arguing about what you wanted to hear, not what anyone actually said!

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can nit pick all you want, Russ.

    It's what you do when you know you have lost..

    But the simple fact is Warren and all the other candidates (sans Biden) are so far Left they simply cannot and will not appeal to the Independents and NPAs who will decide the 2020 election..

    It's that simple and you know it...

    That's why you expend all your energy trying to defend what the definition of 'is' is...

    I also noticed you ignored the FACT that Warren DID say she would give free, full health care to crimmigrants and that she would decriminalize illegal border crossings which is de-facto open borders...

    That is so you.. You find one little nit to pick at and you think it invalidates the entire point..

    Don't work that way sonny jim.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said..

    CNN's Climate Debate Hurts the Democrats It Tried to Help
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/09/cnns_climate_debate_hurts_the_democrats_it_tried_to_help_141204.html

    Democrats have ceded the Independent and NPA vote to President Trump..

    And Democrats can't win without the Independent and NPA voters...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:
  15. [15] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Excellent FTP once again!

    Re: 'The pace of the moderators and the responses was noticeably better than the first two debates. This could have been due to only the top 10 being on stage (no truly desperate candidates, in other words), or it could have been due to the moderators not really caring much when people ran over their time segments. For whatever reason, it worked.'
    I read an article that the DNC requires diversity of the moderators for the 2020 debates. In this debate, at least, the inclusion of a moderator from Univision had a noticeable effect.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aaarrrgggghhhhhh Let's try that again...

    A Strong Bipartisan Path to Tackle Gun Violence
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-strong-bipartisan-path-to-tackle-gun-violence/ar-AAHbzkT

    THIS is how Crowd Based Mass Shootings will be addressed..

    Not by hysterical anti-gun laws that do nothing but violate the Constitutional rights of law abiding Americans..

    But by addressing the Mental Health aspect which gives LEOs across the country more access to mental health records...

    Because Rubio's legislation makes false reporting a felony a requirement to receive federal funding, this will incentive'ize states to crack down on those who use this law for nefarious or revenge-based purposes..

    IF (and that's a BIG IF) McConnell is holding up THIS piece of legislation then I, for one, would like to hear why...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: 'The pace of the moderators and the responses was noticeably better than the first two debates. This could have been due to only the top 10 being on stage

    No doubt...

    I read an article that the DNC requires diversity of the moderators for the 2020 debates. In this debate, at least, the inclusion of a moderator from Univision had a noticeable effect.

    Diversity for diversity's sake..

    Laughable... :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the simple fact is Warren and all the other candidates (sans Biden) are so far Left they simply cannot and will not appeal to the Independents and NPAs who will decide the 2020 election..

    And even Biden, with his pledge to ban all fossil fuels, is moving too far left to appeal to the Independents and NPAs (like me) who will decide this election...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, just because I KNOW you will whine and nit pick..

    Biden's plan to eliminate fossil fuels is bad for our national security, worse for our economy
    https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/456198-bidens-plan-to-eliminate-fossil-fuels-is-bad-for-our

    By making this pledge, Biden has rendered himself un-electable..

  20. [20] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    And speaking of primaries, I haven't read anyone expressing astonishment at the media's milquetoast coverage that the Republican Party leadership of at least 3 states have already crowned Trump the Republican candidate for 2020. Remember the frenzied coverage of every line of the DNC emails 'leaked' by Wikileaks? How outraged writers and commentators were that the DNC had its 'thumb on the scales' to favor Hillary over Sanders in the Democratic primaries?
    I won't ascribe motives for this omission, but I can think of several possibilities.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would You Leave Joe Biden Alone With Trump?
    By Eric Levitz@EricLevitz

    The Democratic front-runner cannot speak in complete sentences when he is feeling tired or defensive. And 90 minutes of debate is enough to make him tired. And a reference to something that he said about race in the 1970s is enough to make him defensive.

    These were my three main takeaways from the Democratic Party’s third presidential primary debate in Houston on Thursday. And they’ve left me rather apprehensive about the prospect of the Democrats sending Joe Biden into battle against Donald Trump next year. A three-hour debate can be tiring. But a 14-month campaign would seem considerably more so. If Biden can’t keep his talking points straight for an entire evening, what shape will he be in after running the gauntlet between today and his televised showdowns with the president next fall? And if a pointed question from an ABC News anchor can reduce him to spasms of anxious blather, how well will he hold up when Trump comes after his family?
    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/democratic-debate-raises-questions-about-bidens-age.html

    Stick a fork in Joe.. He's done...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    And speaking of primaries, I haven't read anyone expressing astonishment at the media's milquetoast coverage that the Republican Party leadership of at least 3 states have already crowned Trump the Republican candidate for 2020.

    Even if it were factually accurate... So???

    How is that any different than Dumbocrats crowning Hillary in 2016?? No one seemed to mind about that here in Weigantia.. Hell, some, if not most, even denied it was happening..

    And Trump is President so his "coronation" makes a lot of sense..

    Remember the frenzied coverage of every line of the DNC emails 'leaked' by Wikileaks? How outraged writers and commentators were that the DNC had its 'thumb on the scales' to favor Hillary over Sanders in the Democratic primaries?
    I won't ascribe motives for this omission, but I can think of several possibilities.

    Motivation is easy..

    "A divided house cannot stand"
    -Abraham Lincoln

    Republicans are united in a manner Democrats wish for..

    Oh sure, you have a few malcontents, a few Trump/America haters..

    I especially like how ya'all treat Joe Wilson as ya'all's bestest buddy when ya'all demonized him to hell and back when he called Odumbo a liar.. :D

    Simply proves HHPTDS is alive and well in Weigantia..

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    "Democrats believe that marijuana should be made legal at the federal level, which would mean not only finally ending the destructive and counterproductive War On Weed, but would also mean that marijuana should be treated like alcohol across the entire country. States, counties, and towns and cities would be free to regulate the sale of marijuana to their heart's content -- they can continue banning all sales in those places where the citizens really want that. But nobody could ever again be arrested and locked in prison merely for possessing marijuana, period. Just as today I can legally drive through a dry county with a six-pack of beer in my car, everyone should be able to do the same thing with marijuana all over this country. The War On Weed is finally about to come to an end, and you can thank Democrats for leading the way out of this quagmire."

    And yet, you would support Biden in the General even though he still wants to keep marijuana criminalized...

    Lil bit o' contradiction there, eh? :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    NOAAgate Update...

    To paraphrase Dr Peter Venkmen...

    "The {Official NOAA Update} is STILL standing!!!"

    Remember how ya'all went on and on about how the NOAA statement was "unsigned" and was, therefore, somehow not valid???

    Turns out the acting NOAA Cheif Neil Jacobs and his chief of staff were the ones that crafted the message..

    So, once again, the FACTS prove how completely and utterly WRONG ya'all were..

    However, to be fair, I was wrong on one point as well. I thought there would be at least 2 Weigantians who would man up and concede they were wrong...

    No such luck.. HHPTDS permeates Weigantia deeper than even I thought.. :^(

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in ANOTHER hysterical bullshit President Trump accusation that went absolutely NO WHERE...

    Rachel Maddow’s Turnberry Tale

    Eager to unearth presidential misconduct, she accused members of the United States Air Force of abandoning their “integrity.”
    To a certain kind of Rachel Maddow viewer, there are few more titillating preludes to a news segment than the one she delivered Monday: “If you have not seen it yet, you are going to want to sit down.”

    Maddow’s story began, as many of her stories do, with President Trump, this time focused on his hotel in Scotland. The Turnberry Resort, a Trump golf hotel, is located some 50 miles south of Glasgow. Not far from that resort is the charming, if small, Glasgow Prestwick Airport; with a population under 10,000, the town of Penwick is not exactly a tourist destination, and the town’s airport has teetered on the brink of financial insolvency for nearly a decade. Because Glasgow Prestwick Airport is relatively close to the Turnberry Resort, fiscal issues at the local airport would portend similar doom for the Trump hotel, which relies on potential customers who fly in and out of Prestwick.

    Here, in Maddow’s telling, is the rub: The United States Air Force refueled one of their C-17 aircrafts at Prestwick Airport on a return flight from Kuwait this spring. Maddow insists that it would have been “much cheaper” to fuel up at a military base — a supposed fact that heightened her alarm about the propriety of the stop in the first place. If this seemingly strange choice in fuel station weren’t enough, the Air Force subsequently stayed overnight at the Trump-owned Turnberry Resort. Both of these actions, said Maddow, were highly unusual and enough to arouse suspicion of malfeasance. Indeed, it was proof that the “U.S. military is in on it now,” the “it” being the Trump administration’s “corruption” and violation of the emoluments clause. The event might even reveal endemic corruption in the armed forces and could serve as a broader indictment of “the U.S. military and its integrity.”

    I’m glad I sat down.
    https://tinyurl.com/y2gfmd8p

    Like the Alabama/Dorian bullshit, like the 'fofeve' bullshit.. Democrats will hysterically lose their frakin' heads over President Trump at the drop of a dime.. :^/

    Nice ta see that CW didn't even give this total piece of hysterical horseshit a mention...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden Lied His Face Off About the Iraq War Last Night
    Our score for Biden’s performance: 8 million pinocchios.

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/22056/joe-biden-iraq-war-democratic-debate-2020

    Looks like Biden is STILL not coming clean on his vote to authorize the 2003 Iraq War...

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Take me to the river
    Drop me in the water"
    -Talking Heads

    So 9 in 10 people is the whole damn river. 8 in 10 people is aboot as close as you can get to 9 in 10.

    8 in 10 people want the big money out of politics, including a majority of Republicans.

    If every Democrat realizes climate change exists, is a danger and we need to act as soon as we can to halt and reverse it why are their heads stuck in the sand on the first step to addressing climate change- removing the major obstacle to addressing climate change by getting the big money out of politics?

    If the Democrats really want to do the things you say they do on climate change or any other issue in Friday Bullshit Points then they need to prove they really mean it by taking action to get the big money out of politics.

    This Crimea River act over the pollution of the river system by the Republicans is just empty rhetoric when the Democrats are also polluting the river system by allowing themselves to be baptized by the big money interests and is way beyond getting old.

    Once again, FBP was obtained from that river in Egypt.

    Get Real.

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If Democrats can agree on the goals of healthcare, but discuss different approaches, why can't they discuss all approaches to something 80% of citizens want?

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    If every Democrat realizes climate change exists, is a danger and we need to act as soon as we can to halt and reverse it why are their heads stuck in the sand on the first step to addressing climate change- removing the major obstacle to addressing climate change by getting the big money out of politics?

    No one denies that the planet's climate is changing.. It's been changing for billions of years..

    It's the epitome of human arrogance to think that humans can control the planet's climate...

    It's the epitome of human stoopidity to think that humans can STOP climate change..

    I'm just sayin'...

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    I saw a show where they had seen a lake appear that shouldn't be there.

    Turned out it was made by beavers.

    So if beavers can have an effect on the planet, so can humans.

    We may not be able to have an effect on all climate change, but we can have an effect on our contribution to it's acceleration.

    Just as we can have an effect on changing the climate in our political system by removing the big money that is a danger and needs to be acted on as soon as possible to halt and reverse it which is the real point of my comment.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    So if beavers can have an effect on the planet, so can humans.

    The beavers had an effect on a small (VERY SMALL, comparatively speaking) section of the planet..

    My favorite analogy is this..

    Humans are like a man sitting in a dingy in the middle of the Pacific ocean.. The man stands up and flops out HIS dingy and takes a piss into the ocean..

    Yea, probably not the BEST thing that could happen in that small small part of the ocean, I will grant you..

    But the idea that this one man can affect the entirety of the ocean with his pollution is utterly and completely ridiculous. The very idea shows the human tendency to over-inflate their own sense of importance..

    We may not be able to have an effect on all climate change, but we can have an effect on our contribution to it's acceleration.

    Even if this were true, which it may or may not be, the Left is talking about REVERSING the humans' alleged effect on the climate.. That is not possible..

    Put it another way..

    If you have a 100 Ton earth mover in Neutral that is on a slight downward incline.... And it starts to roll very very slowly.. You get behind it and push and push and push and push.. Yea.. You MIGHT be have some miniscule effect on the forward acceleration on the earth mover...

    But what's going to happen to you if you move to the FRONT of the earth mover and try to push it the OTHER way??

    You go splat..

    SO it is with climate change.. Humans try to get in FRONT of climate change to push it the OTHER way...

    Humans go SPLAT....

    Global warming efforts are utterly for naught because NO ONE has a plan on how to deal with the two BIGGEST carbon producers on the planet..

    China and India...

    So, it's all completely and utterly pointless..

  32. [32] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I merely pointed out the FACT that if the USA bans fossil fuels, as the Dem candidates want to do, there would cease to BE a USA..

    Oh, the hysteria!

    Your usual lack of understanding of what a "fact" is continues I see. Banning new leases on fossil fuels is to move the economy to other ENERGY sources. I have not seen a democratic candidate propose a ban on industrial based oil uses. You are welcome to prove me wrong (though you probably ought to look up "prove" in the dictionary before trying considering how off you are on the word "fact".)

    We all know you did not read the list but just copied and pasted it (put the first few sentences in a search engine and you will see. Generally true for anything Michale posts...). But if you actually read the list, you will realize that much of the list is is trace levels of petroleum products and the vast majority of the list can be made with non-petroleum based alternatives. It just happens to be cheaper at the moment to use oil. And even if your copied and pasted point was correct, which it is not, it would be a stronger argument for getting off oil based fuels, so we can make those products far in to the future, as we are burning though oil quite quickly and will likely get to a point in the not to distant future where the petroleum based versions of these industrial materials are more expensive than their non-petroleum based alternatives.

    You can nit pick all you want, Russ.

    It's what you do when you know you have lost..

    Well, it's certainly what you do as proven by this subject. Hilarious. A true Trumpian, when facing certain defeat, claim victory! Except you are only fooling yourself...

    But the idea that this one man can affect the entirety of the ocean with his pollution is utterly and completely ridiculous. The very idea shows the human tendency to over-inflate their own sense of importance..

    Or it just shows you complete lack of understanding of science as has been proven many, many times. We are not talking about one man, we are talking about 7 billion...

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Actually it was a large lake created by forty years and many generations of beavers in that small section of the planet.

    And if was over 6 billion beavers we would all be wearing hip waders and using boats instead of cars.

    Piss is biodegradable.

    One man dumping toxic chemicals into the Pacific Ocean would be bad for that small part of the ocean.

    Billions of people dumping toxic chemicals into the oceans of the world and pumping toxic chemicals into the air is bad for the entire ocean and ecosystem.

    Even the beavers.

    We may not be able to reverse the damage we have done, but we can stop multiplying the damage and give the planet time to correct itself.

    I don't care what the left or the right is bullshitting aboot.

    Just because one or the other is proposing stupid shit doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can and try to figure out things we don't have an answer to right now. It's not an excuse to do nothing.

    You didn't really think that dodge would work on me, did you? :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Banning new leases on fossil fuels is to move the economy to other ENERGY sources.

    Yea? What would those OTHER energy sources be??

    Wind??? Solar???

    So, basically we have power when the wind is blowing (maybe your hot air) and then the sun is shining.. :eyeroll:

    There IS no other alternative energy source save nuclear that is ready for deployment to replace fossil fuels.

    Anyone who doesn't realize that is a moron..

    Yer not a moron, are you?? Bashi??

    Or it just shows you complete lack of understanding of science as has been proven many, many times. We are not talking about one man, we are talking about 7 billion...

    And we are talking about an entire planetary system that has been going on for BILLIONS of years..

    The comparison is apt..

    It's those who only see their hysterical Party slavery agenda who can't see the reality..

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually it was a large lake created by forty years and many generations of beavers in that small section of the planet.

    If it ain't the Pacific or Atlantic ocean it doesn't mean squat..

    One man dumping toxic chemicals into the Pacific Ocean would be bad for that small part of the ocean.

    Billions of people dumping toxic chemicals into the oceans of the world and pumping toxic chemicals into the air is bad for the entire ocean and ecosystem.

    Would STILL be bad for a small part of the ocean..

    You people don't realize the VASTNESS that is being discussed here..

    You want to talk MAJOR catastrophes??

    Tunguska.... Chernobyl... Krakatoa... Yucatan asteroid...

    THOSE are cataclysmic events..

    And guess what..

    THE PLANET SURVIVED ALL OF IT!!! Not only SURVIVED, but FLORISHED!!!

    You honestly think that a piddly ass 6 billion humans are going to make a dent in a planetary system that survived (AND FLORISHED!!!) all that I mentioned??

    You people must be in places where pot is legal because ya'all are high as a kite if you honestly believe the bullshit yer spewin'....

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, basically we have power when the wind is blowing (maybe your hot air) and then the sun is shining..

    C'mon, yer head can't be that far up your ass, that you've forgotten that batteries exist? And guess what? They're running cars with them. At night!

    NO ONE has a plan on how to deal with the two BIGGEST carbon producers on the planet - China and India...

    Ah, but they did! The Paris accords, remember? The same one that Trump tore up. Had China and India on it.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    C'mon, yer head can't be that far up your ass, that you've forgotten that batteries exist? And guess what? They're running cars with them. At night!

    Yea.. THANK you for proving my point.

    A single car.. My son has a Tesla 3 and, at BEST, he can drive for a few hours before needing a charge...

    And you want to power an entire HOUSE!!???

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Com'on Bashi.. I *KNOW* you are not THAT stoopid.. Are you??

