ChrisWeigant.com

The Third Debate's Effect On The Democratic Polls

[ Posted Monday, September 23rd, 2019 – 17:44 UTC ]

Well, the numbers are in, so it's time to take another look at the Democratic horserace, after the third debate shook things up a bit. There are new polls out at both the national level and in Iowa, the Democratic National Committee just announced the new criteria for the fifth debate (to happen in November), and the field continues to shrink as time goes by. So a lot's been going on out on the hustings.

 

Campaign News

We'll begin with the departure from the race of Bill de Blasio, who really had no business running for president in the first place. He has slunk back to New York City, where he's supposed to be in charge of running the city. This still leaves a whopping 19 candidates in the running, but at least that number is now in the teens instead of the twenties.

The fourth debate will quite likely be held over two nights, unlike the third. At least 11 candidates will be on the stage, with one or two others who could still possibly qualify, so we're probably going to get two debates of around six people each. This will be interesting not only for the draw of who gets which night, but also because it will finally mean a manageable number of candidates on the same stage at the same time. With only five or six simultaneously onstage, each candidate will get a lot more time to speak, and there should be much more substantive discussions than we've yet seen. So even though it will be another two-day event, the quality of each night should improve dramatically.

The fifth debate's criteria were just announced today, and the D.N.C. has upped the bar once again. To qualify for the debate, each candidate will have to hit two fundraising goals as well as one of the two polling benchmarks. Qualified candidates will have to raise money from at least 165,000 individual donors, as well as having at least 600 individual donors in each of 20 states (territories and Washington D.C. will also count towards this goal). As for the polling hurdle, candidates will have to either post four national polls with three percent support or better -- or just two polls from any of the early voting states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina) showing support of at least five percent. All qualifying polls must appear from September 13th up until one week before the November debate (any older polls will not count, in other words).

This, obviously, is going to shrink the field again. As it was designed to. The two candidates who qualified for the third and fourth debates who are most vulnerable to not making the cut for the fifth are Amy Klobuchar and Julián Castro. The other eight who were on stage the last time around are probably going to make it to the fifth debate without much problem.

Before we get to looking at the individual candidates, there was one recent poll out of Iowa that has caused a stir, because it is the first one to show Joe Biden losing his frontrunner standing. Here are the results from the recent Des Moines Register poll: Elizabeth Warren (22 percent), Joe Biden (20), Bernie Sanders (11), Pete Buttigieg (9), Kamala Harris (6), Amy Klobuchar (3), Cory Booker (3), and everyone else at two percent or worse. Warren improved dramatically since the last time this poll was taken, while Biden and Sanders saw their numbers worsen.

As usual, we're taking all our polling data from the Real Clear Politics rolling "poll of polls" average, although we do have one caveat this time around, because they've tightened up their floating criteria of how far back they go when averaging the recent polls. This has always been a bit fluid with them, but it usually works out to a window of around two weeks. Since the third debate, however, they've only been averaging polls from roughly one week's time, which leads to much more "noise" and jerkiness in the trendlines. So when you look at their chart, keep in mind that they've intentionally made it spikier than it really should be.

 

Top Tier

Last Monday, I made a prediction which is now coming true. The inside-the-Beltway chattering class has all but officially announced that the Democratic nomination is now a two-person race, between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. That Iowa poll contributed heavily to this perception over the weekend. But as I argued last week, this is a wee bit premature, even if Warren was the clear winner (by the polling) of the third debate.

Joe Biden saw his national numbers fall immediately after the debate, from roughly 30 percent down to 26.2 percent. But these numbers quickly recovered, and most of this dip can be chalked up to the shorter timeframe Real Clear Politics is using. With only a one-week window, there are fewer polls in the mix, so a couple of outlier polls can seem to be a big movement in the averages chart. But, as Biden's quick recovery just proved, sometimes outliers are nothing more than outliers -- statistical anomalies that don't mean much overall. Biden is now back up to a comfortable 30.3 percent -- almost exactly where he was before the dip.

Elizabeth Warren has broken the tie for second place with Bernie Sanders in the averages, though. While the two were neck-and-neck for weeks heading into the third debate, Warren has risen significantly since while Bernie's numbers have been flat (or even down a bit). Warren now stands at 18.8 percent, and before the most recent poll was posted on the site today, she had climbed to 19.8 percent -- within reach of breaking the 20-percent barrier. One or two more really good polls will put her over this significant mark.

Bernie, on the other hand, is down to 16.5 percent, still roughly where he was before the third debate. Of the top three contenders, Bernie's polling has been more stable than the other two, who have shown a lot more volatility between individual polls. Of the last 10 polls taken (roughly two weeks, the period that Real Clear Politics usually uses to figure averages), Bernie's numbers have fallen in the range between 14 and 20 percent. In the same time period, Biden's numbers have fluctuated between 22 and 33 percent, and Warren's range is the widest, anywhere from 11 percent to 26 percent. Is this a function of different polls calling up different people? Or methodology? It's hard to tell, but it is notable that Bernie's support seems more solid at this point than either of the other two.

What's also significant, because it runs counter to the "It's a two-person race!" mantra, is the fact that in the last six polls posted (the range Real Clear Politics is using for their current average), Joe Biden leads in all of them but while Warren is in second place in three of them, Bernie is in second place in the other three. What this means is that it is still most definitely a three-person race for the frontrunner position. Warren is obviously riding high after that Iowa poll was released, but it's still way too soon to count Bernie out.

One caveat about all of this -- it is simply too soon to tell how the whole Trump/Ukraine/Biden's son scandal is going to affect the race. Will the mud flung by President Trump and his minions stick to Biden? Or will it not matter at all? Those are questions to ponder over the next few weeks of polling, but it's impossible to tell at this point.

 

Second Tier

Some of the most interesting movement is taking place further down the polls, as the second tier jockeys for position. As was true the last time we looked at the standings, there are essentially two groupings in the second tier.

The first of these saw significant news this time around, as Kamala Harris continues her long slide downward. For the first time in months, she has now slipped into fifth place, behind Pete Buttigieg. Mayor Pete is currently at 6.0 percent while Kamala has dropped to 5.8 percent. This crossover happened after the third debate, as Buttigieg obviously had a better night than Harris.

Two weeks ago, Harris was at 7.5 percent while Buttigieg was only at 4.3 percent. Harris continues to head downwards while Mayor Pete is enjoying a post-debate bump. Both, however, should easily qualify for the fifth debate (both have already qualified for the fourth), since the lowest number either one of them has posted in a poll over the past two weeks is four percent.

Harris has "moved to Iowa" in an effort to put all her chips on doing well in the first caucus, which could be a risky strategy overall but at this point is likely necessary. Harris isn't polling all that well in her home state of California, which votes on Super Tuesday, but if Harris can't manage at least a fourth-place finish in one of the early-voting states, it likely won't matter because the voters will have moved on. It will be interesting to see the fundraising numbers for these two as well (new quarterly totals will be released after the end of this month), after Buttigieg wowed everyone with his first-place haul last quarter.

Moving down to the lower grouping in the second tier, we have three candidates loosely clumped around three percent. The three candidates are the same as last time around, but there have been some position changes. Beto O'Rourke had a decent debate night, and has seen his numbers modestly improve since then, to an average of 3.3 percent. This is a big psychological turnaround for him, as previously his numbers were on a downward trajectory. Andrew Yang's numbers were a bit flatter, as he's now at 2.8 percent. And Cory Booker is hanging in there with 2.7 percent.

Two weeks ago, the order was different, with Yang at 2.7 percent, Booker at 2.5, and O'Rourke at only 2.3 percent. Obviously, Beto has improved the most within this group, while the others stayed pretty flat. All three are likely to qualify for the fifth debate, rounding out the expected field to just the eight top candidates.

That's if they're all still running, of course. Booker has taken the extraordinary step of holding his own campaign hostage -- he is now openly stating that if he doesn't raise $1.7 million by the end of the month, he's going to pack his bags and head back to New Jersey. This is somewhat of a gimmick, but he certainly sounds sincere. It's a tactic I don't recall ever having seen before, as usually these types of decisions and these types of target numbers are closely-held secrets within each campaign. We'll see whether it works for him or not, but if he drops out of the race there'd be no reason for him to show up at the fourth debate -- which might even make it a single-night debate rather than a two-night affair.

 

Third Tier

Then there's everyone else. Everyone in the third tier is in serious danger of not qualifying for the fifth debate, even though at least three or four of them will be in the fourth debate (where they only need polls of two percent support to qualify).

There are three candidates with current polling averages at one percent or better. Amy Klobuchar leads the pack at the back of the race with 1.7 percent, a slight improvement over last time (when she was only at 1.0 percent), but this was not enough to vault her even into the second tier.

Julián Castro also marginally improved, up from 0.8 percent to 1.2 percent, but most people saw his third debate performance -- where he went directly at Joe Biden in a big way -- in a very negative light.

Tulsi Gabbard paid a big price for not qualifying for the third debate, as she slipped back from her brief stint in the second tier. Last time around, she was polling at 1.7 percent, but she's now down to a single percentage point. She may make the fourth debate, which at this point seems almost necessary if she's even going to continue her campaign.

Below the one-percent mark are the other eight candidates: Tom Steyer, Michael Bennet, John Delaney, Steve Bullock, Marianne Williamson, Tim Ryan, Joe Sestak, and Wayne Messam. Only one of these -- Tom Steyer -- has qualified for the fourth debate already. Williamson may also squeak into the fourth debate, but none of the others are likely to do so.

Of the folks at the back of the pack, only Steyer, Delaney, and Williamson likely have the financial resources to continue their campaigns even if they are excluded from upcoming debates. In the case of Steyer and Delaney, this is because they are largely self-financing their own campaigns. Wayne Messam seems to be running some bizarre vanity campaign, but the entire rest of the list of those at the bottom may be forced to drop out of the race within the next month or so, as the field continues to shrink.

 

Conclusions

This is a pivotal time for Joe Biden's campaign. Can he continue to chalk up double-digit leads against his nearest competitor, or will Warren continue her slow rise in the polling to get within 10 points of the frontrunner? Will Biden finally be seriously challenged for the lead?

Biden seems somewhat vulnerable for two reasons. The first is how the Democratic electorate reacts to all the mud Trump is slinging his way right now. Will it cause enough doubt that Biden's number one strength -- electability -- begins to be questioned? Are people supporting Biden because they support him as a candidate or do they just want the best challenger to Trump? If Biden's dominance on the electability question slips, then voters will start taking a much harder look at the other candidates in the top ranks.

The second possible vulnerability problem for Biden is his domination among African-American voters. So far, this support has boosted his standings considerably while all the other candidates struggle to make inroads with this important Democratic demographic. But African-American support can evaporate quickly -- just ask Hillary Clinton.

In 2008, Clinton held a lead among African-American voters, right up until Barack Obama did extremely well in Iowa and New Hampshire. At that point, suddenly Hillary didn't seem quite so inevitable as the nominee, and African-Americans began actually believing that a black man could be elected president. The rest is history.

The same thing could happen to Biden, which is why his campaign is likely very worried about that Iowa poll. If Warren wins in both Iowa and New Hampshire (as now seems entirely possible), then Biden's African-American support could crumble very quickly in the key state of South Carolina. There's no guarantee of this happening, but like I said, it's got to be a pretty worrisome scenario for Team Biden right now.

So far, Biden seems to be doing a pretty good job of fighting back against Trump's innuendo and smears. He's showing real emotion and taking the fight directly to Trump, which is exactly what a lot of Democratic voters are looking for from him. So in the end this whole event could actually help Biden among the Democratic electorate.

But all of that is currently up in the air. The next few weeks could be crucial, no matter which way things shake out.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

126 Comments on “The Third Debate's Effect On The Democratic Polls”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Will the mud flung by President Trump and his minions stick to Biden?

    I should think that will depend on whether the truth of the matter prevails.

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I honestly can't see a clear shift in the fortunes of Biden, Sanders and Warren according to the RCP rolling average plot from July to today. That said, the RCP rolling average isn't very sensitive to short term change - since averaging takes place over 2-3 weeks and polls don't roll in and out of the average in a constant pattern. My eyeball says Harris likely lost ground over the July to present interval, but she hasn't dropped into the second tier. Everyone else still on the field is looking for a Hail Mary Miracle before they are whipped.

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Biden does strike me as somewhat vulnerable, but mostly because he's got the big ol' number one on his back. His delivery in recent outings has been solid, but so has Warren's. I agree with CW, Sanders has been off his game recently-but maybe that's just relative to Biden and Warren.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Can a 'Medicare-for-all/elimination of private insurance' candidate win a general election.

    Can one's own personal healthcare situation trump, well, Trump?

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In 2008, Clinton held a lead among African-American voters, right up until Barack Obama did extremely well in Iowa and New Hampshire. At that point, suddenly Hillary didn't seem quite so inevitable as the nominee, and African-Americans began actually believing that a black man could be elected president. The rest is history.

    But, that situation is clearly not at all like Biden versus Warren, Sanders, et al.

    In other words, Biden's support among African-Americans is exponentially deeper and stronger than the support Clinton was getting in a race with Barack Obama, no?

  6. [6] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-4

    Depends on how it's packaged and sold to the public. Medicare is largely implemented by private insurers operating under government specifications. I'm on it, I like it, Blue Cross and its network of doctors and hospitals are my providers. I am heavilly subsidized by the US Gov.....my "premiums" are 50$ per month subtracted from my social security check. My out of pocket expenses are capped, I can lower the cap by paying more out of pocket. The big financial worry is if you enter a hospital in an emergency. The hospital may in network, but that doesn't mean the surgeon who operates is also in network. That can lead to hugely inflated medical bills....followed by lawyers, lawsuits etc. If I pay higher premiums to medicare will cover any network, which eliminates this risk.

    If medicare for all offered a generous subsidy similar to that given by Medicare it would be wildly popular....if the tax burden that pays for the subsidy is shifted towards high incomes. If the subsidy is not shifted to high incomes, Medicare
    For All starts to look like Obama Care, where premiums are much higher than medicare, unless your income is very low.

    Devil is in the details!

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What about eliminating private healthcare insurance? Would that be wildly popular, enough to win a general election?

    I don't think Americans in general will ever understand how health insurance works or wrap their minds around the concept that the only way healthcare insurance can work well is through a single-payer, government-run universal system.

    I used to think that the US was in a position to vastly improve upon other universal healthcare systems such as the one I thoroughly enjoy here in Canada. But, I'm not so sure about that anymore or whether the US can practically go from the current situation to a universal model Perhaps, with baby steps?

  8. [8] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Elizabeth [7]: There's a lot to be said for expanding and increasing an existing program such as Medicare/Medicaid incrementally by increasing eligibility, what is covered and how it is funded, giving time for the systems to adapt to meet each stage rather than the shock of total change. A widely used affordable system would have better negotiating power with the pharmaceutical bloc and should mean private insurers would have to rein in their charges to stay in business.

    But, going by the political, ideological crippling of the UK NHS at the moment, there also needs to be insulation against politicians and special interests. See also Republican measures to impede or not implement Obamacare.

    Another big consideration is the number of very elderly people, often with multiple health problems, who will be needing health care for some years. (Don't just blame boomers, most of us are still ok and trying to stay healthy; the current very elderly were depression and wartime babies.) There ought to be provision for preventative and palliative care, enabling more to stay in their own homes and communities rather than in expensive institutional care.

  9. [9] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    I don't think Americans in general will ever understand how health insurance works or wrap their minds around the concept that the only way healthcare insurance can work well is through a single-payer, government-run universal system.

    Ohhhhhh, why would you say that??? Could it be the number of Americans who wanted ObamaCare revoked but did not want their ACA touched?

    When you have one party not willing to support anything that could greatly benefit the nation if they aren’t in the White House to take the credit for it, misinformation tends to occur.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Will the mud flung by President Trump and his minions stick to Biden?

    It can't help but stick to Biden.. Add to that the fact that his son Hunter is very likely going to prison..

    Yer going to see Biden's campaign fall apart relatively soon...

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    In a unanimous ruling by all 11 judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdon, President Trump's "good friend" Boris Johnson has been found to have acted unlawfully.

    Congratulations to the people of the United Kingdom; it seems Democracy is making a comeback. Too bad for Trump's "good friend" who likely has a red double-decker in his future.

    Eleven Supreme Court judges sounds awesome. We should give that some serious consideration here in the States. ;)

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again.. We have all of ya'all's hysteria and bullshit...

    Schiff and Atkinson clearly have mistaken what the law requires. Under the law, the IG has the authority and power to investigate matters regarding the conduct of the intelligence community, not the president. The relevant law — Title 50 U.S. Code Section 3033 — gives the IC/IG the authority to investigate:

    … complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

    That means the IC/IG can receive complaints about and investigate actions occurring within the intelligence community, not the White House. There is nothing in the law that empowers him to investigate presidential conversations with foreign leaders or anyone else.

    In the context of defining complaints under the IC/IG’s jurisdiction, the law defines the term “urgent” to mean:

    A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.

    Thus, there’s no IC/IG jurisdiction over complaints that allege improprieties in the White House or any other part of the government particularly when they are over differences of opinion on public policy, i.e., diplomatic and political matters such as conversations with foreign leaders.

    Therefore, Atkinson’s acceptance of the complaint regarding Trump’s conversation with Zelensky is improper. The complaint may or may not be credible, but it’s neither urgent nor within the IG’s jurisdiction.
    https://spectator.org/whistleblowin-in-the-wind/

    And then I have the FACTS....

    Better go searching the internet to find more personal information on myself and my family so ya'all could try to extort me into silence again..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

    I get it.. Ya'all don't like to be dominated by the facts and reality.. So you try digging up dirt of me and my family to try and intimidate me into silence..

    Guess what, morons?? NOT gonna happen..

    It simply prompts me to post more and more...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Scott Adams has always been a good source for reality..

    A Message for Children About Climate Change

    Dear Children,

    I’m sorry adults have frightened you about climate change and how it might affect your future. You might be less afraid if you knew some facts that adults intentionally do not explain to you. I’ll tell you here.

    The news was once a source of real information, or so we thought. But in the modern world, the news people discovered they can make more money by presenting scary news regardless of whether it is true or not. Today, much of the news on the right and the left is opinion that is meant to scare you, not inform you, because scary things get more attention, and that makes the news business more profitable. The same is true for people who write books; authors often make books scary so you will buy them. Most adults know all the scariness is not real. Most kids do not. You just learned it.
    https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/09/23/a-message-for-children-about-climate-change/

    Global Warming fanatics are so desperate they are now indoctrinating children to be their useful idiots...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Liberals and Progressives Lie to Blacks

    In a Slate article -- "Democratic Candidates Are Misrepresenting Michael Brown's Death"-- the reliably-liberal William Saletan wrote:

    Last week, in a Democratic presidential debate, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro read a list of black Americans killed by police violence. Alongside Laquan McDonald, Walter Scott, and Eric Garner, Castro named Michael Brown, who was shot dead five years ago in Ferguson, Missouri. Several of the current Democratic candidates have accused the officer who shot Brown of murder. Brown’s death was a tragedy, but it wasn’t a murder.