    Battery technology is as bad as solar and wind technology.. NONE of it can meet the needs that Fossil Fuels meets..

    NONE.. And yet, YOU want to have a Democrat in there who is going to ban fossil fuels..

    "Whatta marrooon..."
    -Bugs Bunny

    h, but they did! The Paris accords, remember? The same one that Trump tore up. Had China and India on it.

    Yer right.. It DID have China & India on it..

    China and India saying that they are going to build as many coal plants as they want til at LEAST 2030 and the rest of the world can piss off....

    And THAT is the agreement that Odumbo signed!!???

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    It's a damn good thing President Trump DID rip up that deal and get the US out of it.

    Funny thing is, the US is the ONLY country that is actually MEETING the Paris Accords committments..

    NO OTHER COUNTRY is...

    You have been gone a long time Bashi... Your brain has atrophied...

  38. [38] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/biden-s-controversial-debate-response-on-legacy-of-slavery-68955205566

    This segment with Joy Reid is interesting. Her guest explains why he thinks JB's "record player" answer is disqualifying. Reid says, at this point, older Black folks still absolutely support Biden but the sad thing is, she says, it's because they feel strongly white voters want a "soft-racist" (my phrase) to be elected coz they (racist whites) will feel more comfortable.

    Anand counters with the "it's still early" argument. I'm with him, but I also understand that, sadly, black Americans assume the worst about the electorate because they always bear the brunt of America's worst people.

    OTOH: Anand says that after he tweeted in response to the exchange during the debate he was private-messaged by Blotus-Campaign people who wanted to send him a bunch of oppo research THEY have on JB in which he (JB) exhibits his "soft-racism" (or as Jemele Hill labelled it, paternalistic racism).

    Per Anand, Blotus campaign is all set to paint JB as a racist.

    Anand declined their offer but warns the Blotus camp see this as a weakness they can exploit. I'm assuming they think they can depress black turnout.

    Sigh.

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    A single car.. My son has a Tesla 3 and, at BEST, he can drive for a few hours before needing a charge...

    "for a few hours"? Where does he go every day? Most folks drive for an hour, plug it in, go for more. Not really that different from gasoline. Put a battery stack in your backyard, your house can go for weeks without any refill.

    China and India saying that they are going to build as many coal plants as they want til at LEAST 2030 and the rest of the world can piss off.

    But yer changing the terms even as you talk about it - yer first statement was that we couldn't bring China and India on board - well, we did that. That was when Trump said that he could do "better". I'm still waiting for "better"...

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Chernobyl was caused by man.

    The planet survived, but not all it's inhabitants.

    If you're not stoned and you believe the bullshit you're spewing you should look into correcting the damage in your analytical system.

    There's something manmade entering your system that is causing it to malfunction.

    Fox News? :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    "for a few hours"? Where does he go every day? Most folks drive for an hour, plug it in, go for more. Not really that different from gasoline.

    WHat planet are you on!?? I don't know of ANYONE who fills their gas tank and then drives for an hour, only to fill it up again...

    Put a battery stack in your backyard, your house can go for weeks without any refill.

    Actually, the battery stack would BE your entire backyard.. And if you have a week or two of cloudy days, yer screwed..

    What part of the technology is not ready to supplant fossil fuels is hard for you to understand??

    But yer changing the terms even as you talk about it - yer first statement was that we couldn't bring China and India on board - well, we did that.

    No, we didn't.. They are STILL acting EXACTLY as they did BEFORE the bullshit accord.

    How is that bringing them on board??

    That was when Trump said that he could do "better". I'm still waiting for "better"...

    Yer a bigot and wouldn't acknowledge "better" if it came up and bitch-slapped you silly...

    The simple fact is, eliminate fossil fuels and you eliminate the good ol US of A...

    You can't admit the facts because you have been suckered in by the Global Warming religion...

    I forgive you...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    The planet survived, but not all it's inhabitants.

    But the PLANET survived...

    According to DUmbocrats, the PLANET is going to be destroyed in 9 years, 12 years or 20 years..

    ANd THAT is bullshit and everyone here knows it.

    They just CAN'T admit it..

    There's something manmade entering your system that is causing it to malfunction.

    Yes, the crazy ones ALWAYS see the others as crazy..

    I AM not the one who believes that the planet is going to be destroyed in 10 years.. :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, the battery stack would BE your entire backyard.. And if you have a week or two of cloudy days, yer screwed..

    Not to mention the environmental catastrophe if your batteries leak or explode..

    What part of THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT READY TO REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS is too hard for you to understand??

    Jeeze, it's like talking to my 2 year old little granddaughter... :eyeroll:

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Actually, the battery stack would BE your entire backyard.. And if you have a week or two of cloudy days, yer screwed..

    Man, you are so far behind on the times. The battery market is very, very young, but it's light years beyond what you think it is. For starters, it's more than Tesla, although they jumped first. It's also familiar names like Nissan, Mercedes, and Panasonic.

    Here's a list of Ten companies competing in this growing, though expensive market: https://www.businessinsider.com/rechargeable-battery-options-compete-tesla-2017-5

    So what part of THE TECHNOLOGY IS HERE don't you understand? :eyeroll:

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    So what part of THE TECHNOLOGY IS HERE don't you understand? :eyeroll:

    The part where you prove to me it could fully and completely supplant fossil fuels.

    It can't and you know you are full of shit when you claim it can..

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact that you think because it's good for cars it will also be good for houses and factories and schools and police stations and manufacturing plants PROVES how full of shit you are..

    What happened to you, Bashi?? You USED to be a challenge..

    Getting soft in yer old age?? :D

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Solar panels have also: 1} dropped dramatically in price, and 2} don't really look like solar panels in some cases - new ones look like regular roof panels.

    In a few years they'll be standard, rather than optional.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    According to REAL scientists (not your global warming fakirs) current in-home battery capability is approx 8 percent of fossil fuels..

    That means that battery technology is ONLY able to handle about 8 percent of the load that normally is carried by fossil fuels...

    Come talk to me when batteries are ready to SUPPLANT fossil fuels, which is what we are talking about...

    :eyeroll:

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a few years they'll be standard, rather than optional.

    Yea, that prediction has been around for a decade... :eyeroll:

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The fact that you think because it's good for cars it will also be good for houses and factories and schools and police stations and manufacturing plants PROVES how full of shit you are..

    Why? I'm not an activist, but I can see the benefit of it right away. There are, right now, solar-powered factories in Germany (not the sunniest place on earth). It's not happening right away - there are thing to work out - but it's happening.

    You're the one with his head in the sand, worried that your precious petroleum will go the way of tin cups. Relax dood - the only problem is, is that Trump could hinder the industry so badly, that we're playing catch-up for the rest of the century.

  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    According to REAL scientists (not your global warming fakirs) current in-home battery capability is approx 8 percent of fossil fuels..

    What does that mean? That we could all reduce our energy usage by 8% right now? Or that if we stack a dozen of them, we'd have 100%? It's just pure bullshit.

    There are dozens of ways to reduce fossil fuel usage, besides batteries, and the market place is ready and raring to sell them to us.

    You and your Republicants are way behind the curve trying to stop it...it's just not happening. Best that you could do is stop US from benefiting first!

  52. [52] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Decriminalized illegal border crossings is defacto open borders.

    No, it is not. And no matter how many times you repeat this, it won’t change the FACT that you are wrong! Decriminalizing it would not remove ports of entry, we would still use passports to enter into the country from foreign countries. That is “open borders”...what our country had prior to 1924...

    Decriminalization simply makes being here without documentation a civil offense that is handled in civil court. Crossing illegally would still be a crime.

    I also noticed you ignored the FACT that Warren DID say she would give free, full health care to crimmigrants…

    I am pretty sure that Warren raised her hand to being in favor for healthcare for ALL. Find me where anyone used the term “crimmigrants” in their questioning!

    I know that you hate the thought of people who speak another language being offered medical treatment while they are in our country, even if it means that your medical needs would also be covered. I understand that your hatred of other races and nationalities would have you deny 97% of the population just to make sure the 3% are denied.

    Two quotes came to mind as I was responding to your posts.

    "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." LBJ


    "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in every country."
    -- Herman Göring at the Nuremberg trials

    Remember whose playbook you are using next time you say those who disagree with Trump “hate our country” and are “not real patriots”!

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why? I'm not an activist, but I can see the benefit of it right away.

    Of course you do..

    But, like Bashi, you are ignorant of the FACTS...

    Solar/Wind/Battery technology is, AT MOST, able to handle about 8% of the capabilities of fossil fuels..

    Where is the other 92% of power going to come from once your moronic Democrats ban fossil fuels..

    You see yer problem, Balthy???

    Your completely ignorant and you think your Party slavery will save you.. :eyeroll:

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ

    I am pretty sure that Warren raised her hand to being in favor for healthcare for ALL.

    Yea and like the NOAA statement and everything else to do with President Trump, you are completely and utterly WRONG...

    But you should be use to that by now.. :D

  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    For the first time in this country’s history, renewables generated more electricity than coal.

    Last month, renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydro actually outpaced coal generation, per data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and an analysis by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. That's never happened before. It's a landmark moment for renewables; no one can say that they can't compete with traditional fossil fuel energy sources anymore.

    How did we reach this point? Well, part of the answer is timing. It’s springtime in the U.S, which means hydro power is peaking thanks to all the melting snow. At the same time, many coal plants around the country are shutting down for maintenance and upgrades. Renewables won’t outcompete coal all year round, at least not yet.

    But this record was also, in large part, because renewables have been getting cheaper and more powerful for years. Decades of innovation have gone into every wind turbine and solar panel in this country, and these energy sources have been getting exponentially cheaper.

    At the same time, coal is increasingly unprofitable for utilities. Most coal plants in this country are nearing the end of their expected lifespans, so maintenance costs are skyrocketing. The cost of coal itself has stagnated over the past decade, so there’s very little room to actually make money.

    Recently, a series of analyses have found that for many regions in the U.S, it’s actually cheaper to close down an existing coal plant and build a renewable plant in its place than to continue operating the coal plant. And in some parts of the country, that’s exactly what’s happening. Dozens of coal plants have closed over the past few years, and the U.S. is adding new solar and wind capacity at a record pace.

    So while renewables will only outpace coal for a few months in 2019, eventually this will happen every month. Soon, renewables will be outcompeting every other energy source, and they will become the only energy source in a few decades.

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a27347375/renewables-outproduced-coal-power-in-the-us-for-the-first-time-ever/

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    What does that mean? That we could all reduce our energy usage by 8% right now?

    At least you admit your ignorance.. That's a point in your favor, Balty..

    What it means is that Solar/Wind/Battery technology is ready to assume 8% of the grid load for the United States..

    If the Democrat Candidate actually WINS the election and unilaterally ban fossil fuels as they all have claimed they would, then that means there will be 92% of the power required to run the US no where to be found..

    The renewable technology is NOT READY to be deployed as a REPLACEMENT for fossil fuels..

    Now matte HOW many wishes ya'all make for rainbows and unicorns, it's NOT going to happen.

    And anyone who CLAIMS that it CAN happen is an ignorant MORON..

    Can't make it any plainer than that...

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the first time in this country’s history, renewables generated more electricity than coal.

    Yea, and after that unicorns will carry you over the rainbow... :eyeroll:

    You DO realize, Russ.. That the ONLY reasons renewables have outpaced coal is that the US has cut way way WAY back in the use of coal in favor of Natural Gas...

    So, of course renewables have surpassed coal.. Because there is VERY little coal in use..

    DUH........

    I have to admit, I am actually surprised...

    Ya'all have reached NEW heights in your ignorance of the facts and reality..

    And THAT really says something...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess ya'all must have missed this comment.. :D

    NOAAgate Update...

    To paraphrase Dr Peter Venkmen...

    "The {Official NOAA Update} is STILL standing!!!"

    Remember how ya'all went on and on about how the NOAA statement was "unsigned" and was, therefore, somehow not valid???

    Turns out the acting NOAA Cheif Neil Jacobs and his chief of staff were the ones that crafted the message..

    So, once again, the FACTS prove how completely and utterly WRONG ya'all were..

    Remember how ya'all went on and on about how the NOAA OFFICIAL was "unsigned".. Even after I pointed out that ALL NOAA Statements on the web site are unsigned..

    Ya'all thought it meant that it was a phony..

    Ahahahahahahaha How wrong ya'all were... AGAIN...

    :D

    I would ask if ya'all EVER get tired of being wrong..

    But, it's obvious from the facts around here that ya'all don't.. :D

  59. [59] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Solar/Wind/Battery technology is, AT MOST, able to handle about 8% of the capabilities of fossil fuels..

    Where is the other 92% of power going to come from once your moronic Democrats ban fossil fuels..

    See the above post! And I think that I finally figured out why this confuses you so much..

    You are used to destroying things we rely on without having a replacement ready to fill the void you’ve created! Your desire to get rid of ObamaCare without having any replacement ready so that people can smoothly transition and never lose their coverage has been made to sound so acceptable to you that you think that is how these things have to go. Cults work that way.

    We have no intention of eliminating the fossil fuel industry before renewable energy sources have been proven to be able to handle our energy needs. We do not blindly legislate out of spite or hatred. We don’t drop our support of legislation simply because someone we don’t like also supports it. We’ve got the GOP acting as a constant reminder of the dangers that come from acting against your own interests just to hurt others. Fossil fuels will be phased out eventually. And this is probably hard for you to hear... but we aren’t doing it out of spite for conservatives!

  60. [60] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    BashiBazouk [32]

    Appreciate the assist! Michale has a major tell...when he claims to have the FACTS, he knows he has lost.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww right.. My time belongs to my lovely wife now..

    You guys go back, lick your wounds...

    We'll start fresh about 0200hrs EDT... :D

  62. [62] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, of course renewables have surpassed coal.. Because there is VERY little coal in use..

    So why has Trump focused on protecting and promoting the coal industry? That would make no sense! Hope Trump doesn’t find out that you’ve contradicted him!

  63. [63] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LWYH-

    Trump needs to set an example and start using some nice, clean coal to heat the White House....not just the furnaces, but the fire places as well. There are probably coal bunkers in the WH basement, and coal tarps to keep everything clean and tidy when coal trucks arrive to fill them up. Don't stop at the WH! All Trump resorts and hotels should be coal fired as well! The wealthy will love romance of coal.

    Air Force 1 should be converted to coal slurry - yes it's doable, and the South Africans are doing it with their turbojets. Slurry can fuel Marine 1, and the armored limo fleet too! Golf carts - well, that may be a stretch.

  64. [64] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Looking futther into the golf carts, coal is mostly carbon, and lead/carbon batteries are a thing. So are carbon/carbon batteries for that matter. So, that's another way that The Trump Organization can embrace their clean little buddy coal. All coal, all the time!

  65. [65] 
    TheStig wrote:

    A Google search reveals that Greenland is rich in coal reserves! That's why Trump wants to buy it...to keep more coal and coal related jobs in America! Sly devil...doesn't mind getting his hands dirty...I mean clean. My bad.

    Harris is pretty good at marking things....I'm wlling to turn this marketing project over over to him.

  66. [66] 
    dsws wrote:

    How did we reach a point where renewables provided more electricity than coal?

    Fracking.

    Natural gas is so much cheaper than coal, that it's economical to shut down old coal burning power plants early, and replace them with gas burning ones. And having lots of wind and solar is feasible because new gas burning power plants can vary their output much more readily than other types, to provide power on demand while getting the full benefit of the non-dispatchable sources.

    Hooray for fracking. It pollutes far less than coal, too.

  67. [67] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    CW:

    By my calculations, May 13, 2033 will be the next time that there's a full moon on Friday the 13th. Plan accordingly!

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    How did we reach a point where renewables provided more electricity than coal?

    Fracking.

    Natural gas is so much cheaper than coal, that it's economical to shut down old coal burning power plants early, and replace them with gas burning ones. And having lots of wind and solar is feasible because new gas burning power plants can vary their output much more readily than other types, to provide power on demand while getting the full benefit of the non-dispatchable sources.

    Hooray for fracking. It pollutes far less than coal, too.

    And what has EVERY Democrat Candidate promised to do from day one of their Presidency???

    BAN FRACKING :eyeroll:

    I swear, it's like the Dem candidates are TRYING to hand the election to President Trump...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    So why has Trump focused on protecting and promoting the coal industry? That would make no sense!

    Yer right..It makes no sense to people who hate Americans and want to screw them over..

    That would be your Dumbocrat Party..

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    We have no intention of eliminating the fossil fuel industry before renewable energy sources have been proven to be able to handle our energy needs.

    And yet, not a SINGLE one of your Democrat candidates have made that distinction..

    NOT A SINGLE ONE has stated that they will WAIT until there is viable replacements before they ban fossil fuels..

    NOT A SINGLE ONE has stated that they will WAIT until there is a viable replacement before the ban FRACKING..

    So, the ONLY logical conclusion is that, as usual, you are full of shit and spewing hysterical platitudes that are not factually accurate..

    This seems to be a pattern with you, eh? :D

    But I still like ya.. :D

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    NOT A SINGLE ONE has stated that they will WAIT until there is viable replacements before they ban fossil fuels..

    NOT A SINGLE ONE has stated that they will WAIT until there is a viable replacement before the ban FRACKING..

    And do you know WHY none of your Dumbocrats have made that distinction??

    Because they KNOW that their pregresso base would tear them a new one IF THEY DID make such a distinction...

    Once again... You have your hysterical BS..

    I have the FACTS...