    Besides Castro, the candidates who have joined in this calumny were Kamala Harris, Tom Steyer, and quasi-frontrunner Elizabeth Warren. Saletan continued:

    But at the core of the story, there was a problem: The original account of Brown’s death, that he had been shot in the back or while raising his hands in surrender, was false. The shooting was thoroughly investigated, first by a grand jury and then by the Obama Justice Department. The investigations found that Brown assaulted Wilson, tried to grab his gun, and was shot dead while advancing toward Wilson again.

    Saletan, I suppose to protect his liberal bonafides, also notes: "Brown became an icon of the Black Lives Matter movement for understandable reasons." (Oh, really?) But let's leave that aside and examine why the candidates are promulgating such a well-proven lie (Saletan does a good job demonstrating its extent), not even correcting it when confronted by the press, in Warren's case most egregiously so.

    Democrat support by black Americans is waning...

    More and more black Americans are coming to grips with the FACT that Democrat support is simply another form of slavery..

    Democrats are staying true to their slave-owner roots and black Americans are recognizing this..

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is all of a piece with the exploitation of African Americans by the Democratic Party that has been going on since the Age of Johnson, Lyndon. This only got worse under Obama when numerous prevarications and exaggerations encouraged a new separatism in a society that had made immense strides in racial equality. (A new documentary on the Trayvon Martin case explores the dishonesty behind this particular episode.)

    This dishonesty to black people practiced by Warren and the others -- fomenting anger toward the police -- makes the lives of African Americans worse, frequently endangering them and resulting in their deaths, as Heather Mac Donald details so well in her The War on Cops. I often wonder how many liberals have read this book. I imagine very few because it so undermines their virtue-signaling narrative with uncomfortable and overwhelming facts. For someone like Warren to fan the flames of cop-hatred is despicable and immoral, but not surprising for someone so willing to lie about her Indian ethnicity. If black lives truly did matter to her, she would never say such a thing.

    The Democrat Party plan for black Americans just leads to more slavery and more death..

    "Death, slavery. More slavery, more death."
    -Dr Daniel Jackson, STARGATE CONTINUUM

    That's all that the Democrat Party offers black Americans.

    President Trump? He has given black Americans respect and SELF respect.. President Trump has given black Americans JOBS.. Lowest black unemployment ***EVER***..

    When black Americans see what President Trump has done for them and then look at the death and slavery and destruction etc etc..

    Black Americans' choice is clear..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Democrats only talk to black people every four years." -Charles Barkley

    Says it all right there..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, it's funny..

    STILL, not a SINGLE Democrat is commenting on how gross and perverse it was for a Democrat abortionist extraordinaire to take home with him over 2200 abortion trophies..

    What *IS* it with Democrats anyways??

    I know, I know.. Democrats want to "celebrate their abortions"..

    NOW, apparently, Democrats are giving out trophies.. :eyeroll:

    #sad #pathetic

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, Biden's support among African-Americans is exponentially deeper and stronger than the support Clinton was getting in a race with Barack Obama, no?

    No...

    Clinton's black American support was deep, based on her relationship with the "first black President" Bill Clinton..

    As with Biden, whose black American support is just as deep based on his relationship with the REAL first black President.

    But black support is dwindling away from Democrats, based on the facts and reality..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    But let's look to our neighbor in the north...

    Remember how ya'all swooned and marvel'ed at the second coming of Obama in Justin Trudeau?? :D

    Justin Trudeau, Identity-Politics Hypocrite
    https://tinyurl.com/y633czha

    Amazing what facts and reality does to ya'all's hero worship, eh?? :D

  20. [20] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-7

    German and Swiss medical systems are both based upon compulsory health insurance subsidized by the government. Both systems are popular with the citizens and produce good health care outcomes. Both are relatvely expensive compared to other developed countries, but much cheaper than the US model. The US system is just plain inefficient - by design. US patent law is a major factor driving scandalous prescription costs in the USA. Put in a new buffer - that's a new patent.

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Another exciting installment in the "Trail of Tiers" series.

    Yawn.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    German and Swiss medical systems are both based upon compulsory health insurance subsidized by the government. Both systems are popular with the citizens and produce good health care outcomes. Both are relatvely expensive compared to other developed countries, but much cheaper than the US model. The US system is just plain inefficient - by design. US patent law is a major factor driving scandalous prescription costs in the USA. Put in a new buffer - that's a new patent.

    A whole lot of BS spewage..

    With not a single fact to support..

    Why am I not surprised.. ??? :eyeroll:

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another exciting installment in the "Trail of Tiers" series.

    Yawn.

    Oh come now, DH..

    With all the BAD hitting the Democrat Party, they gotta have SOMETHING to talk about that doesn't remind them how bad things are and how good things are for President Trump and this country...

    Give them their delusion....

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (4,7)-
    Whether or not a medicare for all/elimination of private insurance candidate can win a general election or if Americans understand how health insurance works or wrap their minds around the concept that the only way health insurance can work is through a single payer system, it won't matter what the candidate says they will do as long as the candidate finances their campaign with big money.

    Campaign promises by big money candidates are the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic instead of trying to stop the ship from hitting an iceberg.

    No matter how many baby steps they promise or even achieve if elected the baby steps are accompanied by much larger steps in the other direction.

    NOTHING on healthcare, climate change, income inequality, etc. will be accomplished until we can elect a candidate that is NOT dependent on big money to run their campaign.

    Americans need to wrap their head around the concept that democracy can only work if we eliminate the big money from our political process.

    Baby steps that are cancelled out by larger steps in the wrong direction will not achieve this goal.

    The only way out of the current situation is for citizens to take bold action to demand small donor candidates in a long term plan that may take more than one election cycle to solve the problem that has been festering and growing for decades and stop buying into the lie that this election is all that matters so any long term action must be put on the back burner while citizens vote for baby steps to maintain the status quo out of short term manufactured fear of things getting worse before they get better that guarantees that things will keep getting worse as the baby steps are cancelled out by the larger steps in the wrong direction.

    Choosing between the foxes and the wolves to guard the hen house is not going to result in two chickens in every pot.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    'How dare you?' Greta Thunberg asks world leaders at UN
    https://news.yahoo.com/dare-greta-thunberg-asks-world-leaders-un-152546818.html

    Looks like this Greta Thrunberg is giving David Hogg a run for his money as the Biggest Little Ignorant Pipsqueak (AKA B.L.I.P.) that should be ignored..

    What IS it about Democrats that they embrace the most ignorant amongst humans??

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing.

    "We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is the money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!"

    OH MY GODS!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! WAAAAAAA!!! WAAAAAAA!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!

    Grow up, little miss.. Get some experience and training under your belt.. Then you'll be more than just some young indoctrinated punk that can be used by the Dumbocrat Party...

    Compare and contrast the Democrats reaction to this little pipsqueak and the reaction to the little girl that mocked Occasional Cortex..

    Democrats sent THAT little girl and her family death threats...

    Sometimes Democrats simply disgust me. OK OK, MOST times Democrats simply disgust me..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Choosing between the foxes and the wolves to guard the hen house is not going to result in two chickens in every pot.

    Nice turn of the metaphor, there DH... :D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    This latest Trump Ukraine faux "scandal" reminds me exactly of the latest Kavanaugh scandal..

    A bullshit scandalous report in the NY GRIME, followed up by FACTS that paint an entirely different picture..

    And then a Democrat feeding frenzy where Democrats fall all over themselves to condemn everything..

    Then a calming of the waters and the realization that, once again, Democrats have been had...

    You could almost set your WATCH to it..

    I am going thru a LOT of popcorn watching Democrats make asses of themselves over and over and over again..

    :D

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    NO. I will not give them their delusion.

    It has resulted in YOUR delusion that Trump is good for this country.

    The only good that could come out of Trump is that citizens would realize Trump is just the tip of the iceberg and be inspired to take the bold action needed to end the charade which is the only way to prevent the next Trump which will be even worse.

    This is supposed to be a reality based blog.

    It should have at least one person not buying into the delusions of those that prefer burying their heads in the sand because they are afraid to take action and/or admit they have been suckered.

    How else will the author ever stop promoting the lies and actually live up to the claim of a reality based blog, if that is ever to happen?

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    It has resulted in YOUR delusion that Trump is good for this country.

    Facts don't lie, my friend..

    Lowest unemployment for minorities **EVER**

    Lowest unemployment overall in **DECADES**

    Millions more jobs than people...

    GDP consistently higher than Odumbo and the Dumbocrats said it could ever be!!!

    A fully conservative SCOTUS whose ratio to liberal will be 7 to 2 in very short order..

    A completely protected 2nd Amendment that will withstand ALL assaults on it..

    What's not to love!?? :D

    The only good that could come out of Trump is that citizens would realize Trump is just the tip of the iceberg

    Gotta disagree with ya here.. To claim Trump is simple one example of same ol same ol politician is simply to ignore the reality of President Trump..

    There has been NO POTUS like President Trump.. There likely will NEVER BE another POTUS like President Trump..

    This is supposed to be a reality based blog.

    Yea, but it lost that status with the onset of HHPTDS...

    It should have at least one person not buying into the delusions of those that prefer burying their heads in the sand because they are afraid to take action and/or admit they have been suckered.

    "That would be me.."
    -Beach Jock, BEDAZZLED

    :D

    How else will the author ever stop promoting the lies and actually live up to the claim of a reality based blog, if that is ever to happen?

    We have the blog we have, not the blog we wish we had...

    I would love to see this forum get back to the way it was before all the Haters and Stalkers and Morons showed up...

    But we have what we have, not what we WISH we would have..

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    I know you love Eli Manning (the big money Dems) and won some Super Bowls but you are 8-24 since.

    It's time to give Daniel Jones a shot.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of the little pipsqueak...

    VIDEO: College students think world will end in 12 years
    https://www.thecollegefix.com/video-college-students-think-world-will-end-in-12-years/

    Dumbocrat indoctrination simply breeds morons..

    :eyeroll:

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, let me get this straight..

    Dumbocrats are all hysterical because they believed President Trump used funding to coerce Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden...

    So, what do Democrats do??

    Let's get real: Democrats were first to enlist Ukraine in US elections

    Earlier this month, during a bipartisan meeting in Kiev, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) delivered a pointed message to Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

    While choosing his words carefully, Murphy made clear — by his own account — that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S. aid but that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to requests by President Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including former Vice President Joe Biden’s family.

    Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country’s “most important asset” and it would be viewed as election-meddling and “disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations” to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani.

    "I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them," Murphy told me today, confirming what he told Ukraine's leader.

    The implied message did not require an interpreter for Zelensky to understand: Investigate the Ukraine dealings of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, and you jeopardize Democrats' support for future U.S. aid to Kiev.

    Democrats turn around and threaten Ukraine with losing funding if Ukraine goes and investigate the wrong-doing of Joe and Hunter Biden..

    So, the FACTS clearly show that Democrats are accusing the President of doing something illegal and then they turn around and DO THE EXACT SAME THING!!

    WTF????

    Democrats are well and truly whacked..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Murphy anecdote is a powerful reminder that, since at least 2016, Democrats repeatedly have exerted pressure on Ukraine, a key U.S. ally for buffering Russia, to meddle in U.S. politics and elections.

    And that activity long preceded Giuliani’s discussions with Ukrainian officials and Trump’s phone call to Zelensky in July, seeking to have Ukraine formally investigate whether then-Vice President Joe Biden used a threat of canceling foreign aid to shut down an investigation into $3 million routed to the U.S. firm run by Biden’s son.

    As I have reported, the pressure began at least as early as January 2016, when the Obama White House unexpectedly invited Ukraine’s top prosecutors to Washington to discuss fighting corruption in the country.

    The meeting, promised as training, turned out to be more of a pretext for the Obama administration to pressure Ukraine’s prosecutors to drop an investigation into the Burisma Holdings gas company that employed Hunter Biden and to look for new evidence in a then-dormant criminal case against eventual Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a GOP lobbyist.

    So, it looks like Odumbo and Biden were involved in Ukraine to get dirt on Trump long before the election..

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shortly after the Ukrainian prosecutors returned from their Washington meeting, a new round of Democratic pressure was exerted on Ukraine — this time via its embassy in Washington.

    Valeriy Chaly, the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States at the time, confirmed to me in a statement issued by his office that, in March 2016, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) pressed his embassy to try to find any Russian dirt on Trump and Manafort that might reside in Ukraine’s intelligence files.

    The DNC contractor also asked Chaly's team to try to persuade Ukraine’s president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, to make a statement disparaging Manafort when the Ukrainian leader visited the United States during the 2016 election.

    Chaly said his embassy rebuffed both requests because it recognized they were improper efforts to get a foreign government to try to influence the election against Trump and for Hillary Clinton.

    The political pressure continued. Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in crucial U.S. aid to Kiev if Poroshenko did not fire the country’s chief prosecutor. Ukraine would have been bankrupted without the aid, so Poroshenko obliged on March 29, 2016, and fired Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

    At the time, Biden was aware that Shokin’s office was investigating Burisma, the firm employing Hunter Biden, after a December 2015 New York Times article.

    What wasn’t known at the time, Shokin told me recently, was that Ukrainian prosecutors were preparing a request to interview Hunter Biden about his activities and the monies he was receiving from Ukraine. If such an interview became public during the middle of the 2016 election, it could have had enormous negative implications for Democrats.

    All the facts are going to come out..

    And it's going to be DEVASTATING for the Demcorat Party! :D

    WOOT!!!

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Will the mud flung by President Trump and his minions stick to Biden? Or will it not matter at all? Those are questions to ponder over the next few weeks of polling, but it's impossible to tell at this point.

    Although I have no doubt the gullible MAGAt useful idiots will believe whatever bullshit they are spoon-fed by the corrupt asshat who holds the position of POTUS and the complicit morons who know better but have no spinal columns, we're talking about a billion-dollar loan guarantee and not as the dipshits keep whining "a billion dollars being withheld by Joe Biden."

    Of course, as always, the verifiable facts don't exactly match the Trump bullshit. In repeatedly castigating Biden's effort to get the prosecutor general fired, Trump has declined to mention that a whole lot of other people were doing the same thing at the same time and looking to the United States for leadership on the issue. Shokin was faulted for declining to bring prosecutions of elites' corruption, not the other way around. Shokin's deputy, Vitaliy Kasko, resigned in February 2016 alleging that Shokin's office was corrupt.

    At that time, the IMF had warned Ukraine that it risked losing financial support if it did not clean up its act.

    Fast forward to Biden applying very public and private pressure on the Ukraine. In Biden's speech to Ukraine's legislature, he said: "The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform."

    At a Council on Foreign Relations event in 2018, Biden recounted that he had threatened to withhold a "billion-dollar loan guarantee" unless Poroshenko followed through on what Biden said was a "commitment" to "take action against the state prosecutor."

    "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said.

    So Biden -- as he is wont to do -- wasn't exactly factual here, as Shokin wasn't actually terminated while Biden was in the Ukraine, but Ukraine's legislature voted to terminate Shokin later in March 2016 after pressure from multiple avenues.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/23/politics/fact-check-trump-ukraine-hunter-biden-joe-biden/index.html

    Allow me to reiterate what I said yesterday that I find it infinitely interesting that Trump -- after all these years -- suddenly needed to send his personal attorney to Ukraine regarding so-called "corruption" involving Hunter and Joe Biden? Oh, please!

    Also, since when has Trump shown any interest in doing a damn thing about corruption in foreign government? And speaking of corruption, why such cozying up to Vladimir Putin and Russia and the easing of sanctions on Manafort's pal Deripaska to build a "foil factory" in Moscow Mitch's State of Kentucky when it was Deripaska who paid Manafort tens of millions of dollars to further Russia's interests around the globe?

    Manafort wasn't just any GOP candidate's campaign manager, he was Trump's... the same Manafort who is not exactly a stranger to Ukraine and corruption seeing that Manafort has entered a guilty plea and is now serving multiple years in prison at least in part for some of Manafort's admitted involvement of corruption in Ukraine wherein his corrupt pal Victor fled to the waiting arms of his friends in Russia.

    Deripaska, Moscow Mitch, Ukraine, Paul Manafort -- I could go on, you know -- are all connected events and seem to mirror nicely the "same shit different day" of Russia's interference in the affairs of the United States through Benedict Donald... and the "elephant in the room" foreign corruption that didn't seem to motivate the decisions of either Trump or McConnell until just very recently.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Democrats are finally going to take the Impeachment step..

    Nancy Pelosi will meet with House Democrats TODAY on impeachment as they reach 'tipping point' despite Trump insisting there would be nothing wrong with asking Ukraine's president for Joe Biden corruption probe
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7496145/Pressure-grows-Trump-transcript-says-clear-him.html

    Democrats, once again, are dancing to President Trump's tune..

    Nothing will energize Trump voters more than Democrats trying to nullify a free, fair, legal and Constitutional election..

    But at least it establishes one fact..

    Democrats are becoming more and more afraid that they CAN'T beat President Trump at the ballot box...

    :D

    Once again, President Trump has maneuvered Democrats into the PERFECT Lose-Lose situation.. :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    The political pressure continued. Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in crucial U.S. aid to Kiev if Poroshenko did not fire the country’s chief prosecutor. Ukraine would have been bankrupted without the aid, so Poroshenko obliged on March 29, 2016, and fired Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

    At the time, Biden was aware that Shokin’s office was investigating Burisma, the firm employing Hunter Biden, after a December 2015 New York Times article.

    What wasn’t known at the time, Shokin told me recently, was that Ukrainian prosecutors were preparing a request to interview Hunter Biden about his activities and the monies he was receiving from Ukraine. If such an interview became public during the middle of the 2016 election, it could have had enormous negative implications for Democrats.

    Funny how Joe Biden's one BILLION dollar extortion scheme was deployed at the EXACT moment that the General Prosecutor in Ukraine was preparing to interview Hunter Biden...

    Joe's campaign will be in tatters and Hunter will be going to prison...

    And Democrats?? They will, once more, skulk away to lick their wounds.. :D

    "It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood"
    -Tom Hanks

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Andrew McCarthy: Triangulating Manafort -- Obama, Clinton and Ukraine

    It is in connection with Paul Manafort that we encounter some genuine collusion targeting the 2016 campaign: willful collaboration among foreign governments, the Obama administration, and the Clinton campaign.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-manafort-obama-clinton-ukraine

    Once again, Democrats are really shooting themselves in the foot....

    It's COMICAL to watch!! :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, according to Real Clear Politics, President Trump is enjoying a massive Approval uptick.. :D

    President Trump's approval numbers are better than Odumbo's!!!

    OUCH!!!

    That's just GOTTA hurt the Trump/America haters who go on and on about how President Trump is the worst President ever...

    :D

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    9

    Ohhhhhh, why would you say that??? Could it be the number of Americans who wanted ObamaCare revoked but did not want their ACA touched?

    Heh! Remember the dipshit on Facebook celebrating the Senate vote to kill the ACA (one of dozens)?

    I'm not on Obamacare. My health insurance is through the ACA (Affordable Care Act), which was what they had to come up with after Obamacare crashed and burned as bad as it did. So I'm gonna be fine. ~ Dipshit on Facebook

    And the GOP in their "infinite wisdom" are still trying to kill the ACA in the Supreme Court as we "speak" and throw millions of Americans off their health care... while still not having a single thing to replace it with: "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated"... if by "nobody" Trump meant "everybody."