    Maybe yer new buddy Bashi can help ya out... :D Oh wait.. HE ran away.. :D

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ANOTHER great idea from a man replete with great ideas..

    Trump floats possible defense treaty days ahead of Israeli elections
    http://news.trust.org/item/20190914153639-gas4s

    A Mutual Defense Treaty with Israel.

    AWESOME!!!!

    I know, I know.. It upsets ya'all.. Ya'all would prefer a Mutual Defense Treaty with Iran or Hezbollah or Hamas.... :eyeroll:

    That's why a Democrat won't be President in our lifetimes..

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Brett Kavanaugh is hit with a fresh sexual misconduct allegation from his time at Yale in the 1980s amid claims the FBI did NOT investigate the incident before his contentious confirmation

    Max Stier said he saw friends push Kavanaugh's penis into female student's hand

    He reportedly saw it happen at a party, a New York Times article reveals

    Stier told senators and FBI, but the bureau reportedly did not investigate

    The claim is similar to the allegation made by accuser Deborah Ramirez

    She alleged Kavanaugh exposed his penis to her and thrust it in her face

    Christine Blasey Ford last year came forward with sexual assault allegations

    Said 17-year-old Kavanaugh held her down on a bed at high school party when she was 15 and tried to remove her clothing

    She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed on October 6 last year
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7464903/New-sexual-misconduct-allegation-leveled-against-Supreme-Court-Justice-Brett-Kavanaugh.html

    YAAAAWWNNNN

    Dumbocrats want to re-litigate the Kavanaugh confirmation again.. How amazingly coincidental that this new "revelation" comes out almost to the day of the anniversary of the Kavanaugh confirmation..

    What *IS* it about Dumbocrats that they keep wanting to get bitch-slapped over and over again... :eyeroll:

    Morons...

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Max Stier, the latest liar and moron to accuse Justice Kavanaugh, runs a Left Wing activist cell...

    But I am SUUUURREEE that THAT is entirely coincidental..

  75. [75] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Hooray for fracking. It pollutes far less than coal, too."

    Yes, burning natural gas pollutes far less than burning coal.

    But obtaining natural gas pollutes more than coal.

    The amount of energy used to obtain the gas, the chemicals it puts into the ground and the gas that gets into groundwater and the gas that leaks into the air from the leaks in the wells, storage and pipelines causes more damage to the environment than the benefit achieved from burning natural gas over coal.

    30% of NEW wells develop leaks in the first 5 years of operation- and it only gets worse after 5 years.

    Pipelines leak so much that where the leaks are found the concentration of gas is so high that there is not enough oxygen present for combustion to occur.

    As for batteries, they have their own drawbacks and are not needed.

    Diesel engines can be adapted to run on vegetable oil. Since they work on compression rather than combustion the only by-product of this procedure is water vapor and oxygen.

    Much of the vegetable oil could even be grown locally in "factories" that run mostly on solar and wind power. If the pipelines or storage leak it is not toxic- it is biodegradable.

    The "problem" with this approach is that it would not allow energy companies to make money off the solar and wind power because citizens would have their own solar panels and wind generation.

    It would also be cheaper because it would not require large generation facilities and transmission lines to carry the power to the homes and businesses.

    The technology is available right now, but until we get the big money out of politics the solutions available will not be implemented because the politicians are working for the big money interests that are more interested in making money than solving a problem.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    The technology is available right now,

    It is not..

    There is NO TECHNOLOGY available today that can supplant fossil fuel energy..

    "accomadations" and "compromises" would have to be made if Democrats get their way and fossil fuels are banned...

    And, of course, you KNOW who is going to make those "accomadations" and "comprimises".. Everyone BUT the Democrat elites... :eyeroll:

    We see it now with all the Global Warming morons who demand everyone sacrifice but they are free to ride around the world in the private jets and SUV convoys.. :eyeroll:

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump expected to announce gun control legislation this week. But the substance of it is a mystery
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-control-legislation-trump-expected-to-announce-proposal-next-week-but-substance-is-a-mystery-2019-09-14/

    If there isn't any quid pro quo, IE a REAL compromise in this legislation, then I am going to be VERY disappointed in President Trump...

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Beto O'Rourke just did Republicans a massive favor on guns
    Chris Cillizza
    Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
    Updated 12:29 PM ET, Fri September 13, 2019

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/13/politics/beto-orourke-guns-debate/index.html

    Beto just wrote the ads that will keep the Senate in GOP hands, keep President Trump in the White House and hand the House over to the GOP

    Great job, Beto...

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is it possible that the debate on guns and gun control has been changed in a fundamental way by the recent spate of mass shootings? O'Rourke seems to believe it has. And maybe it has! But if it hasn't, then O'Rourke just handed Republicans a massive political gift: A club to bash the eventual Democratic nominee with on confiscating peoples' guns.

    Democrats.. Snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory once again.. :D

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    11

    Nailed it!

    Once again, you are arguing about what you wanted to hear, not what anyone actually said!

    Making up shit no one said and insisting they said it; it's what gaslighters and bullshitters do ad nauseam. It proves nothing more than the FACT that lying and propaganda is their primary modus operandi. To make matters worse, they follow that up with moaning incessantly and whining like little bitches about "liars" and "fake news."

    It's hysterical to watch them in action: Liars and gaslighters like Trump and his useful idiots whining incessantly like little bitches about liars. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. And this proves nothing more than the FACT that they're lying liars who don't mind lying at all. :)

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Opinions | Why Biden will never recover from his ‘record player’ line

    Just to be sure I heard it correctly, I replayed former vice president Joe Biden’s eye-popping gaffe from Thursday night’s debate instructing poor parents to put the record player on to help their children learn. “#Record player” was trending on Twitter by the time I took to the airwaves at 6 a.m. Friday, so my suspicion had already been confirmed: This was more than a gaffe that causes eye rolls. It was one of those gaffes that underscores a candidate’s central weakness and continues to bleed away votes long after its utterance.

    Recall Sen. John F. Kerry’s “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” or then-President Gerald Ford’s famous “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe” from a 1976 debate. Gaffes are like sharks. Some are sand sharks that scare you. Others are Jaws-like beasts. After Thursday night, Biden is going to need a bigger boat.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinions-why-biden-will-never-recover-from-his-record-player-line/ar-AAHiDG3

    Poor Joe.... I really feel sorry for the guy...

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We're not going to allow it to be used against fellow Americans anymore,"
    -Beto O'Rourke

    Beto just confirmed to the world that Democrat are, indeed, coming to confiscate Americans' guns..

    And ya'all think Texas will turn blue!??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, ya'all's problem is that Democrats ain't going to take SHIT until they can define what it is EXACTLY that's going to be taken..

    And, as you people have proven beyond ANY doubt, Democrats don't have a CLUE about guns..

    So, there ain't going to be any laws that ban guns..

    It simply will never happen..

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    18

    And even Biden, with his pledge to ban all fossil fuels, is moving too far left to appeal to the Independents and NPAs (like me) who will decide this election...

    Biden did not pledge to ban all fossil fuels. Typing a lie over and over does not magically turn it into a fact.

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    22

    How is that any different than Dumbocrats crowning Hillary in 2016?? No one seemed to mind about that here in Weigantia..

    We here in Weigantia accept your written admission that you are "no one."

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump’s starting to win big on controlling the southern border

    To listen to most Democrats, they’ve got President Trump on the run when it comes to immigration.

    The “big beautiful” wall he promised to build along the border with Mexico hasn’t gone up, and House Democrats will no longer fund even the border-security projects they supported in the past. Federal courts have also been preventing Team Trump from pushing through its efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants, let alone to attempt to fix a broken asylum system gamed by economic migrants from Central America who don’t fit the traditional definition of refugees fleeing for their lives.

    But anyone who believes sanctuary-movement backers and Dems seeking to decriminalize illegal immigration are beating the president needs a reality check.
    https://nypost.com/2019/09/13/trumps-starting-to-win-big-on-controlling-the-southern-border/

    Democrats are all bullshit and bluster... :D

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled to permit the administration to go on refusing to accept applications for asylum from migrants who have passed through another country without being denied asylum there, while a case challenging this common-sense policy works its way through the courts.

    That comes on the heels of the court’s decision in July to allow Trump to use money from the defense budget to build the border wall. It was yet another significant victory for the administration’s initiatives and a sign that the left’s judicial guerrilla war that had been stymieing the president is starting to crumble.

    Expect liberal efforts to prevent Trump from overturning President Barack Obama’s executive orders that effectively granted amnesty to millions of illegals to meet the same fate.

    Fact is, despite the beating Trump has continued to take from the media about government tactics aimed at stemming the surge of illegal immigrants over the southern border, his policies have started to show signs of success.

    I wonder why CW didn't mention all the losses that Democrats have suffered in the SCOTUS and all the WINS that President Trump is racking up.. :D

    Who would have thought that President Trump would continue to enjoy success against the ignorant and hysterical Dumbocrats..

    Oh... wait.. It was ME who accurately predicted all that and more.. :D

    Poor poor Dumbocrats.. They are sinking deeper and deeper.. :D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    While no one expects Mexico to pay for Trump’s wall, it is doing something more important: using its resources to stop its people from crossing over into the United States illegally. It has, for example, reinforced security on its southern border and set up checkpoints on highways leading north, dispatching 21,600 police and troops across the nation in the effort.

    So far in 2019, the US Border Patrol has arrested more than 400,000 migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras for crossing the border illegally. But only 4,300 Mexicans were caught doing so.

    It’s all strong evidence that, far from ignoring or rejecting Trump’s efforts to jawbone them into doing something to stop the flood of illegals, America’s most important southern neighbor is listening to him. Recall that Mexico stepped up actions to control the migrants in a bid to avoid tariffs Trump had threatened to impose.

    The message has also gotten through to those seeking to come to the United States illegally. Mexican officials have said there has been a “significant decrease” in the number of Central Americans entering their country this year for the purpose of illegally immigrating to the United States.

    Mexico's payment for the wall will come soon enough..

    But right now, Mexico is toeing President Trump's line quite effectively.. :D

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    31

    My favorite analogy is this..

    Humans are like a man sitting in a dingy in the middle of the Pacific ocean.. The man stands up and flops out HIS dingy and takes a piss into the ocean..

    Yea, probably not the BEST thing that could happen in that small small part of the ocean, I will grant you..

    But the idea that this one man can affect the entirety of the ocean with his pollution is utterly and completely ridiculous.

    You would have a point if there were only one "man" inhabiting the planet and taking a "piss" in only one body of water, but there obviously isn't so you definitely don't... and that fact makes your bullshit regarding climate change the proverbial "man" who is taking the "piss in the wind."

    Take your bullshit scenario of one and multiply it times approximately 8 billion.

    The very idea shows the human tendency to over-inflate their own sense of importance..

    Your "very idea" is bullshit and shows your tendency to turn every scenario into either a lie or a gross mischaracterization on your part.

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    BashiBazouk
    32

    Very well said. :)

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    33

    Very well said, Don. :)

    ^^^ not a typo ^^^

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    It makes sense. The campaign by Obama and other Democrats to grant amnesty and a wide array of benefits to illegal immigrants fueled the surge across the border, with new migrants seeking the same lenient treatment. That led to the crisis in which federal resources were overwhelmed by the sheer number of asylum-seekers, prompting much grandstanding and crocodile tears from the left.

    Trump’s critics have libelously denounced his attempts to enforce the law — and restore order at the border — as reminiscent of the Nazis and evidence of racism. Yet those efforts seem to be having the intended effect on those contemplating coming here without permission.

    With the courts recognizing Trump’s right to use his power to protect the border and with Mexico now cooperating with the United States, perhaps there’s a chance to break the long deadlock over immigration in Washington.

    President Trump rules..

    Dumbocrats droolz.. :D

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, everyone knows America’s immigration system is badly broken, but Democrats, who hope they will win control of both Congress and the White House next year, have prevented a compromise that would allow the so-called “Dreamers” to stay in the country in exchange for the building of a border wall. So a fix may have to wait until after the 2020 election.

    But no matter who wins next year, Trump has shown that, his intemperate rhetoric on the issue not withstanding, strict enforcement policies combined with the help of both the Supreme Court and the Mexicans can provide a way forward to fix an illegal-immigration problem that has long seemed insoluble.

    Democrat Candidates have guaranteed that they will be un-electable come Nov 2020.. From their plans to ban fossil fuels and fracking to their promise of open borders and full free health care for crimmigrants, there is simply NO PATH that would allow a Dem Candidate to claim the Oval Office..

    It really is THAT simple...

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    35

    You people don't realize the VASTNESS that is being discussed here..

    Said the guy who analogizes humanity using "one man" and toxic waste dumping using "pissing" in the ocean, when human urine is comprised of 95% water.

    You want to talk MAJOR catastrophes??

    Tunguska.... Chernobyl... Krakatoa... Yucatan asteroid...

    THOSE are cataclysmic events..

    And guess what..

    THE PLANET SURVIVED ALL OF IT!!! Not only SURVIVED, but FLORISHED!!!

    Said the guy who claims that the United States will cease to exist if fossil fuels are banned... which no candidate has pledged to ban all fossil fuels.

    You honestly think that a piddly ass 6 billion humans are going to make a dent in a planetary system that survived (AND FLORISHED!!!) all that I mentioned??

    You think the United States will vanish without oil production. *laughs*

    You people must be in places where pot is legal because ya'all are high as a kite if you honestly believe the bullshit yer spewin'...

    Congratulations, uneducated rube! Your latest pathetic attempt at moving the goalposts has exposed your own bullshit. :)

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Newt Gingrich: Dem presidential candidates doing a great job showing voters why Trump should be reelected
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/newt-gingrich-debate-boredom-and-disconnected-democrats

    Dumbocrats are writing all the GOP and RE-ELECT PRESIDENT TRUMP ads all by themselves....

    Every time Beto or Warren or Biden or KamalaSutra opens their mouths, they are PROVING how unelectable they are!! :D

    It's hilarious...

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    By contrast, Thursday’s Democratic debate was a bore, with an old-time politician tone that made it painful to sit through.

    After about 30 minutes of policy-wonk jargon about incomprehensible details of health policy, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., remarked: "This discussion has given the American people a headache."

    Like or dislike Trump, I can’t imagine a participant in a Trump-energized presidential debate saying – as South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg did – that the debates "are becoming unwatchable."

    The most revealing moment of the debate may have been former Vice President Joe Biden’s comment that to help poor children learn more words, parents should “make sure you have the record player on at night.”

    I can just imagine Progressive millennials shaking their heads in wonder asking, "What the hell is a 'record player'!???"

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    When debate moderator David Muir of ABC News questioned O’Rourke about his recent comments about firearms bans and confiscations, Muir asked bluntly: "Are you proposing taking away their guns?"

    Apparently, O’Rourke wanted to make absolutely certain that the millions of law-abiding Americans who own guns would understand that his candidacy was a mortal threat to their freedom and Second Amendment rights.

    "Hell, yes, we're going to take away your AR-15, your AK-47," O'Rourke said.

    Beto simply made all of the Dem candidates UN-ELECTABLE... :D

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    37

    C'mon, yer head can't be that far up your ass, that you've forgotten that batteries exist? And guess what? They're running cars with them. At night! ~ Balthasar

    Yea.. THANK you for proving my point.

    A single car.. My son has a Tesla 3 and, at BEST, he can drive for a few hours before needing a charge...

    And you want to power an entire HOUSE!!???

    A "single car." You are that stupid!?

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Com'on Bashi.. I *KNOW* you are not THAT stoopid.. Are you??

    Apparently you are stupid enough to identify Balthasar as "Bashi." You're a demonstrable idiot with his head so far up his ass it's hysterical and laughable. First it's "one man" and now it's "single car."

    Crack a book! :)

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    40

    Don is again dead on accurate.

    ^^^ This is again not a typo. ^^^ :)

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, of course there is Warren.. Not only has she pledged to give free and full health care to crimmigrants and to ban FRACKing, she has also pledged to throw all Americans off the health care plans they like..

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., also reminded millions of Americans about her elitist isolation from most people when she said: "I've actually never met anybody who likes their health insurance company."

    Warren’s comment is quite revealing since the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that 58 percent of Americans oppose a health care policy plan that would force them to give up the private insurance option. Only 37 percent favored getting rid of all private health insurance.

    Meanwhile, support for “Medicare-for-all” continues to drop when Americans’ are told it would raise their taxes (37 percent), threaten the current Medicare program (32 percent), and cause delays in treatment (26 percent).

    Warren, of course, represents the 37 percent. President Trump would (and will) be happy to defend the 58 percent.

    Once again... Democrats promising to make themselves completely and utterly unappealing to patriotic Americans..

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting..

    Holder cautions against potentially prosecuting Trump post presidency
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/politics/eric-holder-axe-files-impeachment/index.html

    Boy that's going to be disappointing for a lot of Democrats who are, basically, children..

  102. [102] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don Q [73]

    You need to check out that theory on diesel engines "working on compression rather than combustion". As far as I'm aware, the vegetable oil fuel is burning in the cylinders pretty much same as the petroleum distilate is in conventional diesel engines.

  103. [103] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    50

    Why? I'm not an activist, but I can see the benefit of it right away. There are, right now, solar-powered factories in Germany (not the sunniest place on earth). It's not happening right away - there are thing to work out - but it's happening.

    Yes, sir.

    You're the one with his head in the sand, worried that your precious petroleum will go the way of tin cups. Relax dood - the only problem is, is that Trump could hinder the industry so badly, that we're playing catch-up for the rest of the century.

    Exactly right! Their basic standard ridiculous argument regarding a myriad of things is that the inability to stop all __________ means doing nothing whatsoever about it while making up claims that their opponents want to ban it all. Pure effing BS!

  104. [104] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    And the PTSD queen is obviously still in shock over the Mueller Report having fizzled.

  105. [105] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    50

    Why? I'm not an activist...

    You're also not Bashi! :)

  106. [106] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    68

    And what has EVERY Democrat Candidate promised to do from day one of their Presidency???

    BAN FRACKING :eyeroll:

    Lie

  107. [107] 
    Kick wrote:

    FUN FACT: The typing of lies over and over does not magically turn them into facts. However, it does have the tendency to make you look like a hysterical moron. :)

  108. [108] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    83

    So, there ain't going to be any laws that ban guns..

    There already are.

    It simply will never happen..

    It already has.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, let's take our daily checkin with the NOAA shall we..

    Yep.. The OFFICIAL NOAA STATEMENT supporting President Trump is STILL posted..

    It has NOT been retracted...

    And now we know that it was the Acting Director of the NOAA who had a hand in posting that OFFICIAL statement with the help of his chief of staff..

    So, all the way around, all of ya'all's claims were complete and utter bullshit and President Trump (and myself incidentally) were proven 1000% factually accurate..

    Oh, the SHAME and EMBARRASSMENT ya'all must be feeling.. :D

  110. [110] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mike [109]: Once again, you've missed the point.

    we know that it was the Acting Director of the NOAA who had a hand in posting that OFFICIAL statement with the help of his chief of staff..

    ..and NOT NOAA scientists. Do you hear yourself?

    You're in favor of politicizing the Weather!

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    we know that it was the Acting Director of the NOAA who had a hand in posting that OFFICIAL statement with the help of his chief of staff..

    ..and NOT NOAA scientists. Do you hear yourself?

    You're in favor of politicizing the Weather!

    It was the HEAD of the NOAA.. A guy who's whose word you take as GOSPEL when he spews or authorizes your Global Warming crap..

    Irregardless of THAT fact, the point is, YOU claimed there would be a retraction by the head of NOAA.. You ALSO claimed (or at least intimated) that, because the OFFICIAL release was "not signed" that it was likely bogus..

    Are you prepared to man up and admit you were wrong on both points??

    Are you??

    Of course not.. Because you are JUST like you accuse Trump of being..

    You CAN'T admit when you are wrong..

    THAT is where your shame and embarrassment is apparent to all..

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mike [109]: Once again, you've missed the point.

    No.. YOU keep missing the point.. Intentionally.

    YOU WERE WRONG ... TWICE....

    And you CAN'T man up and admit it..

    That makes you no better than what you accuse Trump of..

    THAT is the point..

  113. [113] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    A guy who's whose word you take as GOSPEL

    Why I would take ANY Trump appointee's word as gospel is beyond me...

    YOU claimed there would be a retraction by the head of NOAA.. You ALSO claimed (or at least intimated) that, because the OFFICIAL release was "not signed" that it was likely bogus..

    It is bogus. Every scientist thinks so. I also thought that there was a shred of decency left in the headquarters of that agency. I was wrong.

  114. [114] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    this discussion has gone on far longer than the bounds of reason suggest it ought to. ok, so the president put out an incorrect forecast, then repeated that incorrect forecast on camera, complete with a presentation that would net any high school student a D. the commerce undersecretary who heads the NOAA repeated the incorrect forecast, chastised the NWS for accidentally being too accurate, and asked that they stick to the incorrect forecast going forward. the NWS scientists basically said thanks but no thanks, boss.

    all this should surprise... whom exactly? neil jacobs is in fact a doctor of atmospheric science, but clearly he was wearing a different hat when he penned that letter. by now, anybody who believes the statements of the president or his political appointments over those of the national weather service scientists probably deserves what they get. let's not make a mountain out of a moosepoop.

    JL

  115. [115] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    A guy who's whose word...

    you were right the second time around but forgot to erase the initial attempt.

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    this discussion has gone on far longer than the bounds of reason suggest it ought to. ok, so the president put out an incorrect forecast, then repeated that incorrect forecast on camera,

    Actually no.. The president put out a CORRECT forecast based on the information the NOAA briefed the President..

    . let's not make a mountain out of a moosepoop.

    Too late.. It would have been easy to avert by those claiming President Trump lied for them to admit they were wrong..

    But they CAN'T do that, even though they attack President Trump for the exact same thing..

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why I would take ANY Trump appointee's word as gospel is beyond me...

    You do when it suits your Global Warming hysterical bullshit agenda..

    It is bogus.

    Yea, you keep claiming that.

    But the OFFICIAL NOAA statement proves you wrong..

    And you approve of NOAA statements when they support your bullshit agenda..

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way..

    If the OFFICIAL NOAA statement had backed up YA'ALL'S claims, you would be touting the statement to the high heavens.

    But it DIDN'T... It PROVED how wrong ya'all were..

    So, you HAVE to condemn it..

    Your Party Slavery DEMANDS that..

  119. [119] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Actually no.. The president put out a CORRECT forecast based on the information the NOAA briefed the President...
    [snip]
    But the OFFICIAL NOAA statement proves you wrong..

    are you seriously going to debate on THOSE grounds? CW wrote a well-researched column about it:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/09/06/ftp541/

    August 28
    Raw computer model data was provided to state and local governments which shows the possible storm paths for Hurricane Dorian. A small minority of these paths (five percent) could have affected Alabama.
    [snip]
    September 1
    The tweet that launched a thousand denials appears:
    In addition to Florida - South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated. Looking like one of the largest hurricanes ever. Already Category 5. BE CAREFUL! GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

    to summarize, donald's information had had at most a 5% likelihood of being accurate FOUR DAYS BEFOREHAND, and ZERO chance of being factual at the time he first tweeted it.

    twenty minutes later, the NWS birmingham office posted a correction in response to frightened calls from misinformed alabama residents. everything after that, as i said, is just a mountain of moosepoop.

    JL

  120. [120] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    let me put this in terms i hope you'll understand. basically, donald's tweets and presentation and the subsequent NOAA memo are the equivalent of telling everyone in 2019 to make sure and update their mainframe to account for the Y2K bug.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    are you seriously going to debate on THOSE grounds? CW wrote a well-researched column about it:

    And, as the NOAA **OFFICIAL** Statement proves...

    CW was wrong..

    From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link.

    There it is in black and white..

    CW was wrong..

    President Trump was factually accurate in his statement at the time..

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    twenty minutes later, the NWS birmingham office posted a correction in response to frightened calls from misinformed alabama residents. everything after that, as i said, is just a mountain of moosepoop.

    Again, not factually accurate.

    The NWS guys are quoted at the time that they had no seen President Trump's tweet...

  123. [123] 
    dsws wrote:

    [75] Don

    Do you have a source handy that compares the impacts of mining and fracking? Coal mining throws entire mountain tops into the valleys as acid-leaching rubble, and makes rivers run red with dissolved heavy metals. I can't imagine fracking doing a tenth as much harm. But much that I could not imagine has nonetheless come to pass.

  124. [124] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And, as the NOAA **OFFICIAL** Statement proves...
    CW was wrong..

    that fallacy is called "appeal to authority." all the **OFFICIAL** statement really proves (combined with the factual data from the times involved) is that the **OFFICIAL** statement is incorrect.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    that fallacy is called "appeal to authority." all the **OFFICIAL** statement really proves (combined with the factual data from the times involved) is that the **OFFICIAL** statement is incorrect.

    OK.. So, every time ya'all post that "scientists" say bla bla bla about Global Warming ya'all are "appealing to authority" and it's a fallacy which means you are wrong??

    OK.. I'll remind you of that.. :D

    (combined with the factual data from the times involved) is that the **OFFICIAL** statement is incorrect.

    You have NO FACTS to support that the Official Statement was incorrect at the time..

    All you have is the biases and bigotry that tells you that President Trump can't EVER be factually accurate..

    The official statement still stands.. I know ya'all can't accept it because ya'all can't admit you are wrong..

    In that, ya'all are just like ya'all accuse President Trump of.. :D

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW complained at the beginning of this commentary that HuffPoop lied to him about the full moon on Friday the 13th...

    If the NOAA "lied" to President Trump, then THAT is on the NOAA....

    Or, is it your position that CW lied to us and the fact that HuffPoop lied to him is no excuse..

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm???

    Let's face reality..

    According to the NOAA, President Trump was briefed from 28 Aug THRU 2 Nov that Alabama was at risk for getting Tropical Storm winds..

    President Trump made his Alabama tweet on 1 Sep.. Definitely within that 28 Aug thru 2 Sep window.

    Now, if NOAA lied to President Trump, OK..

    If NOAA was WRONG to tell President Trump, OK...

    But NEITHER one is the fault of President Trump. He gave the info he got..

    So, either you condemn CW lying about a full moon on Fri the 13th or you concede that President Trump was factually accurate as far as he was told..

    A third possibility has you admitting that you are JUST LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP insofar as you can't admit when yer wrong.. :D

    Your choice...

    I am guessing that, by omission, you are going to do #3...

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK.. So, every time ya'all post that "scientists" say bla bla bla about Global Warming ya'all are "appealing to authority" and it's a fallacy which means you are wrong??

    Here.. lemme help ya out..

    "Er.. uh... That's different!!"

    There ya go.. Yer covered..

    :D

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    Do you have a source handy that compares the impacts of mining and fracking? Coal mining throws entire mountain tops into the valleys as acid-leaching rubble, and makes rivers run red with dissolved heavy metals. I can't imagine fracking doing a tenth as much harm. But much that I could not imagine has nonetheless come to pass.

    I would like to see that data as well..

    The fact is that fracking has allowed the US to take the top spot in fossil fuel exports *AND* allows the US to actually meet the emissions standards of the Paris Accords.. A feat that EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD that is actually a SIGNATORY to the accord has failed to do...

    Congrats to President Trump to be so prescient... :D

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Department...

    The New York Times Anti-Kavanaugh Bombshell Is Actually a Dud
    https://tinyurl.com/yyate5se

    Who could have thought that this new Kavanaugh "bombshell" was a total hoax and utter bullshit and puts TONS more egg on the face of the Democrat Party...

    Oh wait.. Again.. It was me!!! :D

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Serious question..

    Do your Dumbocrats EVER get tired of getting their asses handed to them and looking completely and utterly stoopid!??

    Do they??

    Because, from all the available facts.. It appears that they LOVE it because they do it so often..

    I'm just sayin'...

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    : “Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)”

    The "non profit" is actually a Democrat Left Wing hole in the wall cell..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    The book isn’t released until Tuesday, but Mollie Hemingway got a copy, and she writes on Twitter: “The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event.” Omitting this fact from the New York Times story is one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent memory.

    "One of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent memory"..

    And considering that there are SO MANY CASES of bad journalistic malpractice, that really says something..

    Again.. WHY is it ya'all Dumbocrats are so frakin' STOOPID???

    Anyone?? Anyone??? Buehler???

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kavanaugh accused of new sexual misconduct claim: NYT
    https://www.axios.com/kavanaugh-accused-of-new-sexual-misconduct-claim-nyt-22e7ad8b-869c-4d16-a688-b74507db80f1.html

    Apparently, this was all a bullshit ploy to sell a new book...

    What IS it about your Democrats that they are always so shady and full of shit???

    I predict it's gonna be a FUN day tomorrow!! :D I am going to have a LOT of fun with this..

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    OH MY GODS!!!!

    2,246 fetal remains found on property of abortion doctor who recently died
    https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/2246-fetal-remains-found-on-property-of-abortion-doctor-who-recently-died

    What kind of MONSTERS are Democrats!!!????

  134. [134] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    if the only evidence of global warming were that some elite collection of super-special scientists said so, then yes, it would be an appeal to authority fallacy. however, the way the science works is that you have multiple scientists from varied specializations independently converging on similar or related conclusions.

    however, in the case of "sharpie-gate," you're trying to make a far broader argument about a far narrower event. whether donald's incorrect information was his own fault or that of his underlings is immaterial. the fact is, the information donald tweeted was incorrect, and the people giving the correct information were threatened with being fired for doing so.

    presuming for a moment that none of this was donald's fault, it becomes his responsibility as president to sanction the individuals who gave him the incorrect information, and who continued feeding it to him well after its falseness was self-evident.

    JL

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    if the only evidence of global warming were that some elite collection of super-special scientists said so, then yes, it would be an appeal to authority fallacy. however, the way the science works is that you have multiple scientists from varied specializations independently converging on similar or related conclusions.

    So, appealing to authority is NOT a fallacy if the authority confirms what you believe?? :D

    however, in the case of "sharpie-gate," you're trying to make a far broader argument about a far narrower event. whether donald's incorrect information was his own fault or that of his underlings is immaterial.

    So, CW lied and the fact that he was lied to is immaterial??

    We have two pieces of FACT..

    One.. President Trump said that TS winds would threaten Alabama on 1 Sep..

    Two.. The NOAA confirms that THAT is what they told President Trump..

    All of the rest is just Left Wing anti-Trump spin..

    The FACTS are clear.. But the FACTs say something ya'all don't like..

    So you ignore the facts...

    That is the entire issue in a nutshell..

    presuming for a moment that none of this was donald's fault, it becomes his responsibility as president to sanction the individuals who gave him the incorrect information, and who continued feeding it to him well after its falseness was self-evident.

    How do you know he hasn't??

    You ASSUME because you don't like President Trump..

    The FACTS are clear.. NOAA backs up what President Trump stated...

    It's already apparent you won't believe anything President Trump says..

    But what's funny is ya'all quote the NOAA up the ying yang when it comes to the Global Warming con and THEN, the NOAA's word is gospel..

    Now that the NOAA says something ya'all DON'T LIKE... NOW their credibility is suspect..

    And you don't find that the LEAST bit odd?? ;D

    Personally, I find it hilarious.. :D

    Just in case you need a refresher

    Statement from NOAA

    September 6, 2019

    Welcome to noaa.gov

    From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link.

    The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.

    This is the FACT....

    All ya'all have is spin..

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, what ya think of the hysterical Dumbocrat Kavanaugh bullshit??? :D

    Amazing that Democrats could be so utterly stoopid.. :D

  137. [137] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    What Kavanaugh bullshit? When Republicans claimed the FBI had not found any wrong doing by Kavanaugh, they weren’t technically lying. There was absolutely no chance that they would have found anything since FBI investigators did not bother to interview anyone concerning the accusations being made against Kavanaugh! Can’t find what you refuse to look for!

    The Republicans demanded that the FBI be the ones to investigate the accusations against Kavanaugh. But the statute of limitations for any of the possible crimes associated with the accusations had long expired. The FBI doesn’t investigate non-crimes. So Republicans claims that “the FBI cleared Kavanaugh” just means there were no criminal charges filed; not that Kavanaugh did not do all of the things that his accusers claimed that he did!

    Why else do you think the entire “investigation” into allegations against Kavanaugh took just days? Republicans are dishonest. They have worked hard to destroy the reputations of the FBI and the DOJ to cover up their dishonesty.

  138. [138] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    dsws,

    One note on fracking — since Oklahoma started allowing fracking, there has been a massive increase in the number of earthquakes that the state experiences every year. Did you know that Oklahoma now suffers from more 3.0 earthquakes than Southern California every year? Fracking does allow for natural gas to be easily extracted, but the process requires a large amount of chemicals and water to be injected deep into the ground. This injection process is believed to have acted as lubricant for tectonic plates under OK. Check out the U.S.G.S’s website for more info on earthquakes and fracking.

  139. [139] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, appealing to authority is NOT a fallacy if the authority confirms what you believe??

    perhaps in your universe. however, what i wrote was something completely unrelated to that statement of yours.

    your appeal to authority is a fallacy because your claim depends SOLELY on authority to confirm its veracity. every other data point indicates that the claim is false.

    global warming is a fact, and yes it is confirmed by 97-99% of experts (depending on the extent of the claim) from various scientific disciplines. the fact that they ARE experts has ZERO bearing on the proof that any one of thousands of measurements they have taken provides to confirm their hypotheses.

    i.e. if there were a SHRED of solid evidence to back up what the president said at the time he said it, you wouldn't HAVE to make a dishonest appeal to authority because there'd be REAL facts to back up your statement. as things stand, you're just spinning your wheels and fooling exactly no one.

    JL

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    What Kavanaugh bullshit?

    The Kavanaugh bullshit where some Democrat stooge claimed he saw a guy grab Kavanaugh's dick and thrust it in some girls hand..

    Yet the girl said Democrat stooge was full of shit and it never happened.

    And, of course the NY Grime ran the story without any collaboration whatsoever..

    What is WRONG with you Democrats??

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    global warming is a fact, and yes it is confirmed by 97-99% of experts

    Total and complete bullshit..

    i.e. if there were a SHRED of solid evidence to back up what the president said at the time he said it

    There IS a shred of solid evidence.

    The OFFICIAL NOAA statement that said President Trump was accurate..

    But you DENY that fact because it goes against the hate on President Trump agenda..

    there'd be REAL facts to back up your statement

    Statement from NOAA
    SHARE
    Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share by email Print
    September 6, 2019
    Welcome to noaa.gov
    From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link.

    The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.

    REAL facts... From the ONLY authority possible..

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    And irregardless of your fallacy....

    The POINT was that Balthy claimed the NOAA statement would be redacted once the Internet opened up on Monday..

    Balthy was WRONG

    This is a FACT that you cannot refute..