    When you have one party not willing to support anything that could greatly benefit the nation if they aren’t in the White House to take the credit for it, misinformation tends to occur.

    Yep! Also, whenever Donald Trump says something about near anything, misinformation tends to occur because he's an inveterate con and pathological liar.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Media have only themselves to blame for disbelief in Ukraine scandal

    Voter distrust — hatred, really — of the media has reached record highs. And it is all your fault.

    It is all your fault because you stopped believing in the media.

    It is your fault because you read too many stories about how Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 election — only to discover that it was Hillary Clinton and the Democrats who colluded with the Kremlin to smear Mr. Trump before the 2016 election.

    It is your fault for reading stories about how Mr. Trump lies about everything and will make up anything to destroy his political opponents — only to learn that Democrats in Congress wake up every morning to do that every single day, especially when it comes to Mr. Trump.

    It is your fault before that for reading all of those stories during the 2016 election about how Mr. Trump was such a tyrannical megalomaniac for suggesting he might not accept the results of the election — only to spend three years listening to Mrs. Clinton, all the Democrats and most of the crooked media refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/23/ukraine-scandal-disbelief-caused-media-anti-trump-/

    President Trump's popularity FAR exceeds the Leftist MSM media's popularity **AND** the Democrat Party's popularity... :D

    Once again, the POLLS crushes and DECIMATES the Demcorat Party and it's propaganda arm.. :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    And just when you think our world has been drained of every last drop of absurdity, along comes the media carnival peddling one more bogus story.

    Again, Mr. Trump is the culprit. Supposedly, according to a hearsay witness who did not actually observe the offense, Mr. Trump colluded with the president of Ukraine over the phone and pressured him to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joseph R. Biden.

    Turns out, according to two named, on-the-record sources who were on that actual phone call, Mr. Trump never colluded or pressured anybody.

    Also, turns out, there is a heinous little swamp scandal involving Mr. Biden and some apparently crooked deal his son had with a Ukrainian company in which it appears Mr. Biden used diplomatic pressure to protect or promote his son’s business interests.

    Once again..

    ALL Dumbocrats have are two "anonymous sources" one who actually ADMITS that the accusation is 3rd hand hearsay...

    And the facts??

    Well, the facts have NAMED, ID'ed and ON THE RECORD sources, including none other than Joe Biden himself BRAGGING about how he extorted the Ukraine government to fire the Prosecutor General who was about to indict Hunter Biden for corruption..

    Once again.. Democrats have hysterical bullshit from ANONYMOUS SOURCES...

    And the forces of good and just have the FACTS..

    Typical..

  44. [44] 
    John M wrote:

    [10] Michale wrote:

    "It can't help but stick to Biden.. Add to that the fact that his son Hunter is very likely going to prison.."

    For what specific charge?

    There are no American criminal charges pending against him and no American criminal investigation.

    There are also no Ukrainian criminal charges pending and the Ukrainian government has no appetite for any Ukrainian government investigation.

    So how exactly is he going to prison???

    "Yer going to see Biden's campaign fall apart relatively soon..."

    Dream on!

  45. [45] 
    John M wrote:

    [10] Michale wrote:

    "It can't help but stick to Biden.. Add to that the fact that his son Hunter is very likely going to prison.."

    In FACT, Ukraine’s current prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, was quoted by Bloomberg News in May as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    For what specific charge?

    Change the name "Hunter Biden" to "Donald Trump Jr" and I am sure you can answer your own question.. :D

    See.. How easy was that, eh! :D

    There are no American criminal charges pending against him and no American criminal investigation.

    In FACT, Ukraine’s current prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, was quoted by Bloomberg News in May as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son.

    OF COURSE he doesn't.. THAT is why the previous GP was fired and a puppet put in his place.

    DUH...

    Did you not have yer Wheaties this morning, JM???

    And if we were talking about American criminal charges you would have a point.. But we're not, so you don't..

    "Yer going to see Biden's campaign fall apart relatively soon..."

    Dream on!

    Yea?? Howz Joe's numbers been lately??

    The decline is going to accelerate... :D

    You don't think so??

    Want to put a wager on that??

    No?? Of course you don't. :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are probably sitting at home wondering what the hell is this all about.

    Well, here is my theory. I believe the so-called “whistleblower” — the hearsay gossip witness who neither saw nor heard anything directly — went tattling to the inspector general knowing full well that the IG would take his evidence, thank him kindly and send him back to his cubicle in whatever “intelligence” agency was dumb enough to hire him in the first place.

    The inspector general would handle appropriately and realize there was absolutely nothing to report to Congress.

    Then, of course, it would leak.

    Yep..

    As I have said time and again.. Ya'all Trump/America haters are NOTHING if not predictable..

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in all the swampy murk and whispered evidence, the story would sound absolutely terrible. It would make Mr. Trump look like a real crook after all and drive the nuts in Congress totally bonkers, demanding impeachment all over again.

    Only Mr. Trump did what he always does these days. He took to Twitter and went on live TV and laid it all out himself. It is just what you have to do when you cannot trust the media to do its job anymore.

    And, once again, the story backfires and blows up in the Wile E. Coyote media’s faces as Mr. Trump zooms into the sunset like the Road Runner with a giant orange crown.

    Beep! Beep!

    Once again, the question just HAS to be asked..

    You would think that Democrats, after getting their asses handed to them time and time and time and time again..

    That they would actually LEARN something from it?

    Wouldn't ya think??

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michigan official once honored by Dems now facing election fraud charges

    A Michigan official who earlier this year received an award from the state’s Democratic Party is now facing six felony charges for allegedly forging records and falsely marking absentee ballots as invalid during the 2018 election.

    Sherikia Hawkins, 38, city clerk for the city of Southfield, was arrested Monday after the Oakland County Clerk’s office noticed discrepancies in voter counts while certifying absentee ballots from Southfield. State police investigated and found that records had been altered so that nearly 200 voter files were improperly listed as invalid.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michigan-official-once-honored-by-dems-now-facing-election-fraud-charges

    Yea.. Democrats go on and on about the GOP in NC..

    Of course they ignore it when their own cheats in an election..

    They actually HONOR the moron.. :eyeroll:

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM???

    Where did ya go???

    Damn!! The facts scared away ANOTHER one.. :(

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Your fact-free assertions have zero credibility, Michale, even if they are not consistently debunked by the author of this site.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your fact-free assertions have zero credibility, Michale,

    Of course the have credibility. Just not amongst those who are enslaved by ideology..

    I mean, let's look at reality..

    Of all the times ya'all said, "THIS will be the one that takes down Trump!!!" (at least several hundred times..) ya'all have been CONSISTENTLY wrong... And *I* have been factually accurate... CONSISTENTLY..

    So, if you use a NORMAL and RATIONAL measure of credibility, IE track record, it's CLEAR who has the more credibility and who has none when it comes to President Trump.

    This is the reality..

    even if they are not consistently debunked by the author of this site.

    And there is a reason for that.. :D

    But hay, feel free to step up.. :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    And there is a reason for that.. :D

    But hay, feel free to step up.. :D

    Pick a comment and lets get down into the weeds with it.. :D

    "I can do this all day!!"
    -Captain America

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden Attacks Warren: "She's Going to Raise People's Taxes”
    https://www.atr.org/biden-attacks-warren-shes-going-raise-peoples-taxes

    Ya see, now THIS is really funny...

    Because I seem to recall somebody around here claiming that Democrats are above this sort of thing?

    That they don't attack other Democrats. That Democrats are BETTER then that...

    And here we see that said somebody is FULL OF SHIT...

    Uncanny.. AGAIN.. :D

    Just the facts.. :D

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's some more facts for ya'all... :D

    A Platform of Urban Decline

    Democratic presidential candidates believe America is racist, yet they ignore the evidence on crime and ensure that racial disparities persist.
    https://www.city-journal.org/democratic-candidates-racism-crime

    Once again, the Democrats, the Party of the KKK and racism, show that their entire platform is still steeped in racism..

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic accusations that America is endemically racist are becoming ever more frequent and strident. At the last presidential debate, Pete Buttigieg announced that “systemic racism” will “be with us” regardless of who wins the presidency; Beto O’Rourke claimed that racism in America is “foundational” and that people of color were under “mortal threat” from the “white supremacist in the White House”; Julián Castro denounced the growing threat of “white supremacy”; and Cory Booker called for “attacking systemic racism,” especially in the “racially biased” criminal-justice system.

    At the same time, the allowable explanations for racial disparities have shrunk to one: that self-same racism. During this month’s debate, Joe Biden tried to suggest that some poor parents could benefit from instruction regarding optimal child-rearing practices: “We [should] bring social workers into homes of parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It’s not that they don’t want to help, they don’t want — they don’t know quite what to do,” he said. Biden was invoking one of the Obama administration’s key anti-poverty initiatives. Home-visiting programs pair nurses and other social service workers with pregnant women and new mothers to teach them parenting skills. Progressive activists have demanded and won hundreds of millions of federal dollars for such programs, yet pundits have denounced Biden’s “horrifyingly racist answer,” in the words of The Intercept, and called for him to pull out of the presidential primary because of it. Buttigieg sniffed that Biden’s statement was “well-intentioned” but “bad,” since it ignored the fact that “racial inequity” in this country was “put into place on purpose.”

    Once again, the FACTS don't lie...

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    In today’s political climate, Barack Obama’s 2008 Father’s Day speech in Chicago would be deemed an unforgivable outburst of white supremacy. “If we are honest with ourselves,” Obama told his audience in a South Side church, Americans will admit that too many fathers are “missing—missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men.” In the current frenzy of intersectional rhetoric, any such reference to personal responsibility brands the speaker as irredeemably bigoted.