    The OTHER POINT was that Balthy intimated that, because the OFFICIAL NOAA statement was "unsigned" that it was fault..

    THE FACTS prove that the HEAD OF THE NOAA and the CHIEF OF STAFF were responsible for the OFFICIAL NOAA statement..

    THIS is another FACT that you cannot refute..

    So, you can go on and on on your President Trump hate, but what you CAN'T do is deny the FACT that Balthy was WRONG..

    But you can't concede that Balthy was WRONG because that would mean YOU were wrong when you attacked my FACTS that Balthy was WRONG..

    How President Trumpian of you.. :eyeroll:

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Beto O'Rourke hits Pete Buttigieg with expletive-fueled swipe over gun-control comments
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pete-buttigieg-beto-orourke-gun-control-ar15

    But... But.... But.....

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

    :eyeroll:

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dumbocrats show their true colors.

    Kavanaugh 'must be impeached,' top Dems say, as new uncorroborated allegation surfaces
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kavanaugh-must-be-impeached-harris-says-as-new-uncorroborated-allegation-surfaces

    Complete and utter morons who will jump at any new shiny, no matter how utterly stoopid and contemptible it is..

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    One note on fracking — since Oklahoma started allowing fracking, there has been a massive increase in the number of earthquakes that the state experiences every year.

    And not one single FACT ties one to the other..

    This injection process is believed to have acted as lubricant for tectonic plates under OK.

    Only "believed"... NO WHERE NEAR proven as fact..

    Once again.. You only believe bullshit because it suits your agenda to believe bullshit..

    As usual, you have not a SINGLE fact to prove the claim..

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    McCarthy promises accountability as Barr reviews IG’s FISA report: ‘The closest we’ve ever seen to a coup’
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-promises-accountability-as-barr-reviews-igs-fisa-report-the-closest-weve-ever-seen-to-a-coup

    The IG FISA report is coming out this week..

    Dumbocrat heads are going to roll!!!

    WOOT!!! :D

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYT deletes bizarre tweet referencing Brett Kavanaugh’s ‘harmless’ penis
    https://nypost.com/2019/09/15/nyt-deletes-bizarre-brett-kavanaugh-tweet-about-having-a-penis-thrust-in-your-face/

    What IS IT about the NY GRIME???

    Morons..

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since Dumbocrats are so obsessed with Justice Kavanaugh's penis, let's get the story...

    The New York Times Anti-Kavanaugh Bombshell Is Actually a Dud

    The authors omit the fact that the alleged victim has no memory of the alleged incident.
    If you opened Twitter on Sunday morning, you were likely greeted with the bombshell headline of the top trending news story: “NYT reporters’ book details new sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh.”

    The allegation, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly write in a New York Times story adapted from their forthcoming anti-Kavanaugh book, is this: “We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”

    Wait a second. Who did what to whom?

    Kavanaugh’s “friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student”?

    Can someone explain the logistics of the allegation here? Was Kavanaugh allegedly walking around naked when his friends pushed him into the female student?

    NOW WATCH: 'Toxic Algae Found in New York City Parks'

    No, if I’m reading Pogrebin and Kelly right, the friends didn’t push Kavanaugh in the back. Rather, the “friends pushed his penis.”

    What? How does that happen? Who are the friends? Who is the female student? Were there any witnesses besides Stier?

    All that the authors write in the New York Times essay about corroborating the story is this: “Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)”

    This "witness" is a Democrat stooge and was one of Hillary Clinton's lawyer at one time..

    Of course, this witness has NO CORROBORATING evidence to support his bullshit accusation and the people he said were present ALL deny it..

    Again, I have to ask. What IS IT with your Dumbocrats??

    Is THIS how they think one wins an erection?? er...I mean ELECTION?? :eyeroll:

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ,

    various anti-Justice Kavanaugh spewage that has no basis in fact...

    You DO realize that all of that was almost a YEAR ago right??

    You DO realize that ya already LOST that battle, right??

    I mean, I am a military man.. I can understand waxing nostalgically over past glorious battles where I was victorious..

    But it really seems moronic to wax over political battles where you got your asses handed to you...

    I realize that those are the only political battles you HAVE to wax over.. The ones where you lost again and again and again and again.. Ex: How's President Hillary Clinton workin' out for ya?? :D hehehehehehehehehe

    But hay.. If you want to be reminded over and over of ALL the times that President Trump has handed you your ass because you LOST....

    I'll be happy to oblige ya.. :D

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, of course, the NY GRIME has to issue ANOTHER rebuttal.. :eyeroll:

    NYT updates Kavanaugh 'bombshell' to note accuser doesn't recall alleged assault
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyt-kavanaugh-bombshell-goes-bust-after-2020-dems-use-it-to-call-for-impeachment

    ANYONE who believes ANYTHING coming out of the NY GRIME is a fool.. Or supremely ignorant..

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    The New York Times suddenly made a major revision to a supposed bombshell piece late Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh -- hours after virtually all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had cited the original article as a reason to impeach Kavanaugh.

    The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the supposed sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.

    In other words, NY GRIME printed complete and utter out of context, not the whole story bullshit..

    And, ONCE AGAIN, they got caught spewing said bullshit..

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only first-hand statement concerning the supposed attack in the original piece, which was published on Saturday, came from a Clinton-connected lawyer who claimed to have witnessed it.

    Now THERE is a reliable source.. A Clinton-connected lawyer... :eyeroll:

    THAT should have been the first tip off that the whole story was bullshit..

    ANYTHING connected to the Clintons is automatically suspect..

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Times' revision says: "Editors' Note: An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article."

    TRANSLATION: The entire story was bullshit from the start.. The NY GRIME just wanted to help the authors sell more books.. :eyeroll:

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    The paper's editors' note, meanwhile, did little to stem a torrent of criticism late Sunday.

    "Should I be surprised at this point that the NYT would make such an unforgivable oversight?" asked RealClearInvestigations' Mark Hemingway.

    Wrote the Washington Examiner's Jerry Dunleavy: "Crazy how the 'one element' that wasn’t included in the original article was the part where the alleged victim’s friends said she doesn’t remember it happening."

    "It’s important to point out that this correction almost certainly would have never occurred if conservative media folks like @MZHemingway and others hadn’t obtained the copy of the actual book itself the same day the excerpt/article was released," author James Hasson said.

    Once again, the NY GRIME is the pariah of legitimate news and journalism...

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Throughout the day on Sunday, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker and Julian Castro, among others, declared that Kavanaugh "must be impeached," citing the allegation.

    And, of course, Dumbocrat candidates piled on without a SHRED of fact to support their hysterical tirades..

    Thereby proving, ONCE AGAIN, that they are all unelectable..

    Typical Dumbocrat moronic move.. :eyeroll:

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    The revitalized, longshot push to get Kavanaugh removed from the high court came as Democrats' apparent effort to impeach President Trump has largely stalled. Trump, for his part, suggested Sunday that Kavanaugh should sue for defamation.

    The Times piece by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their forthcoming book, asserted that a Kavanaugh classmate, Clinton-connected nonprofit CEO Max Stier, "saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student."

    The Times did not mention Stier's work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier's legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a "respected thought leader."

    Of course, the NY GRIME didn't mention the moron Stier's connections to Clinton and Democrats and his hate for Justice Kavanaugh..

    That would have been the RESPONSIBLE thing to do... And everyone knows that NY GRIME is not a responsible journalism outfit...

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    According to the Times, Stier "notified senators and the FBI about this account" last year during the Kavanaugh hearings, "but the FBI did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly."

    Of COURSE the FBI didn't investigate.. Because they knew it was a bullshit story from the word GO...

    However, the Times' article also conspicuously did not mention that Pogrebin and Kelly's book found that the female student in question had denied any knowledge of the alleged episode.

    "The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event," observed Mollie Hemingway. "Seems, I don’t know, significant."

    As the FACTS prove..

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    During the hearings, Harris strongly implied that she knew Kavanaugh had improperly discussed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's then-ongoing probe with a Trump-connected lawyer.

    Harris provided no evidence for the bombshell insinuation, which went viral on social media and sent the hearing room into stunned silence, even as she directly accused Kavanaugh of lying under oath.

    Once again, KamalaSutra proves how full of shit she really is...

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny that Democrats would want to celebrate the anniversary of their hysterical and unfounded attacks on Justice Kavanaugh with more hysterical and unfounded attacks on Justice Kavanaugh..

    But it IS Democrats we're talking about so.....

    I guess they just wanted to get their asses handed to them a SECOND time..

    "Such masochistic tendencies would likely be indicative of a deeper psychosis"
    -Lt Commander Spock

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moving on..

    We have a lot of material to cover.. :D

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    From the bastion of Democrat-think...

    Keith Koffler Trump's 2020 chances look bright thanks to his Democratic rivals (looking at you, Joe Biden)

    The economy could tank, or some foreign policy disaster could engulf us. But Trump will always have his future Democratic opponent to fall back on.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-2020-chances-look-bright-thanks-his-democratic-rivals-ncna1053456

    Looks like NBC News has come around to reality..

    The Democrat Candidates, INCLUDING BIDEN, are un-electable..

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Among the most enviable and least recognized qualities of a presidential candidate is something they share with lottery winners and bowling champions: a talent for dumb luck. And for those politicians blessed with this wholly undeserved and unearned gift, the most valuable form of it, the lucky break coveted over all others, is a lousy opponent.

    President Donald Trump demonstrated such talent in abundance in 2016 when he faced the widely despised Hillary Clinton. For anyone who had trouble voting for Trump because of various concerns about his character, the alternative of punching a chad for Clinton made things much easier.

    Ahhh The heady days of the 2016 election.. Where ya'all reach such heights of orgasmic hysteria only to be violently dashed on the rocks below..

    If ya'all would like to relive those glorious and frabjous moments...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/08/get-out-and-vote/#comments

    A lot of names from that wondrous day are no longer with us.. Gee.. I wonder why? :D

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump looks all set to get lucky again once Democrats decide which of the current forlorn crop of candidates they want as their nominee in 2020. One, Andrew Yang, stooped so low during Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Houston that he decided to start buying votes, saying his campaign would shell out $1,000 a month for a year to 10 families.

    Pretty sad and pathetic lot o Democrat candidates.

    Even the Leftist NBC News sees this.. :D

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    As if to ensure President Trump's re-election, the Democrats have come up with former Vice President Joe Biden as the alleged front-runner — at least according to current polls — anointing him the most electable of the lot. This, however, is a theory deeply in want of evidence. Biden has already proven himself unelectable twice, during runs for the 1988 and 2008 Democratic presidential nomination that went exactly nowhere.

    Democrats seem cursed with the "Their Turn" syndrome.. :eyeroll:

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    What’s more, Joe Biden offsets Trump’s most glaring weakness — questions about whether his cerebral cortex is functioning smoothly. Already during the current campaign, Biden has forgotten what state he was in, referred to New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker as the president, called the actual commander in chief “President Hump,” proclaimed a preference for truth over facts and briefly relocated mass shootings that had occurred in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, to Houston and Michigan.

    On Thursday, while sharper than he has been, the vice president was still unable to get through his opening statement without repeatedly glancing down at his notes. He again referred to a debate opponent as president, this time Sanders. Former San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro blew the dog whistle on Biden’s mental state as loudly as possible. “Are you forgetting already what you said just two minutes ago?” he demanded after the former VP denied he had said people would have to buy into his health care plan.

    Last month, Biden unreassuringly proclaimed, “I want to be clear, I’m not going nuts.”

    If you have to EXPLAIN to people that yer not going nuts, then you are losing the campaign...

    I'm just sayin'...

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden also is poorly positioned to capitalize on another Trump weakness — the president’s incessant lying. This is because the former vice president has been veering from the truth himself, including recent claims that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, that he didn’t oppose busing and a story about pinning a silver star on a service member in Afghanistan, which had most of the truth stripped out of it. To be fair, the latter could also speak to Biden’s potentially deteriorating memory.

    Neither of the two leftist Democrats running not too far behind Biden, Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, holds much chance of winning the presidency in a country where, according to the 2018 Election Day exit polls, a significant portion of voters consider themselves moderates.

    Warren supports "Medicare for All," repealing the law criminalizing illegal entry, banning fracking, assessing a carbon tax, canceling most student loan debt, making public colleges and universities free, raising taxes — and spending the revenues — and providing universal child care. Also problematic: She claimed to be Native American despite no clear evidence that this was anything other than a family legend.

    Sanders agrees with her on most counts, but with the added general election drawback of being an avowed socialist with the charm of a grumpy uncle. Red faced, scowling and howling hoarsely as if he had been yelling all day, Sanders angrily dismissed criticism on Thursday of his $30 trillion health care plan, which he somehow calculated would save Americans $20 trillion. “I wrote the damn bill,” he growled.

    Keep in mind, these are not my words.. These are the words of one of the Left Wing Democrat propaganda outlets..

    If yer propaganda outlet is talking you down, it's time for a good long look in the mirror..

    Again, I'm just sayin'...

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    California Sen. Kamala Harris at least seems more reasonable and might do better in a general election. But she has so far been unable to sustain momentum, and her equivocating on issues like health care hasn’t helped. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has appeal as a clear-thinking, steady personality but runs roughly the 300th largest city in the United States and has shown little ability to appeal to black voters, who are so critical to gaining the Democratic nomination.

    KamalaSutra's only ability is to sleep her way to the top. And I don't mean she actually does any sleeping. :eyeroll:

    As for Buttigig?? He thought his gay blade would be his ticket to the White House. He found out that only checking ONE box on the Dumbocrat Checklist wasn't much help... KamalaSutra checks TWICE as many boxes and she puts out to get ahead..

    Where do you people FIND these lusers???

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, Booker and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, once touted as charismatic incarnations of the Democrats’ future, revealed themselves to be man-children the minute they jumped into the race. They’re nowhere in the polls. Andrew Yang’s candidacy is centered on his promise to give every American $1,000, no doubt planning to task the agriculture department with developing the seeds for the trees the money will grow on. Other assorted candidates are at about 1 percent or less in the polls and deserve to be there.

    Granted, Trump’s luck may run out elsewhere. The economy could tank, or some foreign policy disaster could engulf us. But he will always have his future Democratic opponent to fall back on.

    Democrats.. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since 2013... :D

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Woot!! I might be able to hit 200 in one sitting!!! :D

    Lemme know if ya'all need me to slow down so ya'all can keep up.. :D

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why It’s Time for Joe to Go

    Democrats need an antiracist nominee to run against a racist like Donald Trump. The third debate confirmed Biden isn’t up to the task
    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/drop-out-joe-biden-democratic-primary-884047/

    Oh SNAP... Another bastion of liberal/progressive thought just bitch-slapped Joe Biden..

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow... Rolling Stone does not pull their punches..

    However, Davis later directed a question at Biden concerning his alarming 1975 comments on school segregation. She read the full quote, “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather, I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation, and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago,” and Biden smirked oddly as she did so. The correspondent followed up by asking, “What responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?” Without missing a beat, the Democratic front-runner delivered a response that was considerably more disqualifying than anything Castro said all night.

    Having just had something offensive that he said 44 years ago quoted back to him, Biden took the opportunity to say something that was arguably worse.

    After proposing that teacher raises are the first step to undoing the legacy of slavery, Biden said the following. It’s worth reading in full.

    Number two, make sure that we bring in to help the teachers deal with the problems that come from home. The problems that come from home, we need — we have one school psychologist for every 1,500 kids in America today. It’s crazy.

    The teachers are — I’m married to a teacher. My deceased wife is a teacher. They have every problem coming to them. We have — make sure that every single child does, in fact, have 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds go to school. School. Not daycare. School. We bring social workers into homes and parents to help them deal with how to raise their children.

    It’s not that they don’t want to help. They don’t — they don’t know quite what to do. Play the radio, make sure the television — excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the — the — make sure that kids hear words. A kid coming from a very poor school — a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time they get there.

    Personally, I think Biden is getting a raw deal here from the racists of the Democrat Party...

    But maybe it's just me.. :^/

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thursday’s debate was indeed a defining moment, but not for the candidate most pundits claim. While some may cry that the low-polling Castro blew his chance at a V.P. selection or clamor for him to step out of the race, it is the man he targeted whom we need to be focused upon. The former vice president can trumpet his Obama associations all he wishes, but after that debate, it comes across merely as the “I have a black friend” excuse. Biden is not only deficient as an antiracist, if he ever was one, but he is saying things — at a Democratic debate on an HBCU campus, no less — that make it absolutely impossible to trust him to be the party’s best candidate to address systemic racism and to ameliorate the nation the current administration leaves behind.

    If defeating Trump in 2020 is as important to Biden as he so often claims, he should end his campaign and remove himself from contention for president.

    This is Progresso-Think of Joe Biden..

    And ya'all think there is UNITY in the Democrat Party??

    Crazy...

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is a reckoning at hand..

    Will McCabe Bring the FBI Down with Him?

    The DoJ’s rejection of a last-ditch appeal by the legal team representing fired FBI Director Andrew McCabe and the recommendation by federal prosecutors that charges actually be filed against the documented liar, leaker, and co-conspirator in the attempted coup against duly elected President Donald Trump puts the deep state in a face-to-face confrontation with a potential legal Armageddon. An indictment will leave McCabe with no excuse for not carrying out his threat to bring them all down with him.

    Before his firing, McCabe sent a shot across the bow of his co-conspirators in the plots to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House, according to Fox News correspondent Adam Housely in a series of tweets reported by Gateway Pundit at the time of the firing:

    Fox News reporter Adam Housley reported on Twitter tonight about the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, stating his sources were telling him that in the past few days McCabe threatened to “take people down with him” if he was fired...