    By today's Democrat Party standards, Obama would be a FLAMING racist..

    FACT...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again.. There is Democrat bullshit..

    Yet key parts of the intersectional narrative are not born out by data. It is now a standard trope, implanted in freshmen summer reading lists through the works of Ta-Nehesi Coates and others, that whites pose a severe, if not mortal, threat to blacks. That may have once been true, but it is no longer so today. Just this month, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released its 2018 survey of criminal victimization. According to the study, there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites last year, including white-on-black and black-on-white attacks. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90 percent, and whites committed 56,394 of them, or less than 10 percent. That ratio is becoming more skewed, despite the Democratic claim of Trump-inspired white violence. In 2012-13, blacks committed 85 percent of all interracial victimizations between blacks and whites; whites committed 15 percent. From 2015 to 2018, the total number of white victims and the incidence of white victimization have grown as well.

    Blacks are also overrepresented among perpetrators of hate crimes—by 50 percent—according to the most recent Justice Department data from 2017; whites are underrepresented by 24 percent. This is particularly true for anti-gay and anti-Semitic hate crimes.

    And then there are the FACTS...

    These are bona fide and inarguable FACTS, Liz....

    Attacking the messenger, claiming that the messenger does not have any credibility does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to change the factual and accurate nature of the facts..

    Those who attack the messenger are simply confirming the validity of the facts and the inability to refute them..

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    You would never know such facts from the media or from Democratic talking points. This summer, three shockingly violent mob attacks on white victims in downtown Minneapolis were captured by surveillance video. On August 3, in broad daylight, a dozen black assailants, some as young as 15, tried to take a man’s cellphone, viciously beating and kicking him as he lay on the ground. They jumped on his torso like a trampoline, stripped his shoes and pants off as they riffled through his pockets, smashed a planter pot on his head, and rode a bike over his prostrate body. On August 17, another large group kicked and punched their victim until he was unconscious, stealing his phone, wallet, keys, and cash. In July, two men were set upon in similar fashion. Such attacks have risen more than 50 percent in downtown Minneapolis this year.

    The Minneapolis media have paid fleeting attention to these videos; the mainstream national media, almost none (CNN blamed the attacks on police understaffing and ignored the evident racial hatred that was the most salient aspect of the attacks). This year’s installments of the usual flash mob rampages on Chicago’s Magnificent Mile and in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor have also been ignored. If the race of perpetrators and victims in any of these incidents were reversed, there would be a universal uproar, with public figures across the board denouncing “white supremacist” violence and calling for a national reckoning regarding white racism. But because the violence does not fit the standard narrative about American race relations, it is kept carefully off stage.

    And the FACTS just keep on coming...

    Ya'all think that "white supremacy" is a problem here in the US, totally IGNORING the... there's that word again... FACT that the actual reality says something completely different..

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    In 2008, Barack Obama was able to connect such lawlessness to family breakdown. “Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison,” he pointed out in his Chicago speech. Today’s taboo on acknowledging the behavioral roots of criminal-justice system involvement, multi-generational poverty, and the academic-achievement gap is not a civil rights advance. To the contrary, it will ensure that racial disparities persist, where they can be milked by opportunistic politicians and activists seeking to parade their own alleged racial sensitivity and to deflect attention away from the cultural changes that must occur for full racial parity to be realized.

    Until Democrats acknowledge the.. wait for it... FACTS, then they will forever be known as the RACIST Party...

    I await your rebuttal of my facts with facts of your own...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Off to lunch.. :D I'll check back in a bit..

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    All of your recent comments about Ukraine are not factual.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did ya'all hear President Trump's UN Speech!!!

    AWESOME!!!!

    Knocked it out of the PARK!!!!!

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of your recent comments about Ukraine are not factual.

    For example.....?????

    Do you have any FACTS to support your claim??

    I am guessing.. NOT :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Right off the bat, I prove you wrong, Liz.

    "I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them,"

    That was INDEED a statement from Democrat Chris Murphy...

    So, I have substantiated at least ONE of my facts.

    Do you have any facts to support that Chris Murphy did NOT say that??

    I don't think you do..

    And here we are.. :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is also a YOUTUBE video of Biden explicitly bragging on how he withheld 1 BILLION dollars in aid slated for Ukraine until the GP that was investigating Hunter Biden was fired.

    "These FACTS are not in dispute, Mr President!!!"
    -Klingon Ambassador, STAR TREK VI

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    How 16-year-old Greta Thunberg’s rise could backfire on environmentalists
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/24/how-greta-thunbergs-rise-could-backfire-on-environmentalists.html

    Once again, Democrats are going to get their asses handed to them by FACTS and REALITY...

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sixteen-year-old Greta Thunberg from Sweden is the new face of the environmentalist movement, thanks to a pair of impassioned speeches to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations.

    But while personalizing a movement, especially with the innocent face of a child, is usually PR gold, Greta’s ascendancy to the forefront of environmental activism could end up being a major negative to the movement – and the environment.

    Just how inspiring or even persuasive you find Greta’s speeches and overall activism likely depends on where you stand on the political spectrum. There are plenty of politicians and regular voters claiming to be inspired by her words and passion. There are also lots of observers expressing general alarm at what they see as an indoctrinated child being coerced by adults to make their political arguments with her youth as a shield from any criticism.

    Greta whatever is very reminiscent of Hitler's use of children for Propaganda purposes..

    HITLER YOUTH and LEAGUE OF GERMAN GIRLS were children's group that were propaganda gold mine's for Nazi Propaganda..

    This Greta girl gives of huge vibes of similar indoctrination...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Based on all the politically partisan slogans and signs we saw at the climate protests over the past few days, are we sure the top motivation is the environment and not politics? If the activists protesting right now could get the most serious climate change threats eliminated, but without politically defeating President Trump and Republicans and/or putting the big oil companies out of business in the process, would they still be interested in the cause?

    The answer, of course, is HELL NO!!!!

    One only has to ask the question here to know...

    Amongst the Trump haters here, I would bet only 2, MAYBE 3 would answer in the affirmative....

    So predictable...

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    The shift from the “Think Globally, Act Locally,” environmental philosophy of the 1980s and 1990s makes that question fair game. When we move from encouraging people to change their personal practices to something like Warren’s mocking of that very idea, it guts the very soul of any movement for effective change.

    Previous generations of environmental activists knew this. By focusing on what people could do in their own personal lives to cut down on pollution, they presided over an environmental movement that used to be much more bipartisan in America.

    This new focus on making environmentalism an angrier protest movement threatens to make the effort to protect the planet just another wedge issue that politicians often use to motivate their base of voters. Similar wedge issues like abortion and gun control have long shifted become tribal controversies with little chance of progress and compromise.

    Greta Thunberg is angry. Lots of people are angry. But anger without doing something other than protesting and making speeches won’t protect the environment or do much else other than produce more anger.

    Aye, there's the rub...

    These days, activists think that all they need to do is be angry and they will get their way...

    When that doesn't work, they graduate to violence..

    Today's Greta Thrunbergs are tomorrow's El Paso WalMart shooters...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Latest: Democrats say Trump allegations are impeachable
    https://apnews.com/8fd6122da0624547b8b288134b708760

    Yea.. Democrats *ALSO* said that the latest bullshit Kavanaugh accusations were ALSO impeachable..

    We all know how THAT collapsed like a house of cards...

    But hay, Dumbocrats..

    If it's impeachable, then go ahead and IMPEACH!!

    Quit yammering about it and DO IT!!!

    "My god, what a bunch of pussies..."
    -Strannix, UNDER SIEGE

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Prediction time..

    I predict that all of those Weigantians who before said that impeachment wasn't an option and SHOULD NOT be done...

    They are ALL going to change their minds and say NOW is the time to impeach..

    And the fact that it happened at the EXACT SAME TIME that Pelosi changed HER mind is completely coincidental... :eyeroll:

    Once again.. I prove that those people are nothing but Party slaves, and simply exist to believe whatever their Party elders TELLS them to believe..

    We'll see over the next few days if my prediction is accurate...

    :D

  73. [73] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Impeachment isn't an "option". Beginning an impeachment inquiry is. That has already been done.

    Pelosi only has to wave her magic hand over the whole thing. Trump's been daring her to do it, figuring that an impeachment would rally republicants around him, as happened to Clinton during his impeachment.

    Meanwhile, the whistleblower has decided (without specific legal protections) to talk to the intelligence committee. We've got the ball.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment isn't an "option". Beginning an impeachment inquiry is. That has already been done.

    Not factually accurate..

    Meanwhile, the whistleblower has decided (without specific legal protections) to talk to the intelligence committee. We've got the ball.

    Yea.. That's what Dims said with the Kavanaugh bullshit..

    That's what Dims said with the Russia Collusion bullshit.

    That's what Dims said with the NOAA/DORIAN bullshit..

    Notice the common denominator??

    Bullshit.. All Dims ever have is bullshit.. :D

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Balthy..

    What do YOU think.. Is it time to impeach President Trump???

    Simple yes or no will suffice..

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, the whistleblower has decided (without specific legal protections) to talk to the intelligence committee. We've got the ball.

    Yea.. That's what Dims said with the Kavanaugh bullshit.

    Even if you HAD facts to support your claims.

    Which, of course, you do not..

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep, Democrats are going down the I-road.. :D

    Cuz it worked out SO WELL for Republicans when the impeached Clinton... :D

    Just when you think that Democrats can't be ANY more stoopid.. They surprise you... :D

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now we'll see all of those Weigantians who said before, "Oh no! Impeachment is not an option.. It's a BAD idea!!" will no, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, change their minds and be ALL FOR IT..