    8:31 p.m. PDT: “I am told yesterday McCabe felt the heat and went to try and save his last two days and even told some he would take people down with him if he was fired. So…let’s see what comes of this. I know this…a ton of agents…a ton…were watching this very closely.”
    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/will_mccabe_bring_the_fbi_down_with_him.html#ixzz5zgVOwStT
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    McCabe is especially perturbed because, as he was going thru his personal papers in anticipation of incarceration, he found his own suicide note...

    The Democrat come-uppance is at hand... :D

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    McCabe was at the heart of all the criminal activity and knows where the bodies are buried. His silence until now may be traced to the fact that to date no one has actually been held accountable. An easy indictment of his boss, book tour veteran James Comey, was bypassed and newly minted CNN analyst McCabe, filling the chair vacated by creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti, got to join his fellow liar and leaker, John Brennan, at the poster child for fake news.

    “Lack of candor” about leaking to the press is the least of McCabe’s worries. McCabe is a signatory to at least one of the FISA applications requesting surveillance of American citizens, namely Team Trump. His signature was his affirmation that the information in it, based largely on the Steele dossier paid for by Team Hillary and the DNC and compiled from Russian sources by a British agent, was accurate and verified. The FISA warrant he signed was a fraud committed on the court.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/will_mccabe_bring_the_fbi_down_with_him.html#ixzz5zgWVZAFg

    The people over McCabe must be sweating buckets, wondering if McCabe is going to make good on his threats to take them all down with him..

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Steele dossier, despite McCabe’s prior obfuscations, was acquired illegally. Money was laundered through a law firm to a dirt-gathering opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, to a foreign agent, Christopher Steele, to Russian sources making most of the stuff up. The fact that the transaction went through multiple hands does not make it any more legal. It just makes the coming indictment longer.

    McCabe, the man he worked for, James Comey, and the people who worked under McCabe, such as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, then took this fruit of foreign interference in our election and used it to commit a fraud upon the FISA court to trigger the illegal surveillance of one political campaign by another with the aid of co-conspirators at the DoJ and FBI.

    That McCabe himself was a key architect of this coup is found in the texts of FBI Agent Peter Strozk, who speaks of the plan hatched in “Andy’s office” to stop Trump at all costs, with this end justifying any and all means:

    Out of all the damning, politically charged anti-Trump text messages released, one text from Strzok to (Lisa) Page on August 15, 2016, raised the most suspicion. It referred to a conversation and a meeting that had just taken place in "Andy's" (widely believed to be Deputy FBI Dir. Andrew McCabe's) office. According to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Strzok had texted this: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office [break]... that there's no way he gets elected. I want to believe that... But I'm afraid we can't take that risk... We have to do something about it."

    In another text, Page said: "maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace." Strzok replied: "I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps."

    "This goes to intent," Jordan said. "We can't take the risk that the people of this great country might elect Donald Trump. We can't take this risk. This is Peter Strzok, head of counterintelligence at the FBI. This is Peter Strzok, who I think had a hand in that dossier that was all dressed up and taken to the FISA court. He's saying, 'we can't take the risk, we have to do something about it.'"
    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/will_mccabe_bring_the_fbi_down_with_him.html#ixzz5zgX37cC4

    The whole house of cards are coming down on Democrats like a ton of bricks..

    It's going to be a sight to behold.. :D

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, take 5 people.. I can imagine ya'all are exhausted..

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, let's get back to it..

    Since Real Clear Politics is the accepted source of choice around here...

    Why Trump Will Win: 'The Evidence of Things Unseen'

    If that is true in politics, then the faith of Trump supporters that he will be reelected is based on what was unseen and unheard on the Democrat debate stage in Houston on Thursday — namely, the thriving economy and the many other accomplishments of this administration.

    Admittedly, being a Trump supporter sometimes tests your faith. When the polls consistently show your candidate — your president — running behind every Democratic candidate — even Liliputian Beto O’Rourke — by eight, nine, 10 points, then yes, you could be forgiven for having moments of doubt.

    But doubt is the foundation of clear thinking. Only by questioning every premise — and discarding those that cannot bear weight — do you build an edifice of belief worth living in.

    The premise of the Democrat debate was that President Trump is a white supremacist, that his supporters are racists, and that the Constitution is a catalog of suggestions that can be ignored by an all-knowing tyrant like Kamala Harris, who wants to eliminate assault weapons (and the Second Amendment) by executive order.

    So, for Republicans, the bedrock Constitution is one of those things unseen by Democrats that give most conservatives faith that Trump will prevail in November 2020. The alternative is simply unthinkable.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/16/why_trump_will_win_the_evidence_of_things_unseen_141258.html

    While the alternative to a Trump re-election is definitely unthinkable, that is not why I have faith that President Trump will prevail..

    My faith is borne of indisputable FACT..

    Like that FACT that every poll since Jun of 2015 that predicted President Trump's demise has been WRONG.. It's a FACT that they have ALL been wrong..

    And while it's true that past performance may not accurately predict future events there is the ADDED fact of how bad the crop of Wannabe Trump's Opponents are..

    At one point or another EACH and EVERY candidate has promised In Labor Or After Labor Abortions, Free and FULL HealthCare to Crimmigrants (That's Criminal Illegal Immigrants for the morons out there), Open Borders, A BAN on ALL Fossil Fuels and gun confiscation.. Or any combination of the afore...

    Now, if one can step back from their Party Slavery and look at things LOGICALLY and OBJECTIVELY (a Mission Impossible for ya'all to be sure) they would discover that these far left claims and promises will leave EACH and EVERY Candidate un-electable by virtue of being the anti-thesis to everything Independents and NPAs stand for..

    Let that FACT sink in... EACH and EVERY Democrat candidate has rendered themselves UN-ELECTABLE by virtue of the Far Left positions they have taken in the Democrat Primary..

    For the one or two cooler heads here in Weigantia, I know for a FACT that this far Left surge worries ya'all.. Ya'all are simply afraid to come out and say it..

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    We are not racists, and the president is not a white supremacist. If he were, he would acquiesce to the deplorable conditions that have existed for years in America’s Democrat-run urban centers. Instead, he has challenged Democrats to live up to their rhetoric about human rights. It’s time to do something about poverty — not just talk about it. Trump has accomplished more in three years than 50 years of self-congratulatory leftist social engineering with inflated titles such as “The Great Society.” If you want greatness, you can start with the record-low unemployment among blacks, Latinos and women that are the result of Trump’s war against globalism and the entrenched bureaucracy.

    Democrats always talk the talk...

    But it's ONLY President Trump who has actually walked the walk...

    Every black American, every hispanic American, every woman in this country is BETTER off under President Trump than they EVER were under Odumbo..

    This is documented FACT...

    And THAT is why your Democrats are hysterical with Hate... Because they have simply spewed platitudes about equality but kept black Americans and hispanic Americans in the place that Democrat feel they should remain it.

    And along comes President Trump and bitch slaps Democrats and elevates black Americans and hispanic Americans with TRUE and REAL TANGIBLE equality..

    President Trump has given black Americans and hispanic Americans the ONE thing that Democrats never could..

    The OPPORTUNITY to succeed...

    Democrats just wanted to keep black Americans and hispanic Americans on the welfare plantation..

    President Trump said, "FRAK THAT!!!" and gave black Americans and hispanic Americans back their self respect that Democrats had ripped away...

    Ya'all know this is factually accurate, which is EXACTLY why these FACTS will be ignored..

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for those presidential polls that show Trump lagging badly, you have to ask yourself why the 2020 surveys would be any more predictive than the ones in 2016 were.

    Most of the polls are commissioned by media organizations that are virulently anti-Trump, or by political interests that are threatened by President Trump’s anti-establishment instincts. That, in itself, should make them suspect. It’s no secret that there are as many ways to jigger a poll’s outcome as there are ways to mix a drink.

    But beyond the question of polling mixology — er, methodology — you have to ask yourself whether there are reasons why even a valid poll would come to invalid conclusions. The answer, of course, is that there are — and in the case of a poll about Donald Trump, the reason is ... well ... Donald Trump. He is such a polarizing figure that many poll respondents probably do not feel safe sharing their intention to vote for the man.

    The fact that ya'all put such faith in polls is hilarious!!

    Considering how bad ya'all were burned in 2016 by polls..

    Any normal person would be so gun shy of polls, they would stay away from them with a passion..

    But ya'all lovingly embrace polls. But ONLY the polls that say what you want to hear...

    There is a phrase for that..

    BIAS CONFIRMATION

    Ya'all only pay attention to the news and "facts" that confirm ya'all's ingrained bias..

    One would think ya'all would remember that, by and large, President Trump voters do not participate in polls..

    So EVERY poll that attacks President Trump is, by default, a BIASED poll whose conclusions are USELESS..

    Garbage In, Garbage Out..

    DUH...

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    It’s no different than the decision to leave your MAGA hat at home when you head out for dinner at a tony restaurant and (supposing you live in New York City) a Broadway play. Haven’t we all seen brutal images of old men (and young, for that matter) being beaten for the audacity to wear their red cap in the wrong neighborhood?

    Likewise, we are inundated 24 hours a day with anti-Trump propaganda on the cable news channels and on the Internet telling us that the president is a Russian spy (thanks, CNN!), a racist (thanks, MSNBC!), a liar (thanks, Washington Post!) and a lying racist Russian spy (thanks, New York Times!).

    It’s enough to make you keep quiet at the water cooler the day after another rousing Trump rally, or to maybe add a grumble under your breath about how you can’t stand his juvenile tweets, and it may even be enough to make you tell a prying pollster that you support the vulgar, boorish demagogue Beto O’Rourke and his open borders rather than the president who gets things done in spite of (or maybe because of) his brash narcissistic personality.

    The Dumbocrat Party, the Party of peace and love and respect and tolerance..

    But the FACTS clearly show that it's the Democrat Party who hates on anyone that doesn't toe their line..

    If you are a Republican, you are under threat of a would-be Bernie Bro mass-murderer while you are practicing baseball for a charity game..

    If you are a Republican, you are under threat of a scumbag Warren supporting mass shooter in Dayton Ohio.

    And if you are a hispanic American who votes Trump, you are under threat of a scumbag Eco-mass shooter in El Paso Texas.

    These serious threats don't take into account there everyday threats from Democrat AntiFa terrorists who will attack someone and beat someone and assault someone for just wearing a red hat, regardless of what it says!!

    I have a mind to have a bright red hat made that says RED STATE DEMOCRAT on it and walk thru Seattle or Portland.. AntiFa terrorists will attack in swarms.. Of course I always am armed so it wouldn't end well for them..

    But it will prove my point nicely how it's the Democrat Party and their antifa terrorists who the intolerant and violent bigots..

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    Finally, there is one more unseen thing that strengthens Republican faith in President Trump as we get closer to Election Day. That is the unseen — and usually unspoken — price tag for all the free stuff promised by the Democratic marauders who are laying siege to our capitalist economy. Free college, free pre-K, free health care, free jobs, free money — add it all up, and you will soon discover that a hundred trillion dollars in spending is the equivalent of that unseen iceberg that sunk the Titanic.

    The Democrats may be enjoying a pleasant cruise in the friendly waters of the fawning mainstream media today, but when President Trump starts campaigning in earnest, they won’t know what hit them.

    Democrat candidates have, by their OWN documented and video taped words, have rendered themselves un-electable...

    It's THAT simple...

  182. [182] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (145)-
    To paraphrase Condoleezza Rice:

    "We don't want that evidence to be a giant mushroom cloud eminating from Yellowstone." :D

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    Alleged Victim In New York Times Kavanaugh Story Denies Any Recollection Of Incident

    New York Times reporters Robin Pogebrin and Kate Kelly are out with a new book that attempts to buttress the unsubstantiated claims deployed last year against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation” is neither a look at the education of Brett Kavanaugh nor an investigation. They admit they found no evidence to support the claims made by Christine Blasey Ford or Debbie Ramirez, although they say their “gut reaction” to the allegations is that they are true. They generously concede that their “gut” tells them that Michael Avennati client Julie Swetnick’s claims are not true, citing the lack of corroboration.

    The “lack of corroboration” standard was unevenly held to by the authors. Blasey Ford’s four witnesses all denied knowledge of the party at which her alleged assault took place. Ramirez went from telling Ronan Farrow “I don’t have any stories about Brett Kavanaugh and sexual misconduct,” to telling friends of an incident for which she “couldn’t be sure” Kavanaugh was involved, to now being the centerpiece of the Pogebrin and Kelly book. Ramirez also had no eyewitness support for her story that allegedly took place at a well-attended party, even after friendly media outlets contacted some 75 classmates trying to find corroboration. Both women had the support of many friends and activists, however.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/15/alleged-victim-in-new-york-times-kavanaugh-story-doesnt-remember-incident/

    What IS it about Dumbocrats and their desire to support ANY claim against a Republican, even if the claims have NO SUBSTANTIATING evidence and NO EYEWITNESS testimony???

    Haven't Democrats heard of a little thing called DUE PROCESS???

    Apparently, not...

    :eyeroll:

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only supposedly new claim made in the book isn’t new and comes from Democrat attorney Max Stier, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s with whom he has a long and contentious history. In the words of the Yale Daily News, they were “pitted” against each other during the Whitewater investigation in the 1990s when Kavanaugh worked for Independent Counsel Ken Starr. Stier defended President Bill Clinton, whose legal troubles began when a woman accused him of exposing himself to her in hotel room she had been brought to. Clinton later settled with the woman for $850,000 and, due to a contempt of court citation for misleading testimony, ended up losing his law license for five years. Stier worked closely with David Kendall, who went on to defend Hillary Clinton against allegations of illegally handling classified information. Kavanaugh’s reference to his opponents being motivated by “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” met with befuddlement by liberal media, despite the surprisingly large number of Clinton-affiliated attorneys who kept popping up during his confirmation hearings.

    Everything always flows back to the Clintons... :^/

    Positively shocking.. NOT..

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    In any case, Stier’s claim, which even two Democratic senators’ offices didn’t find particularly worthwhile, was that he had seen an inebriated Kavanaugh, pants-down, at a freshman-year party. Stier’s claim to the staffers, we’re told, was that other people at the party put Kavanaugh’s genitalia into the hands of a classmate. Another unnamed person alleged said that he or she might have remembered hearing that the female student had transferred out of her college because of Kavanaugh, “though exactly why was unclear.”

    The reporters, who describe Democrats in glowing terms and Republicans otherwise, say that Stier is a “respected thought leader” in the defense of the federal bureaucracy. They don’t mention his history of working for the Clintons. As for the victim? They say she “has refused to discuss the incident, though several of her friends said she does not recall it.”

    To repeat: Several of her friends said she does not recall it.

    So to summarize, the only new claim in the new book is that a Democratic attorney told two senators that he saw an incident where a third party allegedly did something to Kavanaugh and the young woman. In their book, the authors are upset that this claim didn’t lead to a massive FBI investigation, although they don’t explain why they think it should have.

    Pogebrin and Kelly left the victim’s denial out of their New York Times story. It is unclear why the reporters and editors allowed the story to be published without this salient fact that they conceded, albeit briefly, in their own book.

    I have to dispute Ms Hemingway's assertion..

    It is NOT unclear why these lying scumabags, these NY GRIME reporters ( I know, I know.. 'lying scumbags' 'NY GRIME Reporters' I know it's redundant) chose to leave that FACT out of the NY GRIME article and why NY Grime allowed it..

    They are morons.. Hysterical and vindictive morons..

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trumped Out?
    After nearly four years of ceaseless attacks by Democrats and the press, the strange thing is not that Trump can be occasionally wearisome, but that he is even still breathing.

    https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/15/trumped-out/

    Democrats just can't win..

    No matter what they throw at President Trump, he comes back harder and stronger... :D

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Michale (145)-
    To paraphrase Condoleezza Rice:

    "We don't want that evidence to be a giant mushroom cloud eminating from Yellowstone." :D

    So, it's better to tank and destroy the economy AND the country so Democrats can be SHOWN how utterly stoopid and moronic they are for their belief in the END OF THE WORLD Global Warming con???

    I don't think so..

    Interesting story... Next comment...

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Interesting story..

    For the last decade or so, NASA and the NOAA has been tweaking weather temp data to produce the desired rise in temp "evidence"..

    Of course, there were those who caught the NOAA and NASA fudging the numbers to produce the desired result..

    NOAA/NASA's excuse for the tweaking and fudging was because they weather stations were old and placed in heat sources that skewed the result. No word on WHY all the tweaking and fudging were UPWARDS and not DOWNWARDS..

    Anyway, after a year or so of flack, NASA said FINE.. We'll build a NEW and RELIABLE and HYPER ACCURATE system..

    NASA with help from the NOAA designed the most accurate and sophisticated weather station imaginable..

    144 of these hyper accurate stations were built..

    NASA/NOAA then went all over the country to scout out the locations where these new hyper-accurate weather stations would be placed.. No expense was spared to find the perfect spot.. "Now, no one can accuse us of having bad data from bad locations!!!" NASA and NOAA thought to themselves..

    In 2004, the placement of these new hyper accurate weather stations began..

    By 2005, the system was in place and the grid was activated!!

    And, 14 years later, what did these hyper-accurate weather stations show??

    That there was NO WARMING in the CONUS.. As a matter of fact, this hyper accurate system PROVED that there was actually a bit of cooling in the Continental United States..

    The Global Warming hysteria is a con... Pure and simple..

    The planet will NOT be destroyed in 11 years as Occasional Cortex claims...

    Anyone who subscribes to the con is either a moron or blinded by a Party agenda...

    This is what the FACTS show..

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    Poor poor joe...

    Biden struggles to recall the word 'escalator' when denouncing Trump's 2015 rapists comment

    Democratic front-runner Joe Biden struggled to recall the word "escalator" while bashing President Trump during a campaign stop in Miami, Florida.

    Speaking at at the historic Ball & Chain nightclub on Sunday afternoon to mark the start of Hispanic Heritage Month, Biden slammed the president's June 2015 comments about Mexican immigrants during his 2016 campaign announcement speech.

    "Remember when he came down, uh, down the, uh, down his escalator of Trump Tower?" Biden said after some prompting from the audience. "He announced on the way down, one of the reasons he was running was because of all those Mexican rapists."
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-struggles-to-recall-the-word-escalator-when-denouncing-trumps-2015-rapists-comment

    Slurred speech, senility and bullshit.. All rolled into one.. :eyeroll:

    THIS is the best the Democrats can offer??

  190. [190] 
    James T Canuck wrote:
  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    @ 'nuck

    It's the NY GRIME, 'Nuck...

    You REALLY put stock in that they say??

    And who is this "expert"??

    A nobody.. With NO accompanying facts to prove his case..

    And it's from 1996 to boot..

    Wow.. you MUST be desperate.. :D

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    2020 Democrats hate Trump’s China trade war. Too bad they don’t have any better ideas.

    Thursday’s debate showed that candidates are struggling to define a China trade policy to counter Trump’s.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/9/13/20864192/democratic-debate-2020-trade-trump-china

    hehehehehe Even the Left Wing rag VOX says that Democrats don't have shit.. :D

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Gonna take a break.. Let ya'all catch up since yer lagging. :D

  194. [194] 
    dsws wrote:

    [138] Listen:

    since Oklahoma started allowing fracking, there has been a massive increase in the number of earthquakes that the state experiences every year. Did you know that Oklahoma now suffers from more 3.0 earthquakes than Southern California every year?

    I knew that areas with lots of fracking have very large numbers of earthquakes of low magnitude. I would have assumed that the number would exceed what happens in California, but I probably would have guessed in the 1.0-2.5 range, rather than 3.0. If fracking ever triggers quakes large enough to do significant damage, I haven't heard about it.

    Although apparently it's the wastewater injection that does it, rather than the fracking per se: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/induced-earthquakes?qt-science_support_page_related_con=4#qt-science_support_page_related_con

    I still think coal is much, much worse than fracking. Or pretty much anything else except maybe agriculture.

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    I knew that areas with lots of fracking have very large numbers of earthquakes of low magnitude. I would have assumed that the number would exceed what happens in California, but I probably would have guessed in the 1.0-2.5 range, rather than 3.0. If fracking ever triggers quakes large enough to do significant damage, I haven't heard about it.

    Although apparently it's the wastewater injection that does it, rather than the fracking per se: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/induced-earthquakes?qt-science_support_page_related_con=4#qt-science_support_page_related_con

    It's funny..

    When I display the facts, people in here just can't shut up... They have to go to hysterical lengths to TRY and prove me wrong..

    When dsws shows the exact same facts, no one challenges him.. or her.. Please not 'xe'??

    I guess that's a compliment of sorts... :D

    I still think coal is much, much worse than fracking. Or pretty much anything else except maybe agriculture.

    It is.. These people simply don't know any better..

  196. [196] 
    John M wrote:

    "Sharpiegate is over. Once again, it was proven that ya'all's hysteria was bogus and that President Trump was dead on ballz factually accurate...

    Chalk it up to another President Trump win.. :D"

    Trump was ballz on WRONG.

    Chalk it up as another President Trump LOSS. :-D

    Here are the REAL FACTS, from the ONLY Authority possible:

    In a forceful email sent to staff, Craig McLean, the chief scientist of NOAA, took on anonymous members of his own organization who may have “violated NOAA’s policies of scientific integrity.”

    At no point did Dorian present a risk to Alabama in the way Trump claimed it would. The National Weather Service forecast around the time of Trump’s tweet indicated about a 5 percent chance of tropical-force winds for a small corner of Alabama, a far cry from Trump’s warning that it would be “hit (much) harder.”

    “My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political,” McLean said of the press release in his email. “The content of this press release is very concerning as it compromises the ability of NOAA to convey life-saving information necessary to avoid substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.”

    The head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Neil Jacobs (Noaa) appeared close to tears, as he both defended the administration and thanked a local weather office that contradicted Donald Trump’s claims about Hurricane Dorian threatening Alabama.

    Neil Jacobs, the acting administrator, told a meteorology group a Noaa statement that criticized the Birmingham-area forecast office after it disagreed with the president was meant to clarify “technical aspects” about Dorian’s potential impact.

    “What it did not say, however, was that we understood and fully support the good intent of the weather office, which was to calm fears in support of public safety,” said Jacobs.

    Trump tweeted about Dorian threatening Alabama on 1 September, apparently relying on information that was several days old. In other words, information that was both no longer accurate and way out of date at the time Trump was saying that it was in fact the most recent forecast. Trump was plainly and simply WRONG.

    The statement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) backing President Trump over the National Weather Service (NWS) in claiming Alabama could be in the path of Hurricane Dorian is now under investigation by the Commerce Department’s Office of Inspector General.

    In a message to NOAA staff members, Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson wrote that the NWS “must maintain standards of scientific integrity,” according to The New York Times.

    Gustafson added that the episode had called “into question the NWS’s processes, scientific independence, and ability to communicate accurate and timely weather warnings and data to the nation in times of national emergency.”

    The Inspector General's office has asked NOAA employees to preserve their communications relating to the statement.

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Trump was ballz on WRONG.

    In that Dorian never impacted Alabama..

    Yes he was... Eventually

    But EVERY Forecaster was ALSO wrong when they said that Dorian would strike South Florida.

    Funny how you ignore that...

    Why is that??

    In a forceful email sent to staff, Craig McLean, the chief scientist of NOAA, took on anonymous members of his own organization who may have “violated NOAA’s policies of scientific integrity.”

    And THAT is why Craig McLean is not the head of the NOAA.. Because he spews bullshit TOTALLY based on Party Ideology..

    He's a Dumbocrat stooge..

    No one with more than 2 brain cells to rub together would believe a word he says..

    Trump tweeted about Dorian threatening Alabama on 1 September, apparently relying on information that was several days old.

    Except the FACTS prove that is wrong..

    From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link.

    What is it about 28 Aug thru 2 Sep is unclear to you??

    Can't you see past your Party slavery??

    The fact is, President Trump was factually accurate with the information he had..

    If you want to whine and cry that Trump was eventually proven wrong, then you would HAVE to whine and cry that ALL THE OTHER FORECASTERS were eventually proven wrong..

    But you can't do that because your Party Slavery won't LET you do that...

    "And so it goes... And so it goes... And so will you soon I suppose..."
    -Billy Joel

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Despite claims to the contrary...

    Judiciary chairman throws cold water on Kavanaugh impeachment
    Jerry Nadler says the committee is too busy 'impeaching the president' to consider investigating the Supreme Court justice.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/16/house-judiciary-kavanaugh-impeachment-1498124

    Democrats CAN'T walk and chew gun as previously claimed..

    :eyeroll:

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYT 'Corrects' Their Kavanaugh 'Bombshell' After Internet Explodes
    https://www.mrctv.org/blog/nyt-corrects-their-kavanaugh-bombshell-after-internet-explodes

    Once again..

    Democrats and the NY GRIME has egg all over their faces..

    :D

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    "An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party," The Times wrote in a correction Monday. "The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article."

    “That information has been added to the article.”

    Seriously? Here we’ve got a national news outlet publishing unverified claims of sexual misconduct against a sitting SCOTUS Justice – claims that Democrats are now using to call for his impeachment – and the Times never bothered to include that the alleged victim denies the whole thing?

    And they wonder why Trump calls them the “enemy of the people.”

    This. This would be why.

    Democrats... The STOOPIDEST pile of flotsam on the planet..

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    Father of Parkland shooting victim: 'Guns didn’t kill my daughter, Democratic policies did'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/father-of-parkland-shooting-victim-andrew-pollack-blames-dems-guns-didnt-kill-my-daughter-but-democratic-policies-did

    Compare this grieving father to the attention bitch, David Hogg and his hypocrisy...

    :eyeroll:

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    On "No Interruption," Fox Nation host Tomi Lahren sat down with Andrew Pollack, father of Parkland shooting victim Meadow Pollack.

    Pollack became an outspoken advocate for school safety since the Parkland shooting, and he has now written a new book detailing his own investigation into the events that led to the massacre.

    "I wanted to look into it, I wanted to honor my daughter to see what happened, and how it could happen that I put my daughter in a school, in a nice neighboorhood, and then I'm never going to see her again," Pollack said. "I wanted to know the facts. I didn't just listen to mainstream media, I didn't jump on that bandwagon -- and I found out that there was a multitude of failures and policies that lead up to my daughter getting murdered, that the mainstream media didn't want to cover."

    In "Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies That Created The Parkland Shooter and Endanger America's Students," Pollack discusses his views on gun control, why he blames Democratic policies for his daughter's murder, and precautions that parents can take to ensure the safety of their children.

    Pollack argued that new gun control laws are an ineffective solution to the school shooting epidemic, in part because current laws are not being enforced. For example, the Parkland shooter had a violent record, but he was not arrested and therefore able to obtain a weapon legally.

    "To me, gun control would’ve been if they arrested him for punching his mother’s teeth out and he got a background,” explained Pollack. "Democrats put these policies in place that don't believe in holding kids accountable or arresting them while they're juveniles...so if they don't arrest them and they don't get a background, then they're able to purchase weapons legally and a background check is useless," he said.

    Dumbocrats go on and on about adding more gun laws.. Yet they don't even enforce the laws that exist to prevent murderous psycho scumbags from getting weapons...

    Morons....

  203. [203] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Trump was ballz on WRONG.

    In that Dorian never impacted Alabama..

    Yes he was... Eventually

    there's no eventually about it. his incorrect information was a week old when he tweeted it.

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    Devine: Latest Brett Kavanaugh smear doesn’t hold up
    https://nypost.com/2019/09/15/devine-latest-brett-kavanaugh-smear-doesnt-hold-up/

    Once again.. Democrats overreach and are made to look like complete and utter fools...

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving pieces of crap..

    Again, the question just BEGS to be asked..

    Do ya'all get soo utterly tired of seeing your Democrat bitch-slapped and LOSE all the time???

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Brett Kavanaugh lynch mob can’t let it go. Now Democrats want to impeach the conservative Supreme Court justice over a new sexual misconduct allegation in the New York Times so shady, even the newspaper doesn’t seem to believe in it.

    This fresh smear is buried in the 11th paragraph of a story written by Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their upcoming book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh.”

    They name their alleged witness to the alleged incident as Max Stier, a Washington lawyer and former Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s, described as a “respected thought leader on federal government management,” but who also appears to be the same Max Stier who was on then-President Bill Clinton’s legal team during the Lewinsky scandal in 1998, when he worked at the law firm Williams & Connolly.

    So, apparently this Max Stier is a scumbag from way WAY back...

    Makes sense..

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    What Pogrebin and Kelly left out of their story, yet reported in their book, is that the alleged victim doesn’t remember the incident and refuses to talk about it. That’s journalistic malpractice.

    So no corroboration, no evidence, no victim and no witness (only hearsay of one), but the “paper of record” is perfectly fine with defaming Kavanaugh all over again.

    By the way, in the book, the authors gratuitously name the woman, including a new surname she uses, even though she doesn’t want to talk — and the woman’s friends the reporters did speak to say she doesn’t remember anything. Why shame her? Because she refuses to back up the reporters’ agenda?

    Once again, the Trump hating media outs a private citizen in their putrid and futile hatred of everything Trump...

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maureen Dowd: Has game-changing Trump doomed Democrats to irrelevance?

    Democratic debate shows how president has altered the way US experiences politics
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/maureen-dowd-has-game-changing-trump-doomed-democrats-to-irrelevance-1.4018833

    Ya have to KNOW that Democrats are in trouble when Maureen Uber-Trump-Hater Dowd is saying the Democrats are going down...

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the alarmists can't even treat climate change like a crisis, neither will we

    Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old Swedish climate activist, chose fear as a centerpiece of her message.

    “I don’t want your hope,” she told the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting. “I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. “

    Davos attendees dutifully applauded as aircrews refueled their fleet of private jets.

    We want change, but not if we must change..

    For some reason, voters aren’t eager to feel fear every day. Sure, they claim that climate change is important, but not if it requires changing their lifestyle, even a little.
    https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2019/09/14/climate-change-wont-stopped-fear-or-hypocrisy/2294906001/

    Here ya go, JL..

    If Global Warming is such a sure thing and such a dire thing..

    Why do those who scream about it the loudest go about their lives in their private jets and their SUV convoys, IGNORING the so-called "threat" except for the lip-service they pay to the so-called "emergency"??

    I bet you still drive a car or get driven in a car or other mobile vehicle that is not human powered..

    I bet you still use electricity and a refrigerator and a washer/dryer and a microwave and an air conditioner, eh??

    If Global Warming is such a dead on big emergency, shouldn't you stop??

    Of course... But you won't because it's a "theoretical" emergency.. A POLITICAL emergency..

    It surely isn't a real or actual emergency ....

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    But!!! The Polls!! The Polls!!! you say???

    A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 69% of Americans want aggressive action to combat climate change.

    So far, so good.

    How many would support a rate hike of $100 a year to tackle the problem? Only 29%.

    Sure, you can find a poll or hundred that has ignorant Left Wingers screaming in panic about Global Warming.

    But then, when you poll them and ask them will they give up cash out of their wallets?? Give up their cars?? Give up their IPADs and Cell Phones?? Give up a SINGLE creature comfort???

    Your "polls" drop to "NOT ONLY **NO** BUT ***HELL NO***!!!!"

    So, obviously, it can't be any REAL emergency, can it??

    :eyeroll:

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    The years-long fear campaign hasn’t worked; any Marketing 101 student would change the messaging. Instead, progressive politicians just ramp up the panic.

    Throughout our lives, eco-fearmongering has been a constant. My first-grade teacher handed out maps showing how a pollution-caused ice age would soon cover our Chicago suburb with a glacier. Mom eased the panic with a reminder we were moving to Phoenix that summer.

    After that, acid rain was going to kill us, then the ozone hole, then global warming, then “global weirding,” and now, climate change. Granted, the climate has always changed, but progressives think it started about a century ago.

    Despite the wildly different scenarios, from freezing oceans to boiling ones, the solution is always the same: curtail capitalism and let government control more of our lives.

    It's amazing.. There has ALWAYS been some sort of imminent emergency that Left Wingers whine and cry about...

    And no matter WHAT the emergency is, their solution is ALWAYS the same..

    "GIVE US MORE POWER OVER YOUR LIVES"

    It's so blatantly obvious, yet Left Wingers are totally oblivious... :eyeroll:

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hypocrisy will get them nowhere

    The hypocrisy of environmental doomsayers is galling, but it also reveals they don’t actually believe we’re in a crisis.
    The hypocrisy of environmental doomsayers is galling, but it also reveals they don’t actually believe we’re in a crisis.

    This was the main message coming out of CNN’s seven-hour climate town halls, featuring all the major Democratic presidential primary candidates.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed using federally funded abortions as a means of population control. Mayor Pete Buttigieg called climate change “a kind of sin” but defended his private air travel “because this is a very big country.”

    Former vice president Joe Biden promised to "take millions of vehicles off the road” via high-speed rail. The next day, he held a fundraiser co-hosted by a fossil fuel magnate.

    The hypocrisy is galling, but it reveals that so many environmental doomsayers don’t actually believe we’re in a crisis at all.

    To Thunberg’s credit, at least she avoids air travel. The same can’t be said for her audience or those grasping for power parroting her message.

    Rising sea levels are threatening to destroy coastal communities, yet former President Barack Obama just bought a $15 million estate on Martha’s Vineyard. Leonardo DiCaprio, Prince Harry and others in the top 0.1% flew to a Google Camp in Sicily, requiring 117 separate flights. Seems like a Google Hangout would be better for the planet.

    How UTTERLY moronic is Odumbo??

    He whines and screams and cries about Global Warming and the rise of the oceans..

    Then he goes and buys a 15 million massive carbon belching estate on a fraking ISLAND!!!

    And YOU people still follow the moron!!

    It's mind-boggling how gullible ya'all are..

    Com'on, JL.. Next to me, you have one of the more logical minds here..

    Can YOU explain Obama's reasoning??

    I am betting you won't because you can't..

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops...

    Hypocrisy will get them nowhere

    The hypocrisy of environmental doomsayers is galling, but it also reveals they don’t actually believe we’re in a crisis.

    This was the main message coming out of CNN’s seven-hour climate town halls, featuring all the major Democratic presidential primary candidates.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed using federally funded abortions as a means of population control. Mayor Pete Buttigieg called climate change “a kind of sin” but defended his private air travel “because this is a very big country.”

    Former vice president Joe Biden promised to "take millions of vehicles off the road” via high-speed rail. The next day, he held a fundraiser co-hosted by a fossil fuel magnate.

    The hypocrisy is galling, but it reveals that so many environmental doomsayers don’t actually believe we’re in a crisis at all.