    Thereby PROVING I have been factually accurate all along.. They are nothing but Party slaves who don't have a single independent thought..

    :D

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    73

    Impeachment isn't an "option". Beginning an impeachment inquiry is. That has already been done.

    I am hearing Speaker Pelosi will endorse a "formal" impeachment inquiry. When? I'm hearing tomorrow.

    Meanwhile, the whistleblower has decided (without specific legal protections) to talk to the intelligence committee. We've got the ball.

    Adam Schiff
    @RepAdamSchiff

    We have been informed by the whistleblower’s counsel that their client would like to speak to our committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so.

    We‘re in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower’s testimony as soon as this week.

    1:29 PM · Sep 24, 2019·Twitter for iPad

    And now I'm hearing the Senate Intel wants a closed bipartisan meeting with the whistleblower on Friday too.

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, I have substantiated at least ONE of my facts.

    Okay, I must have missed that one.

    Now, substantiate the rest of your 'Ukraine' comments not associated with what Chris Murphy said.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Okay, I must have missed that one.

    Thank you.. I accept your concession..

    Now, substantiate the rest of your 'Ukraine' comments not associated with what Chris Murphy said.

    Liz, I am not going to spend the time substantiating it all one by one. And I don't think anyone else wants even MORE postings from me, eh?? :D

    If you have a fact that I have relayed and is, in fact, a fact and not an opinion and you believe said fact is not factually accurate then tell me and provide your facts that prove my facts are in error..

    Using this method, we BOTH can learn.. :D

  82. [82] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick 79

    Tomorrow sounds like the day.

    Trump was about to release a (probably redacted) transcript of a conversation that he had with the Ukrainian president. I believe that the whistleblower had no option but to reply in person.

    I'm glad to see both intel committees in on this.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm glad to see both intel committees in on this.

    And yet, you STILL don't have a SINGLE fact that proves this, do you..

    Well, whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.. :eyeroll:

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy..

    Still haven't answered my question, Blathy..

    Have you changed your mind and NOW support impeachment??

    Yes or no??

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Senator Harris is perpetuating Trump's lie about Biden and Ukraine.

    That's just one reason why she won't be the nominee.

  86. [86] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Still haven't answered my question

    Not gonna. It's not time, yet.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not gonna. It's not time, yet.

    In other words, yer gonna stall and equivocate until such time as Pelosi gives you your marching orders on what exactly to think..

    That's my answer.. Thank you..

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senator Harris is perpetuating Trump's lie about Biden and Ukraine.

    Which "lie" is that, Liz???

    But it IS interesting isn't.

    One of ya'all said that Democrats don't attack other Democrats.

    I guess that guy was full of kaa-kaa eh? :D

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    You still haven't give me ANY facts that prove your claim...

    Why is that??

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Here is a piece form the Intercept detailing the facts of the Ukraine affair, urging reporters, including from the NYTimes not to help Trump spread lies.

    Hopefully, Chris will also write about Trump's lie about this issue and his attempts to smear Senator Biden.

    https://theintercept.com/2019/09/22/reporters-stop-helping-donald-trump-spread-lies-joe-biden-ukraine/

  91. [91] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Because I have no claim. The whistleblower, we'll see. What I do know is that Trump & company have been all over the map with this and back in the last 48 hours. They keep confirming facts, then backpedaling.

    What this guy has to say, will be interesting.

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    I am hearing Speaker Pelosi will endorse a "formal" impeachment inquiry. When? I'm hearing tomorrow.

    Well, that's as clear as mud and not what I meant at all.

    So to clarify:
    * Announcement today
    * "Formal" impeachment inquiry tomorrow... meaning the "formal charge."

    Unless something changes, which wouldn't surprise me because -- go figure -- things change. :)

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    Because I have no claim.

    And yet, you said Meanwhile, the whistleblower has decided (without specific legal protections) to talk to the intelligence committee. We've got the ball.

    That's a claim.

    Where are your facts to support that claim..

    Or you can just admit you don't have any facts, that yer spewing just wishful thinking..

    I mean.. I already know that's the case..

    What I do know is that Trump & company have been all over the map with this and back in the last 48 hours. They keep confirming facts, then backpedaling.

    And there is ANOTHER claim..

    Do you have ANY facts to prove THIS claim??

    Any facts at all???

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hopefully, Chris will also write about Trump's lie about this issue and his attempts to smear Senator Biden.

    Who is "Senator Biden"??

    I'll check out your link.. A few moments, please...

    I'll have to slap Blathy around some more.. :D

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    From your OWN link..

    As I reported at the time, the truth is not that hard to determine. There is little doubt that Biden’s son Hunter did benefit from his father’s position by securing a spot on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company in 2014, a legal but ethically dubious move. But when Joe Biden subsequently conveyed a threat from the Obama administration to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine unless the chief prosecutor was dismissed, his intervention made it more rather than less likely that the oligarch who paid his son would be subject to prosecution for corruption.

    Your own link confirms that Biden's son DID benefit from Joe Biden's VP status..

    And your own link CONFIRMS that VP Biden threatened to withhold funds unless the prosecutor who was after Hunter Biden was fired..

    So, basically your link confirms everything I have said today....

  96. [96] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mike 95

    Did you even read the rest of the article?

    Biden is innocent.

    Trump's an inveterate liar.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden is innocent.

    Trump's an inveterate liar.

    Of course you would say that...

    But the FACTS say something completely different..

    This will all come out when President Trump presents all the facts during the House's impeachment...

    Biden's campaign is toast... It's that simple..

  98. [98] 
    Paula wrote:

    [92] Kick: per AP, announcement at 5pm.

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And your own link CONFIRMS that VP Biden threatened to withhold funds unless the prosecutor who was after Hunter Biden was fired..

    Actually, Michale, my link confirms that the prosecutor was not after the company Hunter Biden was advising; this prosecutor general was not going after corruption, in general.

    The link I provided confirms that Biden's efforts made it more, not less, likely that the company Hunter Biden worked for would be investigated.

    Maybe you should read the article again and focus on the investigative journalism, including links within.

    I'm done with you on this issue.

  100. [100] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    82

    Trump was about to release a (probably redacted) transcript of a conversation that he had with the Ukrainian president. I believe that the whistleblower had no option but to reply in person.

    Exactly right! You just know they were going to try and "Bill Barr" the transcipt of the conversations like they did the Mueller Report, which doesn't mince words.

    This time, they're throwing out the term "no quid pro quo" in the same manner they threw out the term "no collusion" and claiming there is no "underlying crime." Sound familiar? They're trying to push the false narrative that if Trump didn't specifically proffer a "quid pro quo" or commit an "underlying crime" that he's innocent of any wrongdoing. This is obviously a #SSDD scenario and completely nonsensical.

    Welcome to the President of the United States and his thugs working with a foreign government to disparage his political rival -- the sequel -- in the very midst of denying that his campaign colluded with another foreign government in 2016.

    Obviously, Trump's pattern is by now quite obvious:

    * Begin by declaring everything is "fake news" and deny.

    * As the facts that implicate you emerge, move the goal posts and claim that even if you did what you claimed you didn't do... it's okay anyway.

    * Send out your nutty personal lawyer to begin the public confessional of what you know you've done.

    * Go in front of Lester Holt or __________ <--- [insert reporter's name here] and outright confess what you earlier denied.

    * Lie. Obfuscate. Obstruct.

    * Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, Michale, my link confirms that the prosecutor was not after the company Hunter Biden was advising; this prosecutor general was not going after corruption, in general.

    I posted a direct quote from your link..

    If it says something you don't like, well.. I dunno what to tell ya..

    Irregardless of all that, the fact is, this is simply another Kavanaugh-esque bullshit exercise.. But THIS time it's going to blow back on Democrats "electable" candidate..

    One thing is certain, however.

    Democrats are SCARED SHITLESS to taking on President Trump at the ballot box..

    Hence all the hysterical spewage about impeachment..

    I'm done with you on this issue.

    I highly doubt that. :D

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in Canada news..

    Conservatives take lead in Canada election: polls
    https://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-lead-canada-election-polls-200234461.html

    Left wingers are just taking a beating EVERYWHERE, eh?? :D

  103. [103] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    98

    per AP, announcement at 5pm.

    4:00 p.m. Central... minutes away.

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    From your quote from my link:

    But when Joe Biden subsequently conveyed a threat from the Obama administration to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine unless the chief prosecutor was dismissed, his intervention made it more rather than less likely that the oligarch who paid his son would be subject to prosecution for corruption.

    To rephrase, Biden's efforts with Ukraine and their loan guarantees were done not only on behalf of the Obama/Biden administration but also on behalf of the international community and Ukraine reformers AND his efforts made it MORE LIKELY that the company paying Hunter Biden would be investigated for corruption.

    Stop calling Biden corrupt and stop perpetuating Trump's lies about this.

  105. [105] 
    Paula wrote:

    Breaking: "The Senate has *unanimously* agreed to Schumer's resolution calling for the whistleblower complaint to be turned over the intelligence committees immediately."

    Unanimously means Repubs were on board with this.

    Cracks in the dam...

    No one was buying the "I'll give you the transcript" from Blotus, not after Sharpiegate and Bill Barr's lying about the Mueller Rept. Some Repubs were spinning but Blotus trying to get a foreign country to manufacture dirt about Joe Biden in exchange for money may finally be the bridge too far.

  106. [106] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    101

    One thing is certain, however.

    Trump can't win without seeking help from a foreign government.

    [102] Michale wrote:
    And in Canada news..

    Conservatives take lead in Canada election: polls
    https://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-lead-canada-election-polls-200234461.html

    Left wingers are just taking a beating EVERYWHERE, eh??

    Not in Israel or the United Kingdom.