    To Thunberg’s credit, at least she avoids air travel. The same can’t be said for her audience or those grasping for power parroting her message.

    Rising sea levels are threatening to destroy coastal communities, yet former President Barack Obama just bought a $15 million estate on Martha’s Vineyard. Leonardo DiCaprio, Prince Harry and others in the top 0.1% flew to a Google Camp in Sicily, requiring 117 separate flights. Seems like a Google Hangout would be better for the planet.

    How UTTERLY moronic is Odumbo??

    He whines and screams and cries about Global Warming and the rise of the oceans..

    Then he goes and buys a 15 million massive carbon belching estate on a fraking ISLAND!!!

    And YOU people still follow the moron!!

    It's mind-boggling how gullible ya'all are..

    Com'on, JL.. Next to me, you have one of the more logical minds here..

    Can YOU explain Obama's reasoning??

    I am betting you won't because you can't..

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fear is a good motivator, but it hasn’t worked for those seeking action on climate change. Voters aren’t willing to sacrifice for Gaia, and neither are the politicians demanding their votes.

    Until the alarmists start behaving like there is a crisis, they shouldn’t expect everyday Americans to believe them.

    EXACTLY...

    This is it in a nutshell..

    Not a SINGLE Dumbocrat, either here in Weigantia or out in the real world acts like Global Warming or Climate Change or Climate Crisis or whatever Dumbocrat Marketing is calling it today...

    Not a SINGLE one of ya'all, not a SINGLE proponent of this con actually **ACT** like it's actually an emergency..

    So, if ya'all don't...???

    Why should ANYONE take ya'all seriously???

    Answer?? No one should.... Because it's NOTHING but a huge con..

    THAT is the ONLY logical conclusion that explains ya'all's and the Dumbocrat's complacency...

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    Woot!!!! 214!!!

    A new personal best!!!!

    Bring on the Holiday fund raiser!!! :D

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump was ballz on WRONG.

    In that Dorian never impacted Alabama..

    Yes he was... Eventually

    there's no eventually about it. his incorrect information was a week old when he tweeted it.

    Except the FACTS prove that to be factually inaccurate..

    From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link.

    The NOAA, which is the ultimate authority in these sorts of issues, stated quite clearly that "From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama."

    Does 1 Sep fall within the 28 Aug thru 2 Sep timeline that the NOAA gave???

    Why yes... yes it does..

    Ergo, on 1 Sep President Trump was factually accurate based on the briefings he received from the NOAA..

    You have a beef?? Apologize to your President and take it up with the NOAA....

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is this.

    Ya'all have Trump/America hating spewages from Global Warming morons...

    And I have the FACTS in the form of an OFFICIAL STATEMENT from their boss that puts lie to all their Trump/America hating statements.

    'nuff said..

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's actually funny..

    I actually believed that, since ya'all have professed total fealty to the NOAA in the past, since ya'all CONSTANTLY appealed to the NOAA Authority, that ya'all would ACTUALLY accept the FACTS this time...

    But apparently, ya'all's HHPTDS is MORE ingrained than even I believed...

    Fascinating study....

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even Trump/America hater Joe Scarborough is taken aback at the complete malfeasance of the NY GRIME..

    Joe Scarborough 'could not believe' NYT ran report on Kavanaugh allegation with 'glaring omission'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-scarborough-new-york-times-kavanaugh-report

    Ya'all just HAVE to know what a major frak-up it is for the NY GRIME when Trump/America haters start in on the NYG....

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    New York Times criticized from both sides of aisle over now-revised Kavanaugh allegations
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-kavanaugh-criticism

    Once again.. Ya'all just HAVE to know what a major cock-up for the NY Grime when it starts getting lambasted by BOTH Trump/America haters and Trump supporters... :D

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I just don't understand why they didn't put this information in the article."
    -Joe Scarborough

    They hate President Trump and will say anything, print ANYTHING to try and take him down..

    DUUUUHHHHHH...

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't worry people..

    We go on our annual family cruise in April.. Ya'all will get a nice 10 day vacay from the facts and from reality..

    Of course, I might pop in to share some family pictures of all the fun we're having.. :D

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all want to talk about all the court cases that Democrats have lost in the last couple weeks???

    No??

    Oh, well.. OK.. :^/

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, the question has to be asked..

    With this latest bullshit from the NY Grime??

    How much bullshit does the Democrat Party think it can spew before Americans start walking away from the Democrat Party???

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can always tell when ya'all are in the pits about how bad and how much your Democrats are losing and how much President Trump is winning...

    Ya'all cede the field of battle to me.. :D

  225. [225] 
    dsws wrote:

    [195]

    Please not xe

    I told Facebook that my preferred pronouns are they, them, their. But that's mostly a word nerd thing, and only secondarily a gender politics thing. Shakespeare and Chaucer used gender neutral"they", and there's no good reason to insist on knowing or guessing someone's gender before talking about them.

    Really though, I use he, him, his.

  226. [226] 
    dsws wrote:

    Re sharpiegate:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/09/06/ftp541/#comment-143411

    Trump was wrong.

    [213] of that page, Kick:

    The forecasting of the weather isn't a "political dispute."

    Forecasting isn't. Fussing about the details of what a politician did or didn't say? Yeah, that is.

  227. [227] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welp, my time belongs to my beautiful wife right now..

    See ya'all in the AM.. :D

  228. [228] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re sharpiegate:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/09/06/ftp541/#comment-143411

    Trump was wrong.

    Trump turned out to be wrong.. As had every other forecaster on the planet..

    At the time President Trump made his statement, he was factually accurate..

    So says the ultimate authority on this subject, the head and the chief of staff of the NOAA..

    Personally, I was paying too much attention to my own issues with Dorian and whether or not we should evacuate the children and grandchildren...

    But a Cat 5 Strike with an east to west trajectory on Southern FL that WON'T affect Alabama???

    Only someone COMPLETELY ignorant of Hurricanes would think that..

    At the time President Trump made the claim, he was factually accurate.. At least, that's the Official NOAA statement..

    Really though, I use he, him, his.

    Oh thank the gods... :D

    OK NOW my time is my wife's.. :D

  229. [229] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Trump turned out to be wrong [on september 1].. As had every other forecaster on the planet..

    ...in 5% of their predictions

    ...on august 28th.

    for heaven's sake, the map donald is pointing to says "thursday" next to the image of the hurricane, and september 1 was a monday. the hurricane had ALREADY taken a different path from the one predicted on his map, and was at that precise moment many miles to the east of where his map said it ought to have been.

    JL

  230. [230] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    At one point or another EACH and EVERY candidate has promised In Labor Or After Labor Abortions, Free and FULL HealthCare to Crimmigrants (That's Criminal Illegal Immigrants for the morons out there), Open Borders, A BAN on ALL Fossil Fuels and gun confiscation.. Or any combination of the afore...

    PROVE IT! Prove where each candidate has made each of those promises or admit you are full of shit! Michale, your lies are just a sad indicator that you are fully aware of how screwed Trump is in this next election!

    But a Cat 5 Strike with an east to west trajectory on Southern FL that WON'T affect Alabama???

    Only someone COMPLETELY ignorant of Hurricanes would think that..

    Completely agree with you. But look where the hurricane was located when Trump made his claims. It had passed and was east of the southern tip of Florida.

    At the time President Trump made the claim, he was factually accurate.. At least, that's the Official NOAA statement..

    If you wouldn’t have added that last line, I might still think that you actually believed what you have been arguing was the truth. But that line makes it very clear that you know it’s bullshit. Kinda like how you repeatedly post the same articles over and over again as if that somehow changes the truth.

    As for Kavanaugh, the issue is that the FBI failed to question Kavanaugh, Dr. Ford, or any of the people that contacted the FBI claiming to be victims or witnesses to possible acts by Kavanaugh, yet the Republicans claimed that Kavanaugh had been cleared by the FBI of any wrong doing. That and the fact Kavanaugh appeared to perjure himself in his testimony and the FBI somehow cleared him of that without interviewing anyone related to the claims he made...including him!

    My guess is this, once Trump is removed from office and the DOJ is being run by someone with an ounce of integrity, we will learn just how much of a role Russia played in Trump’s and other members of the GOP’s victories. We will see just about every policy passed and every court appointment Trump made be rescinded and ruled invalid. While we cannot, nor should we wish to, remove Trump’s presidency from our history books, we can remove the stain on democracy caused by the corruption that accompanied it.

    The GOP sold it soul in their desire to remain in power. I had thought that the report looking at why the GOP lost in 2008 and warning them of where they needed to change if they wanted to remain relevant as a political party would have maybe gotten them to change their ways. I never expected that they’d see that as a call to double down so they could do as much damage as possible before the party dies.

  231. [231] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen

    By way of injecting a modest dose of reality into this forum, I have to point out that while the Republicans nominated Trump, it was YOU DEMOCRATICS THAT ELECTED HIM!

    Yeah, I'm well aware tnat not a single Democratic of the Weigantian hue would EVER have voted for him, but it was you guys who forced the great mass of apolitical, center-right, middle-of-the-country, average Americans to vote for him by choosing as his opponent, a person that those sort of folks, (aka the "deplorables"), simply couldn't tolerate!

    Keep that in mind while you're picking his next opponent.

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all have your political based Trump hating opinions and I have the OFFICIAL Statement from the highest possible authority...

    I won't concede when the facts clearly show I am factually accurate and ya'all will NEVER concede you are wrong..

    So, any further discussion is pointless..

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for Kavanaugh, the issue is that the FBI failed to question Kavanaugh, Dr. Ford, or any of the people that contacted the FBI claiming to be victims or witnesses to possible acts by Kavanaugh, yet the Republicans claimed that Kavanaugh had been cleared by the FBI of any wrong doing. That and the fact Kavanaugh appeared to perjure himself in his testimony and the FBI somehow cleared him of that without interviewing anyone related to the claims he made...including him!

    Why would the FBI have to question Ford or Justice Kavanaugh?? They already have their sworn testimony.. Questioning them would be a waste of time.. Totally redundant..

    My guess is this, once Trump is removed from office and the DOJ is being run by someone with an ounce of integrity, we will learn just how much of a role Russia played in Trump’s and other members of the GOP’s victories.

    We already KNOW how much of a role Russia played..

    NONE...

    EVERY Democrat from Obama on down who discussed this made the exact same point..

    The integrity of our election was un-touched by Russia meddling.. Not a single Hillary vote was changed to a Trump vote...

    We already KNOW the facts. You just can't handle the reality to you make up some bullshit that we really don't know..

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Yeah, I'm well aware tnat not a single Democratic of the Weigantian hue would EVER have voted for him, but it was you guys who forced the great mass of apolitical, center-right, middle-of-the-country, average Americans to vote for him by choosing as his opponent, a person that those sort of folks, (aka the "deplorables"), simply couldn't tolerate!

    Keep that in mind while you're picking his next opponent.

    Com'on, CRS!!!

    Taking responsibility is like admitting that they were wrong..

    They simply can't do that...

    Asking them to do so is like asking the sun to set in the east and rise in the west...

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:

    Daunted by Trump's Success, Dems Want the Border Crisis Back
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/17/daunted_by_trumps_success_dems_want_the_border_crisis_back_141266.html

    President Trump is kicking the Democrat's asses on illegal immigration response..

    And now the POTUS has the SCOTUS..

    Democrats are toast!! :D

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump’s immigration policies are steadily curbing the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border — but some Democrats are determined to keep the humanitarian catastrophe going for as long as possible for political gain and at America’s expense.

    Border Patrol agents are currently projected to apprehend approximately 843,000 illegal immigrants this year. Although that number is still unacceptably high, it’s significantly below the projections that were being made as recently as June, when we were on pace to apprehend well over 1 million illegal immigrants through the end of the year.

    This drop reflects the fact that the number of apprehensions per month has been trending sharply downward this summer — in August, immigration enforcement agents caught about 51,000 illegal immigrants at the Southwest border, 56% fewer than in May, when the number of apprehensions peaked at 133,000.

    President Trump rules... Democrats drool.. :D

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, our broken immigration system isn’t repairing itself. The progress we’ve made in recent months is entirely due to the tireless efforts of President Trump, who has managed to implement a variety of effective policies to better protect the U.S.-Mexico border despite the Democrat Party leadership’s best efforts to obstruct his agenda in Congress. Even after he fulfilled one of his core campaign promises by securing funds to construct more of the border wall using his executive authority, the president has continued to pursue other impactful initiatives to address the border crisis in the absence of congressional action.

    In June, for instance, he successfully persuaded Mexico to assist the U.S. in curtailing illegal immigration. The Mexican government not only agreed to expand the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum-seekers to stay on the Mexican side of the border while they await their U.S. court hearings, but our neighbor to the south also deployed thousands of additional police and National Guard troops on its southern border to intercept illegal immigrants trying to traverse Mexico from Central America.

    The White House later reached another breakthrough deal with Guatemala that is designed to reduce fraudulent asylum claims, and plans to formalize similar deals with other Central American countries by October.

    Immigration experts widely credit these diplomatic breakthroughs — the enforcement deal with Mexico, in particular — with alleviating the crisis on the border and reducing the rate of illegal immigrant apprehensions.

    Immigration experts give credit where credit is due...

    President Trump is continuing to win the Illegal Immigration Battles.. :D

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some Democrats were already seething over a series of recent court rulings that upheld President Trump’s border initiatives, and now that the success of those initiatives has become apparent, they’re anxious to hamstring our enforcement efforts and reverse our recent progress. According to Politico, some House Democrats are looking for “payback” for Trump’s immigration tactic, raising concerns that open-borders hardliners in the Democratic caucus might try to block funding for immigration enforcement agencies, such as the Border Patrol and ICE.

    “There is a greater and greater sense in the Democratic Party that any support of the administration’s policies is giving cover to moral wrongdoing,” Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna explained.

    Remarkably, the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates are even more radical on immigration than their colleagues in Congress. For these extremists, obstructing President Trump’s border security agenda is small potatoes — their explicit objective is to “decriminalize” illegal immigration, turning America into a country with, in effect, no borders at all.

    As if that weren’t radical enough, on the second day of their presidential primary debate in June, every Democrat on the stage openly admitted that they would support providing “free” (i.e., taxpayer-funded) health care to every single illegal alien in the country.

    And Democrats are apoplectic that President Trump continues to dominate the Democrats in this area..

    Funny how not a SINGLE commentary around here mentions ALL of the court losses that Democrats have sustained at the hands of President Trump..

    Too painful?? Yea, I can see that..

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, one of the many candidates seeking the party’s nomination, has admitted that it’s “fair” to describe some of her competitors as favoring open borders, saying, “If you look at the practical implications of some of the things they’re pushing for, it is essentially open borders.”

    Donald Trump’s success in combating the illegal immigration crisis and securing the border is anathema to the open-borders Democrats who now thoroughly dominate their party’s agenda. They want their crisis back, no matter how much human suffering that entails.

    No matter HOW ya'all want to slice it.. Democrats are losing.. And losing big.. :D

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oops.. Sorry.. Those comments were meant for today's commentary..

  241. [241] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Stuki 231

    "it was you guys who forced the great mass of apolitical, center-right, middle-of-the-country, average Americans to vote for him by choosing as his opponent, a person that those sort of folks, (aka the "deplorables"), simply couldn't tolerate!"

    Stuki, engage your brain before posting.

    the "great mass of apolyticals" ????? WTF?

    in the next part of your sentence you defined their politics: "center-right".

    They were not the majority either. The Electoral College gave them their victory.

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    They were not the majority either. The Electoral College gave them their victory.

    As it is written in the US Constitution..

    You don't like it?? Renounce your citizenship and move..

  243. [243] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig

    "Apolytical", WTF?

    I used the word (correctly spelled) in the sense of 'The opposite of Weigantians', meaning like they care about who is president, but they don't eat, drink and sleep it 24/7'. That seems pretty plain to me, but if it sailed right over your head, I'm not surprised.

    But yeah, feel free to blame the founders. It's flat-out amazing that they recognized 3 centuries ago that all the idiots in the nation would gravitate to the coasts.

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    But yeah, feel free to blame the founders. It's flat-out amazing that they recognized 3 centuries ago that all the idiots in the nation would gravitate to the coasts.

    heh.. Now THAT was funny.. :D

    Hay.. Wait a tic.. *I* am on the coast!!! :D

  245. [245] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    226

    Forecasting isn't. Fussing about the details of what a politician did or didn't say? Yeah, that is.

    How many times must it be said that the Birmingham office was unaware of the Moron-in-Chief's tweet when they made their forecast due to being inundated with calls and questions? Birmingham put out a correct forecast because otherwise it's their asses if people are harmed in the unnecessary preparation of their homes when they're not in the path of the hurricane in question. As I said, a weather forecast isn't political. It was Trump who whined like a little bitch about their correct forecast... not the other way around.

  246. [246] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Stucki-

    Mea culpa on my typing, but the only Weigantian who comes close to 24/7 politics is our resident troll.

    Your meaning didn't go over my head, you threw whatever point you were trying to make into the bushes. Center right is a political position....especially if you show enough interest to vote.

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mea culpa on my typing, but the only Weigantian who comes close to 24/7 politics is our resident troll.

    As usual, not factually accurate..

    I RARELY post after 2000hrs and am usually out of Weigantia for HOURS at a time..

    Further, up until recently, I hadn't posted in over a month..

    So, once again.. You have nothing but lame-assed bullshit..

    And I have the facts.. :D

    Your meaning didn't go over my head,

    Obviously it did.. :eyeroll:

Leave a Reply

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

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

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