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    But when Joe Biden subsequently conveyed a threat from the Obama administration to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine unless the chief prosecutor was dismissed,

    Intentions don't matter..

    Biden EXTORTED the Ukrainians to do Odumbo's bidding..

    That is EXACTLY what ya'all are accusing President Trump of..

    So, basically you are PERFECTLY OK with the US government issuing threats to sovereign governments and extorting foreign governments to the will of the US Government, but ONLY as long as it's a DEMOCRAT in charge..

    You don't find that the least bit hypocritical???

  108. [108] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Biden’s son’s business had been investigated and actually cleared by the Ukraine’s corrupt prosecutor when VP Biden allegedly demanded he be removed from office (which was our government’s position and was not his personal decision to call for). Multiple of our allies were calling for the prosecutor’s resignation, trying to help the Ukraine clean house of the corruption that infected it.

    Repeat: Hunter Biden’s company had already been cleared by the Ukrainians when Joe Biden called for the prosecutor’s resignation!

    This reminds me of the Republicans’ rehashing of Benghazi for 7 investigations after the first investigation cleared Hillary Clinton of any wrong doing in her handling of that tragedy! They know that the truth is that there is nothing to this story — it did not make waves when it was brand new, but they are going to continue to lie and say otherwise until Trump decides to attack something else.

    It is great that when you ask a Republican what their stance is on a particular subject, they have to check their Twitter feed or they won’t be able to answer.

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    The whistleblower report will leak in 3... 2... 1...

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Unlike Trump, Michale, Biden doesn't need foreign assistance to win an election.

    Stop equating Biden's actions with Trump's - they are opposite ends of the spectrum, any spectrum.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden’s son’s business had been investigated and actually cleared by the Ukraine’s corrupt prosecutor when VP Biden allegedly demanded he be removed from office

    Facts to support??

    None?? Figures..

    Repeat: Hunter Biden’s company had already been cleared by the Ukrainians when Joe Biden called for the prosecutor’s resignation!

    Not factually accurate..

    This reminds me of the Republicans’ rehashing of Benghazi for 7 investigations

    Not even close..

    This is reminiscent of you morons going on and on for TWO YEARS about Russia collusion and when the report was finally released it TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY EXONERATED President Trump..

    This is going to end just the same.. :D

  112. [112] 
    Paula wrote:

    [110] EM: Agree.

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    108

    Yes, sir, and we're supposed to believe all those changing reasons that Trump is confessing after his initial denials and that suddenly Trump is concerned about "foreign corruption"!?

    What a load of BS on Trump's part.

    It is great that when you ask a Republican what their stance is on a particular subject, they have to check their Twitter feed or they won’t be able to answer.

    The sheeple have to get their marching orders from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Fucker Carlson. #Pathetic

  114. [114] 
    Paula wrote:

    So we're now in the official Impeachment Inquiry. Good.

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    110

    I know, right!?

  116. [116] 
    Kick wrote:

    Fucker Carlson

    Oops. My voice recognition software did that... one of it's factual errors.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have another prediction.

    Now that HHPTDS suffering Weigantians will have something to "crow" about (kinda like their Russia Collusion "crowing), I predict that we'll be seeing a LOT of Weigantians who's presence here has been either sporadic or non-existent.

    So, that's 2 predictions today.. Let's see how I fair in the coming days.. :D

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    So we're now in the official Impeachment Inquiry. Good.

    Yep..

    And Democrats just GUARANTEED that President Trump will win re-election and Democrats will lose the House..

    Dumbocrats didn't learn from history.. Now it's going to come back and bite them on the ass...

    Remember what happened to the GOP when they tried to impeach Clinton..

    Here.. Let me help ya with ya'all's response...

    "Well.. er... uh... THAT'S different!!"

    Of course it's different.. It's ALWAYS different.. :eyeroll:

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I guess CW was right..

    Democrats hysteria to impeach will be determined by their confidence (or lack thereof) of being able to beat President Trump at the ballot box.. :D

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hokay Dokay people..

    See ya'all bright and early in the morning..

    Hopefully ya'all will have some nice new bullshit to spew..

    Don't let me down.. :D

  121. [121] 
    Paula wrote:

    From Josh Marshall: https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1176642210147835904

    In this episode .@JoshKovensky explains the absurdity of this central claim abt Biden. The prosecutor in question wasn't investigating Hunter Biden or even the gas company he was on the board of at the time this happened. An investigation of the company had been closed before the prosecutor in question even got into power. And the whole push to get rid of him, that was US, EU, intl orgs was basically that he'd laid off investigations and purged the at least cleaner investigators who came in after Yanukovych was overthrown. If anything canning the prosecutor in question was going to mean more investigations not fewer. Josh worked at a journo in Ukraine before coming to @TPM so he has great insight on this. Give this episode a listen.

  122. [122] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    This is a few weeks old, but still thinks it is insightful...

    Fox News host Sean Hannity appears to have a talking point almost as popular as President Donald Trump: former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

    According to an analysis by Media Matters for America, Hannity has talked about Clinton on 505 of the 587 episodes of his Fox News show that have aired since Trump's inauguration in January 2017. When the analysis also took into account guests on the show mentioning the former secretary of state and New York senator, the number of mentions on Hannity went up to 536 out of 587 episodes.

    Put into percentages, that means Hannity himself talked about Clinton on 86 percent of his program's episodes since Trump's inauguration. In total, the former Democratic presidential candidate was talked about during 91 percent of Hannity's shows since Trump officially took office.

    https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-hannity-mentioned-clinton-86-percent-episodes-1458616

    What this article doesn’t discuss are the motives behind this fixation on Hillary. I think the answer is more obvious than we might think. Hannity cannot spin Trump’s antics to make them appear positive or, at the least, benign!

    Hillary is the GOP’s “go to” for getting their supporters worked up to the point that they’ll blindly oppose anything they say Clinton supports. It doesn’t matter if what Hannity says, his fans will be foaming at the mouth angry at Hillary and won’t notice that Hannity failed to mention any of the embarrassing things that Trump had been doing that day! If Trump had any real accomplishments to boast about, they wouldn’t need to focus on Hillary quite as much.

  123. [123] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [79]

    Under the Federal Whistleblower guidelines, if the whistleblower’s complaint was rejected by the inspector general, the Director of the DNI was required to provide the whistleblower with instructions on how they could take their complaint directly to Congress. The inspector general determined that the complaint was justified and deemed it as an “urgent need” to be reviewed by Congressional Intelligence committees, which normally would mean the Director need not worry about telling the whistleblower how to contact the committees directly.

    In the inspector general’s second letter to the House’s Intelligence Committee, he states that not only did the Director refuse to follow his department’s guidelines for forwarding the complaint on to Congress, he also ignored what his responsibilities were if the complaint was rejected! The person who came forward to file the whistleblower complaint was being doubly screwed!

    How long do you think it will take before Trump identifies the whistleblower by name?

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    122|123

    Very insightful.

    What this article doesn’t discuss are the motives behind this fixation on Hillary. I think the answer is more obvious than we might think. Hannity cannot spin Trump’s antics to make them appear positive or, at the least, benign!

    Yes, sir. Also, the GOP useful idiots and minions are united in their hatred of certain things that are represented by trigger words. They can literally be sent into fits of rage/anger via these "keywords," and "Hillary" is one of them.

    How many times has the pattern in recent history where the Fox News bullshit machine manufactures, concocts, and spins totally fabricated conspiracy propaganda, and off they go to train the moron brigade who couldn't care less about facts and wouldn't be able to recognize a fact if it lived on their faces.

    Conspiracy Keywords:

    * Monica
    * Obama-Muslim
    * Hillary
    * Benghazi
    * Emails
    * Ukraine, making it's debut recently

    If Biden is the nominee, "Ukraine" will supplant "Benghazi" as the keyword to cue a bunch of programmed Pavlov's dogs foaming at the mouth spewing the GOP manufactured conspiracy bullshit of this election season. #SSDD

    Under the Federal Whistleblower guidelines, if the whistleblower’s complaint was rejected by the inspector general, the Director of the DNI was required to provide the whistleblower with instructions on how they could take their complaint directly to Congress. The inspector general determined that the complaint was justified and deemed it as an “urgent need” to be reviewed by Congressional Intelligence committees, which normally would mean the Director need not worry about telling the whistleblower how to contact the committees directly.

    Yep. And the ADNI kicks it up to the DOJ who promptly informs the POTUS. Now the ICIG, Michael Atkinson... another Trump appointee following the "letter of the law"... will most likely also be thrown under the bus by a bullying Trump and the propaganda machine at Fox and their useful idiots.

    How long do you think it will take before Trump identifies the whistleblower by name?

    Two to three days... give or take. The whistleblower will be thrown under the bus, raked over the coals by the GOP and their useful idiots for not marching in lockstep. This will likely lead to a breakdown in government procedures wherein whistleblowers will follow the track of Edward Snowden and not follow procedures; they'll just leak to the press, thus creating additional national security issues for the United States... all because Trump isn't interested in protecting America but interested in protecting his own ass.

    Will the press allow Trump to get away with the utterly asinine idea that he was pushing Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden (manufacture dirt) because he was concerned with "foreign corruption"? Let's talk about foreign corruption; Trump wasn't at all interested in stopping foreign corruption... he wanted to enlist Ukraine to invent kompromat on Biden. #SSDD

    There's more to this too. It'll all be leaked because the procedure to blow the whistle is now shattered.

    It appears my thoughts are going in a million directions. Wine! :)

  125. [125] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why are you commenting on an old thread?

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    125

    Why are you commenting on an old thread?

    Because Russ asked me a question, and now I have a question for you:

    Why are you commenting on an old thread? ;)

Comments for this article are closed.